|
| | | | |
|
|
A/C Ignoring Scandal at Emory?
From: "Ross, Ken" <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:07:25 -0500
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Guns Commentary
Dear Editor,
In regard to the "Guns, guns, too many guns" commentary you posted:
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20011130/61048.html
Now while Mr. Contreras is completely entitled to his opinion (guaranteed by
the 1st Amendment) I need to remind him that it is because of freedom loving
patriots back in the 1700's who originally fought for that right and thousands
more patriots ever since. Those first people were ordinary citizens, much like
he or myself, rising up against the tyranny of government, in this case, British
Government.
Currently in the U.S. there are 31, if not a couple more, states that are "shall-issue."
That means if you obtain a pistol permit, you have a legal right to carry. Since
those states adopted such law, there have not been any "shootouts"
as described, nor have there been mass murders by lawful permit holders.
Now let's look at some other claims by Mr. Contreras:
Airplanes - Please see this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml
With today's ammunition technology, it is highly unlikely for a bullet to penetrate
the airplane's fuselage. There's a wonderful comment regarding the one case
that a bullet hole in an airplane caused a catastrophic event which depressurized
the entire cabin and sucked the contents out...it was the movie called Goldfinger.
From the commentary:
"Whom does the Constitution protect ---- a wife who
needs protection from a gun-carrying, violent husband, or the husband? Gun nuts
say the husband."
Not so. As a lawful citizen interested in my right to
self defense, or as you call me 'gun nut,' it is not fair to say a violent husband
is gun carrying. Spousal abuse is an awful thing and any harm that comes to
someone that feels better after beating his wife gets whatever is coming to
them...preferably in 9mm doses. We do not condone spousal abuse, nor ever will.
It is our intent to make sure that when a woman goes to get a firearm to protect
herself, she is fully capable of doing it. Your argument simply looks at the
negative end of the right to self defense.
While Dick Olsen acted with complete disregard for public safety, it is not
the fault of gun owners across the U.S.. He should be charged and tried just
as any other citizen.
If Mr. Contreras is so afraid of guns and doesn't want them in his life, then
I suggest he doesn't get one. It is not his place, nor anyone's for that matter,
to tell me that I cannot own the means to defend myself and my family.
Ken Ross
Programmer/Analyst
Molon Labe
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
|
|
|
