Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Seattle times anti gun editorial

  1. #1
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post


    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



    [/color][/u]



    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 Calderón:

    "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.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska, USA
    Posts
    584

    Post imported post

    This guy sounds more upset that Obama isn't the Emperor. Of course he has to follow the will of the people who are represented by the "gun lobby". Journalists like this are only there to secure the people in the interests of the Government.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    Tell MEXICO to SECURE THEIR BORDERS.

    Problem solved.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    The whole issue of American firearms in Mexico is this. The percentage of guns coming from the US is actually only about 5% of the total there. Some 90% of the guns brought back to the US for tracing are indeed from the US but 90% of those are sent to Mexico through legal channels. The Mexican army and LEO have contracts with Colt and Bushmaster for AR-15s. Those same soldiers and cops are either being killed or switching sides to the cartels to keep from being killed. That's how the guns are getting into their hands. Not from Joe gun store selling illegally to gun runners.

    The media and the government don't want the populous to know this, nor do the big gun manufacturers that have contracts with Mexico.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, ,
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Gentlemen and Ladies:

    I suggest that rather than just posting our outrage in this forum, we each take 10 minutes and write a letter to the editor stating why we believe that this editorial is misguided... As with most "responses" that I have seen suggested on this forum, we should do so in a very polite, informed, and articulate manner... I think that a big part of our problem is that firearm owners are the silent majority, and what I like about this forum is that it is comprised of people that are no longer willing to remain silent...



  6. #6
    Regular Member knight_308's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Renton, ,
    Posts
    173

    Post imported post

    I like Mike Vanderboegh's response. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...f-defense.html

    TO: ejdionne@washpost.com

    An Open Letter to E.J. Dionne: The "Gun Lobby" is YOUR last line of defense.
    re: Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?"
    Mr. Dionne,

    Ho Chi Minh once cautioned his followers to "cherish your enemies, they teach you the most valuable lessons."

    Ensnared by your own prejudices and cut off from a complete sense of reality by your isolation from other folks (us) who do not agree with your world view, citizen disarmament advocates such as yourself present our side of the argument with a moral dilemma. Should we explain to you how little clue you have about the dangers you face or should we just let you walk forward unwarned into a minefield that you unwittingly made yourselves?

    As an owner of the types of heretofore legal semi-automatic rifles you are seeking to ban, I will try to save you from your own worst impulses.

    What you must understand is that the old political verities no longer apply. You berate Obama and other members of his party for failing to embrace further gun control while you are in ignorance of the fact that there are gun owners far more uncompromising than the NRA who refuse to obey any more gun restrictions. Such "bitter clingers" are known as "Three Percenters."

    If such a law as you propose is passed, we will resist it and defy you to enforce it upon us. And the Government, being the government, will attempt to do just that. Shots will be fired and the next American civil war will be joined.

    Now, as we come from entirely different world views, you may not believe this. It is nonetheless true. And as an advocate of other people's disarmament and the official theft of their liberty and property, you should hope that they don't choose to play by Bill Clinton's rules should push come to shove.

    Surely you recall when Clinton decided to expand the rules of engagement with the Serbs in 1999, declaring that the political, media and intellectual underpinnings of their regime were legitimate targets of war? Do the precision guided munitions he had directed into the headquarters of Serbian Television and Radio ring a bell?

    At the time this was roundly condemned by free speech and press advocates all over the world, and rightly so. Yet, the precedent WAS set, the point WAS made. Can you be entirely confident that it won't be invoked once more against you?

    Here's the thing about "enemies lists" such as Napolitano's "Right Wing Extremists" report -- the sloppy scholarship represented by the elisions and conflations of the very real differences between veterans, constitutional militias and small government activists and mad dog white supremacist terrorists convinces all of us that we are intended victims regardless of what we believe. And the dangerous thing about "enemy of the people" lists in the real world is that they work both ways.

    So cherish the "gun lobby." The way many on our side see it, as long as they exist and are able to use traditional politics to protect our rights, they protect YOU from uncompromising gun owners and not the other way around.

    This may not be the "hope" and "change" you were looking for, but it is the hope and change you got.

    I expect to be in Washington in the month of June and would welcome the chance to discuss these issues and answer any questions about the great percentage of your countrymen of whom you seemingly know so little.

    Mike Vanderboegh
    PO Box 926
    Pinson, AL 35126
    GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
    sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    256

    Post imported post

    Kick Ass Seabass

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, ,
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Idlechater wrote:
    Gentlemen and Ladies:

    I suggest that rather than just posting our outrage in this forum, we each take 10 minutes and write a letter to the editor stating why we believe that this editorial is misguided... As with most "responses" that I have seen suggested on this forum, we should do so in a very polite, informed, and articulate manner... I think that a big part of our problem is that firearm owners are the silent majority, and what I like about this forum is that it is comprised of people that are no longer willing to remain silent...

    Taking my own advice....

    Dear Editor:

    I cannot help but wonder if the Seattle Times has somehow taken upon itself a duty to misinform. Mr. Dionne Jr.'s opinion piece titled "The President Must Stand Up to the Gun Lobby" was full of factually incorrect information and visually inflamming, but uninformed language. I expect more from my news source. He tries to paint the picture of assualt weapons pouring across the Mexican border, when in fact, only about 18% of firearms confiscated by the Mexican authorities can be traced to the United States. That's right, the90% statistic that Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton would have you believe iscreative license in the use ofstatistics. The number is 18%.Mr. Dionne would haveyou believe that these firearms have gotten therethrough laxU.S. firearms laws, howeverin most if not all cases, the firearms were illegally transfered. He talks about the gunshow loophole. What loophole? Dealers have toperform background checks at gunshows just like they do at their places of business. We already havethe laws, they are just not enforced.What I really don't understand is that ourBill of Rights give each of us the right to keep and bear arms, much like it gives Mr. Dionne freedom of speech.He speaks strongly that our 2nd Amendment rights should be ignored. Would he speak so strongly about his 1st Amendment right?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    Idle, if you are going to send a letter like that refuting statistics, you should cite your sources. Editors are a thousand times more likely to pay attention if you provide reliable factual evidence, not just your own statements.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, ,
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Arentol:

    You are correct... They limit you to 200 words, so choices have to be made...

    I will look forward to reading your response as well...

    Regards,

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    Idlechater wrote:
    Arentol:

    You are correct... They limit you to 200 words, so choices have to be made...

    I will look forward to reading your response as well...

    Regards,
    Thats funny though. When I used to write pro-war Letters to the Editor in the Bellingham Herald, they used to print them no matter the length. Then as anti-war sentiment grew my Letters to the Editor had to be shorter even though the ones that were being posted by anti-war were nearly double that. I had one of my letters make front page. I did a huge article for them. It was about my willingness to sacrifice to fight the war in Iraq. Front page picture with me and my wife. Was probably 2003. I did nearlymonthly letters during the war, and then blam. They kept sending them back with all sorts of issues. Too long. Needs revision, and my favorite was "We have already heard about THAT side of the story".

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Tell MEXICO to SECURE THEIR BORDERS.

    Problem solved.
    We cant secure ours, how would they be able to secure theirs?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    87

    Post imported post

    Hey tripletap, since the first and second amendment have both been mentioned in this thread.... you should know that it is against federal law for you to use the CIA logo as your avatar since an avatar is a symbol of identification. just an FYI...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    390

    Post imported post

    Triple Tap wrote:
    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    Tell MEXICO to SECURE THEIR BORDERS.

    Problem solved.
    We cant secure ours, how would they be able to secure theirs?
    Can't, or won't?

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, ,
    Posts
    35

    Post imported post

    Not the entire Letter that I wrote, but enough to at least allow one voice to be heard...

    http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.co...ex.html#041127

    Second Amendment as valuable as First

    I cannot help but wonder if The Seattle Times has somehow taken upon itself a duty to misinform. E.J. Dionne Jr.'s opinion piece was full of factually incorrect information and visually inflaming but uninformed language. I expect more from my news source.

    He tries to paint the picture of assault weapons pouring across the Mexican border, when in fact only about 18 percent of firearms confiscated by the Mexican authorities can be traced to the United States. That's right, the 90 percent statistic that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have you believe is creative license in the use of statistics.

    Dionne would have you believe that these firearms have gotten there through lax U.S. firearms laws. However, in most if not all cases, the firearms were illegally transferred.

    What I really don't understand is that our Bill of Rights give each of us the right to keep and bear arms, much like it gives Dionne freedom of speech. He speaks strongly that our Second Amendment rights should be ignored. Would he speak so strongly about his First Amendment rights?

    -- Earl J. Brigham, Seattle

    What have you done today to make sure that your voice is heard and that you are not part of the silent majority???

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    How about they start by stopping the distribution of pamphlets on how to illegally cross the borders into America





  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    Idlechater wrote:
    He tries to paint the picture of assault weapons pouring across the Mexican border, when in fact only about 18 percent of firearms confiscated by the Mexican authorities can be traced to the United States.
    Not to mention, how many of the 18% or 90% of firearms were legally sold by the US gov to the Mexico gov and ended up in the hands of the drug cartel through corruption or theft? Everyone assumes that the 18/90% come from private citizens buying at gun shows but I have never seen a government official explicitly say that.

    Here is a pic of a Mexican policeman with an M16/AR15. That weapon was supplied to him by his government but where was it made? The US? If so, and it ended up in the hands of a bad guy it would count in the 18/90% even though that weapon was never possessed by a private US citizen.
    http://en.timeturk.com/images/news/12196.jpg


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •