• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Rebuttal to my editorial

old_skool

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2009
Messages
7
Location
, ,
imported post

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

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
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. "
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
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.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
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.
 

TheMrMitch

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
1,260
Location
Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
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'. :dude:
 

T Dubya

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
914
Location
Richmond, Va, ,
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.
 
Top