NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Information Arsenal => Topic started by: huskergun on April 26, 2009, 08:50:37 PM
-
>:( >:( >:(
E.J. Dionne / Syndicated columnist
The president must stand up to the gun lobby
Given Congress' default to the apologists for loose gun laws, it's up to President Obama to push rational and limited gun regulation through Congress.
By E.J. Dionne Jr
Syndicated columnist
PREV of NEXT
WASHINGTON ? Try to imagine that hundreds or thousands of guns, including assault weapons, were pouring across the Mexican border into Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California, arming criminal gangs who were killing American law-enforcement officials and other U.S. citizens.
Then imagine the Mexican president saying, "Well, we would really like to do something about this, but our political system makes helping you very difficult." Wouldn't Mexico's usual critics attack that country's political system for corruption and ineptitude and ask: "Why can't they stop this lawlessness?"
That, in reverse, is the position President Obama was in last week when he visited Mexico. The Mexican gangs are able to use guns purchased in the United States because of our insanely permissive gun regulations, and Obama had to issue this unbelievably clotted, apologetic statement at a news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calder?n:
"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe, to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence. Violence in our own country as well. Now, having said that, I think none of us are under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy."
In other words: Our president can deal with all manner of big problems, but the American gun lobby is just too strong to let him push a rational and limited gun regulation through Congress.
It's particularly infuriating that Obama offered this statement of powerlessness just a few days before the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado ? and during a month in which at least 57 people were killed in eight mass homicides across the U.S.
No other democratic country in the world has the foolish, ineffectual gun regulations that we do. And unfortunately, what Obama said is probably true.
Earlier this year, when Attorney General Eric Holder called for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons ? he was only repeating the commitment Obama made during his presidential campaign ? the response from a group of 65 pro-gun House Democrats was: No way.
Their letter to Holder was absurd. "The gun-control community has intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire one shot for every pull of the trigger." Doesn't that make you feel better?
Those Democrats should sit down with Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. "Time and time again, our police are finding themselves outgunned," Rendell said in Harrisburg last week. "They are finding themselves with less firepower than the criminals they are trying to bring to justice."
The Democratic governor told legislators that if they didn't support such a ban, "then don't come to those memorial services" for the victims of gun violence. "It's wrong," he said. "It's hypocritical."
And why can't we at least close the gun-show loophole? Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don't apply at gun shows that, as the Violence Policy Center put it, have become "Tupperware Parties for Criminals."
But too many members of Congress are "petrified" by the gun lobby, says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a crusader for sane gun legislation ever since her husband was killed and her son paralyzed by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.
Family members of the victims of gun violence, she says, are mystified at Congress' inability to pass even the most limited regulations. "Why can't you just get this done?" she is asked. "What is it you don't understand?"
Obama, at least, should understand this: He was not elected by the gun lobby. It worked hard to rally gun owners against him ? and failed to stop him.
According to a 2008 exit poll, Obama received just 37 percent among voters in households where guns are present ? barely different from John Kerry's 36 percent in 2004. But in the substantial majority of households that don't have guns, Obama got 65 percent, up eight points on Kerry. Will Obama stand up for the people who actually voted for him?
Yes, I understand about swing voters, swing states and all that. But given Congress' default to the apologists for loose gun laws, it will take a president to make something happen.
-
Here is the author's email address...
ejdionne@washpost.com
What do you say we individually write him a calm, well thought out letter rebutting his call for gun control? We could also cc the Editorial Editor, Geitner Simmons, at geitner.simmons@owh.com.
Fly
-
Be polite to Mr. Simmons.
He actually allowed me an 700+ word article in the Midlands Voice column rebutting one of the Von Maur victims and his call to introduce the "assult weapons" ban and he didn't edit any of it. In talking with him he seems to be open minded. Hopefully.
We should email the Washington post editor also along with the public pulse in the World Herald.
And remember use facts not emotion. Facts drive the anti's nuts. ;D
pulse@owh.com
-
Dionne is a genuine "Full-Retard" liberal. All letters to him will no doubt go straight to the round file.
-
Be polite to Mr. Simmons.
He actually allowed me an 700+ word article in the Midlands Voice column rebutting one of the Von Maur victims and his call to introduce the "assult weapons" ban and he didn't edit any of it. In talking with him he seems to be open minded. Hopefully.
He also published my editorial denouncing Ashfords attempts at legislation last year; it was slightly edited but still got positive attention our way, and the editing appeared to be to make it fit in the available space rather than trying to make me look like a stupid redneck.
-
Sent mine, let's see what happens...
-
Here is the email address for the editor of The Washington Post...
letters@washpost.com
Fly
-
It won't do any good, and is too long to get published in its entirety, but here is what I sent...
I am writing in response to the editorial written by E.J. Dionne Jr, ?Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby??. It is disheartening, to say the least, when an individual such as Mr. Dionne is granted national exposure to speak of something he knows nothing about. Moreover, his lack of research on the subject is made painfully apparent by the misinformation he has presented in the article. In lieu of being a responsible journalist and studying the subject matter he attempts to address, please allow me to enlighten Mr. Dionne and his readers.
First and foremost, the legal ownership of firearms in the United States is an individual right recognized by the Bill of Rights and recently confirmed by the Supreme Court. Mr. Dionne and anyone willing to blindly follow him can twist the words of the Second Amendment all they want, but they can not dispute one simple truth. This truth is that the Bill of Rights was written to recognize individual rights of the people, not of the government. In fact, the government has never had rights, only responsibilities. Any argument to the contrary only shows a waning knowledge of the war for independence and the armed civilians who fought and died for our victory.
If anyone doubts this interpretation of the Second Amendment, maybe they would be more accepting should they read the multitude of quotes from the founding fathers which specifically reference an individual's right to bear arms. There are many transparent and potent quotes to choose from, and here is one gleaming example. Maybe Mr. Dionne has heard of the author.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson
With regard to the situation in Mexico. How is it even plausible to any American that the solution to problems in another country is to deny the rights of their own citizens? Please don't confuse my stance on the Second Amendment to be a lack of compassion for the Mexican people. There is no doubt that their situation is dire. However, the lack of control by the Mexican government can be traced to one ongoing issue; the absence of a secure border. Tighten up the border control and we can significantly slow the flow of illegal drugs and weapons. Why has this not been discussed as a solution? To see how this is equally pertinent to the United States, let's play the same word game that Mr. Dionne dabbled in at the beginning of his misinformed editorial.
Try to imagine that hundreds or thousands of illegal immigrants, including violent criminals, were pouring across the Mexican border into Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California, overextending the social system set in place for tax paying legal residents and severely straining American law enforcement officials while U.S. Citizens foot the bill.
Playing devil's advocate, let us imagine that we somehow came up with legislation that made it nearly impossible, or at the very least prohibitively expensive, for the criminals to obtain firearms in the United States. Will this keep firearms out of the hands of those with intent to do harm when our southern border so freely allows the movement of illegal people, drugs, and firearms? Is this the ingenious plan of the anti-gun lobby? Smuggling firearms north across the border would be the new, high revenue endeavor of the Mexican cartels. Maybe then, once our rights have been taken away, will we finally wise up and decide to secure our borders.
Mr. Dionne would like us to feel ashamed of our gun laws by comparing the United States to other democratic countries. While this may be a simple leap in logic for him, the rest of us must consider the apple to orange comparison he is making. Every democratic country he can reference does not, despite countless historical examples of oppression under tyrannical rule, recognized the rights of its citizens to bear arms. How can Mr. Dionne state that our gun laws are ineffectual and call for further restrictive legislation when the government fails to enforce the current laws already in place? Before we trample on the Bill of Rights, we need to demand that the government exact strict punishment for the laws that currently exist. Take criminals off the street and keep them off.
The tragic mass shootings that have been highlighted in the media over the last ten years have become the war cry of the anti-gun crowd. Though I do not believe that further restrictions on firearms are the answer, I believe Mr. Dionne may be on to something as he contemplates limiting rights. These killers have all had one thing in common. They all ad a desire to display their superiority and share their pain with the world. Instead of attacking the Second Amendment, why don't we call for the restrictive application of the First Amendment? After all, the media was the vehicle these individuals intended to use to reach their goal. I consider the irresponsible use of free speech by the media to be the cause of the copy cat crimes perpetrated since Columbine. As sure as a criminal wields a knife or pulls a trigger, the media has provided these assailants with the real weapon they desire. If you are unwilling to limit the use of the First Amendment, how can you call for restricting the Second?
Mr. Dionne continues on to address the imaginary ?gun show loophole? that the public has been brainwashed into believing exists. Once again, if Mr. Dionne had the slightest understanding of the laws pertaining to firearms, he would be ashamed to use such a baseless term intended to strike fear in the ignorant. The private sale of firearms between individuals is allowed in most of the United States. The fact that it may take place at a gun show is irrelevant.
Any loss of human life, especially a death caused by the heinous act of another, is undoubtedly a sad event. It is human nature to seek a person or object to blame for the loss. After the death of a loved one on the operating table, a grief stricken family will often try to find closure by taking legal action against the medical professionals, regardless of circumstances. Though the simple truth is that modern medicine, for all its miracles, can not cure every ailment. For the families who have suffered a loss due to a criminal's use of a firearm, the reaction is much the same; blame the gun instead of the miscreant individual who pulled the trigger.
I will agree with one of Mr. Dionne's statements. It was not the gun lobby that elected President Obama. Regardless of how he arrived at his present position, he has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Is it possible that the ?petrified? members of Congress that Mr. Dionne speaks of are simply not willing to lay waste to what our forefathers fought so hard to found?
Fly
-
Very nice job. You're right, it won't be published in the public pulse, but maybe they'll include it as just an op-ed piece on the next page. Then again, it's the world-herald....glad I had the chance to read it here.
-
Fly,
I would send that to Geitner Simmons and talk to him on the phone as I did when I was able to get the Midlands Voice section. Public Pulse has a 200 word limit and the Midlands Voice has a 700 word limit. The public pulse and the midlands voice are 2 differant editors and they don't share articles.
Seriously, you can make a very good case for getting this published.
Good job.
-
Great work, Fly! That needs to be read by the masses somehow.
-
Great letter! I love the quote by Thomas Jefferson!
-
I would send that to Geitner Simmons and talk to him on the phone as I did when I was able to get the Midlands Voice section.
I did as you suggested. We will see what happens.
Update...Here was Mr. Simmons response.
Hello again, Mr. Lamb. Your message came through fine. I'll read your essay this morning and send you a note with my thoughts. Thanks much --
Fly
-
Hello again from The World-Herald, Mr. Lamb. Your essay read fine to me; you assembled your analysis and arguments clearly and well. I need to be consistent in requiring a 700-word maximum for Midlands Voices. So, if you could trim the essay to that length, I would be grateful, since that would clear the way for me to run the essay.
Include a bio blurb for yourself, please, since we run a bio blurb for Midlands Voices.
Thank you --
Oh boy! Now the work begins. I'm currently at 1,206 words which requires that I cut 506 (42%). It's times like this that I wish I wasn't so long winded. ;D
Fly
-
Whatever else you cut, keep the Jefferson quote, and the line of thought about solving another country's problems by denying the rights of our citizens.
-
There was a pretty good letter in the pulse today on the same subject. I can't post it, a subscription is required.
-
Linky?
-
You can do it. Have faith brother.
Good luck.
-
Ok. Here it is. 700 words exactly. I hope it gets my point across.
It is disheartening, to say the least, when an individual such as Mr. Dionne gains national exposure to speak of something he knows nothing about. Moreover, his lack of research on the subject is made painfully apparent by the misinformation he has presented.
First and foremost, the legal ownership of firearms in the United States is an individual right recognized by the Bill of Rights and recently confirmed by the Supreme Court. The liberal left can not dispute one simple truth; The Bill of Rights was written to recognize the rights of individuals, not of the government. In fact, the government has never had rights, only responsibilities. Any argument to the contrary only shows a waning knowledge of the war for independence and the armed civilians who fought and died for our victory.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson
Mexico: How is it even plausible to any American that the solution to Mexico's problems is to deny the rights of their own citizens? We must show compassion for their situation. However, the lack of control by the Mexican government can be traced to one ongoing issue; the absence of a secure border. A secure border would significantly slow the flow of illegal drugs and weapons.
Let us imagine that we somehow came up with legislation that severely impedes criminals' attempts to obtain firearms. Will this disarm wrongdoers when our southern border so freely allows the movement of illegal people, drugs, and firearms? Is this the ingenious plan of the anti-gun lobby? Smuggling firearms north across the border would be the new endeavor of the Mexican cartels. Once our rights have been taken away, maybe we will finally decide to secure our borders.
Mr. Dionne would like us to feel ashamed of our gun laws by comparing the United States to other democratic countries. How can Mr. Dionne state that our gun laws are ineffectual and call for further legislation when our government fails to enforce the current laws already in place? Before we trample on the Bill of Rights, we need to demand that the government exact strict punishment for the laws that currently exist. Take criminals off the street and keep them off.
The tragic mass shootings over the last ten years have become the war cry of the anti-gun crowd. These killers have one commonality; the desire to display their superiority and share their pain with the world. I believe Mr. Dionne may be on to something as he contemplates limiting rights. Instead of attacking the Second Amendment, why don't we call for restricting the First? I consider the irresponsible use of free speech by the media to be the cause of the copy cat crimes perpetrated since Columbine. Just as a criminal wields a knife or pulls a trigger, the media has provided these assailants with their true weapon. If you are unwilling to limit the First Amendment, how can you call for restricting the Second?
The imaginary ?gun show loophole?. If Mr. Dionne had the slightest understanding of firearm laws, he would be ashamed to use such a baseless term. The private sale of firearms between individuals is allowed in most of the United States. The fact that it may take place at a gun show is irrelevant.
Any loss of human life, especially a death caused by the heinous act of another, is undoubtedly a sad event. It is human nature to seek a person or object to blame for the loss. A criminal's use of a firearm garners the same reaction; blame the gun instead of the miscreant who pulled the trigger.
Mr. Dionne is correct. It was not the gun lobby that elected President Obama. Regardless, he has sworn to uphold the Constitution. Possibly the ?petrified? members of Congress that Mr. Dionne speaks of are simply not willing to lay waste to what our forefathers fought so hard to found.
Let me know what you think. If no one has any major criticism, I will submit it.
Fly
-
Very good.
-
BRAVO! excellent response Fly
-
Good job!
-
Great job !!!! Submit it and then check with Mr. Simmons in a couple of days..That's what I did.
Stay on them until this gets published.
Again Good job.
It sucks to have to edit all that out to make it fit doesn't it?
-
It sucks to have to edit all that out to make it fit doesn't it?
Yes...it was painful, but I think I still got my point across. Though I wish I could put in some more explanation for the anti-gun/ignorant that buy into all that the liberal media spews out.
Fly
-
Just heard from Geitner Simmons. He said they would publish it. I don't subscribe to the OWH, so if someone sees my reply, could they let me know and maybe I will pick up a copy?
Thanks,
Fly
-
I'll be looking for it. I get it everyday. Did he give you an idea when it might go in?
-
Did he give you an idea when it might go in?
He just said "we will run it soon". Whatever that means.
Fly
-
That probably means this week. Congrats.
-
OnTheFly -
There are times when someone steps up to the plate and has the opportunity to make a difference. I believe that you have made one of those moments - regardless of the outcome of your article, the fact that you created it, honed it to clearly articulate your position and set the example for others is inspiring. Well done!
Roper
-
OnTheFly -
There are times when someone steps up to the plate and has the opportunity to make a difference. I believe that you have made one of those moments - regardless of the outcome of your article, the fact that you created it, honed it to clearly articulate your position and set the example for others is inspiring. Well done!
Roper
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2j3qql1.jpg)
Ahhh shucks!
Seriously though...thanks for the encouraging words.
Fly
-
Seen it in Wednesday's paper, nice write-up.
-
They changed a little, but it was mostly intact.
http://www.omahaworldherald.com/index.php?u_page=3952&u_sid=10627112 (http://www.omahaworldherald.com/index.php?u_page=3952&u_sid=10627112)
Midlands Voices: Don't trample gun rights
BY GREG LAMB
The writer, of Lincoln, is a firearms enthusiast.
It is disheartening, to say the least, when an individual such as E.J. Dionne Jr. gains national exposure to speak of something he knows nothing about (April 24 More Commentary). Moreover, his lack of research on gun regulation is made painfully apparent by the misinformation he has presented.
First and foremost, the legal ownership of firearms in the United States is an individual right recognized by the Bill of Rights and recently confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The liberal left cannot dispute one simple truth; The Bill of Rights was written to recognize the rights of individuals, not of the government. In fact, the government has never had rights, only responsibilities. Any argument to the contrary shows only a waning knowledge of the war for independence and the armed civilians who fought and died for our victory.
Thomas Jefferson included the following passage in his "Legal Commonplace Book": "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
Furthermore, how is it even plausible to any American that the solution to Mexico's problems is to deny the rights of our own citizens? The lack of control by the Mexican government can be traced to one ongoing issue: the absence of a secure border. A secure border would significantly slow the flow of illegal drugs and weapons.
Let us imagine that we somehow came up with a law that severely impedes criminals' attempts to obtain firearms. Would this disarm wrongdoers when our southern border so freely allows the movement of illegal people, drugs and firearms? Is this the ingenious plan of the anti-gun lobby?
Once our rights have been taken away, maybe we will finally decide to secure our borders.
Mr. Dionne also would like us to feel ashamed of our gun laws by comparing the United States to other democratic countries. How can Mr. Dionne state that our gun laws are ineffectual and call for further legislation when our government fails to enforce the laws already in place?
Before we trample on the Bill of Rights, we need to demand that the government exact strict punishment for the laws that currently exist. Take criminals off the street and keep them off.
The tragic mass shootings over the past 10 years have become the war cry of the anti-gun crowd. These killers have one commonality: the desire to display their superiority and share their pain with the world.
I believe Mr. Dionne may be on to something as he contemplates limiting rights. Instead of attacking the Second Amendment, why don't we call for restricting the First Amendment?
I consider the irresponsible use of free speech by the press to be the cause of the copycat crimes perpetrated since Columbine. Just as a criminal wields a knife or pulls a trigger, the press has provided these assailants with their true weapon. If you are unwilling to limit the First Amendment, how can you call for restricting the Second?
If Mr. Dionne had the slightest understanding of firearm laws, he would be ashamed to use such a baseless term as the imaginary "gun-show loophole." The private sale of firearms between individuals is allowed in most of the United States. The fact that it may take place at a gun show is irrelevant.
Any loss of human life, especially a death caused by the heinous act of another, is undoubtedly a sad event. It is human nature to seek a person or object to blame for the loss. A criminal's use of a firearm garners the same reaction: Blame the gun instead of the miscreant who pulled the trigger.
Mr. Dionne is correct. It was not the gun lobby that elected President Barack Obama. Regardless, he has sworn to uphold the Constitution. Possibly the "petrified" members of Congress that Mr. Dionne speaks of are simply not willing to lay waste to what our forefathers fought so hard to found.