Pro-gun editorial in Iowa City Press Citizen

[iowahapkido]

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/OPINION01/705100310/1018

 

[Lambo119]

Bet that would not of shown up in the DSM register! Good read and thanks for the link.

 

[Smokey Joe]

You can predict the reaction...

if any, from the liberal east coast media and the liberal west coast media: "Yes, well, that's just Iowa; they're nothing but a bunch of redneck midwestern hicks anyway. WE are the ones who Know The Score, and Have The Word. And we will tell you what we want you to know."

That sounds pretty reactionary for me. I wish I thought I was wrong.

 

[Lambo119]

"Yes, well, that's just Iowa; they're nothing but a bunch of redneck midwestern hicks anyway.

And very proud of it! Any more I take it as a complement because of the values the stereotype represents. Oh and then I call them a "Leftist commie hippie" and walk away.

 

[JoeHatley]

Refreshing to see, especially from the generally "liberal side" of the state.

Joe

 

[Superpsy]

for posterity...

Between guns and government



Beth Cody

Writers' Group

Reader services

* Print this story...

* Subscribe to newsletter...

* Comment on this story...

* Email us

* Subscribe to newspaper...

ADVERTISEMENT

In the immediate shock of the Virginia Tech murders, many people have called for increased controls on gun ownership. Tragedies like this make people feel that they should do something to make them safer, but these people do not realize that increased government power poses a far greater threat than the risks of crime, accidents and maniac attacks.

Baldly stated, one day we (or our children or grandchildren) will almost certainly need guns to defend ourselves against our own government, and if it has become tyrannical enough, to overthrow it. This might sound like the paranoid rambling of a militant survivalist homesteader, but it's not as farfetched as you might think. All civilizations eventually falter, usually as a result of government powermongering.

Failing freedoms

And although America has flourished for two centuries, there are disturbing signs of failing freedoms: an exponential increase in the size of our government, and a steady erosion of our protections under the Bill of Rights that has accelerated under President Bush's War on Terror.

Torture, long imprisonments without trial or hearing, IRS and DEA seizures of private property without proof of any wrongdoing, warrantless searches, SWAT teams bursting into sleeping citizens' homes to serve marijuana warrants (sometimes accidentally killing homeowners in the process); these are only a few of the totalitarian tactics already employed by our government against us. And they are sure to get worse.

Some people naively think that if only we could elect another, more "caring" president, these problems would go away. But the decline started with the beginning of our fledgling democracy and has continued ever since, usually accelerating during times of war -- and there's always another "necessary" war just around the corner. It is the nature of governments to covet power and do anything they can to increase it.

Not an irrational fear

History shows that fear of government power is not irrational. Governments are responsible for far more deaths than criminals, crazy individuals or "greedy" corporations. Remember Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Cambodia. R.J. Rummel's fascinating book, "Death by Government," details the more than 260 million people murdered by governments during the 20th century alone.

More than 260 million people executed, "disappeared," ethnically-cleansed, deliberately starved to death, worked to death in gulags, murdered for disagreeing with government policies or for simply being the wrong kind of citizen -- and that number does not include military battle deaths. Nearly all of these poor souls lived under totalitarian regimes, and had been deliberately disarmed by their governments prior to the purges. Reading the book should (but won't) disabuse even the most socialistic of their notion that governments' main goal is to protect citizens.

Our country's founding fathers understood this dark side of government. They designed our government for division of power. Likewise, the phrase in the Bill of Rights -- "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" -- is meant to prevent firepower from being concentrated only in government hands. They had only recently overthrown an oppressive government and understood that it would probably be necessary to do so again in the future.

Government interest

It is profoundly unwise to allow government to have all the guns. Government attempts to disarm the citizenry should fill us with alarm. It makes no difference that the attempts are precipitated by foolish, "concerned" citizens who trust government to protect us.

They are concerned about the risks of guns, but those risks are comparatively small: More gun deaths are from suicides than homicides, and more Americans die from lightning strikes than from school violence, which has been decreasing, contrary to media portrayals.

Nobody has the "right" to a risk-free existence. Putting safety ahead of the freedom our forefathers gave their lives for is irrational. Our freedom resulted in the past century's incredible improvements in our safety, and abridging that freedom is what will compromise our safety. It will continue to improve via free markets (customers demanding more safety) as long as we remain free.

We have an obligation to preserve the right to own guns against the day when we, as a people, will need them. We must prevent well-meaning, overly-risk-averse people from disarming us, so that we and the generations following us won't be helpless on that day.

Beth Cody lives in Iowa City and owns a small business in Coralville. She is a member of the Press-Citizen's Writers' Group.

 

[mnrivrat]

My Hats off to my southern neighbor Beth.
She gets it !
I hope that the voice of reason, and the defense of personal freedom that exists in rural and small town america can overcome the big city attitude that seems to feed on government control.

 

[Smokey Joe]

My apologies!

Lambo 119 and anyone else I may have offended: I now see that my wording was confusing. Apologies.

I meant that my slightly sarcastic characterization of the east and west coast media comes across, to me, having written it, as reactionary for me.

And I wish I didn't have reason to think that the major media, east and west, were so very liberal-biased. Some in the middle of the continent are biased that way, too.

Anyhow, sorry for the confusion.

 

[HuntCast]

Nice to see them do this, although it still doesn't make up for them posting the names and addresses of CCW holders a few weeks back.

 

[Chad]

A similar opinion piece I just ran across.

Similar in the "I may sound paranoid, but..." qualifying statements before the writers start talking about the real reason for the Second Amendment.

This is a very good trend.

http://www.edenprairienews.com/node/1875

The Right Side of the Prairie - May 10, 2007
Submitted by norwegianwouldtoo on May 10, 2007 - 11:27am.
Filed under: self-defense;second amendment;guns;citizens' rights

The Right Side of the Prairie
By William H. Kittelson

Citizens should have ability to defend themselves
Welcome to my monthly forum where in the words of my critics, I will “punch out eight or nine hundred words” of illogical and pointless inanity.
I am a staunch advocate of our rights under the Second Amendment to the Constitution which reads, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Invariably whenever guns are used in senseless acts of violence some folks call for more gun control or even the outright banning of handguns. I believe there are far greater dangers lurking within those ideas than most people realize. Perhaps I sound a bit paranoid but there are those creatures who would seek to control you and me for evil purposes – without limit. However, before that the person or group intent upon controlling us against our will can succeed they must make sure we are incapable of defending ourselves. Stripped of our ability to defend ourselves we become easy prey for criminals, terrorists, dictators or the state. Of course no one would want those situations, so the problem as I see it is that anti-gun people do not believe those could actually be the consequences of disarming the public.
Do you remember the horrifying scene of a few years ago when heavily armed government agents stormed a house in Florida, forcibly removing a terrified 6-year-old Cuban refugee named Elian Gonzales from his home? In a similar way, you and I would be just as defenseless against those who would do us harm – if we have no reasonable means of defense.
To me, a reasonable means of defense is one in which an 80-year-old can readily defend his life and/or property from a young thug intent on depriving him of same. A reasonable means of defense is one that allows a woman to walk from the mall to her parked car knowing she is capable of defending herself if attacked. A reasonable means of defense prevents a class full of innocent students from being killed by a mentally deranged person wanting to get even with society.
The Virginia Tech massacre was sadly one more horrible, tragic event that played out to its bloody end because the victims were blissfully going about their business in one of the most dangerous places in America: a “gun free zone.” How many more scenes like this do we need to witness before we get smart and come up with an antidote?
I will go way out on a limb here and make some suggestions many will consider pure madness. Instead of designating our schools, shops and places of work gun free zones, let’s strive to make them crime free zones by taking down the gun free zone signs and advocating the carrying of concealed weapons by trained, certified, non-felon citizens so inclined to protect themselves (and others).
Personally, I would feel much better about our child’s safety while at school if some percentage of the school staff were properly trained and armed at all times. When gunfire erupts at the hands of the most crazed elements of society, I want someone capable of being able to respond quickly and decisively – long before the police arrive. And please spare me any hand-wringing about those potential defenders of freedom from going off the deep end themselves! We trust them with the development of our children’s minds – shouldn’t we also trust them to provide a certain measure of their physical safety?
Let’s take a trip to the corner. Does anyone else feel a little less than safe when they enter a store whose owners have chosen to proclaim: “So-and-So Inc. bans guns in these premises?” To be sure, that statement is politically correct, sounding all righteous and good. But, for the millionth time, do they really think the bad guys are going to honor their wishes? Do they really think armed, law-abiding, concealed carry permit holders pose a threat to their employees or customers? How dumb can they be? Those signs are simply an open invitation to your local criminal saying, “Come on in! No one here is armed; no one in here is a threat to you; take whatever you please!”
The Second Amendment was intended primarily, I believe, to protect us citizens from being dominated by a tyrannical government but it also serves as the protector of our individual rights as human beings. Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to the gun range to exercise my rights as a citizen of the United States of America and get a little practice with my blessed hand gun.

Eden Prairie resident William Kittelson’s column, “Right Side of the Prairie,” appears on the second Thursday of the month. “Left Side of the Prairie,” by Bill Lapadat, appears on the first Thursday.