opencarrybilly
Regular Member
imported post
Yesterday, Isent tonews@reporter-herald.com. the following in response to thetheir article on the Police chief's response.
[align=center]http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=24014[/align]
I see that it is not in their website edition (http://www.reporterherald.com) this morning. If you think as I do that they ought to putmy letterin the same position of prominance, both in their paper edition and on their website, as were the other two articles about this case, perhaps you will email them at news@reporter-herald.com.
[align=left]"7/22/09[/align]
My fellow Lovelanders:
Since the Friday July 17, 2009 Reporter Herald report by Jon Pilsner, many opinions have appeared in public forums like the Reporter Herald and opencarry.org, both pro and con, about guns and those who carry them.
As there will certainly be a law suit, I cannot discuss specifics. But, I would like to put in my two cents worth for your perusal, if you will allow.
I must tell you that, contrary to the impression some have got, I was not carrying my gun that evening in order to make a point, although, since then, having discovered good folks like those whose thoughts I read on opencarry.org, I do say that I am proud these days that that is now among my reasons.
As for Jon’s words that I want to “teach a lesson,” this is apparently an abbreviation of what I did say, and the connotation suggested by his words has made it easy for some to suspect some motive on my part that did not exist. (No fault to Jon. Journalists must save space. Jon is an excellent reporter even if he does write like I shoot. The Reporter Herald is lucky to have him and the town is lucky to have the Reporter Herald.) Jon asked me what I would like to see come out of all this. After much verbal wondering, I said that I would like it if all police officers were to come to know that they must protect all of the rights of all of the people and that if they were to think about all those brave Americans who have died, and all those countless others who have suffered terrible injuries to establish and preserve for us our constitution they would quit their national mantra, “officer safety” as their reason to trample upon the constitution. (Please correct me if I am wrong, Jon.)
And, now, if I may, here is what I think is the important thing:
“We are a nation of laws, not of men,” said many of our leaders from John Adams to Edward M. Kennedy. No matter how we might feel about guns or the people who carry them, we are called, I suggest, as Americans, to respect the constitution and laws of this land, and the decisions that the courts have made based upon them, and the rights of all people who choose to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the constitution.
Our option, if we do not like the wording of the laws and the constitution is to convince our representatives to change those words, or, if they will not, vote them out of office or petition the courts to strike down those laws we do not like. We are not allowed to deny the our neighbors their rights based upon opinions we may hold that differ from the rule of law. And, whenever a government official tries to do this, we must all, even if we agree whole heartedly with the opinion of that official, insist that that official confine his or her actions to that which is written in the law. We must not allow fears, “common sense,” or concerns for safety to dissuade us from these principles.
President Obama said, referring to our founding documents, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” This is just as true for our city streets and country roads as for our national boarders. We, civilians and public servants alike, must not allow our personal fears to cause us to forget the sacrifices of all those who established and preserved for us our constitution and the institutions by which we, through our representatives, write the laws by which we all must live.
We must all be free to exercise our rights and we must all respect and protect the right of others to exercise the rights they may choose to exercise. But, only those rights guaranteed by constitution and laws. So far, neither constitution nor law guarantees anyone the right to be free from fear upon seeing another exercising his or her constitutional rights. If the people want that, they will prevail upon their representatives to write and pass it into law and to change the constitution.
Thanking you for your kind attention, I am
Bill Miller
Loveland
(To the Reporter Herald: Please publish the above exactly as I have written it or do not publish it in whole or in part. I have chosen my words carefully. I do not want their meanings or the tone or flavor of the piece to suffer for the sake of the saving of space or other editorial concerns. We have already seen how that can happen. As this piece is too long for your Open Forum, perhaps you will consent to publish it as a guest column or feature or something. Should there be need for voice communication, Mr. Pilsner has my phone number. I would be pleased should he call me. I want to be sure I don’t offend him with my comments about his writing )
(Attached is a picture of me in case you might think it fair to include it with the article as you do in so many instances.)"
[align=left][/align]
Yesterday, Isent tonews@reporter-herald.com. the following in response to thetheir article on the Police chief's response.
[align=center]http://www.reporterherald.com/news_story.asp?ID=24014[/align]
I see that it is not in their website edition (http://www.reporterherald.com) this morning. If you think as I do that they ought to putmy letterin the same position of prominance, both in their paper edition and on their website, as were the other two articles about this case, perhaps you will email them at news@reporter-herald.com.
[align=left]"7/22/09[/align]
My fellow Lovelanders:
Since the Friday July 17, 2009 Reporter Herald report by Jon Pilsner, many opinions have appeared in public forums like the Reporter Herald and opencarry.org, both pro and con, about guns and those who carry them.
As there will certainly be a law suit, I cannot discuss specifics. But, I would like to put in my two cents worth for your perusal, if you will allow.
I must tell you that, contrary to the impression some have got, I was not carrying my gun that evening in order to make a point, although, since then, having discovered good folks like those whose thoughts I read on opencarry.org, I do say that I am proud these days that that is now among my reasons.
As for Jon’s words that I want to “teach a lesson,” this is apparently an abbreviation of what I did say, and the connotation suggested by his words has made it easy for some to suspect some motive on my part that did not exist. (No fault to Jon. Journalists must save space. Jon is an excellent reporter even if he does write like I shoot. The Reporter Herald is lucky to have him and the town is lucky to have the Reporter Herald.) Jon asked me what I would like to see come out of all this. After much verbal wondering, I said that I would like it if all police officers were to come to know that they must protect all of the rights of all of the people and that if they were to think about all those brave Americans who have died, and all those countless others who have suffered terrible injuries to establish and preserve for us our constitution they would quit their national mantra, “officer safety” as their reason to trample upon the constitution. (Please correct me if I am wrong, Jon.)
And, now, if I may, here is what I think is the important thing:
“We are a nation of laws, not of men,” said many of our leaders from John Adams to Edward M. Kennedy. No matter how we might feel about guns or the people who carry them, we are called, I suggest, as Americans, to respect the constitution and laws of this land, and the decisions that the courts have made based upon them, and the rights of all people who choose to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the constitution.
Our option, if we do not like the wording of the laws and the constitution is to convince our representatives to change those words, or, if they will not, vote them out of office or petition the courts to strike down those laws we do not like. We are not allowed to deny the our neighbors their rights based upon opinions we may hold that differ from the rule of law. And, whenever a government official tries to do this, we must all, even if we agree whole heartedly with the opinion of that official, insist that that official confine his or her actions to that which is written in the law. We must not allow fears, “common sense,” or concerns for safety to dissuade us from these principles.
President Obama said, referring to our founding documents, “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” This is just as true for our city streets and country roads as for our national boarders. We, civilians and public servants alike, must not allow our personal fears to cause us to forget the sacrifices of all those who established and preserved for us our constitution and the institutions by which we, through our representatives, write the laws by which we all must live.
We must all be free to exercise our rights and we must all respect and protect the right of others to exercise the rights they may choose to exercise. But, only those rights guaranteed by constitution and laws. So far, neither constitution nor law guarantees anyone the right to be free from fear upon seeing another exercising his or her constitutional rights. If the people want that, they will prevail upon their representatives to write and pass it into law and to change the constitution.
Thanking you for your kind attention, I am
Bill Miller
Loveland
(To the Reporter Herald: Please publish the above exactly as I have written it or do not publish it in whole or in part. I have chosen my words carefully. I do not want their meanings or the tone or flavor of the piece to suffer for the sake of the saving of space or other editorial concerns. We have already seen how that can happen. As this piece is too long for your Open Forum, perhaps you will consent to publish it as a guest column or feature or something. Should there be need for voice communication, Mr. Pilsner has my phone number. I would be pleased should he call me. I want to be sure I don’t offend him with my comments about his writing )
(Attached is a picture of me in case you might think it fair to include it with the article as you do in so many instances.)"
[align=left][/align]