Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 The letter: Used for killing Posted: 01/29/2013 05:48:53 PM PST Updated: 01/29/2013 08:50:51 PM PST When our founding fathers drafted and made into law the second amendment, there were no AK-47s. The weapons they had were shotguns that you had to put powder into before you shot them and pistols that held one bullet, then shoot, then reload. What is the great fascination with a weapon that can shoot 30 bullets in seconds? They are not used for hunting, maybe they are used for target shooting, but they are mostly used for killing. You probably can tell that I'm not a gun enthusiast. I'm not against people who want a gun in their home for protection if it is used wisely, but I think that the AK-47s should be banned and not manufactured any more. JUNE _______ Highland My response: Paragraph 1.: There were smoothbore muskets, rifled barrel long guns, shot guns, and pistols. A few were capable of more that one round. The vast majority were fired by a flint-and-steel mechanism of some sort igniting a simple compound know today as Black Powder. All of these can be created by anyone with a basic knowledge of mechanics and physics. Paragraph 2.: The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting regardless of what many people would have you believe. Those that say this are wrong, and quite often deliberately so to support an agenda which includes gaining power of people who could not be easily subjected if allowed to retain modern arms. Paragraph 3.: If all of these kinds of "bad" guns were removed for production tomorrow, where would our military and police get theirs, and what concrete evidence is there that it would have any effect on crime in this country? There is overwhelming evidence that criminals would still be able to get guns pretty much on demand while only the law-abiding would be forcefully relieved of theirs. If restrictive gun laws worked, Chicago and Washington, D. C. would be the most crime-free cities on the continent. They aren't! Now, I am becoming weary of this muddled feel-good nonsense being put forward daily in "the press" by people who are so ignorant of the facts that it amazes me, or those who a deliberately using the press to mislead others. If you want to use this sort of argument why not also point out that the First Amendment which guaranties the right of freedom for the press was written at a time when "the press" meant a hand-operated press using hand-set type made of poisonous lead and printing out a single page at a time. You might include a hand-written letter or word-of-mouth in the definition, as well. There were no "AK-47s"? There were also no high speed presses, no magazines, no radio, telegraph, TV, or computers, no telephones or cell phones, and no texting, Twitter, blogs, internet, or any of a hundred other things covered under the First Amendment. Even the original concept of "mail" was an item hand delivered by someone on horseback or driving a wagon or boat powered by wind or muscle, or carried by someone on foot. It might take days for that mail to travel even a few scant miles. Hey, while we're at it, lets outlaw all the religions that were nonexistent at the time the Constitution was first ratified. THey are also covered under the First Amendment. I can think of many that have been attacked over the years in violation of the Constitutional guarantees. You think that can't happen? Check the history of the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, even the Branch Davidians and the OFFICIAL sanctions and actions taken against them by various governments, including the Federal government of this nation.. Still, you and others, including members of "the press", as well as all religions and their members, would raise all manner of hell if the same argument were used to infringe on the rights guarantied by that Amendment. I think it's time we stopped legislating by panic and mis-information and stared taking care of criminals and the mentally ill in an efficient manner and stopped worrying so much about the perpetrators and more about the victims. We need to get rid of the "My God, we have to do SOMETHING right this minute" mentality and start researching real solutions, solutions that don't infringe on the right of so many people. This nation is seriously in danger of collapse because of poor legislation, panic legislation, mis-information, and rampant "political correctness". Thomas R. Taylor
J-BAR #18287 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Is there any chance your well-composed response will actually get printed??
Pack Saddle Slim, SASS #73122 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 BINGO!!! Nice one, Forty!! Let's hope it gets printed without "editorial involvement" from upper level management.
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted January 31, 2013 Author Posted January 31, 2013 When they print them they usually print them verbatim. Used to get one every year or so in the paper, improved my odds considerably when I stopped addressing them to "Dear ___hole", and now write one or two a week and get one every two months in the paper on average. They have a rule about not putting anyone one in more than once a month, but they don't print a lot of letters under any circumstances. I'll let you know.
Deja Vous Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 The letter: Used for killing Posted: 01/29/2013 05:48:53 PM PST Updated: 01/29/2013 08:50:51 PM PST When our founding fathers drafted and made into law the second amendment, there were no AK-47s. The weapons they had were shotguns that you had to put powder into before you shot them and pistols that held one bullet, then shoot, then reload. What is the great fascination with a weapon that can shoot 30 bullets in seconds? They are not used for hunting, maybe they are used for target shooting, but they are mostly used for killing. You probably can tell that I'm not a gun enthusiast. I'm not against people who want a gun in their home for protection if it is used wisely, but I think that the AK-47s should be banned and not manufactured any more. JUNE _______ Highland My response: Paragraph 1.: There were smoothbore muskets, rifled barrel long guns, shot guns, and pistols. A few were capable of more that one round. The vast majority were fired by a flint-and-steel mechanism of some sort igniting a simple compound know today as Black Powder. All of these can be created by anyone with a basic knowledge of mechanics and physics. Paragraph 2.: The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting regardless of what many people would have you believe. Those that say this are wrong, and quite often deliberately so to support an agenda which includes gaining power of people who could not be easily subjected if allowed to retain modern arms. Paragraph 3.: If all of these kinds of "bad" guns were removed for production tomorrow, where would our military and police get theirs, and what concrete evidence is there that it would have any effect on crime in this country? There is overwhelming evidence that criminals would still be able to get guns pretty much on demand while only the law-abiding would be forcefully relieved of theirs. If restrictive gun laws worked, Chicago and Washington, D. C. would be the most crime-free cities on the continent. They aren't! Now, I am becoming weary of this muddled feel-good nonsense being put forward daily in "the press" by people who are so ignorant of the facts that it amazes me, or those who a deliberately using the press to mislead others. If you want to use this sort of argument why not also point out that the First Amendment which guaranties the right of freedom for the press was written at a time when "the press" meant a hand-operated press using hand-set type made of poisonous lead and printing out a single page at a time. You might include a hand-written letter or word-of-mouth in the definition, as well. There were no "AK-47s"? There were also no high speed presses, no magazines, no radio, telegraph, TV, or computers, no telephones or cell phones, and no texting, Twitter, blogs, internet, or any of a hundred other things covered under the First Amendment. Even the original concept of "mail" was an item hand delivered by someone on horseback or driving a wagon or boat powered by wind or muscle, or carried by someone on foot. It might take days for that mail to travel even a few scant miles. Hey, while we're at it, lets outlaw all the religions that were nonexistent at the time the Constitution was first ratified. THey are also covered under the First Amendment. I can think of many that have been attacked over the years in violation of the Constitutional guarantees. You think that can't happen? Check the history of the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, even the Branch Davidians and the OFFICIAL sanctions and actions taken against them by various governments, including the Federal government of this nation.. Still, you and others, including members of "the press", as well as all religions and their members, would raise all manner of hell if the same argument were used to infringe on the rights guarantied by that Amendment. I think it's time we stopped legislating by panic and mis-information and stared taking care of criminals and the mentally ill in an efficient manner and stopped worrying so much about the perpetrators and more about the victims. We need to get rid of the "My God, we have to do SOMETHING right this minute" mentality and start researching real solutions, solutions that don't infringe on the right of so many people. This nation is seriously in danger of collapse because of poor legislation, panic legislation, mis-information, and rampant "political correctness". Thomas R. Taylor Great post Fortys... You know when Robert Cushman put together the funds to bring the Mayflower to America the plan was for our nation to be different than merry ole England. Many of the people on the mayflower had gone to Holland for religious freedoms. They wanted a new nation, but had to take funds from England to get a ship, and a start. Of course England was in control of the purse strings and decided taxing our new nation and her people would be helpful to England. England at the time had other problems beyond religion. She also had a lot of "slaves" known as commoners who ended up working their way over to this country to get a new start. The point I am trying to make is while we were using guns to hunt and protect our homes at that time, those very same guns helped us fight off England, and her government so we could form our own. Without guns, Englands form of government would be ours now. You never know when we might have to defend our way of life, and I am not leaving it up to everyone else to do that job. Its my nation, my people, my friends, my family, my home, my rights.. and I am willing to do what it takes to keep my country free...
Blackwater 53393 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 What Deja said, and I might add, "with my guns!"
Stubborn Dutchman, SASS # 61363 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Nice letter Forty Rod. Is this a local or national paper? Deja, Nice to see you back in the Saloon. Bar Keep, this fine lady and 3J's drinks are on my tab today.
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 The letter: Used for killing Posted: 01/29/2013 05:48:53 PM PST Updated: 01/29/2013 08:50:51 PM PST When our founding fathers drafted and made into law the second amendment, there were no AK-47s. The weapons they had were shotguns that you had to put powder into before you shot them and pistols that held one bullet, then shoot, then reload. What is the great fascination with a weapon that can shoot 30 bullets in seconds? They are not used for hunting, maybe they are used for target shooting, but they are mostly used for killing. You probably can tell that I'm not a gun enthusiast. I'm not against people who want a gun in their home for protection if it is used wisely, but I think that the AK-47s should be banned and not manufactured any more. JUNE _______ Highland My response: Paragraph 1.: There were smoothbore muskets, rifled barrel long guns, shot guns, and pistols. A few were capable of more that one round. The vast majority were fired by a flint-and-steel mechanism of some sort igniting a simple compound know today as Black Powder. All of these can be created by anyone with a basic knowledge of mechanics and physics. Paragraph 2.: The Second Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting regardless of what many people would have you believe. Those that say this are wrong, and quite often deliberately so to support an agenda which includes gaining power of people who could not be easily subjected if allowed to retain modern arms. Paragraph 3.: If all of these kinds of "bad" guns were removed for production tomorrow, where would our military and police get theirs, and what concrete evidence is there that it would have any effect on crime in this country? There is overwhelming evidence that criminals would still be able to get guns pretty much on demand while only the law-abiding would be forcefully relieved of theirs. If restrictive gun laws worked, Chicago and Washington, D. C. would be the most crime-free cities on the continent. They aren't! Now, I am becoming weary of this muddled feel-good nonsense being put forward daily in "the press" by people who are so ignorant of the facts that it amazes me, or those who a deliberately using the press to mislead others. If you want to use this sort of argument why not also point out that the First Amendment which guaranties the right of freedom for the press was written at a time when "the press" meant a hand-operated press using hand-set type made of poisonous lead and printing out a single page at a time. You might include a hand-written letter or word-of-mouth in the definition, as well. There were no "AK-47s"? There were also no high speed presses, no magazines, no radio, telegraph, TV, or computers, no telephones or cell phones, and no texting, Twitter, blogs, internet, or any of a hundred other things covered under the First Amendment. Even the original concept of "mail" was an item hand delivered by someone on horseback or driving a wagon or boat powered by wind or muscle, or carried by someone on foot. It might take days for that mail to travel even a few scant miles. Hey, while we're at it, lets outlaw all the religions that were nonexistent at the time the Constitution was first ratified. THey are also covered under the First Amendment. I can think of many that have been attacked over the years in violation of the Constitutional guarantees. You think that can't happen? Check the history of the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, even the Branch Davidians and the OFFICIAL sanctions and actions taken against them by various governments, including the Federal government of this nation.. Still, you and others, including members of "the press", as well as all religions and their members, would raise all manner of hell if the same argument were used to infringe on the rights guarantied by that Amendment. I think it's time we stopped legislating by panic and mis-information and stared taking care of criminals and the mentally ill in an efficient manner and stopped worrying so much about the perpetrators and more about the victims. We need to get rid of the "My God, we have to do SOMETHING right this minute" mentality and start researching real solutions, solutions that don't infringe on the right of so many people. This nation is seriously in danger of collapse because of poor legislation, panic legislation, mis-information, and rampant "political correctness". Thomas R. Taylor ;)/> 100% GG ~ :FlagAm:/>
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 Youse done good, Forty Rod. I believe you said everything that needed to be said. I hope that they will print it. Often times too much logic and common sense passes over the heads of the masses and newspaper folks.
Forty Rod SASS 3935 Posted January 31, 2013 Author Posted January 31, 2013 Nice letter Forty Rod. Is this a local or national paper? Deja, Nice to see you back in the Saloon. Bar Keep, this fine lady and 3J's drinks are on my tab today. It's a local paper, Stub. Has maybe 350,000 circulation in southern california, mainly in western San Bernardino and north Riverside counties.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.