Macon Telegragh Letters to the Editor

Discussion in 'In the News' started by jgullock, Dec 5, 2006.

  1. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,664
    7
    38
    I threw up a little in my mouth reading the paper this morning...

    http://www.macon.com/mld/telegraph/news ... 163434.htm

    Evil gun laws

    Recently Virginia's U.S. Sen. George Allen introduced in Congress a bill that would allow the carrying of concealed weapons in national parks. His logic was that national park regulations deny visitors "a right they may enjoy outside the parks." The Second Amendment ensures "a collective right to bear arms...." But in recent times this has been wrongly translated and confused as a law guaranteeing an individual's right to carry a weapon in public. Now our public safety is in danger with this misguided thinking, which is promoted by the National Rifle Association in its ideal state of "armed paranoia." This only makes the public more endangered, not safer.

    In the past year 15 states, including Georgia, have passed laws allowing victims of crimes to shoot someone who threatens them without fear of prosecution for murder. These new laws are nothing but "get-out-of-jail-free" cards for the trigger-happy gun owner. Their rewards are almost automatic immunity from prosecution and civil lawsuits. This is insanity.

    Our society already has laws and court precedent for legitimate kill-or-be-killed situations that are defensible in court. There never has been an urgent need for a law that enshrines the right to maim or kill in response to a perceived threat. These laws are both unnecessary and evil.

    Frank W. Gadbois
    Warner Robins
     
  2. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Wow, talk about knee jerk reaction to gun laws.

    Even IF the 2nd was a "collective right" (which it is not), then how can a federal law ban carry in places inside the state from those people the state has certified as allowed to carry?

    Either way you slice it, individual right or state/collective right, a federal ban on property inside the state is not allowed. It is either a collective/state right and only the state can restrict carry or it is an individual right and neither state nor federal can restrict carry.

    Yes, I think that applies to other federal laws currently on the books.
     

  3. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,664
    7
    38
    I strated to write up a response, using Eugene Volokh..."The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person".

    But, then again I figured what's the point, it would be like trying to reason with a tree stump. What part of "right of the people" don't they understand?
     
  4. USMC - Retired

    USMC - Retired Active Member

    5,215
    0
    36
    My response to this same logic from an anti on another forum I belong to...

     
  5. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    You could spend 200 words attacking any one of the several fallacies in that letter to the editor.

    Basically the rant boils down to: trust me, the NRA and all laws they support are wrong, I don't have the knowledge or the ability to explain why.
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    my letter

    MY LETTER TO THE MACON TELEGRAPH:

    Frank Gadbois' recent letter here announced his opposition to a proposed change in federal law that would allow firearms to be possessed in national parks. Mr. Gadbois' argument and rhetoric, however, was no more than a rally against the NRA and against the practice of carrying firearms generally. Nothing in his letter was specific to the issue of federal property, or national parks.

    I say that the issue of whether civilians should be allowed to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon for their personal defense has long ago been answered in the affirmative, though Mr. Gadbois would wish it otherwise. So the only question that is before us to answer now is a more narrow one: What is special about national parks that should invalidate properly-issued state gun carry permits?

    Are national parks places that are so heavily guarded and well-secured, like courthouses, that visitors there would be unreasonable to be concerned about personal safety? Or are these parks places where criminals and psychopaths sometimes take innocent lives, especially the lives of female park visitors traveling or exercising alone? Are these parks places where help is just a shout and a couple seconds away, or are these parks often desolate places where people are a long way from civilization, and a long way from the nearest police station, and where many people's wireless phones won't even pick up a signal?

    I say that it makes no sense to say to a law-abiding citizen with a valid state-issued gun carry permit "you can carry your firearm with you almost anywhere in this state, but not in a park." There is no logical reason for parks to be off-limits to firearms generally. Other laws related to illegal use of firearms (hunting where forbidden, discharging a firearm along a public road) or the use of firearms in a way that is unsafe or creates a noise nusiance for other park visitors, can and should remain in effect.

    Finally, even people who don't desire to have a gun available for their protection in a national park, but might want to have their gun with them at other times and under other circumstances during this same trip or vacation, have a dilemma when it comes to parks. Why should they be forced to leave the gun at home, and be without it in every place they travel during their entire trip just so as not to violate the law when they drive onto park property with that firearm in the vehicle?
     
  7. jgullock

    jgullock Active Member

    1,664
    7
    38
    Gunsmoker - They published it this morning BUT LEFT OUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH!
     
  8. rajl

    rajl New Member

    391
    0
    0
    They also edited other paragraphs. For example, they remove the sentence referring to cell-phones having no signal in most parks.
     
  9. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    On behalf of your fellow permit holders, thanks for taking the time to write a response. Your letter was clear, and rational.
     
  10. GeorgiaGlocker

    GeorgiaGlocker Romans 1:16

    4,380
    1
    38
    I read that in the Macon Telegraph yesterday as well. Some people are just clueless. Another "thank you" Gunsmoker for taking the time to respond.
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Good job!

    They should not have edited out the "cell phone signal" part, though.
     
  12. Foul

    Foul New Member

    780
    0
    0
    I would have written in, but I don't think that they would publish my letter stating:

    "Frank W. Gadbois of Warner Robins is a dumba**."