"Find Compromise in Gun Debate"

[Leanwolf]

MIKE101 - "What this boob doesn't understand is that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights at all. It enumerates and guarantees existing rights."

As an aside, a couple of nights ago I heard U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia being interviewed on radio, and he stated three different times that "... the United States Constitution gives certain Rights to the People."

You'd think a so called conservative U.S.S.C. judge would know a bit more about the Constitution than that, wouldn't you?

Wonder how Scalia will find on Heller??

L.W.

 

[LegalAlien]

Letter to mr Pitts

As a FL resident, I felt obliged to respond to mr Pitts and sent him the email below:-

SECOND AMENDMENT
Find compromise in gun debate
Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2008

Dear Mr Pitts,

I am a Florida resident. Not a citizen, but a tax paying permanent resident, that has earned the right through my permanent residency to keep and bear arms and this right is protected by the second amendment of the US Constitution.

I am a fairly moderate person that is always open to negotiation and compromise.

I have read with interest the above 'opinion' that was published in your Miaimi Herald recently.

I have taken note of your noble comments about the pro and anti gunners making compromises

I have read with interest the 'list of compromises' that you proposed in your Editorial.

Compromise can be good, but I believe it can only be good, if it is balanced.

Have you looked at the list of 'proposed compromises' by both parties?
Have you counted them?
Did you notice that the anti-gun folks have to compromise on only 3 aspects?
Did you notice that the pro-gun folks have to compromise on at least 6 aspects?

That to me seems very unbalanced.

Even though I DO NOT have to compromise on my Second Amendment Rights, it might be a future consideration. BUT, then I would expect a more balanced compromise to come from your side.

In closure, as a journalist, who makes his living from expressing his First Amemendment Rights, would you consider any Compromises on your First Amendment Rights? Would you be prepared to give up some of those inherent rights, in order to give any Free Speech Control group certain rights to infringe on your rights?

 

[another okie]

Position A: No gun control laws.
Position B: The gun control laws we have now.

I'm willing to compromise between those two positions.

 

[Winchester 73]

What this boob doesn't understand is that the Bill of Rights doesn't grant any rights at all. It enumerates and guarantees existing rights. The RKBA already existed when 2A was written.

The Militia is cited as the reason for providing the guarantee, not as the reason for the existance of the right itself.

mike101,you are so correct.And what I should have added in my earlier reply to JohnBT,is that Leonard Pitts is a born and raised child of South-Central Los Angeles.As he grew up he witnessed the carnage of gang and turf warfare in the Watts Zone(1965).
His brother-in-law was killed in S.C. LA, one of the worst crime areas in the U.S., by a murderer with a gun 20 years ago.
All of this has shaped Pitts ideology as it would most of us.
This is not to excuse his total ignorance of the 2A,which merely affirms ,not grants ,the right to keep and bear arms,a blind spot for so many liberals.
But,I believe he can be reached.Like Soybomb's admirable attempt,we can only try.

 

[MacEntyre]

You folks just said what I was gonna say... discussion stops before it's started, because rights are not granted in the constitution.

 

[tomr123]

I usually identify with Mr. Pitts. He is realistic and refreshing,especially in a sea of very left oriented OP-ED writers. This piece shows a new side to me, the fact that he presumes rights are granted to us by the bill of rights is very scary. To his credit I would not be surprised in the least if he responded to any well worded email.

 

[LegalAlien]

Another email to mr Pitz

I thought I would get his comments on '. . . deer hunting with an assault rifle" and sent him the following email:-

Dear mr Pitts,
With reference to you your Editorial in the Miami Herald dated 02/13/08 with regards to the above subject, I sent you an email earlier tonight, but have come up with another aspect of your editorial opinion that I would like to discuss with you.

I would like to elicit some comment from you on one of the specific 'proposed compromises' that the gun advocates should consider. The item is:-

" . . . you don't need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? . . ."

Now, what is at issue here?

Why is this such a HOT topic for the gun control group that 'assault rifles' should not be used for deer hunting?

I am not a real fire arms expert, nor am I an avid hunter, nor do I own an 'assault rifle' (at least not yet), and I therefore do not profess to be an expert, but I do use some common logic, do some reading and remember my Highschool Physics.

Let's consider the following:-
1. Your average deer hunting rifle has a barrel of 20 inches or longer - this provides more accuracy over longer distances and also assists in increasing the muzzle velocity of a bullet exiting the barrel. It fires one bullet with every pull of the trigger
2. Your average 'assault rifle' has a barrel length of only about 16 inches - therefore less accurate and also resulting in lower muzzle velocity of a bullet exiting the barrel.It also fires exactly one bullet with every pull of the trigger.
3. The most popular hunting rifle caliber is the venerable 30-06. This round also has a bigger cartridge with a more powerfull charge of gun powder. The bullet is physically bigger and heavier than the .223
4. The most common 'assault rifle caliber is the .223. This round has a smaller cartridge than the 30-06,with a lighter charge of gun powder.
5. With a longer barrel, more powerful round, higher charge, heavier bullet, you have a faster, heavier and more accurate piece of metal hurtling from your average hunting rifle, than would come out of the barrel of an 'assault rifle'
6. My logic tells me that every pull of the trigger on your average 30-06 hunting rifle, is a bigger danger to any deer than a similar trigger pull of your average 'assault rifle'. You have a heavier, faster, more accurate over a longer distance, projectile being fired from a hunting rifle than from an 'assault rifle'. And this projectile is going to do more damage to the object that it strikes,due to it's higher velocity, physical dimensions and weight. This is using highschool physics - no nuclear science at all.

Do you not think that deer are actually being given a more sporting chance, being hunted with an 'assault rifle'. Considering that most deer are normally killed effectively with one, maybe two shots, the magazine capacity differences between the two rifles does not become a real factor in this equation anyway.

Is this "deer hunting with an assault rifle" issue that the control group has, not just another excuse, another red herring, to create the impression that 'assault rifles' are 'bad and very dangerous'. I can see no reason why it is such a huge issue to them.

So, can the pro-gun folks keep on hunting deer with 'assault rifles'?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Best regards

 

[txgolfer45]

Let's compromise, I'll keep my guns and you'll stop complaining about them as I'm a law abiding citizen!