This little fellow says he'd like comments on his article.  I've included his email, and his paper's, that you may do so.  No nastiness, please.  Do us proud.

Norm

Man, there were so many un-truths in there, it's hard to know where to start!  

A favorite:


Talk about elitist liberal garbage! geez! "Don't worry, my stupid little constituents, Big Daddy Government will care for and protect you!"  Geez again!

I replied to his note about there no longer being tyannical goverments, so I noted to him how the most tyrannical goverments have sprung from democracies, and they worst have been in the last 80 years.

This is the Email I sent
Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of death of youth ages 10-24 nationwide. That's because they are shooting each other. In Schenectady, New York 3 youths used a baseball bat to beat a pizza delivery man to death for $15. Should we ban pizza deliveries or maybe baseball bats.
I grew up with loaded guns around. They never called to us forcing us to kill someone. Maybe the government can fund a study to check on the devil content of the metal that is used to produce the guns of today. I'll bet if you put two loaded guns in front of a teenager, one from say 1946 and one from 1999 the teenager would grab the 1999 gun in a frenzy and start shooting everyone in sight.
We should check the devil content of every raw material we use today this might stop our teenagers from killing.
Think I'm crazy? Maybe I am but I wouldn't use any of my guns to kill a person unless that person was trying to injure a family member. But I've out smarted the devil, I have all my guns exorcised before I take them home.

 Don' waste time talking to this overeducated, senseless idiot.  This is what happens when you send the typical raised in daycare with no values kid into the influence of academics who have never held a real job or even lived in the real world.  What a bunch of s**t!!

"And I don't really want Billy Bob protecting me with his AK-47 assault rifle he usually uses for squirrel hunting, either."

he got one thing right that not even HCI will admit -- AK47s (and other AWs for that matter) CAN BE USED FOR LEGAL HUNTING PURPOSES

Here's mine:


Mr. Csanyi:

Why do you feel it's necessary to belittle the intelligence of those who disagree with you? Could it be because you, knowing that all your statistics come from obviously biased sources such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, ABC News, and the CDC, are simply not prepared to engage in thoughtful discussion with folks who might come armed with facts that don't quite fit into your neat little world-view?

You say that reasonable, intelligent people should be "swayed by ... relevant, statistical proof." Would you yourself be swayed if someone showed up with proof that (for example) the legal carrying of concealed handguns was associated with lower levels of violent crime?

I wonder.

And you say the Bill of Rights is "outdated." That there is no reason to fear tyrannical government in the modern world. Now, unless I've been imagining things, didn't we just leave behind a century wherein between 50 and 120 million human beings were murdered by their own governments? Isn't the recent history of the human race jam-packed full of tyranny and government-sponsored genocide the likes of which the Founding Fathers could scarcely have imagined? Or didn't you think about that?

On the whole, I guess the tone of your little editorial speaks for itself.

While he is there at college, maybe he should take a course in the study of the English language.

[url]http://www.wetworx.com/2nd.shtml[/url]

This is an excerpt from the above link.  The writter askes questions of A.C. Brocki, considered the formeost expert in English language usage.  

In reply to your numbered questions:

(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?

The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

(2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia, is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?

No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, " or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?

The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

(5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped, " "well-organized, " "well-drilled, " "well-educated, " or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?

The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority;" this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

(6) If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues cannot be clearly separated.

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

(7) As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a

an online buddy wrote this i thought it was an approiate answer.
The Predator


I am the guy your mother warned you about. You believe
I am only found lurking in the shadows, but I am a
master of disguise. I can be anyone, anywhere. I can
be the quiet employee in the cubicle down the hall; I
can be the cute hunk at the bar. I can be your neighbor.
I can be your ex. It really doesn't matter because when
I strike I will become the monster of your worse nightmare.
You would be horrified to know my demons, my friends, my
life. Your pain, my creation, is the fuel for my soul.

I hunger.

My only concern is me. Sometimes I need a quick crack fix,
sometimes I only want to dominate; sometimes I just wish
to lash out. My needs are supreme, your pain, your sorrow
your suffering are nothing. In fact, I glory in the pain
I create. There are many of you to choose from.

I hunt.

There are laws against my deeds, but laws are for
cowards, too weak to act and think for themselves.
Yes, I am above the law, I see no reason for it, and
it doesn't apply to me. You take comfort knowing the
police are there to serve and protect. Just 3 little
digits away - 911 and they come. The police are
nothing more than a nuisance, easily avoided. I choose
when and where to strike. I choose whom to attack. You
will never have time to call. I will not wait for them
to arrive. When I strike, 5 minutes become a lifetime,
your lifetime. I become a god - I decide what will
happen to you. I choose your fate.

I choose you.

You are such an easy prey. You jog alone. You flash
your drivers license, giving me your address. You keep
late hours, at the office. You have a routine. I know
where you are, where you will be, and when you will be
there. You make it easy for me. I choose where; I
choose when, and you are powerless to stop me. I have
infinite patience.

I lay in wait

I see you coming, no one is near, now is the perfect
time, you are the perfect victim. I will strike and
leave you bruised and bleeding - if you cooperate.
If you resist, if you fight, you will die. I have no
conscience. Your pain, your life, mean nothing to me.
I am impossible to ignore. I will not go away.

I step out.

I see the sudden shock in you eyes; I see the fear.
I know I have chosen well. There is more than fear;
you find a determination, a burst of courage. So you
will resist. You will fight. I know how to deal with
the uncooperative. I have come prepared; resistance
will only make it worse. My adrenalin starts to flow.
I know I will have you, own you.

I come closer.

I see you are scared. I know you are looking for a
way out. Aw! but you are brave. You have a slow burning
confidence none of my previous victims have had. This
excites me. I must teach you that you are powerless
against me. I am large; you are small. Your struggle
will be futile. I have no reason to wait.

I pick up my pace.

You should turn and flee. You should plead for mercy,
for your life. You should search for the help that
will never come. Yet you hold your ground. You eyes
never leaving mine. You know what I want. I can see
it. I've seen it numerous times before. Yet you stand
there, waiting for my attack. Why? You just standing,
waiting. You know what I am, the predator, you are the
prey. You know the rules, but you do no play by them.
Suddenly, I am not so sure. My uncertainty boils into
a rage.

I lunge.

You shout. I hear nothing,

I sent him the following literature by Guy Smith titled "Gun Facts."  Perhaps he will see the light.

If you have not read this yet I suggest you do.  It is well written, researched and documented.

http://www.gunnery.net/gunfacts.html

MATT,
The NRA is alive and well and will not be
silenced by the UNCONSTITUTIONAL MCCAIN
INCUMBENT PROTECTION ACT. SEE YOU IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTIVES.

Here was my .02 to the guy. Felt like most of you, but figured I'd try "reasoned" response"

Here was my .02 to the guy. Felt like most of you, but figured I'd try "reasoned" response"

Oh boy - let's see.....

Mr. Csanyi - I will address you formally due the fact that it is unlikely that we will never meet and become buddies...  let me just touch on the lowlights here:


... that just plain hurts my feelings


Don't hate you... so you missed that one


Don't hunt and don't live in a trailer


Not a NASCAR fan but not violently opposed to it
I'm not familiar with the word "mullet" but presume from the given context that it refers to hair (but then I am stupid)


May I point out that it is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" not the "right of the militia"... seems like if they'd woulda meant militia they woulda used militia and not people so we wouldn't get confused...

Eloquent?... Oh yeah (Garsh, I love typin them big words!)


Speakin' of propoganda....  


No...


Sure hope that limey Brit doesn't mind waitin around while you call up the Governor and ask him to kindly call out the National Guard and give them your home address


William Robert has been advised and he agrees


I for one am certainly glad that this is a thing of the past


Your forgetting afore mentioned William


More than ever!


Didn't have this fine weapon available in the days of our forefathers but if it had been - the Revolutionary War would have been a lot shorter

This guy is a real winner.  At least the NRA does things legally compared to his beloved gun control groups like the MMM that has to DEFRAUD the tax payers in order to operate.

He just reminds me of the damn socialists that overran the college I went to and their riduculous anti-american stances that drove me to finally drop out.

Gangly looking guy. [url]http://www.indiana.edu/~iuevans/juniors.htm[/url]
Probably just bitter about getting his ass kicked by dominant male types. Hmmm, according to the media, we should keep an eye on this guy. He's about to snap! [:P]

Well, I just HAD to reply to this one.  I just blew 4 hours writing my letter too.  Maybe there is the smallest sliver of a chance it might do some good.  Either way, I feel better for it.  If anyone wants to read it, here it is:

---------------------------------------------
Mr. Csanyi,

After reading your article "NRA, unload your guns," I felt compelled to respond.  If the purpose of your article was to spark debate, it has certainly succeeded with me.

You take several opportunities to "belittle the NRA," but I am somewhat puzzled by your methods.  They seem less than scholarly.  You begin by insulting NRA members with emotional and name-calling and use of inflammatory "rural" stereotypes.  This is not exactly an approach that would be well-regarded by anyone trying to engage in an intellectual or formal debate.  It's main purpose would seem to be to prod those who do not share your viewpoint into a similarly knee-jerk emotional response.  Perhaps you hope to use such responses as "evidence" that your position is correct?

You also state that NRA members "won't be swayed by any amount of relevant, statistical proof, so it doesn't matter what I say because they will all hate me no matter what."  This is certainly not true in my case.  I am always open to valid and relevant evidence, even if it bolsters a standpoint I do not personally support, and I certainly do not hate you.  I will, of course, evaluate any evidence for legitimacy, and I always approach statistics with a healthy skepticism, be they for or against my viewpoint.  As you may know, it can sometimes be trivially simple to represent almost any data in a way that is favorable to one argument or another.

What is even more curious is your request that NRA members (the primary target of your essay) refrain from reading your article.  Why is this?  Do you not wish rebuttal?  Any professional editorial writer must be prepared to respond to those who disagree with their position.

My first issue is with your interpretation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.  This is a debate that has been ongoing for years, and it will likely continue for some time.  Despite your assertion, there is no one correct interpretation of the Second Amendment at this time.  I would like to offer a counter-argument to your stance.  Here, again, is the Second Amendment, as taken from the US House of Representatives website:

"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."

One can argue that the necessity of a well regulated militia is given as an example qualifier to justify the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It does not dictate, however, that the militia is the only reason for such a right.  It is but one example.  There has been much debate over the meaning of the word "people" in the Second Amendment.  Some argue that it refers to all citizens.  Others, like yourself, believe it refers to the State as a whole, as opposed to the Federal government.  My personal view is that "people" means the same thing in the Second Amendment as it does in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth.  Namely, the individual citizens of the Union.  In fact, the Tenth Amendment makes a clear distinction between the concept of the "State" and the "people."  They are clearly separate entities:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by

(continued)

"The only true barrier to real restrictions on guns is the
$15.8 million the NRA has paid out to congressional
representatives since 1989 to keep gun control legislation
off the books, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

That is why I heartily thank the NRA for its tireless efforts to help defend my freedom to defend and provide for myself.  On a side note, I would like to make an observation.  You seem to regard the NRA as a single selfish entity that lies on the fringes of political thinking.  The NRA has over 4.1 million registered members.  And there is no telling how many other people agree with most or all NRA policies but have not actually joined the organization.  There are also several other growing organizations that promote similar messages.  If there were not so many people who agreed with the NRA's position, how could they have such a powerful voice in politics?  On the issue of money, that is just an unfortunate byproduct of our current political landscape.  Without money, it is very hard to have much of a voice in Washington.  Just as the NRA is forced to spend money in Washington, Handgun Control Inc. and its partners on the other side of the issue have also pumped their fair share of dollars into Washington.  Hopefully, this problem will be fixed in the future, but it does not seem likely for the time being.

"Still proud to be an American?"

Although I disapprove of a lot in this county, I can think of no other place on Earth I would rather be.  How do you feel about America?

"Even if our forefathers had felt it reasonable for us to tote Uzi's
around in our backpacks, on a practical level it would still be
too dangerous."

This is the second time in your article that you have mentioned the dangers of fully-automatic weapons.  Would you be surprised to learn that only one legally-owned machine gun has been used in the commission of a murder since 1934 when they were first regulated by the National Firearms Act?  Law-abiding citizens, by and large, are not the problem.

"Common sense should tell us that our right to shoot animals
and beer cans in our backyards does not supercede a person's
right to live in safety."

You seem to suggest that gun ownership and personal safety are mutually exclusive.  I feel much safer knowing that I have firearms at my disposal should I ever have the misfortune of needing to use one to defend myself or a loved one.  If you feel uncomfortable around firearms, it is your right as a free citizen to not own one, just as it is my right as a free citizen to own one.

It is the responsibility of every firearm owner to determine what steps they should take to ensure safety in his or her home.  If small children are present, the parent has the responsibility to either ensure their children do not have access to the firearm or to instruct the child in firearms safety.  This is a very personal decision that must be made with consideration of the unique circumstances that occur in each home.  If the child demonstrates acceptable responsibility, I feel the parent should make sure the child knows where firearms are located, how to use them properly and safely in case self-defense is needed, and also to help guard against irresponsible behavior by less-developed children or friends.  I learned how to use a gun at age 8.  Mental maturity and discipline will vary from person to person.  It is up to the individual parents, not the Government,

Hummmmmmmm! I seem to remember a country not so long ago, that had the same problem with swill of this type of over education, the people rose up, and, the over educated were no more!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if history is repeating itself???????
HOPE SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is my reply.  At first I thought it was a waste of time to reply to someone so out of touch with reality.  But, his article irritated me so much I couldn't resist.

Mr. Csanyi,

Whenever I see that an educated person has taken the time to spell out their view on an issue, I usually take the time to thoughtfully evaluate that position and compare it to my own.  However, when I read your thoughts which were published in your school's newspaper, I was insulted to say the least.  Instead of reading the thoughtful debate of a senior in education at a major university, I felt like I was instead reading the musings of an agitated 8 year old.  

For future reference, you will go a long way in life if you do not insult your reader/listener when you make an argument.  When you do that, you lose all your credibility for the remainder of the discussion.  To me, when you make an argument you are acknowledging that there is an opposite viewpoint to yours and that you respect that viewpoint.  Consider your quote:

"I'd like to begin by calling the majority of the NRA's members less than intelligent. These are the good folks who won't be swayed by any amount of relevant, statistical proof, so it doesn't matter what I say because they will all hate me no matter what. If this is you, stop reading right now. You probably have better things to do anyway, like filling Bambi full of hot lead or protecting your trailer from armed intruders. But be careful -- they might be trying to steal your collection of NASCAR shot glasses! Or, even worse, they may try to cut a lock from your beautiful, flowing mullet while you sleep! Better train the kids to use the sawed-off shotgun!"

This is just plain insulting.  It does, however, show that you are educated and able to appropriately stereotype people.  I am a gun owner.  I scored a 30 on the ACT, graduated from a major university with honors, will graduate from a major medical school in one month, and will spend the next five years training to become a surgeon.  Do I fit your stereotype of 'less than intelligent'?  My wife and I live in a new mobile home.  We have lived here for only 2 years, but in that period of time have been broken into twice and have lost over $15,000 in belongings.  My wife and I both own handguns and practice regularly in the unfortunate event that we are broken into again.  During the last break-in, the robbers beat and kicked my dog pretty severely.  Would you take the chance that they only want your DVD player?  I would not, and will not.  

In your article, you also point out the following:
"The only true barrier to real restrictions on guns is the $15.8 million the NRA has paid out to congressional representatives since 1989 to keep gun control legislation off the books, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."
It is true that the NRA spends a significant amount of time lobbying for gun owners rights.  However, I would challenge you to educate yourself about the other functions of the NRA.  I think you will find that lobbying is only a small part of what the NRA does.  I also think that it is pretty naive to believe that the NRA is the only entity lobbying politicians.  What do you think Handgun Control Inc, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc do?  I'm certain that they don't bake and deliver brownies to get legislators to hear their position.

That is all the time I care to waste responding to your 'argument'.  It's clear to me that you are not interested

Here was my response.
[i] In response to your article on the NRA; I would contend that the same great Bill of Rights that allows you to speak your mind is the same that allows me protect it for you.  One only needs to look at the history of the world to see what happens when a country disarms its citizens.  I would urge you to look at the following link and read the story with it. [/i]

[url] http://backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html [/url]

"The Second Amendment was written in 1793, when there was a legitimate fear of a tyrannical national government and other oppressive groups. Remember, in 1793 they also used to bleed you to cure a case of the sniffles. Can you say outdated?"

I wonder if he also thinks if Freedom of the Press is outdated? Could they have envisioned the modern printing presses, radio, TV, the Internet, etc. in 1793? Using his own logic, it should be ok to censor any information that is distributed using modern telecommunications.

His generation has learned well the welfare mentality that the liberals want them to.  It's not his job, how typical.



Does that mean that all the other parts of the Bill or Rights are outdated as well?  You know, the right to free speech, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the right against self incrimination, et al?

po89mm,

hardcore man, hardcore.

Another shining example of the spineless little twits who feel they are "above" those of us who ARE proud to be Americans, and have willingly volunteered to stand ready to fight, and if necessary, die for our country and its people. They refuse to belittle themselves by stooping so low on the social register as to enlist in the military, but they are the FIRST to call upon us to defend them. They choose not to prepare themselves, either mentally or physically, for any occasion which might require them to actually take some form of decisive action. Why should they? They know we low-lifes will pull them out of whatever sh*t they dig themselves into. To these people, I say: You and your ilk are enemies of Liberty, and are an affront to every man and woman who has sacrificed his or her life so that you might live free. I therefore file you all under "ENEMY: Domestic"

He mentions un-educated NRA types. Hmmm, actually the most virulent anti-gun folks I know are the most impulsive thinkers.
It is almost like they know they cannot trust themselves with a gun, so they think no one else can control themselves either.