Reply to editorial of a foe of RKBA
This editorial ran in The Denver Post. Below is copy of my email in response.
quote:
Dear Meredith,
After reading your column I felt the need to respond and invite you to discuss this topic further.
I think you did the topic much injustice by using rhetoric and statements designed to evoke fear to convince citizens to agree with you and ban semi automatic military pattern rifles. The firearms you wish to ban are not actually assault weapons and in most of the incidents you refer to, pistols were the tool used. Do you also propose to ban this type firearm as well?
opinion
M. Carroll: It's not the Wild West anymore
Colorado has proven its mettle. Now it must push to reinstate a federal assault weapons ban.
Posted: 11/18/2012 12:01:00 AM MST
By Meredith C. Carroll
"I think we should, and I think that's where it starts," U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Colorado, replied over the summer on CBS's "Face the Nation" when asked about reinstating the assault weapons ban following the movie theater massacre in Aurora.
On Election Day 2012, for the second time in four years, Colorado made its mark on the map as a solidly blue state. As such, it seems there's no moment like the present for the Centennial State to stop acting quite so yellow and do nothing more than chat about change when the cameras are rolling, and instead reflect somberly on our anachronistic gun laws and think bravely and earnestly about making significant modifications to ensure a less violent future.
Citizens are cowardly if they choose to exercise the right to self protection? The police are not there to protect you, they cannot, they can only respond after you have been victimized. Look around the world, banning firearms does not lessen violence, it only disarms the future victims.
The Wild West was tamed ages ago. Colorado has long since become the crown jewel of the glorious West, where we've proven through our lifestyle - and elected officials - that social, environmental and quality-of-life issues are close to our hearts.
As such, it's about time we recognize that eyes on the back of our heads and a finger on the trigger at all times is not only unnecessary, but also unreasonably mistrustful. We've evolved meaningfully - although judging by the easy availability of such agents of death as a Smith and Wesson .223-caliber assault rifle outfitted with a 100-round magazine, it's hard to really blame those who fear a high-noon shootout outside the swinging doors of the saloon.
Being armed is not being mistrustful, it is being responsible for ones own safety. The firearm used in the Aurora theater shooting is not the agent of death, the disturbed person wielding it is. He was out to harm people, the weapon he chose made very little difference.
It's a deadly cycle, though: We're scared of others wielding weapons, so we go out and buy them for ourselves as a means of self-defense. It's safe to say, however, that most members of Colorado's imaginary militia are arming themselves out of paranoia instead of a threat-based in reality.
While students on college campuses around the country have had to run for their lives too many times to count from deranged classmates firing guns, Colorado colleges and universities are forced to welcome many brandishing them thanks to a recent state Supreme Court ruling upholding a ghastly law allowing students with concealed-weapons permits on campus.
Those students had to run for their lives because they did not have the tools to defend themselves. The campuses they were on do not permit students to protect themselves. They force them to be at the mercy of an attacker until the police can respond. I don't know about you but I have no desire to face unarmed, a deranged person with any weapon until the police arrive.
Your statement about students brandishing weapons is disingenuous at best. Brandishing a weapon is already illegal and crimes committed by conceal carry permit holders are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.
A Sept. 22 article in The New York Times about the unease of faculty members at the University of Colorado regarding the law said one particular CU-Colorado Springs student carries a Ruger p90 pistol on campus "for protection" when he leaves school in the dark.
It's hard to argue against someone who needs legitimate defense, except CU-Colorado Springs security guards are actually state-certified police officers who meet the same qualifications as municipal law enforcement officials, plus they carry weapons and can make arrests, and readily offer to escort students at night, according to a university spokeswoman. Emergency phones are located throughout that campus, too, and other CU campuses have similar and additional protections in place.
So a victim only has to fend off an attacker long enough to get to one of these phones and then wait for police to respond?
Without diminishing students' fears of walking alone in deserted areas late in the evening, carrying a gun when armed and trained professionals are available for literal and figurative hand-holding is like showing up to squash a spider with a grenade missing its pin.
Maybe some people live in neighborhoods so unsafe they feel as if they have no choice but to keep a pistol under their pillow, but just how adept at using it will they be if awoken from a deep slumber? Can they be certain those bumps in the night weren't a raccoon knocking over a trash can or their teenage children sneaking in past curfew? Have burglar alarms been ruled out? What about working with local police departments to beef up neighborhood security? Maybe get a stronger lock on the front door?
You mention many scenarios except the one were the bad guy gets inside and intends to harm you and your family. If you are armed you have a chance to survive. If unarmed you have no choice but to be a victim at the mercy of the bad guy.
We need to figure out how to stop laypeople from being so ready and willing to mete out punishments that aren't on par with crimes that haven't even been committed. And we need to hold our elected officials to becoming proactive instead of reactive.
It's a hopeful sign that we voted to keep Colorado's rivers and streams running blue, but we also need to make sure this cowardly yellow tint we've been harboring for so long doesn't stain them blood red.
This column is not about keeping the citizenry safe. It is about banning firearms, all of them. Beginning with the incorrectly labeled assault weapons and moving on to the rest. Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes and criminals do not follow laws or recognize bans. If successful you will only remove the victims ability to protect and defend themselves.
Thank you for your time.
Kevin
quote:
Dear Meredith,
After reading your column I felt the need to respond and invite you to discuss this topic further.
I think you did the topic much injustice by using rhetoric and statements designed to evoke fear to convince citizens to agree with you and ban semi automatic military pattern rifles. The firearms you wish to ban are not actually assault weapons and in most of the incidents you refer to, pistols were the tool used. Do you also propose to ban this type firearm as well?
opinion
M. Carroll: It's not the Wild West anymore
Colorado has proven its mettle. Now it must push to reinstate a federal assault weapons ban.
Posted: 11/18/2012 12:01:00 AM MST
By Meredith C. Carroll
"I think we should, and I think that's where it starts," U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Democrat from Colorado, replied over the summer on CBS's "Face the Nation" when asked about reinstating the assault weapons ban following the movie theater massacre in Aurora.
On Election Day 2012, for the second time in four years, Colorado made its mark on the map as a solidly blue state. As such, it seems there's no moment like the present for the Centennial State to stop acting quite so yellow and do nothing more than chat about change when the cameras are rolling, and instead reflect somberly on our anachronistic gun laws and think bravely and earnestly about making significant modifications to ensure a less violent future.
Citizens are cowardly if they choose to exercise the right to self protection? The police are not there to protect you, they cannot, they can only respond after you have been victimized. Look around the world, banning firearms does not lessen violence, it only disarms the future victims.
The Wild West was tamed ages ago. Colorado has long since become the crown jewel of the glorious West, where we've proven through our lifestyle - and elected officials - that social, environmental and quality-of-life issues are close to our hearts.
As such, it's about time we recognize that eyes on the back of our heads and a finger on the trigger at all times is not only unnecessary, but also unreasonably mistrustful. We've evolved meaningfully - although judging by the easy availability of such agents of death as a Smith and Wesson .223-caliber assault rifle outfitted with a 100-round magazine, it's hard to really blame those who fear a high-noon shootout outside the swinging doors of the saloon.
Being armed is not being mistrustful, it is being responsible for ones own safety. The firearm used in the Aurora theater shooting is not the agent of death, the disturbed person wielding it is. He was out to harm people, the weapon he chose made very little difference.
It's a deadly cycle, though: We're scared of others wielding weapons, so we go out and buy them for ourselves as a means of self-defense. It's safe to say, however, that most members of Colorado's imaginary militia are arming themselves out of paranoia instead of a threat-based in reality.
While students on college campuses around the country have had to run for their lives too many times to count from deranged classmates firing guns, Colorado colleges and universities are forced to welcome many brandishing them thanks to a recent state Supreme Court ruling upholding a ghastly law allowing students with concealed-weapons permits on campus.
Those students had to run for their lives because they did not have the tools to defend themselves. The campuses they were on do not permit students to protect themselves. They force them to be at the mercy of an attacker until the police can respond. I don't know about you but I have no desire to face unarmed, a deranged person with any weapon until the police arrive.
Your statement about students brandishing weapons is disingenuous at best. Brandishing a weapon is already illegal and crimes committed by conceal carry permit holders are so rare as to be statistically irrelevant.
A Sept. 22 article in The New York Times about the unease of faculty members at the University of Colorado regarding the law said one particular CU-Colorado Springs student carries a Ruger p90 pistol on campus "for protection" when he leaves school in the dark.
It's hard to argue against someone who needs legitimate defense, except CU-Colorado Springs security guards are actually state-certified police officers who meet the same qualifications as municipal law enforcement officials, plus they carry weapons and can make arrests, and readily offer to escort students at night, according to a university spokeswoman. Emergency phones are located throughout that campus, too, and other CU campuses have similar and additional protections in place.
So a victim only has to fend off an attacker long enough to get to one of these phones and then wait for police to respond?
Without diminishing students' fears of walking alone in deserted areas late in the evening, carrying a gun when armed and trained professionals are available for literal and figurative hand-holding is like showing up to squash a spider with a grenade missing its pin.
Maybe some people live in neighborhoods so unsafe they feel as if they have no choice but to keep a pistol under their pillow, but just how adept at using it will they be if awoken from a deep slumber? Can they be certain those bumps in the night weren't a raccoon knocking over a trash can or their teenage children sneaking in past curfew? Have burglar alarms been ruled out? What about working with local police departments to beef up neighborhood security? Maybe get a stronger lock on the front door?
You mention many scenarios except the one were the bad guy gets inside and intends to harm you and your family. If you are armed you have a chance to survive. If unarmed you have no choice but to be a victim at the mercy of the bad guy.
We need to figure out how to stop laypeople from being so ready and willing to mete out punishments that aren't on par with crimes that haven't even been committed. And we need to hold our elected officials to becoming proactive instead of reactive.
It's a hopeful sign that we voted to keep Colorado's rivers and streams running blue, but we also need to make sure this cowardly yellow tint we've been harboring for so long doesn't stain them blood red.
This column is not about keeping the citizenry safe. It is about banning firearms, all of them. Beginning with the incorrectly labeled assault weapons and moving on to the rest. Law abiding citizens do not commit crimes and criminals do not follow laws or recognize bans. If successful you will only remove the victims ability to protect and defend themselves.
Thank you for your time.
Kevin
0
-
The real problem I have with gun banners/gun law lovers, and there are plenty of them here on GB, is this: Gun laws, and/or bans are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. IF they want gun control laws/bans, they need to change the constitution. There are provisions to legally change either the US constitution, or any respective state's constitution. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Horse Plains Drifter
The real problem I have with gun banners/gun law lovers, and there are plenty of them here on GB, is this: Gun laws, and/or bans are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. IF they want gun control laws/bans, they need to change the constitution. There are provisions to legally change either the US constitution, or any respective state's constitution.
Randy, well said. They will do whatever they can to avoid the path you point out.0 -
So have you ever gotten a reply from anyone on your well written response to Meredith? 0 -
No reply yet and the Post has yet to print my rebuttal to her editorial either. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
No reply yet and the Post has yet to print my rebuttal to her editorial either.
They don't typically print editorials that are formatted in the way you did your rebuttal. Every point you make is valid, but the format in which it is presented only works for an online forum like this.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
No reply yet and the Post has yet to print my rebuttal to her editorial either.
They don't typically print editorials that are formatted in the way you did your rebuttal. Every point you make is valid, but the format in which it is presented only works for an online forum like this.
What I sent to the paper was not what was posted on net. It was written as an essay and checked by my editor(neighbor who is grammar teacher). To my knowledge they have never run an honest rebuttal against gun regulation or run an honest editorial in support of RKBA. I have no doubt that "if" my correspondence was read, it was directly deposited in trash and likely never even read.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments