Time to zumboe
Zumbo this sweetie, send a letter, make it professional sounding. We are the firearms community, wether or not we are from NJO, gunborker, mauser central, the firearms forum, home on the range, or what have you. When we see stuff like this, we need to put our differences aside, and stand together. It was not the NRA that brought down zumbo, it was people like us, on gun forums. ANytime one of us sees a letter like this, we need to post it at all gun forums, with the info to reply. We can stop gun control, but we have to do it.
http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=30950&format=html
letters@amnews.com.
Sunday April 22, 2007
Guest Column: Gun control of the 'assault'
By BOB MARTIN
Contributing Columnist
It is inevitable that this issue surfaces again after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Gun control is the 'third rail' of conservative politics, and I am just silly enough to grab it with both hands.
I am very familiar with firearms. Like most men who grew up in the country, I am a gun owner and have been a hunter since my pre-teens. I am also conservative, and I support the military and the police. In my view, our public policy toward guns borders on the insane.
I do not want to ban guns because I want to continue hunting and target shooting. On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason why private citizens should own assault weapons. Furthermore, the problem created by assault weapons will increase as the technology of those weapons makes them more effective.
I fear we have not seen the worst that can happen unless we do something about assault weapons in private hands.
An assault weapon differs from a sporting arm by its rate of fire. A sporting arm has a very slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity. An assault weapon has a very high rate of fire and a large magazine capacity. High rates of fire have one purpose, to overcome or match your opponent's rate of fire in combat.
Clearly, assault weapons were created to kill people. The weapon used by the Virginia Tech killer has a very high rate of fire, and that rate of fire kept him from being stopped by those he was killing.
There is no place for assault weapons in hunting. A high rate of fire makes the hunter a danger to anything and anyone around him. I will not hunt with anyone who wants to use such a weapon. First, I do not want to be shot by such a foolish person. Second, if you cannot take an animal with one shot, you should not be hunting. If you have to "spray and pray" to hit something, you are a slob hunter and should not be in the woods.
Nothing precise
There is no place for assault weapons in marksmanship or target shooting. Marksmanship and target shooting are about precision. An expert shooter is a person who can hit a very small target at long range. There is nothing precise about high rates of fire.
Gun extremists argue that owning assault weapons preserves our freedom.
They usually do not explain what the connection between assault weapons and freedom might be. It is clear that private ownership of assault weapons cannot protect us from an external threat. Since we have the world's best military, why do we need anything else to protect us from an external threat?
Do extremists mean assault weapons preserve freedom from an internal threat? Surely that cannot be the case because that is what the police are supposed to do. By allowing private ownership of assault weapons, we put our police at greater risk.
It follows that the only kind of internal threat that might justify that kind of firepower in the hands of private citizens would be a situation where the military and the police conspire with those who would do us harm.
In other words, the extremist argument for assault weapons boils down to defense against our own government.
I do not fear my government. I do not see anything in its history or present constitution that is a threat to my civil liberties. It is ironic that all the carping about civil liberties is feeding the paranoia of those who want to own assault weapons.
Alternatively, we do have something to fear from people who fear the government. They are more likely to be a threat than is the government, and I would strongly prefer they not own assault weapons.
Bob Martin is the Ewing T Boles Professor of Economics at Centre College.
http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=30950&format=html
letters@amnews.com.
Sunday April 22, 2007
Guest Column: Gun control of the 'assault'
By BOB MARTIN
Contributing Columnist
It is inevitable that this issue surfaces again after the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Gun control is the 'third rail' of conservative politics, and I am just silly enough to grab it with both hands.
I am very familiar with firearms. Like most men who grew up in the country, I am a gun owner and have been a hunter since my pre-teens. I am also conservative, and I support the military and the police. In my view, our public policy toward guns borders on the insane.
I do not want to ban guns because I want to continue hunting and target shooting. On the other hand, there is no legitimate reason why private citizens should own assault weapons. Furthermore, the problem created by assault weapons will increase as the technology of those weapons makes them more effective.
I fear we have not seen the worst that can happen unless we do something about assault weapons in private hands.
An assault weapon differs from a sporting arm by its rate of fire. A sporting arm has a very slow rate of fire and a limited magazine capacity. An assault weapon has a very high rate of fire and a large magazine capacity. High rates of fire have one purpose, to overcome or match your opponent's rate of fire in combat.
Clearly, assault weapons were created to kill people. The weapon used by the Virginia Tech killer has a very high rate of fire, and that rate of fire kept him from being stopped by those he was killing.
There is no place for assault weapons in hunting. A high rate of fire makes the hunter a danger to anything and anyone around him. I will not hunt with anyone who wants to use such a weapon. First, I do not want to be shot by such a foolish person. Second, if you cannot take an animal with one shot, you should not be hunting. If you have to "spray and pray" to hit something, you are a slob hunter and should not be in the woods.
Nothing precise
There is no place for assault weapons in marksmanship or target shooting. Marksmanship and target shooting are about precision. An expert shooter is a person who can hit a very small target at long range. There is nothing precise about high rates of fire.
Gun extremists argue that owning assault weapons preserves our freedom.
They usually do not explain what the connection between assault weapons and freedom might be. It is clear that private ownership of assault weapons cannot protect us from an external threat. Since we have the world's best military, why do we need anything else to protect us from an external threat?
Do extremists mean assault weapons preserve freedom from an internal threat? Surely that cannot be the case because that is what the police are supposed to do. By allowing private ownership of assault weapons, we put our police at greater risk.
It follows that the only kind of internal threat that might justify that kind of firepower in the hands of private citizens would be a situation where the military and the police conspire with those who would do us harm.
In other words, the extremist argument for assault weapons boils down to defense against our own government.
I do not fear my government. I do not see anything in its history or present constitution that is a threat to my civil liberties. It is ironic that all the carping about civil liberties is feeding the paranoia of those who want to own assault weapons.
Alternatively, we do have something to fear from people who fear the government. They are more likely to be a threat than is the government, and I would strongly prefer they not own assault weapons.
Bob Martin is the Ewing T Boles Professor of Economics at Centre College.
0
-
This guy is a complete sheeple....... 0 -
That he is, use the info to send a letter laying the smack down on him. Gun owners who support gun control is a bad thing. 0 -
Dear sirs,
Your assault weapons article was completely naieve. A guy by the name of Jim Zumbo, just lost his job of 30 years at Field and Stream after expressing the exact same sentiments. We don't need people telling us what we need and what we don't need.
To be quite honest, no, I don't trust this government at all! If you do, you haven't done ANY reading or independent investigating. You must be one of these people that relies on CNN for all the information you'll ever need. You're living in fantasy world if you think they really give a damn about you.
Nearly 50,000 people die a year from drunk driving accidents and that's not an issue! They don't care! The masses are drunk and happy.
400,000 people die a year from smoking related illnesses! Doesn't matter again! The government's getting rich off big tobacco.
Illegal immigrants are streaming over the boarder taking jobs, abusing our system, all while raping and killing our people. Guess what? Doesn't matter!
BUT, if there's a shooting spree once every 8 years out of a country of 300 MILLION people, OH GOD, it's an epidemic. It's a crisis. They want to disarm EVERYBODY. Doesn't that seem contradictory and strange to you people?
If you think for a second they'll stop at semi-auto firearms (NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS) you need to put the crack pipe down. They want this country disarmed. Period.
Throughout history, Freedom has had a cycle. Civilizations always start at bondage. Which eventually leads to revolt. Which leads to change and freedom. Freedom leads to wealth. Wealth leads to complacency. Complacency leads to reliance. Reliance leads you RIGHT BACK TO BONDAGE. Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!
The shooter at Virginia Tech didn't even use a 'so-called' assault weapon. It was a pistol with a high cap magazine but you've decided to use this as an opportunity to push a political agenda to try to disarm fellow gun owners. You're a total disgrace.
Why is this guy being compared to every gun owner in this country? He's the poorest example of them all. It's obvious that he wasn't even in his right mind? The motive was completely meaningless. Figure out why the background check didn't work and leave the rest of us the hell alone!
Better yet, find some NEWS to report on.
We have two options to prevent these types of crimes in the future.
Option 1: You eliminate the first ammendment. Create laws making it illegal for loners to be loners and act the way they do. That way, every single one of them can be imprisoned before they kill people. Don't know where we'll find room. We'll just have to build more prisons.
Option 2: Leave the first ammendment in place and let the loners and wackos be free. Leave them alone. In the mean time, pass concealed carry for the entire country so when one of them does decide to go off, somebody might be 'THERE, ON SCENE' at that moment, to put a bullet in them and end it.
The only other option is to live with the tragedies once in a while.
CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF: Police officers and government employees are HUMAN BEINGS just like the rest of us. They're not super humans. They're just as capable of going on a shooting spree as anyone else because they are human. Thankfully, they are mostly good humans. It's naieve to think there aren't OTHER good humans that are capable of handling the responsibility of carrying a firearm 24/7 in order to prevent crime.0 -
That guy must live a very sheltered life. I am overwhelmed by the number of errors in logic and common sense. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has nothing to do with Hunting, and I've never shot in any organized competition but based on some recent topic's here I think speed is a factor in Target shooting. He needs to spend a few years outside our borders or watch "Red Dawn" a few times. 0 -
Here is the letter I sent.
Bob Martins says he knows all about "assault weapons", hunting and target shooting. I'd like to say that Bob Martin knows nothing about what he calls "assault weapons". I refer to them as semi-automatic rifles, because I have never in my life seen a semi-automatic rifle assault anyone.
Bob Martin says there is no legitimate reason why anyone should own one of these "assault rifles". I feel that there is no legitimate reason for Bob Martin to be able to own a car. Cars kill many more people than any semi-automatic rifle does.
Bob Martin says that "assault weapons" are different then sporting rifles because of the cycling rate of fire. Being a gunsmith for over 27 years, I know that the cycling rate of fire is no different on any semi-automatic rifle. They all fire at the same rate depending on how fast one can squeeze the trigger.
There are many issues in Bob Martin's article that I can contradict, and I feel that like Jim Zombo, Bob needs an education on semi-automatic rifles and Constitutional Laws. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantee's the individual right to own these firearms to keep our Goverment in check. Bob Martin says in his article that he has never felt threatened by the Goverment, and I say to Bob Martin, "See it's working". Bob Martin is also classifying firearms to his needs, as he called the two ordinary pistols that the Virginia Tech shooter used "Assault Weapons". Bob Martin failed to face the fact that the shooter didn't obey the schools policy about no firearms, but the law abiding citizens of that campus did, and many were killed. If just one of those law abiding citizens were allowed to leagally carry a concealed weapon, then this tragedy could of ended alot sooner, and maybe without a shot even being fired.
Lastly, I would like to say to Bob Martin, that I am not an extremist. You and alot of media people use that word to insight fear into peoples minds. I consider myself and my family and friends would consider me as a gentle, caring man who loves his family, friends, and country. I am a law abiding citizen who believes in the Constitution of the United States, and I want to cotinue to live free, as I have served in the United States Military and fought for our Country's freedoms.
Sincerly
Ronald G Harper
Osceola, IA 502130 -
Good job with the letter writing. On all of the forums I've posted this on, several people have written letters. I say anytime one of us on these forums comes across an article similar, post it on as many firearms forums as you can with the info to reply. We can stop gun control, but WE have to do it. You can bet the brady bunch and their minions are doing the same. 0 -
Heres another letter in the same paper today.
http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=30999&format=html
Monday April 23, 2007
Make automatic weapons illegal
Dear Editor,
After the tragic, senseless death of Chiara Levin last month, and the horrific occurrence at Virginia Tech this week, one question comes to mind. Why does the latest advanced killing technology have to be available for purchase?
Does anyone believe that our forefathers meant for these weapons to be available to everyone? What does it take for our government to realize this? There is a huge difference between hunting with a rifle and hunting with an automatic weapon. An automatic weapon is like a remote control. There is no connection to the prey. These automatic weapons aren't made for killing food. They aren't designed for sport. They only exist to kill people.
The police don't want automatic weapons available to the citizen on the street because their presence makes it harder to establish a safe environment for law abiding citizens. As long as the NRA controls public policy we are just one crazed person away from slaughter. It's time to make buying, owning and using an automatic weapon outside of law enforcement or our military illegal.
Betty McGuire
Danville0 -
quote:Originally posted by Fatboy lives
...It is clear that private ownership of assault weapons cannot protect us from an external threat. Since we have the world's best military, why do we need anything else to protect us from an external threat?
Ask the Iraqi insurgency if external threats can be countered by private gun ownership.
quote:Do extremists mean assault weapons preserve freedom from an internal threat? Surely that cannot be the case because that is what the police are supposed to do. By allowing private ownership of assault weapons, we put our police at greater risk..
It it so good to know that the police protect us. That is why the murder rate in the U.S. has been zero for so long.
quote:It follows that the only kind of internal threat that might justify that kind of firepower in the hands of private citizens would be a situation where the military and the police conspire with those who would do us harm.
Like politicians? Yeah, that will never happen.
quote:In other words, the extremist argument for assault weapons boils down to defense against our own government.
I do not fear my government. I do not see anything in its history or present constitution that is a threat to my civil liberties. It is ironic that all the carping about civil liberties is feeding the paranoia of those who want to own assault weapons.
Nothing in history, not Ruby Ridge, not Waco, not Elian Gonzalez, not unwarranted wiretaps. He's right, nothing in our history suggests a threat to civil liberties.
quote:Alternatively, we do have something to fear from people who fear the government. They are more likely to be a threat than is the government, and I would strongly prefer they not own assault weapons.
Bob Martin is the Ewing T Boles Professor of Economics at Centre College.
If this whole column was tongue-in-cheek, it would be funny.0 -
I dont think private citizens should have access to a M1 Abraham either. 0 -
he is probally not even a gun guy, just said that to pretend "objectivity" like the antiwar people that pretend to have served 0 -
quote:I do not fear my government. I do not see anything in its history or present constitution that is a threat to my civil liberties. It is ironic that all the carping about civil liberties is feeding the paranoia of those who want to own assault weapons.
This Butt-Boy must have never heard of Ruby Ridge, or even Waco...[:(!]
Trinity +++0 -
While none of our letters have yet been posted, here is some local response.
http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=31086&format=html
Wednesday April 25, 2007
Letter: Defining the assault weapon
Dear Editor,
Not surprising, it didn't take long for the outcry to begin, but some of the participants are surprising. That is to be expected, and entering into the "discussion" at this time would lower one to the "anti's" level.
I would like to thank Bob Martin for explaining "assault weapons" to me. All this time I was mistakenly thinking the news media name of "assault weapon" was in reality a shouldered battle weapon capable of full automatic fire. I certainly did not know a semi-automatic pistol was to be considered an assault weapon.
But I am still confused and do not understand the criteria "high rate of fire" in his definition. Since a semi-auto gives you one shot with each individual trigger pull, I guess "high rate of fire" would depend on how fast you could wiggle your finger.
Actual ownership of fully automatic weapons is a very involved process, requiring a special license issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, after a long investigation. In my lifetime I have seen two, and both were owned by police officers.
I really did not believe I qualified as an extremist or paranoid, but since I possess a similar firearm as the monster of Virginia Tech - one with a so-called "high rate of fire," even though that old "Author Itis" keeps me from wiggling my finger very fast - one never knows.
Yes Mr. Martin, there are gun-toting extremists, and they can be scary. And there are extremists in anti-gun, animal "rights," tree huggers and more, that are as scary, if not more so. Scared of a thing called "government?" No. Scared of people given massive authority and the ability to mis-use and abuse it with no checks and accountability in place.
I may not be scared, but the possibility does worry me. Nothing surprises me anymore.
But I really would like for Mr. Martin to expand his definition of whatever he was trying to demagogue. I enjoyed and looked forward to his prior articles, as they were practical and knowledgeable and easily understood, and not like we usually get from this area until now.
Jerry Bogie
Garrard County
http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=31085&format=html
Wednesday April 25, 2007
Letter: The difference in weapons
Dear Editor,
In her letter to the editor concerning the tragic deaths of Chiara Levin and the 32 students killed on the Virginia Tech campus last week, Betty McGuire takes automatic weapons to task. I haven't heard for sure what weapon Ms. Levin was killed with; however, I highly doubt that it was an automatic weapon.
At Virginia Tech, two weapons were used, both semi-automatic handguns. Neither represents "the latest in advanced killing technology," to quote Ms. McGuire.
Automatic weapons fire continuously with one squeeze of the trigger. These weapons are illegal, except for collectors possessing the correct licensing, and have been for 70 years.
Semi-automatic weapons fire one shot with one squeeze of the trigger. Anti-gun zealots routinely confuse the two.
Hunting and sport shooting are privileges granted by the state. The right "to keep and bear arms" is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The purpose is to ensure that the people will always have the means to resist a tyrannical despot or to assist our armed forces in case of foreign invasion or domestic insurrection.
Isn't it a shame that the German people were disarmed and unable to resist Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s? Isn't it a shame that millions of disarmed people lived (and died) under communism for 80 odd years? Isn't it wonderful that our forefathers had the means to throw off their British oppressors and give us the great nation that we live in today?
Finally, Ms. McGuire calls for laws to "make buying, owning, and using automatic weapons outside of law enforcement or our military illegal." Ms. McGuire will be happy to learn that those laws are on the books and are strictly enforced. Therefore we are all safe.
May I suggest that if there had been just one student or faculty member at Virginia Tech carrying a legally concealed weapon, the death toll may well have been much lower than 32. One well-aimed shot from a law-abiding citizen would have been all that it took. The problem is that carrying a gun, even with a concealed carry permit, is banned at VT. Of course that didn't stop our killer now did it?
Eric C. Grate
USMC Veteran / NRA Lifetime Member
Danville
http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?module=displaystory&story_id=31084&format=html
Wednesday April 25, 2007
Letter: It's not the guns
Dear Editor,
I would like to respond to a letter written by Betty McGuire concerning automatic weapons.
I would like to take issue with what she has determined that our forefathers meant. Well, first of all the right to bear arms was so that honest citizens could defend themselves from tyrannical governments should they arise. That being said, what good is it going to do to go against a tyrannical government with a single shot rifle when they have M-16's and tanks?
Also I would like her to know that when the gun ban was in place there were still deaths caused by the very weapons that were banned. Banning guns does nothing except keep them out of the hands of honest, law-abiding citizens. If she wants to make an argument with some validity, then she needs to address the gun laws that were not enforced that made this slaughter possible. The perpetrator of this slaughter should never have been able to purchase a gun legally due to a prior judicial finding as to his mental state. So it was a gun law not enforced that is to blame. It is the person that did the killings that is to blame, not the gun.
I am sick of these people that whine and cry for more gun control when a gun is used in a crime. If the laws on the books were enforced, we would be better off. Remember these things? "Gun control means hitting your target." "When they outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns." And last but not least, "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."
Remember prohibition? Was there still alcohol available? Yes, there was. And by the way, President Kennedy was killed with a bolt action rifle, which is not automatic. I rest my case.
Matthew Hollins
Stanford0 -
24.
quote: " ...we need to put our differences aside, and stand together."
Differences? I don't have differences. I've been the same for a long, long time.
... there are some folks I don't rightly care for ... one way or t'other ... and that's
Ok.[:D]0 -
Thank you for your contribution.quote:Originally posted by zipperzap
24.
quote: " ...we need to put our differences aside, and stand together."
Differences? I don't have differences. I've been the same for a long, long time.
... there are some folks I don't rightly care for ... one way or t'other ... and that's
Ok.[:D]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments