This out of Utah

imported post

I would like some thoughtful observations about this story, out of the Salt Lake Tribune...


http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9662672


Walsh: Time to grow up and put your guns away By Rebecca Walsh
Tribune Columnist
Salt Lake Tribune

My 20-month-old nephew loves Elmo and Dora. He also has started making explosion and gunfire noises.
I get the inevitability of little boys' fascination with guns.
What I can't figure out are the men and sometimes women who don't grow out of the gun-crazy stage of childhood, who need to have a handgun on their hips at all times, who need their neighbors to notice.
Ten of them stormed the West Valley City Council meeting last week to back up Travis Deveraux, a 36-year-old credit card company worker, who was detained by police in December while exercising with his Smith & Wesson.
"I don't blame them for being a little bit extra careful," Deveraux said. "But there's a line they crossed between being a little bit careful and a little bit too careful."
I thought there was no such thing as "too careful" - especially with a gun. But the OpenCarry crowd's literal interpretation of the "right to bear arms" and self-appointment as our "well-regulated militia" undercuts careful law enforcement, membership in a civil society and even reason.
It's in the Constitution, their thinking goes. They are "peaceably going about their business while armed," standing on the watchtower, the last line of defense against government tyranny and crazed criminals. We should thank them.
I understand the thrill of firing a Glock (I've done it), the euphoria of hitting the center of a target (and that, too), generations of family deer-hunting weekends and the legitimate self-preservation instincts of Utah's elected concealed weapon carriers.
But the OpenCarry movement is a mystery to me. What kind of psychology - overcompensation, paranoia, antisocial personality - is behind that thinking?
Steven Gunn, an attorney and board member of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, believes it's pure ego.
"We have inconsiderate boors walking around on the street carrying firearms openly," says Gunn. "I don't think they are truly afraid for their safety. Most of them are trying to make a statement about the Second Amendment." ....

click the link to read the rest....

imported post

One word: "bigotry".

imported post

"Second Amendment questions aside," says Springwood, a professor at Illinois Wesleyan University, "the real debate seems to me a cultural and social one: Do we want a society in which it is an unconscious emblem of everyday life that folks move about with 'portable killing machines' strapped to their bodies?"

Click to expand...

I honestly do not know what to say about this quote or the one from a police chief saying other than using thier guns how should officers handle it without putting themselves at risk. Hmmm Maybe a different career choice if they are truly worried about it. It seems like this chief is condoning lethal force without justification by his officers.

As far as the professor I am dumbfounded that a highly educated person would say "Second Amendment questions aside" seeing as how the constitution is the foundation to the US. I am guessing that he goes no where near Cars, knives, airplanes, or trains because those items are all portable killing machines as well.

imported post

Do we want a society in which it is an unconscious emblem of everyday life that folks move about with 'portable killing machines' strapped to their bodies?"

Click to expand...

Let me fix the statement:

Guns save lives.

imported post

Yeah this is posted in multiple spots on this site, also has a 400 post thread on Fark.com about it.

The woman is sexist as you can tell right at the beginning of the article with her talky about little boys needing to grow up. One of those I know what is best for me so it must be best for everyone.

She repeatedly uses very aggresive and derogitory comments. It reads more like a letter to the editor and it definitly is not journalism. Biased from the start and more personal venom than facts.

Basically she starts out looking like and idiot, and just continues to justify that assumption.

imported post

Disgusting.

imported post

This woman’s head is so full of preconceived ideas that it appears impossible for her to report objectively.

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

This woman’s head is so full of preconceived ideas that it appears impossible for her to report objectively.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And I think that many anti's will preface their 2A-bashing by saying that they have fired a gun, hunt, etc....when really, I don't hunt (nor do I care to) andhunting isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution (sorry, NRA). Hunting has nothing to do with my right to adequately defend me and mine against criminal attacks. Who gives a rat's behind if your grand-papa shot a deer w/a .30-30??? My evil, high-capacity,black pistol has saved my butt 3 times, so I'm keeping it!

imported post

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

This woman’s head is so full of preconceived ideas that it appears impossible for her to report objectively.

Click to expand...

Who gives a rat's behind if your grand-papa shot a deer w/a .30-30??? My evil, high-capacity,black pistol has saved my butt 3 times, so I'm keeping it!

Click to expand...

Here you go:

imported post

Mainsail wrote:

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

Who gives a rat's behind

Click to expand...

Here you go:

Click to expand...

Thanks, Chris! What a lovely rat's ass you have given, although I really can't accept that....perhaps you should send it to the columnist instead.

imported post

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

Mainsail wrote:

G20-IWB24/7 wrote:

Who gives a rat's behind

Click to expand...

Here you go:

Click to expand...

 

Thanks, Chris!  What a lovely rat's ass you have given, although I really can't accept that....perhaps you should send it to the columnist instead.

Click to expand...

Maybe she should be invited to one our anti-social monthly lunches..

imported post

I don't need to have a handgun on my hip, I just want to be able to protect myself and those I care about. I don't need my neighbors to notice, I don't care if they notice, I just don't feel that I need to hide my gun.

When I fired the first mag of ammo thru my new gun, I felt a thrill. After those first 12 rounds it has mostly been routine as I am focused on improving my skill. That she thinks of firing a Glock as thrilling, makes me think she has fired about 10 rounds total. Euphoria of hitting the center of the target, also sounds like a 1-timer.

I think she needs to grow up, because the way she thinks of guns is the same way that 20-month old does. She thinks of guns as strange and dangerous (magical) things, that are not part of the normal human experience

To me a gun is simply a tool. Nothing to feel fear or awe over.

imported post

Sitrep wrote

I think she needs to grow up, because the way she thinks of guns is the same way that 20-month old does. She thinks of guns as strange and dangerous (magical) things, that are not part of the normal human experience

To me a gun is simply a tool. Nothing to feel fear or awe over.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. Past a certain point (high school I would guess/hope) the notion of what's cool should dissappear. At that point, there are no cool things or uncool things, there is only what people do. There may be respect and admiration, but the pursuit of doing things deemed cool for simply that reason should have long since evaporated.

All that said to agree with Sitrep. Guns are tools, like hammers or saws, they must be used responsibly and precisely to be effective and safe. The idea with the age restriction for a pistol I would guess, is that by the time a person reaches 21 this boyish notion of desiring anything(guns in this case) because they are "cool" would be drastically reduced.

I don't think that this author is far off in describing some of the gun owners in this country, but I also believe that most people in this forum and in general elude that narrow, immature category. And if I am wrong and most gun owners are overcompensating manboys, how about we collectively demand maturity and solemness in both our media and our demeanor? Surely this would be more effective than a condescending article that writes off an entire group of law-abiding citizens. People will rise or lower themselves to the level of maturity that other people expect them to be at. So why don't we take the opposite approach of this reporter and treat those who choose to carry with the respect equal to the gravity of the choice they have made and demand they act accordingly?

imported post

I think it is easy to get sucked in by these people. By name calling them and slurring them we really are buying into their way of thinking about rights. She is againist our right to OC. And we are agianist her right to say it.

OC is aganist most folks way of thinking they can abide with CC but OC baffles them. I was listening to video on the National home page of one of the founders of Oc talking and even though I am a supporter, I did not think he made a very good case.

We have to come up with a way to present our veiw and reason for OCing that the average male and female can relate too. Although I am new to this movementI have not seen or read anything that would clearly explain it to the public.

We can come up with in their face one liners but in the end that will win no one over. I do know that we have to defend herright to speak againist OC as strongly as our right to OC. Otherwise we are just saying our right trumps hers. We cannot pick and choose the rights we want to support, because that is what she is doing. It is a package deal. All or none.

We should take the higher ground.

imported post

ghosthunter wrote:

She is againist our right to OC. And we are agianist her right to say it.

Click to expand...

I would like to state I am not against her right to express her opinions or that OC is wrong for her.

Now after saying that, I am against her using derogatory and insulting remarks continuously through her article. It is one thing to intelligently debate over a topic. But to resort to calling people little boys, and making remarks about "storming" public meetings is flat out childish on her part.

This wasn't a news article. It was a personal blog.


Edit: The fact that she never took any information form the pro OC side of the debate is all you need to look at to tell she was not interested in any sort of intelligent writing, but merely stating her opinion. Shows extreme bias.

imported post

Okay, and now the reason for my request.

Below, you will find a link to send a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune. Many of you have articulated your thoughts pretty well here, so put them where they will do the most good...as letters to the editor.

http://www.sltrib.com/help#contact



Exercise your First Amendment right to defend your Second Amendment right. I'll be anxious to see how well you do and how many of your comments they print.

imported post

This was on their main editorial page...



From a different stand point, it is pretty funny. :lol:

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Exercise your First Amendment right to defend your Second Amendment right. I'll be anxious to see how well you do and how many of your comments they print.

Click to expand...

Dave-

Why is it that those that rabidly defend the First Amendment (Liberal Press) are so fervent in their attempts to infringe on the 2nd Amendment?

Last I knew, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights was not a "Cafeteria Plan".

imported post

More from the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_9676437

High noon: Out-of-state gun permit battle begins
Tribune Editorial
Article Last Updated: 06/23/2008 06:16:46 PM MDT

There's a gunfight shaping up in the Utah Legislature. Gun advocates who want Utah to continue to arm the nation versus government bureaucrats and gun-control advocates who see the dangers in Utah's permissive concealed-carry permitting system.

Utah permits are the Tootsie Pops of concealed-carry permits: easily obtained, inexpensive, long-lasting and unhealthy, for Utahns and the nation as a whole. More than a third of Utah's 100,000-plus permits are in the hands of non-residents, who bypass more-stringent requirements in their home states. That doesn't seem fair.

The opening shots were fired last week at a meeting of the Legislature's Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice interim committee.

Lt. Douglas Anderson, manager of the state Bureau of Criminal Identification, said his agency, with just three firearms investigators, has a difficult time regulating out-of-state instructors. In fact, they don't, relying instead on what Anderson termed a "tattle-tale" system. That's why, if we can't assure that non-residents are adequately trained, those applicants should have to come to Utah to obtain a Utah permit.

Dee Rowland, board chairwoman for the Gun Violence Prevention Center, argued that the five-year duration of Utah permits is too long for non-resident permit holders. While technology allows daily criminal background checks on resident permit holders, crimes committed by non-residents that would require forfeiture of a permit can't be detected until they seek a renewal.

Rowland is right. A lot can happen in five years. Non-resident permit holders should be subjected to more-frequent reviews. Richard Townsend, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Public Safety, suggested that the state stop issuing non-resident permits, enabling resident applicants to be served faster and more efficiently. That's the best idea yet.

But Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, defended the current system. He said Utah should continue to license all Americans because "the ability to defend one's self should not stop at a state's border." Maybe so. But the right of a state to safeguard its citizens should begin there.

Hopefully, high noon has finally arrived, and advocates for reasonable gun laws will carry the day. Utah needs to revise its overly liberal permitting system. If not, other states would be wise not to recognize permits issued so lavishly, and thoughtlessly, by the Beehive State.
[line]Tootsie Pops, huh ... I didn't have to take a special class to get mine (non-Tootsie brand that is).