No More Compromise

Advertisement

Editor:

Three more letters advocating compromise of our fundamental rights: “Compromise and action” by Wendy Trainor; “No threat to disarm citizens” by Noble Collins; and “Gun violence” by Dean Martinson, Roundup, Feb. 8.

These arguments are amazingly devoid of any common sense or factual validity. Wendy Trainor writes a very pleasant letter suggesting that we have moved away from a reasonable discussion on gun control and toward an all “right or wrong” mentality.

She is correct: Those who seek to destroy our fundamental rights have not responded to “reasonable discussion” and therefore we who believe in our Constitution and the rule of law intend to defend these precious concepts regardless of those who seek to compromise them out of existence. We will not compromise one more inch.

Noble Collins actually wants us to believe no threat to disarm citizens exists in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Every year legislation is introduced in Congress banning the private ownership of firearms of one kind or another, or possessing one feature or another, or restricting some perfectly legitimate use or another. This firearm is too big and powerful, that one is too small and concealable, this one is colored black, that one is too ugly, this one has too many safety features, that one has too few, this one can be fired too fast, that one carries too much ammunition. Give it a rest, the totalitarian thugs that have infested our government want them all and gun owners have had it up to here: We will not compromise one more inch.

Dean Martinson complains the NRA had laws passed that prevent government agencies like the CDC from conducting what he calls “gun research.” Yes, we did; because dishonest researchers like Dr. Arthur Kellerman of the CDC was conducting bogus scientific studies with taxpayers’ money using fraudulent statistical methods that yielded answers he wanted; like claiming the fact that the majority of suicides were committed with a gun and therefore guns must cause suicides. His methods were so flagrantly fraudulent even other anti-gun researchers rejected his methods.

We may not know why society is violent, and if we ever figure it out I am quite certain the next spree killer will prove us wrong. But we do know what prevents violence: Being armed and trained to arms. Having “Victim Disarmament Zones” wherever some doofus thinks a maniac is going to be stopped by a sign facilitates spree killings.

 Donald L. Cline

Comments

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 2 months ago

Excellent article.

All this was foreseen by our forefathers. That is why they would not complete the Constitution without the 2nd Amendment. Notice it is number 2 in a list of 10. That itself shows the importance of the freedom it assured to those framers. To them they really were ‘coming to get our crazy asses’, for we were a weak and war worn nation, like a newborn calf standing on shaky legs and no mother in sight.

Hussein has taken us from the position of world leader to a nation rapidly becoming a third rate power. He plans to rid us of all but a few ‘token’ nukes, by his own words. Suddenly, our strength is such that we must reduce the number of carriers in the Med. He is rapidly building his dream of a “Civilian National Security Force that is just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded” as our military. See his speech given July 2nd 2008 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-us...

Ted, why does he want a “Civilian National Security Force”? Why has Dept. of Homeland Security purchased 2500 armored personnel carriers? Just for Terrorists? Why has he purchased at least 700 million rounds of anti-personnel rounds, for this force? Want to see the PO, on a federal site?

The DHS numbers over 200,000 people which is only part of this force. Only two other departments number that much. That’s not counting the ATF, FBI, NSA, CIA and on and on. When you take those agencies into consideration, you have a vast network of armed organizations that far exceed any government organization expect the military itself.

There are even armed OSHA and EPA agents. I have a friend whose office was raided by armed OSHA agents looking for some records. Imagine! Armed OSHA agents, digging for some mundane records. I myself was in an office a few years ago raided by the ATF. They didn’t pull their guns because we gave them no reason to, but still the Gestapo mentality was there.

Back in April of ’93, I stood on a hill 7 miles from the Branch Davidian Compound and watched the flames. They were miniscule at that distance, but the smoke could be seen a hundred miles away. Several of us had gotten out of our vehicles on a hilltop, expressing everything from amazement to weeping, for we were watching people die. I left in disgust and sadness. That is our government in action. I knew the sheriff there, named Jack Harwell, who always contended that he could have gotten those folks out of there without bloodshed, but the ATF pushed him aside and got some of their own people killed as well as the 83 Davidians.

So, if they have provocation, they will be “coming to get your crazy ass”, and that of anyone else that tries to subvert or resist them. He isn’t building this new “Gestapo” for nothing. Just some of that “hope and change” you folks voted for.

1

Dan Haapala 1 year, 2 months ago

I love my freedom. No one will take it away from me. It's because I have the God given right to protect myself from anyone or any group that attempts it. I have a gun, more than one, I will use it to defend me and mine. Gun control is not about guns, it's about control. I am in control of me.

0

don evans 1 year, 2 months ago

It's not about Gun Control folk's. That's Obama speak. It's about "PEOPLE CONTROL".

0

Nancy Volz 1 year, 1 month ago

And you can control certain people by doing background checks on every purchase. May not be foolproof, but saving one life is worth it IMO.

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 1 month ago

You might save some lives by doing that; but you might also cost many more. How many would fail to buy that gun to defend themselves with, because of all the red tape? We read often of people successfully defending themselves by killing the would be attacker.

Therefore, how many will die at the hands of a disgruntled employee, an estranged mate or just a burglar because they were trying to dial 911, or waiting for the cops to arrive?

0

Nancy Volz 1 year, 1 month ago

What "red tape?" Aren't background checks already required in most cases? It makes more sense to require a simple background check first. If Joe Blow is on the up and up, he won't get bent out of shape if he has to wait a couple days to get the gun he wants to buy. I mean, come on, do you seriously think a bunch of other people are going to die because Joe Blow didn't get his gun 2 days earlier? But wait! Maybe Joe Blow is the shooter. Maybe he's ticked off at somebody and wants a gun so he can show who's boss. Maybe that is averted because he has to wait for his background check, so he cools off before he gets it and kills people. We can maybe this, might that, back and forth and over and over. Bottom line is that one life is worth more than some person's right to have the gun of his choice NOW rather than after a short wait.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 1 month ago

"Bottom line is that one life is worth more than some person's right to have the gun of his choice NOW rather than after a short wait. "

I'm sorry Ms. Volz, but I keep hearing that platitude about the "one life" value being used in this current gun control debate, usually by those who favor banning firearms. If you are really concerned about saving lives (even just one), then by all means do a simple data check from either the FBI or any other Federal agency that documents deaths by cause and means. In those reports you will find that there are so many other causes of death and injuries annually that far, far exceed those by firearms of all types. So please do us a favor and really express that you are against firearms in general simply due to your fear of their potential . If we are really going to have a rational discussion about protecting the lives of everyone, then by all means lets focus on the "big" killers first and then work our way towards those of less impact. Otherwise this is simply about gun (people) control, and not about saving lives.

0

Nancy Volz 1 year, 1 month ago

You needn't be sorry. You should, however, try to understand what I am saying. I am saying what many others are saying...background checks for everyone will definitely NOT stop the violence totally, but it MAY...just MAY...save another's life and what is the harm in saving one person's life if it just means you have to wait another couple days to pick up your gun? I am expressing a very simple idea, so please don't read any more in to it.

0

ALLAN SIMS 1 year, 1 month ago

"What "red tape?"" Look at it this way, I sell guns to friends and so forth from time to time. Not enough to be considered a dealer. I also buy guns. I've given some away, and have been given several.

Pass your law. I will not pay any attention to it. I will continue to buy, trade, sell and give away as I see fit. I will not run down to the post office to get the latest form, nor will I seek it on the internet. I will not file any document tracking those actions. It is the epitome of stupidity to think people will do such a thing for what otherwise takes 5 minutes to transact. The goal behind this push is to stop individual trafficking in guns. Not only me, but almost anyone with a lick of common sense will ignore it.

All you do is push more guns into the criminal hands to use against those who don’t have them. The free market now soon become a black market. And, that market will become much more susceptible to criminal control. If I can’t sell my gun that I want to sell to my next door neighbor (Because he says it’s too much trouble) guess who I’ll sell it to. I’ll sell it to ol’ Jim down the street, because everyone knows he traffics in guns without the red tape.

When you say “come on, do you seriously think a bunch of other people are going to die because Joe Blow didn't get his gun 2 days earlier?” You purposely misconstrued what I said. Which was “How many would fail to buy that gun to defend themselves with, because of all the red tape?”

Re-read what I’ve said above. I won’t go to the trouble to get a form. They may not go to the trouble to get the gun. The odds are that out of those people who say the paperwork is too much (As many do now) some may be victims without the gun they would otherwise buy. And, that is part of the intent on the restriction. Make it too hard for the average person to want to own a gun. The result is less guns. That is the ultimate goal of the liberal agenda. This is step 21 in a 100 step process to become a gunless society.

And, your rationale about the buyer maybe going around on a rampage is rather foolish. The stats are highly against that, and you want all citizens burdened on this highly misguided idea that a piece of paper will stop the insane from their goal of mayhem. That isn’t only illogical, but borders on the irrational.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation, but the death rate there is horrific. Children shot down in the streets, store owners murdered for $25.00 or less and the average citizen lives in abject fear. And, you want to see us take one step closer to that? If the restriction is successful, in 6 months it will be another step. ‘Oh, it’s just another document. What’s another week? Why do you need that type gun, anyway? And on, and on.

This push is not just despicable, but is an affront to honest people presumed dishonest because you are looking for the needle in the haystack.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.