Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
I've heard of duplex rounds, but hexplex? (think I'll patent it...)
Yup. That's really all this "reporter" knows, which he amply demonstrates.
Extreme Overkill: anti-gun editorial in my local paper...
- Thread starter h0ss
- Start date
- Status
I've heard of duplex rounds, but hexplex? (think I'll patent it...)
Yup. That's really all this "reporter" knows, which he amply demonstrates.
Citroen
Member
Keep it Short - Stay focused
My suggestion is to send your response addressed to the newspaper with a copy to the person to whom you are responding. Most newspapers do not print each letter they receive and some only print those that either agree with their point of view or make the opposition appear less than informed.
Prior to writing I would confirm that the ad is for a real gun (or not) and that if a real gun that it is semi-auto and legal without special tax stamps and approvals.
His basic premise is flawed as is his logic. The person who buys a classic car (Bennington is home to Hemmings Motor News - the bible for car collectors)may show it more than they drive it - the person who buys a fire extinguisher does not rush out to the woods and set them on fire. The person who buys life insurance is not normally anxious to "try it out".
Make your points and be courteous - keep the letter to under 150 words and it might get published.
John
Charlotte, NC
My suggestion is to send your response addressed to the newspaper with a copy to the person to whom you are responding. Most newspapers do not print each letter they receive and some only print those that either agree with their point of view or make the opposition appear less than informed.
Prior to writing I would confirm that the ad is for a real gun (or not) and that if a real gun that it is semi-auto and legal without special tax stamps and approvals.
His basic premise is flawed as is his logic. The person who buys a classic car (Bennington is home to Hemmings Motor News - the bible for car collectors)may show it more than they drive it - the person who buys a fire extinguisher does not rush out to the woods and set them on fire. The person who buys life insurance is not normally anxious to "try it out".
Make your points and be courteous - keep the letter to under 150 words and it might get published.
John
Charlotte, NC
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Some people do indeed call hollowpoint bullets "dum-dum bullets." I've also heard some people call financial consultants "white collar crooks who have not yet been caught." So much depends on one's viewpoint and knowledge.
Mr. Putney has a viewpoint on the subject of guns but remarkably little knowledge. Had he any knowledge at all he would know that most police officers use hollowpoint ammunition. Remarkably few of them are criminals, unless Mr. Putney has special information that he should share with the rest of the world. The reason why police officers use hollowpoint bullets is that they are less dangerous rather than more dangerous. Of course Mr. Putney would disagree, but since he really doesn't know what he's talking about there's no need to pay attention to him. If we did pay attention to what Mr. Putney said we would be forced to share his belief that police officers are criminals because they use hollowpoint bullets.
If we paid attention to what Mr. Putney said we also might be tempted to share his delusion that hollowpoint bullets "sometimes break into fragments on impact. That is, they're designed to shred the interior organs of the target and cause massive blood loss, therefore guaranteeing death." In fact no handgun bullet "guarantees death," and hollowpoint bullets do not "shred the interior organs" except the minds of people who talk about subjects of which they know nothing. Hollowpoint bullets are "designed" to flatten on impact so as to exhaust their energy in the target and stop an attack instead of piercing the target, continuing on to injure other people, and requiring multiple shots at the target to stop the attack. A few moments spent in actually looking at the manufacturers' specifications for their hollowpoint bullets would reveal how they behave in places other than Mr. Putney's imagination.
Despite what Mr. Putney thinks he knows, the goal of people who defend their lives and of law enforcement officers is to stop an attack--not to kill the attacker. Only in Mr. Putney's lurid imagination do decent people run around murdering people. Mr. Putney seems unlikely to agree with the proposition that all murders are perpetrated by criminals, but a financial consultant who knows nothing about guns or crimes should be able to figure that out if he spends some quality time thinking before giving his opinon on matters other than finances.
Mr. Putney's imagination about submachine guns is even more remarkable while his actual knowledge is non-existent. He imagines that something "that looked a lot like a submachine gun with a circular holder for 50 rounds of ammunition" is therefore that. Mr. Putney simply does not know the difference between makebelieve and reality, which must be a serious inconvenience in the field of financial consulting. The laws concerning submachine guns are most strict and have been since 1934. There is a federal agency--the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives--that monitors them without the assistance of Mr. Putney. All BATFE agents are capable of reading and knowing that whatever exists in Mr. Putney's mind is not necessarily real and, in this instance, pure fantasy.
Just because something "looks a lot" like something else to Mr. Putney does not make it that something else. Gold colored rocks are not gold. Counterfeit $20 bills are not legal tender. Imitation Rolex watches are not real. Toy things are not real things.
There's the most interesting point that Mr. Putney makes. As he shifts between his fantasy world and the real world he somehow has taken charge of which toys are permissible and which aren't. Mr. Putney is definitively against toy guns. Not content with banning them from his own world, he somehow has assumed the authority to prohibit them for everyone else.
Last edited:
ZeSpectre
Member
Dissecting the article.
The rest of the article is a classic disaster area combining a lack of research (the "machine gun" he's so worried about appears to be a toy replica), an abysmal display of ignorance (he can't imagine any use for this style of guns other than insane overkill) and a whole lot of "transference" (the axe/tree story saying "here's an example of my lack of impulse control therefore I fear a similar lack in others").
Mr. Charles Putney is setting the tone right here and clearly telling us his point of view, i.e. "guns kill". It is therefore unsurprising that later he can conceive of no other use to which any firearm might possibly be used.
The rest of the article is a classic disaster area combining a lack of research (the "machine gun" he's so worried about appears to be a toy replica), an abysmal display of ignorance (he can't imagine any use for this style of guns other than insane overkill) and a whole lot of "transference" (the axe/tree story saying "here's an example of my lack of impulse control therefore I fear a similar lack in others").
Bull...his logic is flawed.
Quote: "All I know is people want to be able to use their "toys."
I have guns I have never fired. I suppose, using that logic, that coin collectors MUST spend all their gold coins. I wonder if he has a coin collection...if so, I would like to sell him some stuff.
Quote: "All I know is people want to be able to use their "toys."
I have guns I have never fired. I suppose, using that logic, that coin collectors MUST spend all their gold coins. I wonder if he has a coin collection...if so, I would like to sell him some stuff.
bogie
Member
Uh, guys...
This is so funny that it is ridiculous... It is OBVIOUS that the guy saw the ad for the toy, and completely vegged out on that...
Mix that with transference, and if we spin it right, the paper will publish it, and you may actually get a little more spin than normal from it...
This is so funny that it is ridiculous... It is OBVIOUS that the guy saw the ad for the toy, and completely vegged out on that...
Mix that with transference, and if we spin it right, the paper will publish it, and you may actually get a little more spin than normal from it...
MTMilitiaman
Member
I think one key element is being missed here, and that is numbers. Anyone can argue different points of view back and forth, but when one uses numbers, something tangible and concrete, critics tend to be silenced. The main focus of your argument, in my opinion, should be "Yes, semi-automatic military style weapons have always been accessible and popular in this country. The were before the 1994 AWB, they were during it despite claims to the contrary, and they are now." Admit that these things sell like hot cakes...they're everywhere, and as some recently publicized examples show, they have the potential to kill if they make it in the wrong hands. Then, point out the truth--that by and large, they are not. The vast majority of gun owners use their fancy toys in ways far more constructive than the author and his ax. Which is why in 2006, two years after the expiration of the AWB, only 436 people were killed with rifles of any sort, be it daddy's deer rifle or a Chicago typewriter. This number is, interestingly enough, down from the number four years earlier in 2002 during the height of the AWB. For comparison, 1822 were killed by knives and cutting instruments in the same year, and 833 were killed by personal weapons, like hands and feet, which are apparently nearly twice as deadly as Chicago Typewriters, despite the obvious potential of the latter.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Then maybe I would close by pointing out the the purpose of the Second Amendment isn't sporting, that the Framers didn't write it to guarantee your right to hunt, and that free people don't justify the use of the rights they are entitled too. Rather, others have to justify taking these rights away, and as shown, no such evidence exist to support prohibition of these weapons.
Game, set, match...
Don't use numbers from a "biased" source like the NRA. Think about how seriously you'd take numbers from the Brady Campaign or VPC. You view them as a bunch of clowns, right? They view the NRA the same way. Stick to neutral and respected 3rd party sources like the FBI UCR link I posted. It's hard to argue with them.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Then maybe I would close by pointing out the the purpose of the Second Amendment isn't sporting, that the Framers didn't write it to guarantee your right to hunt, and that free people don't justify the use of the rights they are entitled too. Rather, others have to justify taking these rights away, and as shown, no such evidence exist to support prohibition of these weapons.
Game, set, match...
Don't use numbers from a "biased" source like the NRA. Think about how seriously you'd take numbers from the Brady Campaign or VPC. You view them as a bunch of clowns, right? They view the NRA the same way. Stick to neutral and respected 3rd party sources like the FBI UCR link I posted. It's hard to argue with them.
jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
When I bought my new AR the first thing I thought was, wow, I could really go on a rampage with this... despite my uncontrollable bloodlust, I somehow managed to NOT go on a ruthless killing spree!!! I'm not sure why I'm different, for some reason simply shooting some old bowling pins was sufficient to satisfy my lunacy for now./sarcasm off/
Propaganda as usual.
Propaganda as usual.
Haha. I never even thought to do an online search with that phrase. I just did on Yahoo! and it turned up exactly TWO results. BOTH were for the same replica Tommy gun. It would be most fun to point out that the ad he saw was for a toy, and that he purposely put a spin on his article using those words to make it appear as though the gun dealers in Bennington sell full auto Thompson's left and right.
bogie
Member
The internet is a marvelous thing.
Last week, when I read Mr. Putney's letter to the editor regarding "...a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun... something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."
I enjoy nonviolent recreational target shooting - plinking activities such as shooting bowling pins. And this would be the perfect thing to do it with.
So I went looking on the web.
And I found the Roaring Twenties Gangster Model, nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter.
The image of this dastardly device must have so disturbed our writer that he failed to look beyond the florid description, and instead let his vivid imagination fill in the details. Because the next lines in the description read "This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume."
If I may answer one of his questions: "What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?" Well, there's always Halloween. But it's not going to be of much use for shooting bowling pins. I'm also guessing that carrying it into the woods would be an exercise in futility, although given the 9.8 pound weight, it may result in some beneficial exercise.
Mr. Putney writes that when people buy an item, such as a firearm, that "they want to use it." I've vote for that. However, he is possibly transferring his own feelings, and assuming that such a device would only be used to harm others.
What he has failed to comprehend is that 99.99% of guns are used only for legitimate purposes. It worries me that he may think that if he was in possession of a weapon, that he would use it on a fellow human being. In the event of such self-control issues, I heartily recommend that he seek expert professional counseling, which is readily available.
Sincerely,
Yer name.
need to edit it down some...
Last week, when I read Mr. Putney's letter to the editor regarding "...a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun... something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."
I enjoy nonviolent recreational target shooting - plinking activities such as shooting bowling pins. And this would be the perfect thing to do it with.
So I went looking on the web.
And I found the Roaring Twenties Gangster Model, nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter.
The image of this dastardly device must have so disturbed our writer that he failed to look beyond the florid description, and instead let his vivid imagination fill in the details. Because the next lines in the description read "This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume."
If I may answer one of his questions: "What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?" Well, there's always Halloween. But it's not going to be of much use for shooting bowling pins. I'm also guessing that carrying it into the woods would be an exercise in futility, although given the 9.8 pound weight, it may result in some beneficial exercise.
Mr. Putney writes that when people buy an item, such as a firearm, that "they want to use it." I've vote for that. However, he is possibly transferring his own feelings, and assuming that such a device would only be used to harm others.
What he has failed to comprehend is that 99.99% of guns are used only for legitimate purposes. It worries me that he may think that if he was in possession of a weapon, that he would use it on a fellow human being. In the event of such self-control issues, I heartily recommend that he seek expert professional counseling, which is readily available.
Sincerely,
Yer name.
need to edit it down some...
The Lone Haranguer
Member
If that is a real, original, legal-to-own, fully automatic Thompson Mr. Putney is talking about, I will take a wild guess and say it is worth about $75,000 (probably low). I don't think many people will be buying those. 
So relax, Mr. Putney, you're safe.
He is also a little unclear on the concept of inanimate objects. There is a grain of truth in that the weapon was designed to kill things, but it depends on who is doing the killing and who is getting killed. Was this guy evil?
http://images.allposters.com/images/77/039_23090.jpg
So relax, Mr. Putney, you're safe. He is also a little unclear on the concept of inanimate objects. There is a grain of truth in that the weapon was designed to kill things, but it depends on who is doing the killing and who is getting killed. Was this guy evil?
http://images.allposters.com/images/77/039_23090.jpg
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
That sounds like a "canned" letter. I could swear someone reported on a letter very similar to it a year or so ago, even to the "Washington chopping down a tree / toys must be used" analogy.
Anybody remember where it was? Might have been on Packing Dot Org.
Anybody remember where it was? Might have been on Packing Dot Org.
Haha. Thats pretty good. Although i dont want to make this so personal that i have to keep responding to his letters if he gets mad and wants to start an uninformed argument.
I added and edited it a bit, bogie. I might possibly change it more, but im going to take a break from it for now. Let me know what you guys think so far:
Last week, when I read Mr. Putney's letter to the editor regarding "...a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun... something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."
I enjoy nonviolent recreational target shooting - plinking activities such as shooting paper targets. And this would be the perfect thing to do it with.
So I went looking on the web.
And I found the Roaring Twenties Gangster Model, nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter.
The image of this device must have so disturbed our writer that he failed to look beyond the description, and instead let his vivid imagination fill in the details. Because the next lines in the description read "This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume."
If I may answer one of his questions: "What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?" Well, there's always Halloween. But it's not going to be of much use for shooting paper targets. Perhaps I should buy a real one instead? But to my disappointment, a real full auto Thompson sub-machine gun is not only far more expensive than the resin prop seen online, its a lot harder and more time consuming to aquire. A semi-auto version of the Tommygun however, is not that hard to aquire.
Mr. Putney writes that when people buy an item, that "they want to use it." Yeah, that is usually the case. However, he is possibly transferring his own feelings, and assuming that a device such as a firearm would only be used to harm others. This may come as a surprise, but I am willing to bet that there may be a few semi-auto Tommygun's here in Bennington or the surrounding towns that are in the hands of honest, law abiding citizens. I know for a fact that there are other types of firearms with high-capacity magzines in the hands of law abiding citizens right here in town.
Mr. Putney says that hunters don't need Tommyguns. He is right, there are much better firearms suited for hunting than Tommyguns. However, Mr. Putney also seems to link the 2nd Amendment with hunting. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is the word 'hunting'. Nor does any wording in the 2nd Amendement imply that its sole purpose is for hunting. So to suggest that the 2nd Amendment refers only to hunting just doesn't make sense. It also does not make any sense to base the need of any kind firearm on how useful it is to hunt with.
Certainly the 1st Amendment couldn't possibly be talking about freedom of speech? I mean, then we would have all sorts of people just spouting out their opinions with absolutely no one to stop them! That would be horrible! What possible use is there for people to be expressing their opinions or beliefs?
Sincerely,
h0ss
I added and edited it a bit, bogie. I might possibly change it more, but im going to take a break from it for now. Let me know what you guys think so far:
Last week, when I read Mr. Putney's letter to the editor regarding "...a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun... something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."
I enjoy nonviolent recreational target shooting - plinking activities such as shooting paper targets. And this would be the perfect thing to do it with.
So I went looking on the web.
And I found the Roaring Twenties Gangster Model, nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter.
The image of this device must have so disturbed our writer that he failed to look beyond the description, and instead let his vivid imagination fill in the details. Because the next lines in the description read "This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume."
If I may answer one of his questions: "What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?" Well, there's always Halloween. But it's not going to be of much use for shooting paper targets. Perhaps I should buy a real one instead? But to my disappointment, a real full auto Thompson sub-machine gun is not only far more expensive than the resin prop seen online, its a lot harder and more time consuming to aquire. A semi-auto version of the Tommygun however, is not that hard to aquire.
Mr. Putney writes that when people buy an item, that "they want to use it." Yeah, that is usually the case. However, he is possibly transferring his own feelings, and assuming that a device such as a firearm would only be used to harm others. This may come as a surprise, but I am willing to bet that there may be a few semi-auto Tommygun's here in Bennington or the surrounding towns that are in the hands of honest, law abiding citizens. I know for a fact that there are other types of firearms with high-capacity magzines in the hands of law abiding citizens right here in town.
Mr. Putney says that hunters don't need Tommyguns. He is right, there are much better firearms suited for hunting than Tommyguns. However, Mr. Putney also seems to link the 2nd Amendment with hunting. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is the word 'hunting'. Nor does any wording in the 2nd Amendement imply that its sole purpose is for hunting. So to suggest that the 2nd Amendment refers only to hunting just doesn't make sense. It also does not make any sense to base the need of any kind firearm on how useful it is to hunt with.
Certainly the 1st Amendment couldn't possibly be talking about freedom of speech? I mean, then we would have all sorts of people just spouting out their opinions with absolutely no one to stop them! That would be horrible! What possible use is there for people to be expressing their opinions or beliefs?
Sincerely,
h0ss
bogie
Member
One thing I advocate avoiding in letters to the editor-type stuff is the need to define something. Because someone else will always have another definition. I also generally avoid specifically talking about the second amendment or the rest of the bill of rights - that tends to end up in the circular file at the other end...
And he'll likely crawl under a rock when this is printed...
Last week, when I read Mr. Putney's letter to the editor regarding "...a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun... something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."
I enjoy nonviolent recreational target shooting - plinking activities such as shooting paper targets. And this would be the perfect thing to do it with.
So I went looking on the web.
And I found the Roaring Twenties Gangster Model, nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter at www.retrocollection.com.
The image of this device must have so disturbed our writer that he failed to look beyond the first lines of description, and instead let his vivid imagination fill in the details. Because the next lines in the description read "This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume."
If I may answer one of his questions: "What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?" Well, there's always Halloween. But it's not going to be of much use for plinking. Perhaps I should buy a real one instead? But to my disappointment, a real Thompson sub-machine gun is not only far more expensive than the resin prop, but it is a lot harder and more time consuming to acquire.
Mr. Putney writes that when people buy an item, that "they want to use it." Yes, that is usually the case. However, he is possibly transferring his own feelings, and assuming that a device such as a firearm would only be used to harm others. Since 99.99% of firearms are not used in crimes, I am willing to bet that there may already be a few real "Chicago Typewriters" here in Bennington. And the only thing they have harmed are paper targets (and I buy the ones made of recycled material).
Mr. Putney seems to feel that the only uses for a firearm are hunting or warfare. I'd like to invite him, if he will promise to avoid killing me, for a leisurely afternoon of plinking. Perhaps we can target typing paper printed with pictures of ghouls and goblins.
And he'll likely crawl under a rock when this is printed...
Last week, when I read Mr. Putney's letter to the editor regarding "...a weapon that looked a lot like a submachine gun... something that is akin to a Thompson submachine gun in Bennington. You can also get it on the Web, where an online dealer labels it as a "Roaring Twenties Gangster Model with permanently attached 50-round drum magazine. Nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter."
I enjoy nonviolent recreational target shooting - plinking activities such as shooting paper targets. And this would be the perfect thing to do it with.
So I went looking on the web.
And I found the Roaring Twenties Gangster Model, nicknamed the Chicago Typewriter at www.retrocollection.com.
The image of this device must have so disturbed our writer that he failed to look beyond the first lines of description, and instead let his vivid imagination fill in the details. Because the next lines in the description read "This is a non-functioning model molded of solid resin with no moving parts. A perfect prop for a Gangster costume."
If I may answer one of his questions: "What possible non-criminal use is there for something like that?" Well, there's always Halloween. But it's not going to be of much use for plinking. Perhaps I should buy a real one instead? But to my disappointment, a real Thompson sub-machine gun is not only far more expensive than the resin prop, but it is a lot harder and more time consuming to acquire.
Mr. Putney writes that when people buy an item, that "they want to use it." Yes, that is usually the case. However, he is possibly transferring his own feelings, and assuming that a device such as a firearm would only be used to harm others. Since 99.99% of firearms are not used in crimes, I am willing to bet that there may already be a few real "Chicago Typewriters" here in Bennington. And the only thing they have harmed are paper targets (and I buy the ones made of recycled material).
Mr. Putney seems to feel that the only uses for a firearm are hunting or warfare. I'd like to invite him, if he will promise to avoid killing me, for a leisurely afternoon of plinking. Perhaps we can target typing paper printed with pictures of ghouls and goblins.
Yes, bogie, you are probably right about leaving out the second amendment info and trying to define things. Likely that will result in an argument, or even letters to the editor from other people refuting my views.
And that is why i asked you guys, because i've never done this before and i appreciate all of the help and suggestions.
This just keeps getting better. I think it is also good that you shortened it down for me. Probably better to keep it short and to the point. I think someone above mentioned that.
And that is why i asked you guys, because i've never done this before and i appreciate all of the help and suggestions.
This just keeps getting better. I think it is also good that you shortened it down for me. Probably better to keep it short and to the point. I think someone above mentioned that.
The only thing i am a little concerned about is the 99.99% statistic in the second-to-last paragraph. I would feel better if i actually had the proof of stats to back that up. Almost seems like an off the top of your head statistic.
bogie
Member
How many guns are estimated to be in the country?
How many guns are used in crimes yearly?
Do the math - I'll guess that it's close.
From Feud's thread...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Let's call the number of victims 15,000.
Let's assume a different gun was used for each victim.
How many guns are in the country? 100,000, 000?
How many guns are used in crimes yearly?
Do the math - I'll guess that it's close.
From Feud's thread...
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Let's call the number of victims 15,000.
Let's assume a different gun was used for each victim.
How many guns are in the country? 100,000, 000?
xsquidgator
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 835
This absolutely rocks. I'll be disappointed bogie if you don't turn in this or something similar to the paper.
I was peeved in a similar way about a letter a local (Orlando) police officer wrote to our local paper complaining that he had to go through a background check when he wanted to buy his own gun but CWP holders do not. (In Florida he is wrong, by the way, not to mention a whiner. Makes me wonder what other parts of the law he knows butkus about). I may have to get off my duff and write a letter too. Ignorance is one thing but a smug ignorant D.A. is too much to bear.
MikeB
Member
It was the fixed magazine that made me do a search. It didn't make sense.
Eightball
Member
That guy's an idiot, you should write in to set him straight.
This is the classic, over-used anti-gun allegation. If you can't use it for hunting you shouldn't have it. Antis always seem to feel this is some huge Ace up their sleeve when they sneer it.
This editorial is very ignorant and I wouldn't even dignify it with a response.
Definitely write back. You can't let stuff like this go out unchecked. Explain the history of the 2nd Amendment, that these "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime. Explain how people enjoy target shooting with these guns. Also explain their functionality and how banning one semi-auto will eventually lead to banning all of them, since they are all very similar in function. There are some that you see in movies that are scary, but that's all they are is scary looking. Somebody had to put that scary image in their head first, it's not because the gun is particularly deadly.
The thing that I don't understand is that he implies that there is absolutely no time when it's best to use lethal force. There are indeed times when self defense using effective weapons is the best choice. Times like Katrina, revolution, etc. These times lie at the heart of the 2nd Amendment.
God bless you with your response. Make it a good one.
The thing that I don't understand is that he implies that there is absolutely no time when it's best to use lethal force. There are indeed times when self defense using effective weapons is the best choice. Times like Katrina, revolution, etc. These times lie at the heart of the 2nd Amendment.
God bless you with your response. Make it a good one.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
Here is his work address and number if you would like to contact him directly:
Charles R. Putney, Chairman
Vermont Council on the Humanities
200 Park Street
RR1, Box 7285
Morrisville, VT 05661-0058
(802) 888-3183
Also his organization "The National Institute for Humanities" has a $10k award, the "highest honor the federal government bestows for achievement in the humanities." ... click here to Nominate your favorite humanitarian:
http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/jefflecnomination.asp
I nominate Oleg Volk.
Charles R. Putney, Chairman
Vermont Council on the Humanities
200 Park Street
RR1, Box 7285
Morrisville, VT 05661-0058
(802) 888-3183
Also his organization "The National Institute for Humanities" has a $10k award, the "highest honor the federal government bestows for achievement in the humanities." ... click here to Nominate your favorite humanitarian:
http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/jefflecnomination.asp
I nominate Oleg Volk.
- Status