More anti-gun crap in SDSU paper

[professorhard]

So I was up on campus today and reading the student newspaper only to come across this article. Here is the digital copy

http://www.thedailyaztec.com/state_of_mind/2.6693/so_angry%252C_must_type_right_from_your_cold%252C_ dead_hands-1.1622640

ETA: Apparently the Virginia Tech shooter used multiple automatic weapons? I thought he had a .22 and glock19

[yellowfin]

Wow, I never thought I'd see that level of 4th grade namecalling and playground taunting printed in a college newspaper. An editor actually let that get printed?

[professorhard]

lol now which one of you guys sent Ashlie Rodriguez racist death threats?

[yellowfin]

lol now which one of you guys sent Ashlie Rodriguez racist death threats?To their screwed up minds, an invite to the range to shoot an OLL is a death threat.

[ldivinag]

An editor actually let that get printed?

writer is freshman or sophomore...

editor is probably a senior...

[professorhard]

The author:
—Ruthie Kelly is a journalism and women’s studies senior.

[JDay]

To their screwed up minds, an invite to the range to shoot an OLL water pistol is a death threat.

ftfy

[Foghlai]

How does this sounds for a reply?


Hi,

Perhaps you intended to add a level of depth to the sarcasm in the first part of the article. I couldn't tell for sure so I wanted to clear up a few facts for you.

Automatic weapons, as generally understood, were not involved in the Virginia Tech shootings. The weapons used at the Virginia Tech shootings were both pistols and semi-automatic. The gunman waited 30 days between purchases.

I would suggest that you consider the possibility that any and all of the regulations that have been suggested or implied only target law abiding citizens. Criminals will continue to acquire guns. Most of them, well, let's just say I really doubt they are waiting even 30 days.

Here are a few quotes I found interesting:
You label a gun as a "weapon of slaughter" and firearms as "kill-sticks". While the Lord of the Rings reference was amusing, these appeals to emotion hold little more logical credibility than a straw man argument.

That said, while I appreciate your position, let me explain mine. I don’t tolerate government regulation of rights when it is detrimental to the individual. I don’t tolerate when it comes to sexuality (prop 8). I don’t tolerate it when it comes to morality (prohibition, marijuana laws). I don’t tolerate it when it comes to self-defense.

Ashley writes “Making guns more difficult to acquire may just be the remedy to crime this country needs.” This is not only unsupported by fact, just the opposite. In cases of increased gun control, crime inevitably goes up. This is a primary reason for my intolerance of gun control laws. I hope we can agree that criminal have access to guns regardless of the law put in place.

As a supporter of gay rights you might be interested in researching a group called the Pink Pistols. They are a group of gay/lesbian men and women advocates of gun rights for the purposes of self-defense.

[professorhard]

criminal(s) you forgot that S in the third to last sentence. Sounds like a good reply though. Also Ashley spells her name Ashlie.

[N6ATF]

Sent this, either waiting for approval or the server conked out.

Ironic that the specter of racism is raised. Gun control itself is racist, from 1640 Virginia to today. Google is wonderful in digging up this buried truth.

The government has for centuries, and continues to this day, to enact every possible unconstitutional and immoral infringement on the God-given right of self-defense against minorities, racial, economic, and political. Gun registration and licensing takes your right to self-defense away and leaves it up to the government to decide whether you are worthy of their usurped privilege. Far too many registration and licensing systems never register or license anyone without a bribe or a lawsuit. When law-abiding adults with no criminal or mental history are denied the right to self-defense, criminals have all the power.

So continue to throw up your own straw man arguments and by making them, prove you stand against the defense of human life for ALL instead of only the chosen few.

[shark92651]

What a whiny reaction. If she can't handle the angry public reaction from writing such poorly written and researched opinion pieces on subjects such as guns perhaps they should stick to subjects they actually have a clue about - like keg parties and makeup tips.

[professorhard]

It would be the demise of the free world

[B Strong]

Note to self:

Don't hire journalism/womans studies graduates.

[Stanze]

I posted this, let's see if they have the balls to print it.:D

"background checks, waiting periods, gun registration and licensing with possible mandatory gun safety classes. All of which, it’s true, are a huge pain in the elbow and would likely prevent some individuals from being able to acquire a gun. Which is kind of the point."

You already have to do all that before buying a gun in CA. Do your research first before talking out of your arse. Now that you know these laws are already in place, will you please STFU about guns! Guess what! They don't work. Criminals don't give a crap about following laws genius.

Yours and Ashlie's anti-gun rhetoric is handing down the same kind of fascism to gun-owners that the anti-Prop-8 crowd is giving to the Pro-Prop 8 crowd. Welcome to our world. We been fighting bogus unconstitutional laws for almost a century. You're in for a long fight friend. Good luck trying to convince people already set in their ways. Gun owners have the liberal agenda indoctrinated against them in schools. Prop-8 supporters have the bible thumpers up in their grill. Schools ain't got nothing on thousand's of years of the bible.

Support ALL the constitutional amendments or you're a hypocrite.

BTW, I voted NO on Prop-8. I almost voted YES out of spite because of people like you that crap all over my rights, but I have class. Please return the favor and leave my rights alone.

Oh, and Mayor Newsom telling people, "Whether ya like it or not!" isn't helping win any favor.

Oh, and most of the people who voted Obama in, voted YES on Prop-8. Democracy is a double-edged sword innit?

[edward]

I posted this, let's see if they have the balls to print it.:D

You've got some rhetorical U-turns in there in a couple of places where it sounds like you're contradicting yourself.
Proof reading would be helpful. :thumbsup:

[Stanze]

You've got some rhetorical U-turns in there in a couple of places where it sounds like you're contradicting yourself.
Proof reading would be helpful. :thumbsup:

Oops. You're right. Well, I hope my point gets across regardless.

[pullnshoot25]

OK, someone get her information and tell me if she is cute. I just extended the invite from Ashlie to include Ruthie as well.

Seriously, it is going to be Ashlie, Ruthie and Amita that are going shooting with me, then the rest of the women at SDSU. CRIKEY!

[N6ATF]

At this rate, they may as well have a series of anti-self-defense articles passing from one woman to another until eventually you end up having to take the entire female student body of SDSU to the biggest range in the state.

Funny because libel aside about being afraid of gun owners (report your fear to the police if you're not a filthy liar who will say anything to win), women need the equalizer more often than men do. So much for empowering women, they are doing the exact opposite.

Just like their God, the Brady Campaign, I expect them to not shed a tear when a woman is raped at knifepoint because she didn't have the proper tool to defend herself.

[hellaguy]

Couple of face shots, I think she could be chubby/non-hot
http://portfolio.ruthiekelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/ruthie.jpg
http://static.open.salon.com/files/rsz/crop_100x100/files/ruthie1235613771.jpg

[Mazilla]

Couple of face shots, I think she could be chubby/non-hot
http://portfolio.ruthiekelly.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/ruthie.jpg
http://static.open.salon.com/files/rsz/crop_100x100/files/ruthie1235613771.jpg



"Fat chicks need love to, they just gotta pay" ~Glen Quagmire

[pullnshoot25]

At this rate, they may as well have a series of anti-gun articles passing from one woman to another until eventually you end up having to take the entire female student body of SDSU to the biggest range in the state.

No kidding. After these four people, they are at least paying the more expensive part of the range fees :)

[GaffSD]

Okay... A moment of pause, please.

Let's stretch a little, and say that these people were actually interested in a proper debate of the issues... And some of YOUR CGF answers ended up in their inbox.

At that point, is is remotely possible that the replies you gave on this forum can influence the people who receive them? The "cold, dead hands" type replies?

Not a chance.

I know that this is not THEIR forum, but I'm sure that some of the comments that they received were over-the-top gunnie type responses similar to what I've read here, and worse.

I, for one, don't think that a five year old should be able to buy an M203. I CAN, however, argue the facts on the basis of history contrasted by modern day reason, international experience and the general deterioration of civil liberties.

I can use the examples, as written by our founding fathers on the issue, to frame the context that we experience today.

THIS is what needs to be done.

And, by the way, I am not some frizzy-haired college educated liberal. I dropped out of high school and joined the military in the 11th grade. I've been to Africa and the middle east, and draw my pro-constitution opinions from visiting countries that didn't have one.

ALWAYS remember... Your job is to educate. Dogma, whatever the cause, is seen as just that.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your comments.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Ron

[nick]

15 or 16 guns make a massive collection? :confused:

I also wonder what'd happen if Dick Cheney did shoot that friend of his in the face with buckshot...

[Knight]

15 or 16 guns make a massive collection? :confused:

I also wonder what'd happen if Dick Cheney did shoot that friend of his in the face with buckshot...

I got a chuckle out of that too. I consider my 30-gun collection to be very modest, especially when compared to some of the other members' arsenals on this forum and others . . .

[sanb909]

First, there's WAY too many cliched insults being thrown around by Ruthie:

"weapon of slaughter"

" the automatic weapons that can mow down dozens of students at a time, such as the ones used in the Virginia Tech shootings."

You ought to be honest enough not to put complete lies in her stories, particularly mischaracterizing semi-automatics as full-fledged machine guns.

Ms. Kelly, while it sounds really scary, your lies ring hollow and yield the soft, dishonest core of your argument. In short, you made stuff up to add emphasis to your tired, deflated argument against gun ownership as it exists in CA.


The following stands as further testimony to your inability to render a legitimate, grown-up argument:

"So when gun zealots freak out and act like people suggesting reasonable restrictions are trying to desecrate our founding document … well, that freaks out the normies. We wonder why it is that you “loves, loves, loves” your guns so much. We wonder why your kill-sticks are so precious that asking you to register them, take a safety class and wait a few days after buying them is morally equivalent to taking them all away."

Gun freak zealots....normies....kill-sticks...

Where do I begin? You don't favor people being able to own what you call a "kill-stick." Rather, you favor the ever-increasing set of rules used to ultimately make it impossible to own a gun without the very real threat of it being confiscated by our overblown government. Take a look at what happened in other countries like Australia and Great Britain. Guns were taken away wholesale. Why would you think that having the government know what you have and where you keep it wouldn't lend itself to this sort of thing here?


"requiring you to wait a few days, fill out some paperwork and know how to put the safety on before you’re allowed to buy a weapon of slaughter, is not the same thing as banning it. "

We already have to wait TEN days, not just a few, to pick up our guns. We also fill loads of paperwork--both federal and state. We have to demonstrate the knowledge of how to engage the safety, as well as not pointing it at other people. Your insinuation that this is not already the case is further demonstration of your complete dishonesty in this article.

Finally, consider this comment by Dianne Feinstein, a true pink Democratic liberal if there ever was one:

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

In summary, Ruthie, graduation is just around the corner. We don't have to agree on politics, but very soon, you'll be out in the real world, where you honesty--and lack thereof--will have very real ramifications for your career. Consider working harder on presenting the truth when you make an argument, as there are always those won't let you slide as easily as the editors and the student body at SDSU.

[edward]

First, there's WAY too many cliched insults being thrown around by Ruthie:

"weapon of slaughter"

" the automatic weapons that can mow down dozens of students at a time, such as the ones used in the Virginia Tech shootings."

You ought to be honest enough not to put complete lies in her stories, particularly mischaracterizing semi-automatics as full-fledged machine guns.

Ms. Kelly, while it sounds really scary, your lies ring hollow and yield the soft, dishonest core of your argument. In short, you made stuff up to add emphasis to your tired, deflated argument against gun ownership as it exists in CA.


The following stands as further testimony to your inability to render a legitimate, grown-up argument:

"So when gun zealots freak out and act like people suggesting reasonable restrictions are trying to desecrate our founding document … well, that freaks out the normies. We wonder why it is that you “loves, loves, loves” your guns so much. We wonder why your kill-sticks are so precious that asking you to register them, take a safety class and wait a few days after buying them is morally equivalent to taking them all away."

Gun freak zealots....normies....kill-sticks...

Where do I begin? You don't favor people being able to own what you call a "kill-stick." Rather, you favor the ever-increasing set of rules used to ultimately make it impossible to own a gun without the very real threat of it being confiscated by our overblown government. Take a look at what happened in other countries like Australia and Great Britain. Guns were taken away wholesale. Why would you think that having the government know what you have and where you keep it wouldn't lend itself to this sort of thing here?


"requiring you to wait a few days, fill out some paperwork and know how to put the safety on before you’re allowed to buy a weapon of slaughter, is not the same thing as banning it. "

We already have to wait TEN days, not just a few, to pick up our guns. We also fill loads of paperwork--both federal and state. We have to demonstrate the knowledge of how to engage the safety, as well as not pointing it at other people. Your insinuation that this is not already the case is further demonstration of your complete dishonesty in this article.

Finally, consider this comment by Dianne Feinstein, a true pink Democratic liberal if there ever was one:

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

In summary, Ruthie, graduation is just around the corner. We don't have to agree on politics, but very soon, you'll be out in the real world, where you honesty--and lack thereof--will have very real ramifications for your career. Consider working harder on presenting the truth when you make an argument, as there are always those (who) won't let you slide as easily as the editors and the student body at SDSU.

I like it :thumbsup:. When dealing with mindless ranting psychobabble like what is found in that article, its always nice to do a point by point STFU.

You have a trio of typos in the last paragraph though, see bold.

[pnkssbtz]

Okay... A moment of pause, please.

Let's stretch a little, and say that these people were actually interested in a proper debate of the issues... And some of YOUR CGF answers ended up in their inbox.What is your insinuation? That the hostile / antagonistic and denigrating comments that the author's may have received originated from CGF? I rather doubt doubt. That is quite a disingenuous statement.

How do you think lesbian's and gays would feel if I wrote a pro prop-8 article talking bout how homosexuality is a sin and they are going to burn in the fires of hell and how homosexuality is the cause of viral epidemics, it causes psychological instabilities in children and damages society, yadda yadda. All without substantiation of fact, and all ignorant of actual science?

Would you not be rather upset too?

Because that is pretty much the gist of their anti-gun article. It is to gun rights, as my hypothetical prop-8 article would be to marriage.

Clearly, there is a double standard at play.


At that point, is is remotely possible that the replies you gave on this forum can influence the people who receive them? The "cold, dead hands" type replies?What kind of response do you expect to get when you denigrate a culture and lie through ignorance? Why is this an atrocity for one subject (prop-8) but perfectly acceptable for another (gun rights)?

Again, I'm going to call double standard.


I know that this is not THEIR forum, but I'm sure that some of the comments that they received were over-the-top gunnie type responses similar to what I've read here, and worse.Of course you are going to get over the top responses. When your entire article is not bound in reality or fact, and you make insinuations against someone elses lifestyles, what do you expect?

Again, more double standards.


I, for one, don't think that a five year old should be able to buy an M203. I CAN, however, argue the facts on the basis of history contrasted by modern day reason, international experience and the general deterioration of civil liberties.

I can use the examples, as written by our founding fathers on the issue, to frame the context that we experience today.

THIS is what needs to be done.

And, by the way, I am not some frizzy-haired college educated liberal. I dropped out of high school and joined the military in the 11th grade. I've been to Africa and the middle east, and draw my pro-constitution opinions from visiting countries that didn't have one.

ALWAYS remember... Your job is to educate. Dogma, whatever the cause, is seen as just that.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your comments.

Sincerely and respectfully,

RonI agree with you 100% here. However, I must point out that calguns is not the entirety of gun owners in california. Moreover, calgun's is not a single entity, but a multitude of individuals.

To then hold calguns in it's entirety responsible for the actions of a few individuals is preposterous.


P.S., your last quoted text is very well said. :thumbsup:

[N6ATF]

Endless page load time on http://www.thedailyaztec.com

Wonder if it's getting overloaded...

[sanb909]

"I like it . When dealing with mindless ranting psychobabble like what is found in that article, its always nice to do a point by point STFU.

You have a trio of typos in the last paragraph though, see bold."

Yeah, it was a typed a bit too hastily and if it ever gets past the SDSU editoral staff, the point may suffer a bit a la "Orson Well."

But thanks for the nice comments. I think the woman who wrote this was far more extreme and limited in her thinking than was Ashlie. Hopefully the SDSU crowd can see some of that in her writing...

[Hoop]

I wouldn't bother replying to drivel like that. Not worth the time it takes to type out a rebuttal.

[sanb909]

"I wouldn't bother replying to drivel like that. Not worth the time it takes to type out a rebuttal."

I disagree. While the author betrays an intellectual dishonesty that one finds very annoying, the urge to turn the other cheek only leads to the classic "one voice so it must be right" situation that we've had for too long in CA.

[thazard]

Well fellas it just so happens that my english proff has doing an assignment were we are responding to letters in newspapers and I just finished the letter to this article. My conclusion about gun control at the end of the paper: Use two hands :). But seriously it is a well though out planned response with plenty of data from the CDC, FBI, and even got to twist some of the Brady Bunch data against them.

[Knight]

The site must be overwhelmed. I can't post a comment, or refresh the page. Luckily I saved my comment to notepad and will attempt to post it at a later date, if it didn't go through.

[CABilly]

My response:

Check your facts. Background checks, waiting periods, safety/handling demonstrations, etc. are already mandated. California's gun laws are among the most strict in the nation. Historically, prohibition does NOT solve problems. We can look at alcohol in the 1920's, or the War on Drugs today for examples. I think what has most people up in arms (haha!) is the fact that people like you are trying to throw up barriers to a constitutionally-granted RIGHT. Rights, opposed to liberties, are to be protected and enforced by the government. Gun control, then, places the government in a role which runs counter to its intended duty. If you want to reduce crime, focus on restricting the movements of criminals. Criminals, by definition, disregard the laws - so writing more isn't going to solve any problems.

[Knight]

Before you post a comment, I strongly suggest reading this thread first:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=165952

[professorhard]

I think the daily aztec website went down last night but it is back up now.

[N6ATF]

First batch of comments have been approved. I resubmitted mine since the site crashed mid-stream.

[GaffSD]

PNKSSBTZ,

Thank you very much for your reply. I apreciate the respectful tone is what I've come to expect from the majority of CGF members.

Some of my comments were too assuming, and others were a little over to prove a point. Do I think that some, or any, of the poorly thought out or dogmatic replies to the article came from CGF members? Maybe... Maybe not.

But I should not have made the insinuation without qualifying the remark further.

The prop 8 argument has me thinking, and I've got to mentally "chew" on this. THAT is the purpose of a good debate! Thought stimulation and learning.

I'm sure that there is more that I can say, but I've got to run.

Again, thanks for setting me straight.

Regards,

Ron