Ignorance

[archigos]

Alright, I just have to post a link to is quite possibly the most ignorant piece of nonsensical rambling I have read in ages. Its good for a laugh and, quite possibly, a few tears.
http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/dp-ed_wedltrs_02271feb27,0,4251923.story

Every day we hear in Virginia of the death or injury of a citizen by gunshot. We have got to wake up to the fact that we are a very violent nation.

In Washington, D.C., citizens want to reverse the ban on carrying arms because they feel threatened. What on Earth are these people afraid of, their own shadows? Or can't they trust their neighbors? We don't need guns of any sort, not even for sporting events. Guns are designed and manufactured for one purpose only –– to kill.

The time has come for our nation to close all gun shops throughout the country, and for a national amnesty to be invoked whereby all current gun owners could hand their weapons to the police for a reward.

Yes, the National Rifle Association, gun advocates and manufacturers would scream their heads off, so let them. The safety of our citizens is far more important than their selfish claim that their Second Amendment rights would be violated.

 

[hankdatank1362]

Ok, well he can hand his over. And then post a big sign on his front yard, loudly proclaiming that he has no guns.

oh wait, he enjoys a certain level of security from the fact that, although he may own no guns, criminals are less likely to break into his house because they don't know that. For all they know, John Rambo could be on the other side waiting for them.

whereby all current gun owners could hand their weapons to the police for a reward.

Hmmm... I just don't see that working out too well with criminals. Maybe that's why they're criminals... THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW!!!


Dolt.

 

[Ash]

I agree 100%. More so, since gun speech is so prevalent in so many places, with Greek words bandied about recklessly, as well as wicked phrases "cold dead hands" that make it impossible to ever make progress.

So, I think all speech not within established parameters should be banned.

(hey, wait, isn't that political correctness?)

Ash

 

[bloodedsky]

Monsieur Doust is correct in that we are "a very violent nation" and that "[g]uns are designed and manufactured for one purpose only -- to kill."

He took these truths and created something that honestly made my eyes cross for a second. Selfish to defend one's Constitutional rights? Does he realize that this inane article could not have been published without a certain Right from that world-famous Bill? Does he realize that the American Revolution inspired the French Revolution and, thus, helped to overthrow a tyrannical monarchy?

I get the strong feeling that he shared these thoughts of his with his favorite Tickle-Me-Elmo doll (with whom I'm sure he cuddles nightly), and got the thumbs up from his fiery pal. Because that is the only audience that could have found any logic in this publication that is tragically a POS.

It made me laugh, it made me cry... it made me feel afraid. Tin-foil afraid.

 

[Winchester 73]

This was a letter to the Editor.The Miami Herald runs one every week.
Idiot's like Doust are a dime a dozen on the op-ed pages of America's Liberal press.
Forget about it.

 

[Fish828]

the title of this thread (ignorance) is an understatement. i would say downright naive or even plain stupid.

 

[jimbob86]

The Simple truth of the matter

The simple truth of the matter is ignored, and that is THIS: Sometimes, some people need to be shot. The best possible outcomes for the Virginia Tech, vonMaur, NIU, (yadayadayada) atrocities would have been for the shooters, once they entered the place they planned on committing their mayhem and drew their guns, to have been given several doses of the goodnews, in 230 grain increments. It would have been best if they had been shot dead before they could share their misery with the world. The only way this is even a possibility is for somone to be present with the mindset, skills, AND hardware to facilitate that. This idjit Doust would prevent that........

 

[fchavis]

These pieces are typically full of contradictions. He starts off saying we are a violent nation, then questions what people could possibly feel threatened by. As for the rest, I feel sorry for the people that don't see how all their rights are inter-connected; that think they can use the fed.gov to get what they want, but be somehow magically immune down the road when something they value is on the line.

 

[Feud]

Here is the comment I left:

The only people who will give up their guns because the police asked for them are those who will never commit a gun crime.

People abuse pharmaceutical drugs everyday, should we ban pharmacies? No, because that would only prevent those who actually obey the law from having what they need. Banning guns will only prevent those who obey the law from protecting themselves from those who do not.

He is right though, many people would scream their head off. Violating the Constitution often has that result. Our nation's war for independence was started when tyrannical government tried to strip the people of their arms (that is, after all, why the British were marching towards Concord that day), it is ironic that people like Mr. Doust are once again calling for such, and tragic that the values of those who liberated us would be held in such low regard were they alive today.

 

[bloodedsky]

That's an engaging parallel drawn by Feud between people like Monsieur Doust and the 18th century British.

 

[Brian Dale]

Fortunately, fundamental human rights do not depend on opinions.

 

[TwitchALot]

Well, guess we'd better start printing up signs.

But I'd be willing to bet here no one can top this jewel I got from an anti:

"As soon as one pulls a weapon on an assailant it stops being a matter of protecting oneself, and becomes a matter of counter-assault, which isn't any more justified."

Takers?

 

[jakemccoy]

There was a time, before the Internet, when a "published article" was a status symbol in the writers' community. Now, with the Internet, that notion is out the door.

 

[General Geoff]

"As soon as one pulls a weapon on an assailant it stops being a matter of protecting oneself, and becomes a matter of counter-assault, which isn't any more justified."

Person who said the above, would rather see you curled up in a fetal position, beaten to death, than a frightened, wounded, or possibly dead assailant. It's that simple.

 

[Brian Dale]

...this jewel I got from an anti:

"As soon as one pulls a weapon on an assailant it stops being a matter of protecting oneself, and becomes a matter of counter-assault, which isn't any more justified."

Takers?

Sounds like their knowledge of weapons comes from movies, television and books, assuming that they read books.

 

[Ash]

What this guy says is that we do not have the moral right to protect ourselves. Yeah, the bad guy has no right to attack us, but we have no right to attack him back. After all, two wrongs don't make a right, do they?

Makes me want to know where this guy lives. I might make a pretty good living getting his milk money every day.

Ash

 

[Citroen]

Reason to be afraid!

The District of Columbia prohibits citizens from owning handguns; the murder rate (FBI UCR 2006) is 29.1 per 100K. This is over 3 times as high as the next highest state reporting. Yes, I know DC is not a state but it is included in the UCR and since ratings are based on percentage to 100K population the comparison is valid.

Some states do not report all homicides to the FBI - Illinois is one of them. Wonder why? Even with partial reporting their number was 6.1 per 100K.

Simple truth - criminals do not obey laws; guns, in the hands of intended victims, save lives! DC citizens want to have a "fighting chance" since the police will not protect them.

I rest my case.

John
Charlotte, NC

 

[OAKVILLE SHOOTER]

Guns are designed and manufactured for one purpose only –– to kill.

I guess all of my guns are defective. Unless you consider the countless hours that I have "killed" plinking, or the cans, bottles, and targets that I have killed over the years. Wait a minute, it has to be alive before you can kill it...

 

[jakemccoy]

Citroen wrote,

The District of Columbia prohibits citizens from owning handguns; the murder rate (FBI UCR 2006) is 29.1 per 100K. This is over 3 times as high as the next highest state reporting. Yes, I know DC is not a state but it is included in the UCR and since ratings are based on percentage to 100K population the comparison is valid.

Some states do not report all homicides to the FBI - Illinois is one of them. Wonder why? Even with partial reporting their number was 6.1 per 100K.

Simple truth - criminals do not obey laws; guns, in the hands of intended victims, save lives! DC citizens want to have a "fighting chance" since the police will not protect them.

I rest my case.

John
Charlotte, NC

I like your use of stats and see your point. However, if you've ever been to DC, you should know that the only valid comparison is to other cities. Geographically, DC is nothing similar to a state. It's a medium sized city, not even a big one. DC is technically a city and a district at the same time.

 

[NG VI]

And depending on what part of the city you happen to be in, a warzone.


ETA- drug/gang type warzone, not suicide bomb/GI vs SS warzone

 

[Soybomb]

Every day we hear in Virginia of the death or injury of a citizen by gunshot.

What on Earth are these people afraid of, their own shadows?

I don't think I've ever seen someone contradict themselves so quickly before.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

well i posted a reply for mr. doust.

I am confused by your logic (if there is logic in this drival).
I own many firearms and none have killed anything. I shoot often for sport and find it to be relaxing, like canoeing and horseback riding. I am not scared. I have the means to protect myself and my family. I need nothing more then the assurance that I have that right.

For it is a right. That is your misconception. Firearm ownership is a right.

I will not hand my firearms over to the government for some pitance sum. They are my means of protection, my sport, my collection, and my amusement. I will not give up my right for the unreasonable purpose of making you feel safer.

Firearms are inanimate objects, bound by the laws of science with many varied purposes. Is it right that I give up my rights to own one based on your ignorant and biased paranoia?

not sure if it will get read as there are over 250 replys already. and battle is being waged.

also, but off subject, a while ago their was a thread about being judged on our lack of grammer and spelling.
reading some of the anti's comments over on dailynews or whatever, i don't think most of them would catch spelling/grammer.

 

[John G]

...whereby all current gun owners could hand their weapons to the police for a reward.

Slavery is not a reward.

 

[Eric F]

not so high road responce!

Every day we hear in Virginia of the death or injury of a citizen by gunshot. We have got to wake up to the fact that we are a very violent nation.

Since this is a local news paper and I feel obligated to send a responce from one email I will be more constructive from the other I feel like sending something like this, Try living in somolia Jack ass