Op Ed: Public's desire to bear arms in America must be changed

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
Public's desire to bear arms in America must be changed

I find Charley Reese to be entertaining and thought-provoking. However, I must adversely comment on the closing paragraph of his column of Nov. 7 ("Finally, a law that levels playing field for American gun manufacturers").

While I am a fervent advocate of gun control, I approve of the new law which shields gun manufacturers from lawsuits brought against them because of those who misuse their products.

Reese points out that no one has sued Ford for any nefarious after-sale use of its cars and this seems to be an apt, logical analogy. My differences with him are in his final sentence: "Even if you don't wish to own a firearm, you should join the National Rifle Association and defend the Second Amendment against those who want the government to have a monopoly on force."

Do I want the government to have a monopoly on force? You betcha! Those we elect and appoint to protect us need to hold all the cards. The time at which officialdom might abuse such a monopoly is miniscule when compared to the daily slaughter of Americans by Americans throughout the land.

I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976. I realize that the desire to bear arms is a matter going back to the founding of the nation and is deep in the soul of most Americans in a way which I cannot feel or understand.

This right will not be changed easily or overnight. But it must change in the fullness of time. The presence of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of the public and the general ease with which current gun laws are circumvented is counter productive to a people seeking public safety and mutual respect.

John Paul

Jackson

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/OPINION/511230304/1009
 
Do I want the government to have a monopoly on force? You betcha! Those we elect and appoint to protect us need to hold all the cards. The time at which officialdom might abuse such a monopoly is miniscule when compared to the daily slaughter of Americans by Americans throughout the land.
Click to expand...

Yeah tell that to the 100 million or so people who died by the hands of their government in the 20th century.
 
^^^^
Exactly.

I guess she thinks government is perfect, eh? A good idea, I reckon, but its not so, never been so, and will never be so.

Anthony
 
Do I want the government to have a monopoly on force? You betcha! Those we elect and appoint to protect us need to hold all the cards. The time at which officialdom might abuse such a monopoly is miniscule when compared to the daily slaughter of Americans by Americans throughout the land.
Click to expand...

Is he nuts? Governments throughout history have slaughtered an order of mangitude (at least) more of their own citizens than criminals do. Criminals just don't have the resources.

I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, never mind, I get it.
 
It's true that the number of times governments kill the innocent are fewer than the number of times that gangbangers and other scum kill the innocent.

The problem is, when governments do it, they tend to kill millions at a time, not one or two. Once a century or so is still too often.

It disgusts me that a former Brit who became an American has such a short memory of the war fought by the two nations, to end the slaughter of MY ancestors and relatives just across the North Sea from England.
 
This right will not be changed easily or overnight
Click to expand...
That statement right there just summarizes the whole thought process of this jack@ss. Rights cannot be changed. Not by the government, not by you, not by me, not by anyone. What an idjit.

Greg
 
Ba-a-a-a! Now come right this way to be sheared...

You almost have to wonder if this wasn't a put-up job meant to see how many people will write in to criticise this guy.

<putting on the tinfoil beanie>
Just so we can get a list of them for confiscation time.
<taking off the tinfoil beanie>

:evil:
 
Wait a minute... this guy expects America to change to his views rather than him accepting America's views? Makes you wonder why he bothered to move here.
 
jsalcedo said:
Public's desire to bear arms in America must be changed


I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976. I realize that the desire to bear arms is a matter going back to the founding of the nation and is deep in the soul of most Americans in a way which I cannot feel or understand.


http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051123/OPINION/511230304/1009
Click to expand...


I am a relatively new American also, having migrated from Britain in 1990, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 2004 and I firmly support the 2nd. I experienced firsthand thatcher's draconian AWB in 1988. I would suggest the writer is in reality a "AINO", American in name only and he should scurry back to his motherland so he can be "protected" by the British .gov.
 
Oped piece in Jackson MS no less.

Dear Sir;
Our form of government is set up to specifically prohibit the government from having a monopoly on force. Seems the unpleasantness we had with your former country had a lot to do with it. Matter of fact, sir, we feel quite comfortable when the government fear (or at least respects) the governed.
 
People like this who want to be held by the hand and guided from the cradle to the grave really irritate me. If he has lived in the US for 40+ years and still cannot grasp the concepts freedom, self reliance, and individuality he should slink back accross the "pond" and serve tea to the royals.
 
Change just a few words....

jsalcedo said:
Public's desire to express thought freely in America must be changed

This right will not be changed easily or overnight. But it must change in the fullness of time. The presence of mass-information spreading devices in the hands of the public and the general ease with which current views are espoused without restraint is counter productive to a people seeking public cohesiveness and mutual respect.

John Paul

Jackson
Click to expand...

or...

jsalcedo said:
Public's desire for due process in America must be changed

This right will not be changed easily or overnight. But it must change in the fullness of time. The presence of justice-impeding legal restraints in the control of the public and the general ease with which current perpetrators wantonly delay our infalliable legal system without restraint is counter productive to a people seeking public safety and mutual respect.

John Paul

Jackson
Click to expand...

I wonder if he would like my edits?
 
I am a relatively new American, having migrated from Britain in 1965, and becoming an ardent American citizen in 1976.
Click to expand...


Funny, 200 years earlier, this fmr Brit would have seen EXACTLY WHY private citizens in this country needed this very right (and still do)...TO SHOVE OFF an abusive tyrranical government (then, of Britian....in the future...who knows.).

:rolleyes:
 
I couldn't let that one go...responded with a letter to the editor.

I wonder if they covered the 2nd Amendment in his citizenship classes...or maybe they just skipped that part. :scrutiny:
 
One small point:
When you become a US citizen, you swear to uphold and protect this country and its Constitution, including by bearing arms. Last time I checked 2A is in that very constitution, so this Brit-git had better pack and go back to rotting Europe, because he certainly took his oath in bad faith.

:cuss:

P.S. Why are we importing leftists and statists??
 
Methinks...

our learned writer needs to spend some time asking certain citizens (pardon me, subjects... citizens are armed, subjects are not) of Zimbabwe how having a government holding all the cards of force is working out for them.

migoi
 
jsalcedo said:
Yeah tell that to the 100 million or so people who died by the hands of their government in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

He should have stayed home, Hitler, Stalin and those who came before and after them had all of the cards. :barf:
 
Just let this person know if the evil, bad, warmongering, meat-eating George W Bush issues an executive order that says anyone who shoots a liberal automatically gets a presidential pardon and a trophy, plenty of people would line up to do it.

That might just be enough to wake him up to what the 2nd Amendment is really about.

The whining leftwingers are very lucky Bush is not as bad a person as they portray him as. Otherwise he might just try something like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top