Posted: 1/14/2007 3:31:02 AM EDT
|
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4984885 This is just a part of excert from the NPR website regarding Carter's latest book. I couldn't get the link hot. Carter has his own agenda, and will make up the facts to fit his views. I am working on a response now. "Concerning gun control, an overwhelming majority believe in the right to own weapons, but four of five Americans prefer modest restraints on handguns, including a background check, mandatory registration, and a brief waiting period before one is purchased. A disturbing change in government policy has involved the firearms industry. Supported by succeeding Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, legislation was passed by Congress in 1994 that for ten years prohibited the manufacture, transfer, and possession of nineteen specific semiautomatic assault weapons, including AK-47s, AR-15s, and UZIs. None of these are used for hunting -- only for killing other humans. More than eleven hundred police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation called on Congress and President Bush to renew and strengthen the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, but with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired. This is not a controversy that involves homeowners, hunters, or outdoorsmen. I have owned and used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own a handgun, four shotguns, and two rifles. I use them carefully, for harvesting game from our woods and fields and during an occasional foray to hunt with my family and friends in other places. We cherish these rights, and some of my companions like to collect rare weapons. But many of us who participate in outdoor sports are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and by the timidity of public officials who yield to their unreasonable demands. Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, their primary client, the NRA, has been able to mislead many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. There are no real threats to our "right to bear arms," as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. If so, the NRA efforts would certainly be justified. In addition to assault weapons, the gun lobby protects the ability of criminals and gang members to use ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty, and assures that a known or suspected terrorist is not barred from buying or owning a firearm -- including an assault weapon. The only criteria that the NRA has reluctantly accepted are proof of a previous felony, mental derangement, or being an illegal immigrant. Deeply concerned when thirty-five out of forty-four men on the terrorist watch list were able to buy guns during a recent five-month period, the director of the FBI began to reexamine the existing law and asked some U.S. senators to consider amendments. The response of top officials in the NRA was to criticize the watch lists -- not the terrorists -- and to announce support for legislation that protects gun manufacturers and dealers from liability if a buyer uses an AK-47 in a terrorist attack. They also insist that background information on gun buyers be discarded within twenty-four hours, precluding the long-term retention of data that might reveal those who are plotting against our nation's security. What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American children are sixteen times more likely than children in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a gun, eleven times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from firearms accidents. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research reports that the rate of firearm homicide in the United States is nineteen times higher than that of 35 other high-income countries combined. In the most recent year for which data are available, handguns killed 334 people in Australia, 197 in Great Britain, 183 in Sweden, 83 in Japan, 54 in Ireland, 1,034 in Canada, and 30,419 in the United States. The National Rifle Association, the firearms industry, and compliant politicians should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability. " My initial response: This statement is wrong. I own an AR15, and I use it for hunting, target shooting, and occasionally in competition shooting. I have never pointed my AR15 at another person, nor do I have any intention to do so, unless to protect my life or the life of a family member. I also know several other individuals who own or have owned AR15's. Some of these owners are law enforcement officers. To my knowledge not one of those private citizens, or officers has ever used his personally owned AR15 for, "killing other humans." They have used their AR15's for hunting, competition, and target practice. This means nothing, how many Sheriff's and Police of Chief's did not support the federal weapons ban? Being appointed to or elected to a political position does not automatically make an individual an expert in any particular area. If you actually review statiscs, I think you will find that AR15’s identified as assault weapons , which were banned, were rarely used in crimes. Further that during the ban, the crime rate was not reduced by a significant amount, showing that the ban accomplished little. This controversy does involve homeowners, I am a homeowner. This controversy does involve hunters. I am a hunter. This controversy does involve outdoorsmen. I am an outdoorsman. I spend time outdoors teaching my son to be a responsible ethical hunter, and I relate those hunting experiences to life situations, e.g.; make good choices, take only what you need, don't injure the land, don't take a poor shot, don't wound an animal, hunt legally, and be safe. To be accurate many of us who participate in outdoor sports are NOT dismayed with what you call extreme policies of the NRA. Are you aware that individual Americans can not own or buy a handgun in Washington D.C., at least not legally? What about New York City? What about Chicago? I believe that these two communities have laws that are so restrictive, it is almost impossible for a citizen to own or purchase a handgun and perhaps long arms as well. To say there is no real threat of "right to bear arms" is simply a false statement, or you have not adequately researched the subject. In fact in 1976, when the District of Columbia imposed its ban on guns, the city`s murder rate, which had been declining, started to increase; between 1976 and 1991 it rose 200%, while the U.S. murder rate rose 9%. I realize that my arguments are not likely to change your mind. I simply ask you to more carefully consider your words before you post them in public. As a former President, your words carry a great deal weight in the public forms. Certainly more weight than my words will ever carry. Thank you for your consideration. Although a different subject I found this information from Alan Dershowitz December 21, 2006 regarding the former President. It appears that Carter has some rather strange bedfellows. "Nor is Carter the unbiased observer of the Middle East that he claims to be. He has accepted money and an award from Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan , saying in 2001: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." This is the same Zayed, the long-time ruler of the United Arab Emirates, whose $2.5 million gift to the Harvard Divinity School was returned in 2004 due to Zayed's rampant Jew-hatred. Zayed's personal foundation, the Zayed Center, claims that it was Zionists, rather than Nazis, who "were the people who killed the Jews in Europe" during the Holocaust. It has held lectures on the blood libel and conspiracy theories about Jews and America perpetrating Sept. 11. Carter's acceptance of money from this biased group casts real doubt on his objectivity and creates an obvious conflict of interest." |
'nuf said
|
I use them carefully, for harvesting game from our woods and fields and during an occasional foray to hunt with my family and friends in other places. We cherish these rights, and some of my companions like to collect rare weapons. Fine for you Jimmy, but the 2nd amendment ain't about these things. Why can't any liberal understand this? WHY? it's TRUE. fred |
+1 |
Isn't that why guns were invented in the first place? To kill people? Either you really are stupid or you are desperately trying to conceal a hidden agenda, flamewad.
I'm a homeowner and an outdoorsman and you can bet your lilly-white donkey's posterior that your attempts to take guns I legally own away from me "involves" me. Tell you what, Jim. Why is it that every time some gang banger or criminal uses a gun in a crime you and your ilk always beat your chest about the dangers of my guns?
Where is it guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution that we have the right to "harvest" game and "collect rare weapons?" Could you point that out for me? After all, you were president once, remember? Remember those happy times during your administration? Remember the rosy future Americans had while you were president?
Using fancy words doesn't impress me when you're still hung up on the thought that guns are used "to kill people." Weren't you in the military once? Go back to holding the nail bucket for Habitat for Humanity, Jimmy. |
GOOD POST, love it, you speak the TRUTH. fred |
