Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/16/2020 9:48:49 PM
Posted: 10/10/2007 8:59:36 PM EST
This actually happened a while ago, but I never got around to posting a thread about it.

A month or so ago somebody posted an article entitled "Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right" which was a fairly intelligent article about why we need the Second Amendment. I wrote an email to the author to show my support, and to take issue with one part of what he wrote. I was surprised when I got an email back a couple of days latter saying that they were going to print my letter and asked to get my address so they could mail me a copy. Sure enough, a week or so later I got a copy of their editorial page with my letter on there. Heres what I wrote, let me know what you think:


Get gun training [not my title]

I found the editorial, "time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right," posted on a firearm enthusiast web site today and was amazed to see someone in the media write intelligently about the Second Amendment. It is a very rare thing indeed to find articles such as yours that realize that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or state militias, but the right of Americans to defend themselves, whether it be from crime or governmental abuse. Despite countless studies that prove that states with strict gun control laws have no less crime than states that have very few gun laws, the idea that guns somehow cause crime is still unfortunately the far more popular view. It is only sad that it takes tregedies such as the killing of the Petit family to promote the idea that the founding fathers knew what they were doing, when they put the right to Keep and Bear Arms next to the right of Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights.

I took issue with only one part of your article, and that is that people must recieve mandatory training before they can purchase a firearm. This is a difficult issue, because I personally believe that everyone who owns a gun should recieve training, and practice frequently, but the sad reality of it is that some people simply cannot afford competent training or even frequent practice. And less wealthy people are more likely to need a weapon for self defense in the first place, as they are less likely to live in a "safe" neighborhood, and less likely to be able to afford adequate security systems for their places of living. Perhaps the best solution would be for a government paid for program that teaches proper gun safety, and give some basic training in the use of their weapons.


I never thought I would be published, or I would have worded some things differently, but overall I think it came off fairly well.

I'd print the original editorial, but I don't have it.
Link Posted: 10/10/2007 9:23:15 PM EST
Well done!
Link Posted: 10/10/2007 11:40:05 PM EST
they would never print something with that much intelligence in my local paper.
Link Posted: 10/11/2007 3:36:40 AM EST
Mandatory training??? Fuck that!
Every time you allow the .gov to regulate/mandate anything it erodes our rights and they will attempt it in other areas as well. Nowhere in the 2A does it say that specific arms (full auto, etc.) shall be regulated. The government, in it's infinite wisdom, decided to protect us from ourselves and so heavily restricted the sale and possesion of automatic weapons that the common man cannot have one. For our own good they mandated the use of seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, and various other saftey devices that, if not used, endanger only the non-user. Ammunition, knives, body armor and other items of personal protection are also restricted furthering the erosion of our right to self preservation. It has snowballed ever since and now we find ourselves locked in a constant battle just to retain one of our most basic human rights, the 2A itself.

By advocating mandatory training you are enabling the gov. to erode our freedoms.

JMHO.

Link Posted: 10/11/2007 3:43:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/11/2007 3:44:42 AM EST by TGMoore]

Originally Posted By Stlrain0341:
This actually happened a while ago, but I never got around to posting a thread about it.

A month or so ago somebody posted an article entitled "Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right" which was a fairly intelligent article about why we need the Second Amendment. I wrote an email to the author to show my support, and to take issue with one part of what he wrote. I was surprised when I got an email back a couple of days latter saying that they were going to print my letter and asked to get my address so they could mail me a copy. Sure enough, a week or so later I got a copy of their editorial page with my letter on there. Heres what I wrote, let me know what you think:


Get gun training [not my title]

I found the editorial, "time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right," posted on a firearm enthusiast web site today and was amazed to see someone in the media write intelligently about the Second Amendment. It is a very rare thing indeed to find articles such as yours that realize that the Second Amendment is not about hunting or state militias, but the right of Americans to defend themselves, whether it be from crime or governmental abuse. Despite countless studies that prove that states with strict gun control laws have no less crime than states that have very few gun laws, the idea that guns somehow cause crime is still unfortunately the far more popular view. It is only sad that it takes tregedies such as the killing of the Petit family to promote the idea that the founding fathers knew what they were doing, when they put the right to Keep and Bear Arms next to the right of Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights.

I took issue with only one part of your article, and that is that people must recieve mandatory training before they can purchase a firearm. This is a difficult issue, because I personally believe that everyone who owns a gun should recieve training, and practice frequently, but the sad reality of it is that some people simply cannot afford competent training or even frequent practice. And less wealthy people are more likely to need a weapon for self defense in the first place, as they are less likely to live in a "safe" neighborhood, and less likely to be able to afford adequate security systems for their places of living. Perhaps the best solution would be for a government paid for program that teaches proper gun safety, and give some basic training in the use of their weapons.


I never thought I would be published, or I would have worded some things differently, but overall I think it came off fairly well.

I'd print the original editorial, but I don't have it.


The highlighted portion to me this suggest you are saying that a safe neighborhood and security system are some how guarantees of safety. The bottom line is no one is responsible for your security but yourself. If you don't have a gun which you know how to use and use well you are taking a risk. Some choose to take that risk and lose their life. For me it is not a gamble I take without stacking the deck in my favor.

The line about training is pure appeasement to the antis. Training need not be formal or paid for to be effective. Some of the greatest marksmen in history were self taught. GySgt Carlos Hathcock comes to mind.

"Carlos Norman Hathcock, II., was born in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 20, 1942. He grew up in rural Arkansas, living with his grandmother after his parents separated. He took to shooting and hunting at a young age, partly out of necessity to help feed his poor family. Hathcock dreamed of being a Marine throughout his childhood, and on May 20, 1959, at the age of 17, he enlisted in the Marine Corps."
Top Top