what to do about anti 1st and 2nd amendment rhetoric

[Oss]

I took this off from Dan's thread as it was a hijack and put it here


If you can post you CAN write!

So draft a letter to the editor of your local paper as if you were posting on this board
but dont email or snail mail it till you have read it at
least 24 hours as believe me you will only get one chance to be 1st impression judged out there

Avoid words like those used on this board (however true you believe them to be) that would tend to close the mind of the person reading
it  Like flaming moron, libitard, conservative redneck etc

Then post it here on this thread either before or after you mail it

I am sure and certain that many would be willing to help edit it or flame as the case may be but at least you will be doing more than crying in your corn flakes and may just go viral with the post


Oss


Bet ya that one of senior members will hit this one out of the park and we can steal (I mean borrow) it to send locally to our papers etc

[Patrick]

I took this off from Dan's thread as it was a hijack and put it here


If you can post you CAN write!

So draft a letter to the editor of your local paper as if you were posting on this board
but dont email or snail mail it till you have read it at
least 24 hours as believe me you will only get one chance to be 1st impression judged out there

Avoid words like those used on this board (however true you believe them to be) that would tend to close the mind of the person reading
it  Like flaming moron, libitard, conservative redneck etc

Then post it here on this thread either before or after you mail it

I am sure and certain that many would be willing to help edit it or flame as the case may be but at least you will be doing more than crying in your corn flakes and may just go viral with the post


Oss


Bet ya that one of senior members will hit this one out of the park and we can steal (I mean borrow) it to send locally to our papers etc

I agree. The 24 hr thing is a good idea. I know I should do that, but, by then I would have forgotten what it was for.

[CajunRider]

I agree. The 24 hr thing is a good idea. I know I should do that, but, by then I would have forgotten what it was for.

At the ripe ol' age of 37, my memory is plenty good enough for this...

My patience, however....  not gonna happen.    

[Psychotic Bovine]

For a while I was a letter writing machine.  Always on the 2nd Amendment.  Always had them published, too.
Nowadays, I need to get really fired up before I write one.

Here is the last one I wrote back in January.

"Maybe it’s time we rethought the idea of “personal” computing. With the rise in hacker attacks against Sony, Xbox gaming and others, it becomes evident that a computer in the wrong hands is a recipe for disaster. What happens if these “black hats” turn their attention to our power grid, water treatment and distribution, and hospital cyber infrastructures? Those sort of attacks could kill thousands or even millions. I don’t think it’s a question of “if” but of “when.”

Some are going to argue that the First Amendment guarantees our right to the use of computers for whatever legal purpose we see fit. But, seriously, the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned the technology we have today. It’s obvious that the First Amendment authors only had ink, quill, parchment, and your own voice in mind when it was drafted. Does the average person really need a computer with a 5-terabyte hard drive and 100 gigabytes of RAM? Does the average user need a 6 core processor and 100 mb broadband connection for email, social networking and printing pictures? Does the average person need more than one computer in his house? It’s plain to see that this kind of power only belongs in the hands of police and the government. There is no need for it in the hands of civilians.

This argument sounds pretty ridiculous on the surface, but the same argument has been used time and again to limit our Second Amendment rights. Think about it.

CHRIS DOENGES

New Haven"

[solo1]

Hey Oss, I saw your initial post.  I thought I'd run off a fast one to the editor.  Here it is.  Hasn't been sent yet.

                                    The First and Second Amendment

Our government and some of our citizens seem to get it wrong on the First AND the Second Amendment.

The First Amendment give us the right to speak our piece without fear of retribution.  I most surely believe in that.  However, some take a great joy in slandering, speaking lies, manipulating facts, and otherwise, abusing their Right under the First Amendment.  I note that there is some effort to curtail the First.  However, the efforts are minor (so far) compared to stomping on the Second Amendment.

Believers in the Second Amendment are castigated on the highest level.  Never mind that under the Second Amendment, we have the right to own firearms under the Constitution. That Right was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Just as the First Amendment is abused, the Second is too.  However, abusers of the First Amendment go  scot free while there are over 20,000 laws that were supposedly crafted to 'control' the illegal use of the Second Amendment.  The responsible gun owner must 'toe the line' to keep from running afoul of all these laws.

There has always been a desire on the part of law makers to instigate additional new laws after ANY kind of misuse of firearms.  The recent TERRORIST slaughter in California has the government asking for even more laws.

The very government attempting to curtail the Second Amendment, is the same government that is timid toward facing the threat of terrorism in the United States, even though the Constitution states unequivocally that The Federal Government will 'provide for the common defense”   

We are at War with the Terrorists just as surely as we were at war with Japan on December 7th. 
I can recall that President Roosevelt immediately acted to provide the means necessary to win that war.

He did not wage war on our citizens, neither did he blame our citizens for Japan's act of aggression.  His firm action against our enemy back then was as firm as the actions of his distant cousin, Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was known for his famous quote, “Speak softly and carry a Big stick”

Now, today, our government has reversed Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote.  It is now 'Speak loudly and carry a small stick”  The stick is small against our enemies but very large when it comes to attacks on OUR second Amendment.

Wayne A. Doenges

[solo1]

I modified my letter and made it a little stronger.  Easier to repost than amend.

The First and Second Amendment

Our government and some of our citizens seem to get it wrong on the First AND the Second Amendment.

The First Amendment give us the right to speak our piece without fear of retribution.  I most surely believe in that.  However, some take a great joy in slandering, speaking lies, manipulating facts, and otherwise, abusing their Right under the First Amendment.  I note that there is some effort to curtail the First.  However, the efforts are minor (so far) compared to stomping on the Second Amendment.

Believers in the Second Amendment are castigated on the highest level.  Never mind that under the Second Amendment, we have the right to own firearms under the Constitution. That Right was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Just as the First Amendment is abused, the Second is too.  However, abusers of the First Amendment go  scot free while there are over 20,000 laws that were supposedly crafted to 'control' the illegal use of the Second Amendment.  The responsible gun owner must 'toe the line' to keep from running afoul of all these laws.

There has always been a desire on the part of law makers to instigate additional new laws after ANY kind of misuse of firearms.  The recent TERRORIST slaughter in California has the government asking for even more laws.

The very government attempting to curtail the Second Amendment, is the same government that is timid toward facing the threat of terrorism in the United States, even though the Constitution states unequivocally that The Federal Government will 'provide for the common defense”   

We are at War with the Terrorists just as surely as we were at war with Japan on December 7th. 
I can recall that President Roosevelt immediately acted to provide the means necessary to win that war.

He did not wage war on our citizens, neither did he blame our citizens for Japan's act of aggression.  His firm action against our enemy back then was as firm as the actions of his distant cousin, Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was known for his famous quote, “Speak softly and carry a Big stick”

Now, today, our government has reversed Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote.  It is now 'Speak loudly and carry a small stick”  The stick is small against our enemies but very large when it comes to attacks on OUR Second Amendment.  What war are we fighting here, terrorists or war by the government on the lawful citizen?

The government and the people, both of whom trusted me with a gun when I served in the Korean War now don't trust me.  Never mind, that the terrorists attack in California was done by people at war with us, never mind that responsible gun owners do not commit crimes, never mind that there are 20,000 plus laws that don't work, now they, the duly elected representatives, demand gun confiscation from the private citizen.  Make no mistake, all talk about 'tighter gun laws'  are lies, criminals do not obey laws, so therefore, the aim is to eventually confiscate firearms from the lawful citizen, not the  criminal.

Do we believe them, the elected ones, or the lawful citizen.  Do we trust them or the lawful citizen.  That is the question.

Wayne A. Doenges

[Moonshot_1]

This is an 2013 editorial by Berkley Bedell, a former Iowa  US congressman from way back.
I believe he is 96 years old now.
The Berkley fishing stuff? This is the guy.
My reply follows.
 (I actually posted this on this forum back in 2013)
---------------------------------------------------------
 By Berkley Bedell
As one who has had a gun and hunted for over 80 years, I have a great interest in the gun debate that is going on at this time in our federal government.

I was part of a group of friends who went on a duck-hunting trip to Canada and North Dakota every year for over 50 years. It was an important part of my life.

The 12-gauge shotgun I used on those trips was one of my prized possessions. I am relieved that it apparently is not part of the current gun debate.

I have never owned a military-style assault weapon, and it is a puzzle to me as to why anyone would want one.

Guns like my shotgun are used primarily for shooting birds and animals. We have enjoyed wonderful roast duck dinners. Military-style assault weapons are used primarily for shooting people. I have never thought it would be fun to shoot people.

Shooting ducks is a challenge. They fly pretty fast. But people cannot fly, and most of us cannot even run very fast.

Laws require me to put a plug in my shotgun if I am going to shoot ducks, so that I can only shoot three shells without reloading. I guess that is because we prize ducks so much that we do not want to kill too many of them at one time.

At this time, there is no such law for weapons that kill people. You can put as many shells as the gun will hold and kill as many people as you want without reloading.

This seems pretty silly to me. The more ducks you can shoot, the more duck dinners you can have. But you gain nothing by killing more people.

Apparently President Barack Obama recognizes how foolish this is. He is recommending that we limit people-killing guns to only be able to shoot 10 rounds at a time. Ten people equal three ducks.

My understanding is that the Congress may not agree with him. Apparently he is overvaluing people, as compared to ducks, and some members of Congress feel we should put a larger or no limit on how many people can be killed at one time as compared to three ducks.

I do not know what Congress will do. I do not think anyone knows what this Congress will do. I hope they do not duck the issue as they did in the past when they simply let the automatic weapons ban expire and did not act. Whatever they do with people-killing guns, I hope they do not increase the limit of three ducks that can be killed at one time. Ducks are important.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My reply that ran in our local paper


In your “Our Opinion” column on 4-1-13 of all days, you ran an editorial by Berkley Bedell regarding guns and ducks.

The former congressman was trying to make the argument for gun control measures using the laws restricting the hunting of ducks and trying to make a “case” that we value ducks more than people.

Let’s set aside, for the moment, the fact that hunting ducks (with the proper paperwork and stamps) is legal and murdering people is not.

What I found quite amazing is that, while he tries to make a case for more gun regulation, he doesn't realize how his own argument does more to support gun owners and gun rights.

It is true that for duck hunting, you must modify your shotgun with a plug so that it can only hold 3 shells. The reason is to actively manage the duck population.
And it is true that there are no such provisions for hi-power/caliber semi auto rifles which he mentions.

But….
 If the ducks were given the following options
1.   Be shot at by hunters with no limit on how many ducks could be killed
2.   Be shot at by hunters with a 3 duck limit on how many could be killed
3.   Have the opportunity to shoot back at the hunters and defend themselves

I would bet all that I have that, if they could, the ducks would vote, perhaps even unanimously, to have the opportunity to shoot back and defend themselves until you pried their cold dead webbed feet from their guns.

This thought obviously doesn’t occur to Mr. Bedell.

I’m pretty certain that, if the ducks could, they would want ample ammunition and the weapons to defend themselves and their families and kick some hunter butt and not agree to be peacefully killed and eaten.


The former congressman’s position would put Law Abiding, Free People at the mercy of criminals.
Not unlike a flock of ducks at the mercy of the hunter.

Except the criminals don't observe bag limits and observe the hunting laws and regulations. Or observe the laws in general as law abiding hunters do.

It seems the criminal element is just getting bolder as we craft more laws that restrict rights of the law abiding folks. Laws that the criminals just ignore.

This should be a society where the Bad people fear the Good People. A Free People. Not the other way around.

The former congressman goes on to say “I have never owned a military-style automatic weapon, and it is a puzzle to me as to why anyone would want one.”

Automatic weapons are not generally legal to own. You can own semi-automatics.
As to why anyone would want one?

When there are riots in the streets (Like in LA) when there is a devastating natural disaster (Hurricane, Tsunami, Earthquake) acts of terrorism comes to your neighborhood and the government is overwhelmed and unable to protect you, isn’t your family and your home worth protecting? 


The suggestion that the law abiding folks who own such weapons are looking to kill masses of people is not only absurd, but insulting and demeaning.
The simple fact is that they have things worth defending. A family. A home. Worked hard for them and likely sacrificed a lot to get what they have. And as Free Citizens, are simply prepared to do so by exercising their right to Bear Arms.

They may never have to. They hope they never have to.
But they are prepared to do so.

They should never be put in the position of the duck. To be hunted by criminals. Peacefully killed and eaten. And that’s what the former congressman apparently doesn't realize he is suggesting be done.

He goes on to say “…A limit of three ducks is okay but a limit of any number on people is not!”

There is already a limit of people you can kill with these guns. It is zero.

Doesn’t matter if the gun has a 50 round mag or a 10 round mag. It is NOT LEGAL, in any State, TO KILL HUMANS except in self-defense,

Ducks? You can legally kill 3 of them with the proper paperwork. But except for self-defense, IT IS NOT LEGAL TO KILL HUMANS REGARDLESS OF THE CAPACITY OF THE FIREARM’S MAGAZINE.

If you want to be a duck and peacefully agree to be killed and eaten, please do so, by all means.

I’ll choose option 3.