Ashdump Posted December 5, 2009 at 05:13 PM Posted December 5, 2009 at 05:13 PM ....and another rebuttal Keep gun control advocates in ChicagoFriday December 4, 2009 Someone needs to inform Josh Seiter that we are not going to "stretch and bend the meaning of the Second Amendment." His Nov. 25 letter in The News-Gazette on how to "interpret the Second Amendment" was a complete waste of time and paper. Why? All or most of the violent crime is in areas with gun control, areas like Chicago. The Supreme Court for the first time in our nation's history interpreted the Second Amendment in June 2008. The American people won and Josh lost. Too many people in Illinois like Josh have been brainwashed. They don't seem to realize how alone they are in their thinking compared to the Americans in 48 of 50 states. For example: Indiana has their crackpots too but few compared to Illinois. Indiana ended its fiscal year with a $1.3 billion surplus. In Illinois we ended our fiscal year spending $12 billion more than we took in. These are the same ones who gave us the Chicago-style gun control that is getting so many law-abiding people killed. With all of his gun control efforts, Mayor Daley has gotten more people killed than the D.C. sniper. We don't need this kind of thinking south of I-80, it's dangerous. DAVID ACKLIN Champaign
Ashdump Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:01 PM Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:01 PM ....and another Gun opponent gets taken to taskMonday December 7, 2009 Josh Seiter is misguided. In a Nov. 25 letter he misspoke a great deal. First, we don't have a fetish with guns. The law-abiding citizen has guns for protection of family, property and sport. Our founding fathers didn't come here to escape a Third World society, they came for freedom of religion and from English tyranny. It doesn't matter how many people or what type of weapons were around then or now. It's the individual who uses a gun with good intent or bad. Illinois is one of two states that violate the Second Amendment – "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." With a no-carry law the state violates this amendment, making the law void and illegal. The Second Amendment was put in place to protect us from oppressive government. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject. Comparing gun laws to obesity laws is asinine at best. TIM WYSE Champaign
Ashdump Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:03 PM Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:03 PM ....and another (by a woman, no less!) Self-defense is most important issueTuesday December 8, 2009 Letter writer Josh Seiter recently stated: "I would like to answer this very compelling question: So in the debate concerning gun control, one must ask, what demands more outrage and subsequent regulation: obscene, oftentimes violent material between the wires of the media or violence and death between real thinking and breathing individuals?" As a middle-aged woman living alone, I say it's a no-brainer. I am more concerned about my self-protection, and I depend on my Remington to take on uninvited guests. The whole house alarm just gives me enough time to spring from my bed and ready up, ensuring virtually no surprise. By the time our outstanding police officers respond, I want them to pick me up, dust me off and drag off the dead perpetrator. I could care less about the filth that is today's movies, TV programming and nasty music videos. I gave up that useless waste a long time ago. The only outrage I feel is when innocent persons die, like the Champaign couple found tortured and dead in the safety of their own home. That's my outrage. I read that a handful of jewelry and about $87 was taken by those murderers. Perhaps the couple could have saved themselves with a loaded, legal firearm. Gun control efforts ensure that legal ownership and responsible usage is compromised, leaving people defenseless and all the weapons in the hands of the criminal. What are we supposed to do: throw a shoe? I don't think so. The Remington is more effective. ANN SMITH Champaign
Ashdump Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:07 PM Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:07 PM ....and another (I don't agree with the author's POV on F/A and "what we legally have being enough") Sometimes weapon needed for protectionTuesday December 8, 2009 OK, I've had enough on the right to bear arms in the United States of America. There are those of us who believe this is a right, not a privilege. There are those who think nobody should have the right to bear arms. I, as a citizen, feel it is my legal, constitutional right to bear arms, as do all of my friends. We are all very cautious as to how we use them. We like to go target shooting. We like to hunt, and we like to collect. I am appalled at the idiots who feel they need to step on everyone's rights to give them something to do. Members of my family and I were raised around guns, and we avoided accidents. But I guess some people cannot learn that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I agree we don't need to shoot fully automatic weapons, as it cost to much for ammunition and could pose a danger. So what we have legally is enough. A major problem is the lack of education about guns for honest citizen. Another one is that the bad guys ignore gun-control laws. I ask your readers if a criminal was attacking your family, wouldn't they like some protection? I do respect police officers, but they are spread way too thin and sometimes 10 to 15 minutes is too late. DON BLACK Mahomet
Ol'Coach Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:34 PM Author Posted December 8, 2009 at 05:34 PM Yes...I REALLY like Ann Smith's letter, concluding with... The Remington is more effective. ETA: Champaign County folks gettin' a bit more responsive to gun control advocates, huh!!! Would now be a good time to "restart" a push for the 2A Res in Champaign County?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.