Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Rebuttal to my editorial

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    40

    Post imported post

    I thought it was entertaining to know my article upset somone enought to write a response:

    http://azdailysun.com/articles/2009/...tte_203302.txt



    My original editorial:

    http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2...tte_202827.txt

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Thornton, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Sounds like you need to write a responce to that persons letter.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Don't you just love the 'what if' argument?



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    7

    Post imported post

    judging from the comments to your editorial, you stepped on a hot point for some people! Nicely done though.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    Bebop wrote:
    Sounds like you need to write a responce to that persons letter.
    If he doesn't... I did.

    " I don't know where you people originate from, but folks in Arizona have been armed since before there 'was' an Arizona. In 1912... it was made part of the State's Constitution:

    Section 2 Article 26 Bearing arms:

    "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

    Concealed carry wasn't even an option until 1994. If any of these histronic projections of law abiding citizens bearing arms were true... they would have happened already. They haven't and don't. Obviously some of the naysayers here are 'city people' who seem to rely on their cell phones rather than their own wits and determination for their personal safety. This doesn't speak to the rest of us, or for anyone traveling within' 10 minutes of wherever you live. I suppose you've noticed 'the desert'?

    Openly armed citizens are a criminal deterrent and always have been. There are no instances of 'what if's' recorded. None! Check your hoplophobia at the borders. People carry guns here... get used to it or go home. "

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    Bebop wrote:
    Sounds like you need to write a responce to that persons letter.
    When the writer of "Playing hero can make bad situation (sic) worse" (Letters, Sept. 8) exhorts the newspaper to print his letter because not doing so is the equivalent of censorship of an anti-self-defense position, he falls into a trap created through gross oversimplification. Why can't the newspaper be concerned about the reaction of its readers, that miscreants will be forced to take to the streets for their free speech? I find his remarks about "daydreaming about being a hero" -- hence banning the carry of firearms -- juvenile and poorly thought out. In order for him to have his delusions, he is willing to put the rest of us at risk. What happens if someone reads his letter, gets stressed out, storms off and gets in a fight with an agitated, scruffy individual? Will the writer get in the face and assault the undercover cop who happened to read the same inane letter?

    What if during a free speech rally, he wears a shirt that causes someone to get angry at him, to come up and stab him and others he's with are killed? The writer would have single-shirtedly turned a protest into a murder scene.

    My advice to the writer is to stop choosing to exercise his free speech as is his right under both the US and Arizona Constitutions and to think about the downside to using free speech to remove one right that is specifically enumerated. Yes, he might get guns restricted to levels he likes, but he might take away his right to the very speech used, making a bad situation considerably worse.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Tawnos wrote:
    Bebop wrote:
    Sounds like you need to write a responce to that persons letter.
    When the writer of "Playing hero can make bad situation (sic) worse" (Letters, Sept. 8) exhorts the newspaper to print his letter because not doing so is the equivalent of censorship of an anti-self-defense position, he falls into a trap created through gross oversimplification. Why can't the newspaper be concerned about the reaction of its readers, that miscreants will be forced to take to the streets for their free speech? I find his remarks about "daydreaming about being a hero" -- hence banning the carry of firearms -- juvenile and poorly thought out. In order for him to have his delusions, he is willing to put the rest of us at risk. What happens if someone reads his letter, gets stressed out, storms off and gets in a fight with an agitated, scruffy individual? Will the writer get in the face and assault the undercover cop who happened to read the same inane letter?

    What if during a free speech rally, he wears a shirt that causes someone to get angry at him, to come up and stab him and others he's with are killed? The writer would have single-shirtedly turned a protest into a murder scene.

    My advice to the writer is to stop choosing to exercise his free speech as is his right under both the US and Arizona Constitutions and to think about the downside to using free speech to remove one right that is specifically enumerated. Yes, he might get guns restricted to levels he likes, but he might take away his right to the very speech used, making a bad situation considerably worse.
    Do you honestly believe any anti bears the intellect to comprehend a single word you just said?

    They hate guns because they are too stupid to understand their purpose. Having people walking about who are smarter than they are is a threat to their ego, and they can't see the use of it. They're simply too dumb to grasp the idea.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Haymarket/Gainesville/Arlington/GMU , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    227

    Post imported post

    It seems like you struck a nerve. However, you hit the right one because they cant seem to defend themselves logically. I applaud a well written, concise, and easy to understand statement of why you carry.
    OC - Kimber Custom II - trijicon night sights, beveled mag well, and Wilson combat mags
    CC/OC Sig Sauer 229 - trijicon night sights

  9. #9
    Regular Member hopnpop's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Paw Paw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    635

    Post imported post

    same fight, different day...
    No one has ever walked away from a gunfight complaining that he brought too much ammo.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Well.....it's simple. I've never heard of the anti's imiginary scenerio occuring.

    On the other hand, IHAVE heard of armed citizens stopping the loss of life and/or property from occuring.

    Touche'.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    Notso wrote:
    Don't you just love the 'what if' argument?

    My thoughts exactly. They have tried the "what if" argument here in Virginia. I love the what if someone shoots a cop. Which as you all know doesn't happen.

    My rebuttal would be, "What if I had a square ass? I might just **** a brick."

    OP, good job.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

Posting Permissions

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