Living a philosophical fantasy
Originally published on this website August 16, 2001
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:41:25 EDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Response to chasing the wrong answer, editorial
I used to believe that persons who were in
favor of gun registration, licensing, bans on certain models, and those who were
against self defense, were simply ignorant. I too, was ignorant of these issues
at one time. Your editorial however doesn't indicate ignorance to me but rather,
well-written and truthless propaganda, for consumption by the masses. It
indicates guile, something I have learned to hate.
You state that Peace Officers are divided on
the issues of concealment, weapons in vehicles, etc. This was indeed the case in
my home state of Arizona before it became legal; at least that's what we heard
in the press. The real issues were however a bit more basic, revolving around
removing the special status of Officers being the sole, legal concealed carriers
and also whether the individual Officer wanted to be Chief of Police one day. In
other words, short sighted, selfishness and don't tell me this wasn't the case;
I was there and involved in those conversations.
As for the national Fraternal Order of Police,
they never spoke for individual lodges on this issue and several others but they
were certainly profiled as doing so, causing no end of aggravation within the
Organization. I understand the objections of the Chiefs of Police, they are in
the main Democrats, appointed by Democrats, and they have no credibility only
credentials and brown noses. They are however politically useful and better
remain so if they want to keep their jobs. The Director of OHP spouts the same
type of garbage and Bob Taft is too stupid or politically astute to replace him,
which of course tells us a lot about the political animal, that is, Bob Taft.
My fellow "bozos" and I suggest that
a reasonable position on this matter would be to allow the 99.4 percent of the
population who are law abiding citizens the same advantage as the .6 percent
criminal population, who carry a weapon whenever they want to, regardless of the
law. My fellow "bozos" and I further ask if it is your position that
criminals who currently violate our laws at will, will apply for a permit to
carry? Since I am a "bozo" perhaps you can explain to me why they
would. Even "bozos" understand truthful points in an argument.
"Bozo" ex-cops verify information habitually and the writer of this
editorial deliberately, knowingly, and maliciously, lied in doing so. Another
"bozo" cop question: We know who, what when, where, and how; but why
did the writer lie? No one lies this much without purpose.
If I might also be permitted, as a
"bozo" who was present when the state of Oregon changed it's concealed
carry laws to a shall issue system, no "carnage" occurred. The only
thing that happened was that the County Sheriff's had to start issuing permits
to people who weren't County Commissioners, Judges, etc. Most of the Sheriffs
were, selfishly, against the change but thousands of armed "bozos"
later, no "carnage" or blood baths, crime didn't go up, and law
abiding "bozos" didn't become crazed cop killers.
It would seem to this "bozo," that
the only people who are living a "philosophical fantasy" regarding
their positions on these issues are the "charlatans" working at your
"rag" of a newspaper. The editorial writer doubtless knew the facts
and was allowed to ignore them in favor of a point of view that demonstrably is
a lie. I'd much rather assume the mantle of "bozo" than that of
"charlatan" which is the title and synonymous descriptor that you and
your paper cannot now, escape.
Steve McWhorter
Canton, OH.
To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.
