Anti-NRA/Gun Rant editorial in newspaper

Status
Not open for further replies.

straightShot

Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
411
Location
SE Michigan
This disgusts me, and this guy is sure out in left field. This appeared in The Macomb Daily (in Macomb County, MI) on 13-March-2005. The last line is especially sickening:

Put another way, the gun nuts have become the advocates for the nuts, whether those inspired by Allah or those inspired by the devil.

My wife even cut the article out and thought that I'd be sending a rebuttal by now. This guy is indeed nuts to say that I or any other NRA member would want "rockets and grenades in schools" or would wish that terrorists be armed.

Here's the full article:

Gun nuts show their nuttiness
PUBLISHED: March 13, 2005

Chad Selweski
Columnist

When the smoke cleared, it seemed that our Second Amendment soldiers had spent the past couple weeks shooting themselves in the foot.

Surely, the gun lovers out there have lost sight of the target when they start defending a person's right to carry rockets and grenades into a school and when they oppose attempts to keep high-powered weapons out of terrorists' hands.

But it appears the gun crowd has avoided a public backlash. Once again, they have dodged a bullet.

In Washington it was revealed that 58 potential gun buyers were identified last year as suspects on terrorist watch lists. But 47 of these alleged terrorists were cleared to go ahead and buy their assault weapons, high-powered rifles or whatever guns of choice.

For most Americans, this report brought a sense of outrage, a stunning example of bureaucratic incompetence. But for that slice of America known as the National Rifle Association, the report showed that things are working just fine.

The NRA, you see, has blocked attempts to use the federal watch lists to ban gun sales to terrorists. Osama's troops have Second Amendment rights, too.

Most Americans would say the NRA has gone too far. Well, in Arizona the NRA disciples went even further.

The Arizona House of Representatives passed a bill that would let people carry weapons -- guns, grenades, sawed-off shotguns, rockets, even land mines -- into schools, polling places and nuclear plants.

According to the Arizona Daily Star newspaper, essentially any weapon not banned by federal law could be carried anywhere, as long as the person claimed he was trying to protect himself.

The vote wasn't even close. The bill passed the House 30-16, but it didn't become law.

The lawmaker who introduced the bill eventually shelved it when he realized its full implications. He explained that the legislation had been crafted not by him but by a group of constituents he wouldn't identify -- no doubt the NRA or some like-minded group of gun nuts.

The gun lobby doesn't win 'em all, but when you're wielding the political firepower it possesses, close enough is good enough.

After all, the NRA killed the federal law that banned the sale of military-style rapid-fire assault weapons. The NRA has blocked laws requiring locks on all stored weapons. It's because of the NRA-style worship of the Second Amendment that we have a nation where it's legal to buy armor-piercing bullets, cop-killer guns, and pistols advertised with a "fingerprint-proof finish."

We all know that these products are marketed to the criminal element. But the zealots who pray at the right-to-bear-arms altar say no federal restrictions should be allowed for any weapons.

I would suspect that most law-abiding hunters and gun owners don't agree with some of the nuttier items on the NRA agenda. Others might argue that there's a slippery slope -- you allow some limitations on gun rights and it leads to more and more.

What I worry about is this country's unending supply of psychotics. The crazies we see in the news every day are infinitely scarier if they're joining a terrorist cell or arming themselves with weapons that can kill several people with each squeeze of the trigger.

The slippery slope of NRA thinking has led to this icy cold reality:

Those on the terror watch lists are barred from flying on an airplane or boarding a cruise ship but they can buy military-style weapons like an AK-47.

A suspected terrorist that is caught can be incarcerated and tortured for years at Guantanamo -- or worse, in some Middle Eastern hell hole. But only under very limited circumstances can we prevent the al-Qaida suspects who are on the loose from buying guns. Worse yet, we can't let the FBI use the gun-buying database to track these people down. That would violate the privacy rights promised to gun owners.

Only felons, illegal immigrants and the mentally ill can be blocked from making a purchase. And the gun purchase records must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating any paper trail to keep tabs on well-armed Islamic fanatics.

One senator blamed these pro-gun, soft-on-terrorism policies on the "twisted allegiances" between the NRA and the Bush administration.

Put another way, the gun nuts have become the advocates for the nuts, whether those inspired by Allah or those inspired by the devil.
 
I love how if you disagree with the NRA on an issue you can be a "law abiding hunter or gun owner," however if you belong to or agree with the NRA you're a nutjob. Wayne LaPierre could say the earth is round and if you agree with him you're an extremist nutjob.
 
I definitely think a reply is in order, but I don't know how you could possibly rebut everything the moron says in the space of the typical letter to the editor.
 
Gun nuts show their nuttiness

This appeared in the Macomb Daily. It's frankly, one of the biggest piles of horse manure that I've ever seen outside of Mackinac Island. :banghead:

http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/031305/loc_chad col001.shtml

Gun nuts show their nuttiness

PUBLISHED: March 13, 2005

Chad Selweski
Columnist

When the smoke cleared, it seemed that our Second Amendment soldiers had spent the past couple weeks shooting themselves in the foot.
Advertisement


Surely, the gun lovers out there have lost sight of the target when they start defending a person's right to carry rockets and grenades into a school and when they oppose attempts to keep high-powered weapons out of terrorists' hands.

And

The gun lobby doesn't win 'em all, but when you're wielding the political firepower it possesses, close enough is good enough.

After all, the NRA killed the federal law that banned the sale of military-style rapid-fire assault weapons. The NRA has blocked laws requiring locks on all stored weapons. It's because of the NRA-style worship of the Second Amendment that we have a nation where it's legal to buy armor-piercing bullets, cop-killer guns, and pistols advertised with a "fingerprint-proof finish."

We all know that these products are marketed to the criminal element. But the zealots who pray at the right-to-bear-arms altar say no federal restrictions should be allowed for any weapons.

I would suspect that most law-abiding hunters and gun owners don't agree with some of the nuttier items on the NRA agenda. Others might argue that there's a slippery slope -- you allow some limitations on gun rights and it leads to more and more.

What I worry about is this country's unending supply of psychotics. The crazies we see in the news every day are infinitely scarier if they're joining a terrorist cell or arming themselves with weapons that can kill several people with each squeeze of the trigger.

The slippery slope of NRA thinking has led to this icy cold reality:

Those on the terror watch lists are barred from flying on an airplane or boarding a cruise ship but they can buy military-style weapons like an AK-47.

A suspected terrorist that is caught can be incarcerated and tortured for years at Guantanamo -- or worse, in some Middle Eastern hell hole. But only under very limited circumstances can we prevent the al-Qaida suspects who are on the loose from buying guns. Worse yet, we can't let the FBI use the gun-buying database to track these people down. That would violate the privacy rights promised to gun owners.

Only felons, illegal immigrants and the mentally ill can be blocked from making a purchase. And the gun purchase records must be destroyed after 24 hours, eliminating any paper trail to keep tabs on well-armed Islamic fanatics.

One senator blamed these pro-gun, soft-on-terrorism policies on the "twisted allegiances" between the NRA and the Bush administration.

Put another way, the gun nuts have become the advocates for the nuts, whether those inspired by Allah or those inspired by the devil.


I forgot. My memberships in SAFR (http://www.firearmsalliance.org), and MGO (http://www.mgouc.com) are up, and I need to make another EPL payment to the NRA.........I'll dedicate them to Chad. :evil:
 
The point of a reply wouldn't be to try to make the person reconsider their opinion. It would be to show any possible fence sitters that the writer was full of crap.
 
We all know that these products are marketed to the criminal element. But the zealots who pray at the right-to-bear-arms altar say no federal restrictions should be allowed for any weapons.

they're marketed to the criminal element? i dont see any ads saying "hey felon! come pick up this nice piece of hardware...." so i'd like to know who this "we" is he is refering to.

apparently he has a hard time understanding some people believe law abiding people should not be restricted from having firearm, including fully automatic weapons. he just thinks pro gun people want everyone including criminals to have guns.

the guy is clearly making blanket statements and generalizing comments and is NOT worth responing to. anyone who can think for themselves will see this and ignore what he's trying to say. he isnt worth the time.

Reasoning with leftist extremists is a lot like teaching cats to whistle.

no its like teaching the stick to go get the dog.
 
Articles like this one make me proud to be a Extremist Nutjob member of the NRA!

See, we scare them so much, they have to lie about our agenda!

Disgusting article though, I wouldn't be able to rply to it without sinking to his level though. Anything more intelligent wouldn't get through.
 
I wrote a nice little email to the newspaper's editor pointing out five of the article's inaccuracies - and including links to the text of the laws that the columnist had misstated.

I doubt that many jounalists care about my opinion as an individual, but most of them are personally and professionally embarassed by printing things that are obviously factually incorrect.
 
Digging down.

Heh...

From the original article:
The Arizona House of Representatives passed a bill that would let people carry weapons -- guns, grenades, sawed-off shotguns, rockets, even land mines -- into schools, polling places and nuclear plants.

He then says:
According to the Arizona Daily Star newspaper, essentially any weapon not banned by federal law could be carried anywhere, as long as the person claimed he was trying to protect himself.

So... I went to the Arizona Daily Star to find the article so I could maybe figure just what bill number this was. I found their article here: http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/63738.php

Here's their lead paragraph (dated before the Macomb article):
The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to let people carry weapons - including guns, grenades, rockets, mines and sawed-off shotguns - into schools, polling places and nuclear plants if they claim they're only trying to protect themselves.
Aside from interjecting "Arizona" in there before "House" and removing "voted Tuesday" -- looks like the fellow ripped 'em off word for word, even the punctuation choices.

That boy hasn't got an original thought in his head I bet.
 
Am I out of touch? The only time I have ever heard this line,,, " pistols advertised with a "fingerprint-proof finish.",,,,, Was in the movie with Dustin Hoffman, called "Runaway Jury".

Not that I care, but does anyone advertise this?
 
pistols advertised with a "fingerprint-proof finish.",,,,,

There was an ad a few years ago for a gun that stated something along those lines. The intent was to show that fingerprints wouldn't cause rust, not that fingerprints wouln't show up on the gun if analysed by CSI. Leave it to antis who have no knowledge about the relationship between fingers, salt, and rust to misconstrue something like that. :rolleyes:

Not unlike this weapon marketed to terrorists and bannkrobbers.http://www.etitus.net/LPI200MS_Product.html :eek:
 
I sure would like Howard Fischer's e-mail address.

He is quoting an article from an anti-gun reporter from Arizona's Capitol Times by the name of Howard Fischer. I've spoken to him (with antagonism) many times. He loves "influencing" politics with his stories.

Many readers got annoyed at his inacurracies (these items already covered under federal law, for example), and his low journalistic standards.

He was interviewed by the following Tucson paper.
Debbie Kornmiller: Story on gun-permit proposal raises hackles of readers | The Arizona Daily Star ®

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.06.2005

Debbie Kornmiller: Story on gun-permit proposal raises hackles of readers

Debbie Kornmiller

A bill that would allow "guns in schools, anywhere" as the headline noted passed the state House Tuesday and was killed by the bill's sponsor Wednesday after outrage from Arizonans.

A handful of readers thought the front-page story had its own flaws, mainly the first paragraph:

"The House of Representatives voted Tuesday to let people carry weapons - including guns, grenades, rockets, mines and sawed-off shotguns - into schools, polling places and nuclear plants if they claim they're only trying to protect themselves."

Hal Dennis, who calls himself a retired guy who reads the paper every day, called the presentation "extremely inflammatory. Buried in the story was that some of this was against federal law, and what was inflammatory was
the part that was against federal law."

Ken Rineer, a self-described activist for gun owners' rights, termed the first paragraph sensationalism and an attempt to kill the bill. "It was a good story and well-written, but why put that in about the grenades?"

Reporter Howard Fischer of Capital Media Services said, "I wanted to get the readers' attention. The bill had passed the House Judiciary 5-3 and House Rules Committee unanimously.

"On Tuesday, 30 lawmakers stood up and said they wanted this to be the law of Arizona. Arizonans, our readers, needed to know exactly what was in the bill so they could comment if they wanted to.

"My story caused not only people to call, but lawmakers to sit up and take notice and tell sponsor Doug Quelland 'I'm not going to support this.'

"My job was to inform readers that there was a potential for a major change in gun law under consideration."

But Fischer said he could have been clearer on how this affects state law and that it wouldn't alter federal law.

State law is not always in accord with federal law, which make some of these weapons illegal or highly restricted to private citizens, Fischer said.

"With 20-20 hindsight, I would have put grenades in the third not first paragraph," he said, and added a better explanation of federal law and how the bill would affect federal law would have helped, as well.


Several readers wanted to know the names of the lawmakers who voted 30-16 for the bill. That information isn't available on a standup vote, which isn't recorded because it was preliminary approval, Fischer said.

? Debbie Kornmiller, the Star's reader advocate, wants to hear from you weekdays, 8:30 to 5 p.m. Call 434-4080; e-mail [email protected]; or write P.O. Box 26807, Tucson, AZ 85726.
 
But only under very limited circumstances can we prevent the al-Qaida suspects who are on the loose from buying guns.
I would think that the intelligence people actually would oppose changing this situation.

If a terror suspect gets on a list, and then gets denied a purchase, wouldn't that be a tipoff that he's under surveillance (assuming he wouldn't otherwise be barred)?

Changing the current situation essentially would *REQUIRE* the FBI (or whoever) to make its watchlists quasi-public -- a person could find out if he's on the list simply by trying to buy a gun (again, assuming there's no other reason for a denial).

I could envision Al-Qaida operatives actually using this to test the quality of their covers. "OK, I know I don't qualify for any of the other NIC-denial triggers; therefore, I must be on the watch list. I better remove myself from the big operation and make it harder for the g-men to crack that case."
 
But only under very limited circumstances can we prevent the al-Qaida suspects who are on the loose from buying guns.
I would think that the intelligence people actually would oppose changing this situation.

If a terror suspect gets on a list, and then gets denied a purchase, wouldn't that be a tipoff that he's under surveillance (assuming he wouldn't otherwise be barred)?

Changing the current situation essentially would *REQUIRE* the FBI (or whoever) to make its watchlists quasi-public -- a person could find out if he's on the list simply by trying to buy a gun (again, assuming there's no other reason for a denial).

I could envision Al-Qaida operatives actually using this to test the quality of their covers. "OK, I know I don't qualify for any of the other NIC-denial triggers; therefore, I must be on the watch list. I better remove myself from the big operation and make it harder for the g-men to crack that case."
 
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't attempting to buy a gun a crime by itself if you're not legally allowed to? So, by making it illegal for people on the list (who may be innocent of any wrongdoing), if one of those people tries to buy a gun, would they be commiting a crime? After all, ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for breaking it.
 
"What I worry about is this country's unending supply of psychotics."

A valid point, Mr. Selweski. I think it's time we ran background checks on applicants for journalism schools.
 
I see this two-bit, small-time columnist has me all figured out. I want nothing more than to arm criminal scumbag terrorists with 'bullet hoses.' :rolleyes:

Some folks hold sacred only the parts of the Bill of Rights they agree with. I hold sacred all of it. That makes me a nut? Then, by God, so be it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top