Existing gun laws are fine

  • Follow Letters

In response to the Rev. Paul Cook’s Feb. 4 letter (“We need stricter gun laws,”) I submit the following – and by the way, I have been around for seven decades.

The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the others was a tragedy, especially the little girl. However, the man responsible had a history of mental problems, so blame his doctors and family for him not receiving proper treatment and/or confinement.

If the courts would start punishing murderers with mandatory death sentences and carrying them out, this type of useless killing would drop drastically.

My opinion of John F. and Robert Kennedy is evidently far different from the Rev. Cook’s. As for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., I won’t bother to give my opinion; just read the true history of this man and not the made-up bull.

There are more-than-sufficient laws governing gun ownership for law-abiding citizens. Does the Rev. Cook suggest violating the Constitution’s Second Amendment? That amendment was so people could protect themselves from a repressive government if need be – and that is getting close!

I was raised around guns and taught safety, unlike most young people today. You do not penalize honest citizens; you penalize law violators. If the Rev. Cook saw the number of guns I own and the ammunition I have, he probably would faint.

Lastly, remember: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” And the people will not have the ability to fight a repressive government.

His letter was standard liberal, Democratic bull! I wonder if Richmond County Democratic Party Chairman Lowell Greenbaum wrote it for him.

Don Turner

Grovetown

Comments (7) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Jon Lester
2270
Points
Jon Lester 02/11/12 - 05:33 am
0
0
OK, so we have some insight

OK, so we have some insight into how you really feel about race and societal progress. Interesting how quick you are to make excuses for the guy who shot Rep. Giffords.

Tell me, what mandatory sentences would you prescribe for war crimes, insider trading and mortgage fraud, among the many other crimes aided and abetted under the previous administration?

southernguy08
499
Points
southernguy08 02/11/12 - 08:36 am
0
0
Paul Cook's letter reminded
Unpublished

Paul Cook's letter reminded me of Bill Clinton's surgeon general, Jocelyn Elders. Anybody remember her, and her "We need safer bullets!" speech? I liked her, like most liberals, she didn't make much sense, but she was always good for a laugh.

crkgrdn
2287
Points
crkgrdn 02/11/12 - 11:00 am
0
0
My European friends and I

My European friends and I have had some interesting discussions about the ownership of firearms. Across Europe all matter of legal barricades have been erected to prevent ownership of firearms. Scotland now entertains making knives illegal. So, what do the thugs turn to next, spatulas? And our troops have been shot in Frankfurt, where German laws make firearm ownership nearly impossible. And, here in the USA convicted felons and teenagers murder freely with handguns. Murder and mayhem preceded the invention of firearms by thousands of years.

Conservative Man
5303
Points
Conservative Man 02/11/12 - 11:04 am
0
0
Very little to argue with in

Very little to argue with in this LTE.

bob j
0
Points
bob j 02/11/12 - 03:52 pm
0
0
Society does not control

Society does not control crime, EVER, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding. To ban guns from citizens because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding citizens that their rights and liberties depend not on their OWN conduct, but on the conduct of the criminals and the lawless, and that the ‘state’ will permit it's law-abiding citizens to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. People who will do you harm DO NOT CARE how many laws they violate. Laws only restrain those who are willing to abide by them and give you a legal mechanism to prosecute people who do a certain type of prohibited action. That puts the ‘Law-Abiding’ at the disadvantage. Criminals, by definition, are law-breakers. They have no regard for the law in the first place, so another law would mean very little to them. What it would instead do, is turn law-abiding citizens into much easier targets for criminals.
If a person is intent on causing harm to another person, do you really think an invisible line on the ground will cause him to turn around, go back to his car, put his guns up, and then go continue to cause harm to another person? If a person is intent on causing harm to another person, do you really think they will care about the punishments for stepping over that arbitrary line with their firearm/weapon? If a person is intent on causing harm to another person, do you really think disarming those intended victims is the best way to go about seeing to their safety? Laws which make certain places illegal to carry a firearm don’t mean spit to the criminal and put the Citizen in peril.
I have absolutely no problem with laws that specifically and intentionally target the law-breakers in our community, and increase the punishments for them doing what they do. But the second you start limiting me in some misguided attempt to control the criminal population… well, then we are going to have a problem. I have broken no law, I have committed no crime, I have no convictions on my record, and I have harmed no one – you simply have no right to regulate my life.

The anti-liberty argument boils down to the premise, that if peaceable armed citizens cross certain property lines, their behavior drastically changes. They degenerate into hot-tempered, remorseless, out-of-control, binge-drinking frat boys, drunken cowboys, and avenging vigilantes ready to blast anything for any reason--or for no reason at all.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 105-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old grandmother on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. A gun is about choices. If someone enters my home to steal a television, I can choose to hold him for police. If he enters to harm me, I can choose to defend myself. If I have no gun, the choice belongs to the killer.

Violence does not erupt on schedule, and criminals do not make appointments in advance. And when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Victim disarmament schemes give people only two choices if the worst happens: to run like rabbits or die like sheep. Or in some cases BOTH.

BHirsh
11
Points
BHirsh 02/11/12 - 06:32 pm
0
0
Jon Lester - The Kennedys

Jon Lester -

The Kennedys came from a criminal family (bootlegger and mobster), and apples don't fall far from the tree. MLK was a philandering fellow-traveler. That you choose to ignore these flaws in your progressive "saints" is typical.

As to appropriate penalties for your theoretical litany of crimes, if they're Democrats (read, anti-liberty statist leftists like yourself), death by vivisection. If they're Republicans (read, folks who believe in a constitutional REPUBLIC), the laws on the books are just fine.

Your use of buzzwords like "race" and "social progress" are hilarious. The Kennedys don't invoke a "race" issue which proves that the writer's reference to MLK doesn't either, and what you hail as "progress" is in actuality "regression". Your ilk has done more to attenuate individual liberty in the name of "social progress" than any other influence in this country.

And we're sick of it.

KSL
121973
Points
KSL 02/11/12 - 09:12 pm
0
0
I know this is about gun

I know this is about gun laws, but I get so tire of the same old wail about Bush and the republicans being responsible for the mortgage problem while completely that democrats were highly complicit in the matter.

SCV Sam
0
Points
SCV Sam 02/11/12 - 09:45 pm
0
0
A fine fine letter from a
Unpublished

A fine fine letter from a champion of liberty . Your comment about the truth regarding M . L . King and the politically correct motivated cover-up as to who he was and what he was __really__ about is most welcome, Brother Turner .

Back to Top

Top headlines

More details in McCormick attack

The McCormick County Sheriff's Office continues to investigate the reported attack on a bicyclist over the weekend, but has yet to find much evidence, a spokesman said Tuesday.
Search Augusta jobs