The originial article is long... and if you would like, I can post it.  Otherwise, I am looking for feedback on my response.

A response to the Forum article entitled "What About Homeland Security?":

I just finished reading Richard Blow's article on "What About Homeland Security?" and felt compelled to respond.  Mr Blow presents a valid
point about equity in applying the law to average citizens as well as celebrities which I wholeheartedly agree with.  But how clever
of Mr Blow to sandwich his obvious bias and anti-gun rhetoric in the middle of such a rationally presented argument.  Using such
terror-inspiring and emotionally-charged words as "machine gun" and "assault rifle," his true message becomes clear... it's not just that celebrities should be held to the letter of the law with regard to gun ownership... Nay!!  NOONE should be allowed to legally possess a gun!

Mr. Blow guides us through his argument with his, "set aside for a moment the questions of why anyone would own a machine gun and why it requires target practice."  For what the truth is worth, the Bushmaster rifle that Damien Robinson was in possession of is a semi-automatic firearm, not a "machine gun" and, furthermore, part of being a responsible gun owner is being familiar with your weapon which includes target practice.

Mr Blow goes on to query his readers, "Why do we allow anyone to buy assault rifles anywhere?  Since they're not used for hunting..." First, the .223 is a popular hunting round.  To say a Bushmaster
rifle has never been used to hunt with is a lie.. or perhaps, to be considerate of Mr. Blow's feelings, he was simply unaware of that fact.

Also, I would like to know what the definition of "assault rifle" is.  To me, it would be ANY rifle used to assault a person.. from a .22lr on up.  For that matter, why wouldn't we refer to the weapons used by slashers as "assault knives" and begin banning the possession of steak knives?    

The final insult is to play on a country's emotions in light of recent events with the dramatic question, "How many of the terrorists who hijacked our planes could easily have bought machine guns?" Mr. Blow, the hijackers would not have been able to bring machine guns onto a plane, hence their choice of boxcutters (or should that be "assault boxcutters"?) nor would an foreigner with a temporary VISA have been able to legally purchase a machine gun which is a class III weapon and under very high scrutiny in this country.

I invite Mr Blow to come target shooting with myself and my fellow responsible gunowners.  Perhaps we are simply a few misunderstandings
away from being in agreement.  

Respectfully,

Looks good. Are there any references in the orig. art. to freedom limitations other than the gun issue? It may have a better chance of being printed if those are more extensively rebutted (leaving intact your original response, of course).

My $.02

[b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b]
[b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE!
2/505 PIR
H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]

nitpicky, i know...

"nor would a[b]n[/b] foreigner with a temporary VISA"

Being an English minor is a CURSE.

Excellent letter.

Possible edit:

I just finished reading Richard Blow's article [strike]on [/strike] entitled...
______________



I guess the MOST important thing is that your letter YOUR personality, YOUR style. (of course, observing the rules of grammer, and maintaining a non-hostile attitude, so as not to portray yourself as either ignorant, or threatening. All of which i would say you have done well.)

All in all, I say SEND IT!!!!!!!

I LOVE IT when us gun owners write our local newspapers.

Good job.

Original article:

"What About Homeland Security?"
Gun Safety and Not-so-ordinary Citizens

by Richard Blow

New Yorkers are understandably jittery about safety just now.  On the Upper East Side, women who used to be buying $4,000 Fendi handbags are snapping up gas maskes and Cipro.  In Midtown, stores and restaurants are asking for proof of identification, and not just to see if you're old enough to drink.  And at Yankee Stadium, men can't carry backpacks into the ballpark.  Which makes what happened with Damien Robinson and the New York Jets all the more puzzling.

Robinson is a talented free safety who signed with the Jets this past April for $10 million over five years.  Before the teams recent game against the Miami Dolphins, police searched his Lincoln Navigator as he was driving into Giants Stadium in the Meadowlands, where the Jets play their home games.  The searches have become SOP since Sept.11th.)  In the back of Robinson's Navigator, not far from his wife and two young daughters, a bomb-sniffing dog turned up a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, three ammunition cartridges containing 30 rounds a piece, and two boxes of ammo with 100 rounds each.  

The Bushmaster is an intimidating gun-it looks like something you'd find being fired from the caves and mountains of Afghanistan.  Aesthetics aside, it is illegal in New Jersey, and has been for the past 11 years.  Possession of it can be punished with five years in prison.  According to "The New York Times," Robinson told officers at the scene that he had bought the gun in New York, that he had been using it for target practice within the last week, and that he had forgotten it was in the car.

But the New Jersey State Police and the New York Jets didn't seem too worried about Robinson's behavior.  The police charged him with illegal possession of a weapon and released him on $7,500 bail-in plenty of time to make kick-off.  Jets coach Herman Edwards, who found out about the arrest half and hour prior to game time, promptly started his free agent star.  "If you know Damien...it's and honest mistake," Edwards explained.

An honest mistake?  Set aside or a moment the questions of why anyone would own a machine gun and why it requires target practice.  How many rules of safe gun ownership did Robinson violate?  He kept his gun and ammunition in the same place, not separated, as responsible gun owners know to do.  For a week, perhaps more, he left gun and ammo in his car, where they could easily have been stolen or found by his kids.  Finally, he tried to carry an illegal machine gun into the parking lot of a football stadium on game day.  That's not "an honest mistake,"  That's a bunch of stupid ones with potentially lethal consequences.  

The New Jersey police, meanwhile, insist that they treated Robinson as they would any citizen.  "He's going to face the charges just like everybody else," Sgt. Al Della Fave told the "Times."  But if the police found a fan driving a Lincoln Navigator into the Meadowlands with an illegal machine gun and 300 rounds of ammo, would they really have allowed him to plunk down in his seat an hour later?  maybe before Sept. 11.  Now now.  And nor should they.

The episode raises two important issues.  Firsst, as we discuss the meaning and requirements of homelands security, we must broaden our conversation to threats more mundane than hijacking and bio-terrorism-threats like gun ownership.  Thwy do we allow anyone o buy assault rifles anywhere?  Since they're not used for hunting, what possible recreational use could they have that outweighs their threat to public safety?  How many of the terrorists who hijacked our planes-or who may still be in our country-could easily have bought machine guns?

Secon, we are a country at war, and that demands a new seriousness in public life.  The time when clebrities get special treatment should be over.  The New Jersey police could have made a powerful statement about their commitment to safety had they arrested Robinson and treated him as they would an ordinary citizen.  They blew their chance.  How can the rest of us take security seriously if the police don't?

Robinson is expected to receive community service and probation from the courts.  For their part, the Jets have fined him $30,000, which sounds like a lot until you realize that it's less than a week's pay for the athlete.  meanwhile, coach Edwards started Robinson last Sunday against the St. Louis Rams.  Heaven forbid that the Jets might have to go without his services for even a set of downs.

All told, a slap on the wrist.  No wonder terrorists think that America won't make the sacrifices war demands.  

You might want to hammer home harder on the mistaken "machine gun" reference.

There's nothing quite like showing an "expert" editorialist  doesn't know what he is talking about.

Nitpicky is fine.... I'm not up to par today on my usual policing of my own grammar so it's welcome. [:D]

I emailed a copy but I think I will make the appropriate changes and mail a written copy as well.  

Thanks all...

Thanx for posting it- send away!

[b][size=1]Don Out[/size=1][/b]
[b][size=4][red]AIRBORNE!
2/505 PIR
H-MINUS[/red][/size=4][/b]

To me, THIS sentence is the killer.

NEVER, EVER does war demand that we sacrifice our Constitutional rights and freedoms. Money, time, convenience, safety, security, yes, even our lives may be sacrificed. But NEVER our freedoms.

God job, MM. This cracker jack NEEDS to be responded to.

I have a couple points.  First it's a good response written which would be understood by the people on this forum.

However, If you wrote it with the intention of getting it published vs writting it just to vent, you will want to consider the follow.

1. It's too long.  Most letters to the editor must be under 200 words or they will not even consider them for being published.

2. It's too techical.  While we all might know what .223 and .22lr are, the general public and most likely the editor will not understand.  I would suggest replacing the specifics with generalizations, such as "the Bushmaster rifle is used often when hunting varmits.  They are also used extensively in national shooting competitions."

3. The public doesn't know what an assault rifle is and trying to explain it to them in a very limited amount of space will only confuse them.

4. Make sure to include your name, address, and phone number.  Without this information your letter will not get published no matter how good it is.

Here are URLs to some of my published letters in the Detroit newspapers.

http://detnews.com/2001/editorial/0110/01/a08-307034.htm

http://detnews.com/2001/editorial/0106/18/a10-237336.htm

My letter would be...


You sir, are an idiot.

One or two other things--

1.  Semi-automatic might be better replaced with automatically loading (or autoloading).

2.  "assault rifle" is a conjured up term that does apply to select fire guns only, not autoloading sporting rifles.

AFARR

Well we don't want to lie.

But you out a thought in my head.

Whenever we hear "assault rifle" smi-automatic rifle" or any of thed HCI BS,

we correct them.

[b]"The AR15 is a self-loading single shot rifle." [/b]

Completely truthful.

Well we don't want to lie.

But you out a thought in my head.

Whenever we hear "assault rifle" smi-automatic rifle" or any of the usual HCI BS,

we correct them.

[b]"The AR15 is a self-loading single shot rifle." [/b]

Completely truthful.

Well, Sara, it seems that the guy is unaware of quite a lot when it comes to gun ownership/definitions etc. .......great that you called him on it.......remember, george washingtons flintlock was an "assault rifle"...........my ar10 is not!.........[argue].........K.K.

Writing a letter to the editor like that puts you into the position of being an advocate for your position.  In other words, a "politician" since the debate is in the public domain.  Politicians have an old saying that goes, "When you are explaining, you are losing."

My advice is to ignore the author's contentions, label him as being out of touch with the American People because the American People are leaving the gun sellers' shelves bare, and have some fun telling the readers why folks like Damien Anderson prefer to be responsible for their own security.