Here is a letter to the editor about me in the Washington County Daily News. It’s a good reminder that when folks like me worry about the liberals wanting to go after our guns, those worries are not unfounded. So much ignorance…
Change the law on semi-automatic guns
I disagree with Owen Robinson’s Feb. 27 article, “Defending Our Kids.” He appears to be OK with the public purchasing semi-automatic rifles. I’ve learned through others that this is what AR15 type guns are called. Sandy Hook happened (20 children killed in 2012) and we did nothing other than decide, by default, that killing children was bearable. Six years later, 14 kids killed and … well, we’ll see what gets done.
Owen said “preserve the footings of individual liberty” and in his summary said “the violence only stops when met with equal force.”
I am just asking for a change. Change the law to put semi-automatic weapons in the same folder as automatic weapons. In 1986, a line in the sand was drawn and fully automatic machine guns were no longer for sale. Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment which called for the banning of machine guns. The bill was passed and signed May 19, 1986, by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. Upon Reagan’s signature, the sale of new machine guns to or between civilians was banned.
However, you can, even today, still buy a machine gun legally along with other, even more destructive weapons.
Also on the books, on page 54 of Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s 2008 majority opinion, D.C vs. Heller he wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Mental illness, government buildings, school, felons, etc. are existing exceptions.
I know there are several contributing factors to this issue but the elephant in the room is semi-automatic guns. Pareto analysis says work on the biggest issue first. Don’t ignore the others, just focus on the thing that will effect the most change, the quickest.
Bruce Wilk West Bend
For the record: yes, I am OK with the public buying semi-automatic firearms.
>we did nothing other than decide, by default, that killing children was bearable.
Someone should ask Bruce Wilk and other people saying this statement if they support Abortion.
Quietly humming “Every Sperm is Sacred”…
Not so subtle a way of disarming us – allowing us single-shot weapons to defend against a government gone rogue. And if you think that’s unlikely, glance back to the Obama years. I’m sure Stalin, Hitler and Mao are cheering from their perches in hell.
Is that the result of a Pareto analysis of the facts?
The problem with history is that it isn’t hereditary, it needs to be learned or experienced by every generation.
How about 262 minutes of silence, one for every 262 MILLION disarmed people killed by their own government in the 20th century.
20th Century Democide https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
How about 11 minutes of silence every day for the 11 teens that are their peers who text and die while driving? Nah. That doesn’t take evil guns away.
“Someone should ask Bruce Wilk and other people saying this statement if they support Abortion.“
The difference is, killing children is against the law. Legal abortion isn’t.
Ah yes, the fractured liberal mind can make that distinction with ease. Ironic that the line in the sand is “convenience”.
You confuse individual morality with what is legal. There is a big difference. Tribal political bias is unable to differentiate many of these issues.
No sorry. Anyone who is against gun rights due to school shootings and also supports abortion legality as it stands today, is a hypocrite and suffers from amoral dimentia for the sake of their own convenience.
I’m pro 2nd amendment and have stated so in the past. I’ve also stating the fact that there is legal abortion in the United States. Reading anything else into what I’ve said is wishful thinking on your behalf. Comparing the unlawful killing of students to legal abortion is apples to oranges. Now, if you want to discuss these things as personal moral issues, that’s completely different.
I haven’t read anything into what you’ve said. You’re the one who first took issue and offered rebuttal to my initial question for Mr Will. But keep trolling bub, everyone needs a hobby.
It’s not trolling. It’s bringing to your attention that there is a difference between the unlawful killing of school children, and legal abortion. Something you failed to understand. Attempting to equate something legal to something illegal is a straw man argument, Chip.
Ok, Left Kevin.
Dad29 says:
OK, run with it. State the problem, state the causes, order them by importance, tell me what you might do to address each of them. Which cause should be addressed first? Which second?You do have a sincere interest in solving the problem, right?
Strictly speaking, any “law” which deviates from morality is an invalid “law.” And “morality” is not hard to define; it is commonly held throughout the world, usually summed by the “Big 10” or–even more summarily–the Golden Rule.
Ya don’t even have to adhere to this “belief in God” stuff to understand the Golden Rule. Which shows you how mentally defective the Left really is….
The problem: some people kill innocent people.
Cause: Satan.
Remedy: a priori, none. Killers wanna kill. It’s what they do. Guns, knives, baseball bats, garrotte….no difference. Post-facto: life in prison.
“Ya don’t even have to adhere to this “belief in God” stuff to understand the Golden Rule. Which shows you how mentally defective the Left really is….”
I wonder how many of the “10” the leader of the Republican Party adheres to to demonstrate the morality of the party? Or does the Right display it’s mentally defectiveness when it comes to their leader?
“Strictly speaking, any “law” which deviates from morality is an invalid “law.”
Who determines what is “moral” ? Your moral might not be the same as mine, hence codified laws.
“And “morality” is not hard to define; it is commonly held throughout the world”. Really? You are going to have to expand on that one a bit to make anybody believe you.
“Strictly speaking, any “law” which deviates from morality is an invalid “law.””
Yah, try telling that to a judge at sentencing.
Nice try, Patty Boy. Never proposed that Trump be made a saint. I vote for a President, not a saint. If you didn’t know the difference, you can look it up.
(Frankly, I was not hair-on-fire about Clinton and the bimbo eruptions. But his–and his wife’s–treasons? That’s another thing entirely.)
Nord, you should try reading easily available materials on world religions. I’m not going to do that for you, sorry. If you need a hint, try “natural law” for openers.
A judge will have to think twice before sending the Little Sisters of the Poor to prison for violating the ObozoCare act. He might have a very large and very angry crowd to deal with.
That’s called “justifiable anger,” by the way. You can look it up.
So what you’re saying, Dad, is that morality has nothing to do when you vote? Sounds like mentally defectiveness on the part of an individual that professes to be a Catholic and a Conservative.
Taking a close look at existing firearms restrictions, bureaucratic failures, mental health reporting and probably a laundry list of things makes sense. The real problem is the one-side discussion.
Recently, in northern Massachusetts, a family of four was bludgeoned to death. Media reporting was nearly nonexistent. Seems odd that every ‘news’ outlet reports non-stop about gun violence but would ignore a terrible tragedy like this unless the ‘news’ media has an agenda desiring a specific outcome.
The letter’s author here is a perfect example of this. Ignored is the fact, the shooter in Florida was fatherless, had well known mental health issues and had been flagged many times with multiple law enforcement agencies just to name a few that come to mind.
In Great Britain, only manually loaded rifles and shotguns are allowed. The result is people mowed down by trucks, sliced up with swords and blown up at concerts. The author’s implied idea that banning all semi-automatic firearms is a solution will still leave sawed off shotgun with buckshot around. Banning all long guns will still leave semi-automatic pistols capable of discharging 15 rounds in a matter of seconds. Banning semi-automatice pistols will still leave … fill in the blank. Point being the law of unintended consequences will always apply and the lunatics in our society will always find a way.
A rational two-sided conversation needs to take place and address the problem instead of a knee jerk solution that won’t solve anything.
Atom bombs, drones, nerve gas, guns, knives, baseball bats, hammers, garrotte….no difference! All the same! Nothing can be done!
You’re quite the moral authority and Pareto analysis expert!
Eso si que es!
“A rational two-sided conversation needs to take place and address the problem instead of a knee jerk solution that won’t solve anything.”
I agree!
dad:
Approximately 1/3 of the worlds population pay any attention to the “Big 10”. I did look it up before I made my previous comment. Pretty sure you didn’t.
And since you haven’t told us who you thing gets to determine what “moral” is we get you dismiss that part of your argument. Now you want to introduce yet another unsubstantiated straw man, “natural law”. Who gets to decide what that is?? All the more reason smart folks codified their laws.
And any judge that gets spooked by an angry citizenry for following the law is violating his/her oath of office and shouldn’t be a judge.
>And any judge that gets spooked by an angry citizenry for following the law is violating his/her oath of office and shouldn’t be a judge.
Glad to see you are coming to yours senses with as endorsement of Screnock over Dallet.
Nope. I still don’t think a known scofflaw like Screnock is a good choice. But you do, so that tells us something.
Citation missing.
He’s better than the alternative and it doesn’t take an Average Joe long to figure that out. Dallet judges that a black man is guilty of a crime due to the color of his skin. Are the northerners really that inbred?
The soot from the cross burnings is affecting his brain.
j:
Yes you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am.
My family tree is pretty broad and well branched, unlike the one limb on pauls. BTW, I’ve never been to a cross burning, but paul is sure fascinated by them.
The only time you have a funny bone in your body is when I fuck you in the ass.
Always the class guy. What are you afraid of??
I’m not afraid of anything…and certainly not backwoods white trash racists like you.
Well, he’s not afraid of homosexual sex, that’s for sure.
I recall you were once banned here for sock puppetry, John Foust.
jjf:
That seems true enough. But I think there is an underlying pathology that triggers his irrational outbursts of anger. There is help available for him if he only reaches out .
No anger here, whiner. But tell us again some tall tales about three 500-year floods in a year, or baseball “legends” or 12 years of GOP control.
You’re a pathological liar who turns into a punk bitch frequently.
Try not to strangle anyone tonight, BTK.
Owen, how about that reminder about individuals acting like adults please.
And the other whiner chimes in. At least you didn’t call me the k-word this time.
I am encouraged by at least one poster seeing the wisdom of actually thinking a real conversation of the entire problem instead of the leftist talking points. Maybe Owen should add a LIKE button.
The Muzzies ascribe to the Big 10–in their own inimitable way.
The confucians/buddhists somehow follow the same set of rules. Gee, that’s a MYSTERY, eh? Maybe some sort of inborn understanding of the natural law? Nah. Couldn’t be. Research by Nord proves otherwise.
That leaves animists, who (SURPRISE!!!) don’t bother with #1 on the Big Ten, but pretty much adhere to the rest. Even the atheists/agnostics crowd sticks to the rules (outside of #s 1,2,3). Mostly.
Since in your well-researched estimation 67% of earthlings don’t ascribe to the Big 10 (or 7), perhaps you can show us the societies which allow or encourage murder of innocents, adultery, homosexual conduct, and theft! (Congress does not count as an answer.)
We’ll wait.
If you are talking about muslims and the 10 commandments, you are probably wrong. Nobody else is even close. And I did look it up.
So how do you reconcile your personal adherence to the “Big 10”, and the continued behavior of the POTUS? More than a little cognitive dissonence on your part.
Wow, talk about dense. It’s obvious that people reconcile with Trump far better than the Clintons. Duh.
Clearly Le Roi du Trailer Park has sucked down a box of Tide Pods.
“Wow, talk about dense. It’s obvious that people reconcile with Trump far better than the Clintons. Duh.”
Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. So I don’t know how obvious peoples reconciliation with Trump really was.
Nordski, I’ll wait for your answers to MY questions. By the way, the Muzzies happen to value the Old Testament and all its contents. They part ways with Christ.
You don’t get an easy win with your foofoodust.
“Islam does not accept the absolute authority of the Bible, teaching that it has become corrupted over the years, and therefore it does not accept the authority of the listing of the Ten Commandments that appears in the Bible.”
From: Muslim View of the Ten Commandments, 2017.
So if your question(s) was the one about societies that allow or encourage theft or adultery, just look around you. We have a WI Supreme Court justice that is an admitted adulterer, and a POTUS that will soon be proven as one. And theft is rampant in government, just listen to all the right-wing talk radio. You really need to keep cuurent.
Your research sucks. I’m not surprised, given your unwillingness to engage on a level higher than that of Foust.
That pretty much encompasses all of the Big 10, assuming you know how to read.
Still waiting for an answer beyond 6th-grade/Foust level, by the way.
d:
They don’t look much like the Big 10 I learned at St. Petes. Probably not much like the ones you learned either. Whose research sucks?
Better ask your question again, if you ever had one to begin with. I answered the other one.
Clearly, your research sucks, Nazi.
Buh-Bye, N0rdski.
So the troll was successful in taking
the elephant in the room is semi-automatic guns
to arguing about religion. DON’T FEED THE TROLLS.
I believe the first comment started us down a different road by bringing up the straw man argument about abortion. The discussion about semi-automatic weapons was gone after that.
I see bill is calling dad a troll. Don’t you love it when they eat their own?
Gee, Dad29, it’s even more strange when you consider that the humans figured out all that stuff tens of thousands of years before Mohammed and Christ came along.
The anti-Semite, the White Nationalist and Sockpuppet.
The troll Trifecta.