PDA

View Full Version : An Open Letter To A Gun Control Advocate in the Wake of the Colorado Shootings


vincewarde
07-25-2012, 2:00 PM
I recently got an email from someone close to me who is a gun control advocate. It was a forward of a MoveOn.org fund raising letter exploiting the CO shootings with this added at the top:

"Vince: No restrictions on automatic weapons - Really???!!!"

I spent so much time drafting a response that I decided to post it on my blog:

An Open Letter To A Gun Control Advocate in the Wake of the Colorado Shootings (http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/an-open-letter-to-gun-control-advocate.html)

Please let me know what you think, and if you think it's good please point people with questions to it!

Thanks!

Dark Paladin
07-25-2012, 2:16 PM
Nice write up.

One point that I didn't see (or may have missed while reading). . . Supreme Court ruling that police has no obligation to protect "you". This further cements the idea that personal security begins with "you".

Wondering Nomad
07-25-2012, 2:48 PM
Well thought out with clear, concise, and valid points. There were multiple instances where you used the word loose instead of lose. I would clean up those typos if you're expecting this to be seen far and wide.

Thanks for the write-up as I will most 6110 Van Nuys Blvd.likely need to reference a number of those points when I get together with friends this weekend.

Gray Peterson
07-25-2012, 3:05 PM
Blackman was not on the court. It was Breyer and Stevens who wrote dissenting opinions.

IPSICK
07-25-2012, 3:14 PM
Nice write up.

One point that I didn't see (or may have missed while reading). . . Supreme Court ruling that police has no obligation to protect "you". This further cements the idea that personal security begins with "you".

If I dig for a past paper I wrote for a Poli Sci class, I have the references for most of the relevant cases regarding police obligation to protect (or lack thereof).

I wish more anti's would understand this better.

mdimeo
07-25-2012, 3:26 PM
That was very well written. I'd be interested in hearing about your gun controller friend's response.

sofbak
07-25-2012, 3:28 PM
this is such a good work that it is worthy of much wider publication distribution than on cgn and your blog.

Assuming you go back and polish it a little as has been suggested here, could you please:

1. Post a notice here when you have updated it
2. Give me permission to print and mail it to multiple polticians here in kalifornia? I'd start with sheriff gore here in SD, and work my way north unitl I got to feinstein and boxer.

Legasat
07-25-2012, 3:43 PM
Good read! Thanks

adampolo13
07-25-2012, 3:52 PM
Two Thumbs Up!

YubaRiver
07-25-2012, 4:00 PM
Posted a couple of excerpts on the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974

usmcchet9296
07-25-2012, 4:04 PM
Excellent read and something I linked on my FB page if you dont mind. That being said the anti-gun left will never change thier minds that guns are bad......PERIOD!

Tripper
07-25-2012, 4:42 PM
that is REALLY good
how do we get National Attention on that article

bigdawg86
07-25-2012, 4:47 PM
February 28, 1997 was the North Hollywood Shooting... they had an automatic(s) I thought? Great writeup though.

mrrsquared79
07-25-2012, 5:12 PM
I thought this was so excellent, I just shared on my FB page as well full well knowing some will delete me or ignore my feed.

Clean up the few typos and the other minor inaccurate details(SCOTUS judge Blackman)

Intimid8tor
07-25-2012, 5:19 PM
Its well written and contains lots of good info. I disagree with part of it., but that's OK.

MXRider
07-25-2012, 5:36 PM
Good read, thanks for sharing.

February 28, 1997 was the North Hollywood Shooting... they had an automatic(s) I thought? Great writeup though.

It probably wasn't a transferable machine gun. How many registered, transferable machine guns have committed a crime? That answer is probably 0.

Again, criminals don't have regard for the law and are willing to illegally modify a weapon to full automatic function despite the heavy federal penalty just for doing so.

Quinc
07-25-2012, 5:42 PM
Nice write up.

One point that I didn't see (or may have missed while reading). . . Supreme Court ruling that police has no obligation to protect "you". This further cements the idea that personal security begins with "you".

Can you post a source for this? I would like to share it! :)

Quinc
07-25-2012, 6:05 PM
Awesome Article! I posted it on my FB! =)

emcon5
07-25-2012, 6:06 PM
Comment on this:

Fourth, the administration can start actually prosecuting people who try to buy a gun when there are legally prohibited from doing so. Form 4473 - which every purchaser must fill out - makes conviction very, very easy - yet prosecutions are exceedingly rare. Pres. Clinton bragged about stopping 60,000 prohibited persons from buying guns. How many did his administration prosecute? Less than ten! Sadly, many of these 60,000 people went to the black market, bought guns and killed people - including at least one sheriff. Bush and Obama have not done significantly better. This needs to change.

I think a more important question is, how many of those 60,000 were really prohibited, and how many were approved after a delay?

That number by the way is much higher now. Alan Gottlieb debated a couple nitwits on Al Jazeera (of all places) (http://www.thegunmag.com/video-safs-gottlieb-on-al-jazeera/) and one of them (head of some Police Chiefs against guns group) claimed, and I quote:

"From 1994 to -2009, 1,925,000 background checks prevented 925,000 people that were banned under the 1964 prescription for who can't buy a weapon, mentally deranged, criminals, etc, they were banned, they were prevented from getting weapons"

If I recall, a known prohibited person trying to buy a gun is a federal felony, how many of those were convicted? If they were truly prohibited, why the hell not?

Capybara
07-25-2012, 6:09 PM
Excellent page, thoughtful, cognizant reasoning.

You need an editor to proof the page for misspelling, typos, punctuation and grammar. For instance, I think where you describe Holmes as a "manic", you meant "maniac".

I have it bookmarked and will use where I see opportunities from antis.

wilit
07-25-2012, 6:31 PM
Great read! Thanks for posting.

Sadly though, in my experience, no matter how well written, no matter how compelling the argument, most anti-gunners are unwilling to bend on their point of view. No amount of facts or logic can sway them from their skewed view of guns and the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

chewy352
07-25-2012, 6:37 PM
I liked it alot. If there were references for all the facts and cases it would be much stronger.

707electrician
07-25-2012, 6:41 PM
Good read. I will be sharing this

Tripper
07-25-2012, 6:49 PM
willit, your in Malaysia?
lol

Drivedabizness
07-25-2012, 7:00 PM
OP = great article so far...but there was no Justice "Blackman" on the Court for Heller

Who are you referring to?

RT13
07-25-2012, 7:07 PM
Well done. Let's share and spread this.

Stonewalker
07-25-2012, 7:25 PM
This is a truly fantastic explanation of many difficult to understand ideas. You also facilitate an atmosphere of friendly conversation. I am sharing this with as many friends as I can!

Pont
07-25-2012, 7:54 PM
First of all, Vince, awesome writeup. I was thinking of doing something similar myself due to all my California-ish friends on Facebook. You did it much better than I would have.

Nice write up.

One point that I didn't see (or may have missed while reading). . . Supreme Court ruling that police has no obligation to protect "you". This further cements the idea that personal security begins with "you".
I've found this to be a losing argument, at least early on. I know it's true, you know it's true, we all know it's true here. But it's a losing strategy.

They (naive gun control advocates) don't perceive any threat to themelselves. Their pro-gun-control stance is largely based on empathy with the victims of gun violence, but they don't feel threatened and therefore don't empathize with the idea of using a gun for personal protection.

That being said the anti-gun left will never change thier minds that guns are bad......PERIOD!
Not entirely true. I was a naive, pro-gun-control person at one point. Reasoned discussion converted me. The extreme anti-gunners are on the fringe, but they have sway over moderates. The political parties in this country have convinced the masses that gun control is about Democrat vs. Republicans. The reality is that it's about people in power vs. the masses. The Republicans find it convenient to act pro-gun for now because it is a wedge issue that is effective at separating poor people from the Democrat party. The Democrats like gun control because it's a way of attracting rich people away from the Republican party.

Stonewalker
07-25-2012, 8:00 PM
Comment on this:



I think a more important question is, how many of those 60,000 were really prohibited, and how many were approved after a delay?

That number by the way is much higher now. Alan Gottlieb debated a couple nitwits on Al Jazeera (of all places) (http://www.thegunmag.com/video-safs-gottlieb-on-al-jazeera/) and one of them (head of some Police Chiefs against guns group) claimed, and I quote:



If I recall, a known prohibited person trying to buy a gun is a federal felony, how many of those were convicted? If they were truly prohibited, why the hell not?

I seriously agree with this statement. I think you missed an opportunity to make this extremely important point Vince. I vote for editing it to remove the bit about going to the black market and replacing it with this.

A-J
07-25-2012, 8:03 PM
Great read! Thanks for posting.

Sadly though, in my experience, no matter how well written, no matter how compelling the argument, most anti-gunners are unwilling to bend on their point of view. No amount of facts or logic can sway them from their skewed view of guns and the true meaning of the Second Amendment.

I was going to say exactly that.

I liked it alot. If there were references for all the facts and cases it would be much stronger.

Only for those with open minds.

haveyourmile
07-25-2012, 8:11 PM
Nice write up

mrrsquared79
07-25-2012, 8:12 PM
Can you post a source for this? I would like to share it! :)

Warren v DC

rscot
07-25-2012, 8:41 PM
This is one of the best letters I've ever read!

wash
07-25-2012, 9:17 PM
I'm not sure that gun rights advocates hold all the cards, too many idiots yell "all in!" when they see a pair of fours.

With that said, we shouldn't be giving away anything.

Private party sale background checks just encourage a black market and prevent law abiding citizens from arming themselves when the system is abused (and it will be abused, thing Bloomberg).

The public safety benefit of civilian firearm ownership is mostly deterrence and a little bit of real self defense. Switzerland is proof of deterrence and those linked videos show the self defense side in the US (it doesn't make the news when a thug doesn't assault someone and that is what deterrence does).

Protecting the right to own firearms and self defense is important and when every thug that sees a woman carrying a purse or a guy wearing a baggy t-shirt thinks they might have a gun, that is when we are going to see assaults, robberies and active shooter murder sprees greatly reduced.

One last thing, the media distorts terribly. As it is, the US is very safe but the media exploits the few tragedies that happen in our huge country. With our horrible economy, unemployment, foreclosures, drug war and terrorist threats from all over the world, it's a wonder that law and order have any hold here.

I'm not giving away anything without a fight.

voiceofreason
07-25-2012, 9:18 PM
Can you post a source for this? I would like to share it! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

timdps
07-25-2012, 9:22 PM
February 28, 1997 was the North Hollywood Shooting... they had an automatic(s) I thought? Great writeup though.

He probably meant to say "legally owned automatic firearms"?

I would suggest adding the "legally owned" to the sentence.

e36mike
07-25-2012, 9:48 PM
Great writeup forward it to the author of this.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/no-right-bear-arms_b_1692709.html. Warning do not read unless u want to faceplam .

wjc
07-25-2012, 9:57 PM
Great write up, Vince! I'd make the changes other posters suggested.

bandook
07-25-2012, 10:04 PM
Or If you want a real Supreme Court decision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

marcusrn
07-25-2012, 10:09 PM
Thank you Vince,strong work.
Marcus

emcon5
07-25-2012, 10:25 PM
He probably meant to say "legally owned automatic firearms"?

I would suggest adding the "legally owned" to the sentence.

If I recall since the GCA there has only ever been one homicide in which a legally owned fully automatic firearm was used, and in that case the owner was a police officer.

Singlekorn
07-25-2012, 10:40 PM
That was a good read. Good work Vince.

mrdd
07-25-2012, 11:06 PM
Can you post a source for this? I would like to share it! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Warren v. D.C. was not SCOTUS.

shortyforty
07-25-2012, 11:33 PM
Thank you for taking the time to put this together. After a few corrections this article is ready for wide-spread distribution. Please post an update when ready.

stix213
07-25-2012, 11:36 PM
Read 2/3 of it (would have read the rest, but its stuff we all know here). Just wanted to add that the 2A does in fact protect hunting, in addition to self defense.

jshoebot
07-26-2012, 12:02 AM
If I recall since the GCA there has only ever been one homicide in which a legally owned fully automatic firearm was used, and in that case the owner was a police officer.
There have been two murders committed with NFA-controlled guns since the NFA came into effect in 1934. BOTH were committed by cops.

In the article, all the fixes you propose mean more restriction. There is no compromise with these people, they always take more. Background checks on private sales is what you propose, in return for federal carry licenses? Sorry, but I won't take that deal. In America, we're supposed to be able to sell our private property without being required to obtain government permission first. On the same token, I don't need some oligarchs 3000 miles away giving me PERMISSION to carry. CA sucks, but the feds suck worse.

Demonicspire
07-26-2012, 12:31 AM
It's a great piece,but uh, It sounds a tiny bit much like what Dan Baum has been writing recently, even down to the phrasing. Don't mean to imply anything, after all who knows what the original source is in most writing.

Sir Stunna Lot
07-26-2012, 2:22 AM
you should link/cite all the tragedies that you listed in Europe.

Bruce
07-26-2012, 2:56 AM
Send a copy to Bill O'Reilly.

masameet
07-26-2012, 4:24 AM
You make some good points, Vince.

Still I'm curious. You being a pastor and all, how do you respond to inquiries about the incongruity of carrying Jesus' message and a gun?

tiki
07-26-2012, 5:01 AM
Nice job. Just a few comments on grammar and spelling...

In the majority opinion is the Heller case, SCOTUS extended constitutional protection to any firearm in "common civilian use".

Probably needs to change to "of".

Thank God this manic didn't have good gun handling skills, or he could have cleared that jam....... and killed a lot more people.
Did you mean maniac?

Meanwhile, Switzerland - were nearly every home has military grade weapons
Should be "where".

My point is that a "gun culture" does not cause mass shootings - if it did, than the Swiss would be dying by the thousands
"Then"

And remember, the Swiss have access to guns that are even more powerful those available in the US.

The law of diminishing returns applies here - background checks clearly do the most good for the least cost - in both dollar and lost rights Gun control advocates could go for magazine capacity limits, or a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB)

Missing a period.

Other than that, nice job Vince.

gh0stface
07-26-2012, 5:11 AM
Op, I'm of the belief that gun control doesn't work. I like most of your response, but I don't believe the situation, in Aurora, would be much different if there was/were a person/s ccw'ing. Your scenario of three ccw'ers working together with flashlights and pistols to stop or slow down the gunman sounds just as far fetched as "gun free zones" working. Even if someone did stop him, he probably still would of killed and injured many people. Imo, you should amend that section of your response to more realistic. We complain about their unrealistic views and policies; we should not give them any unrealistic and unlikely scenarios, either. Also, you should provide citations and links. Other than that, I believe your response is actually quite good.

Gh0st

emcon5
07-26-2012, 7:07 AM
You make some good points, Vince.

Still I'm curious. You being a pastor and all, how do you respond to inquiries about the incongruity of carrying Jesus' message and a gun?

I don't know if this is the way Vince feels, but I did a quick search to find the quote where Jesus said "...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" and ended up finding an interesting discussion on the subject:

http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html

pointedstick
07-26-2012, 8:17 AM
Can you post a source for this? I would like to share it! :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

rideanddive
07-26-2012, 8:49 AM
Good, well-reasoned article. And that's it's one weakness. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Left Coast Conservative
07-26-2012, 10:38 AM
Vince,

Outstanding job! My favorite part of the article:


Both sides in the gun debate must stop thinking that they are going to get everything they want without giving up anything. Frankly, the gun rights movement is holding ALL the cards at this point - both politically and legally. No new laws are going to be passed unless they agree. Gun control advocates need to recognize this reality.


At the Federal level I would agree, at the California state level, not so much. I don't think that the gun control side is capable of compromise because they see themselves in a righteous campaign against evil firearms, which cause people to become the mass shooters. How can one compromise with evil?

MatrixCPA
07-26-2012, 11:46 AM
Great writeup forward it to the author of this.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-oleary/no-right-bear-arms_b_1692709.html. Warning do not read unless u want to faceplam .

At least 99% of the comments are negative to the article.