Letters to the Editor - Feb. 15, 2013

I am still waiting for someone to explain, with a straight face, how one's Second Amendment rights will enable them to take on a government that has at its disposal weaponry capable of vaporizing entire cities.

Something to ponder, David. No doubt some ex-grunts would pool their resources together along with some active duty grunts, and finger out just how to accomplish what you might think to be the un-accomplish-able.

That I know of, no weapon capable of vaporizing an entire city has yet been used in Afghanistan. So, what would lead you to believe weapons of that nature would be used on our own soil against our own citizens, and who exactly would you think would follow orders to use them on their fellow citizens?

"....with a straight face...."

David, this morning I added my two cents to today's poll question over on the NRO website. The question of the day was---> Does Obama play too much golf?

I checked (No) My own reasoning being, that, the more time he spends with his fingers wrapped around the handle of a 9 iron, means less time he'll spend thumbing through launch codes.

Apparently 20% (if you can read such things into polls) of respondents think the same as I do, and 80% do not.

David,

I don't think anyone is proposing to overthrow the government. And if so, I can't imagine an armed charge on D.C.

The 2nd Amendment was a reasonable response -- written by people who had just fought a war to free themselves from an overbearing, tax-hungry government (British).

As 'straight-faced' as it gets ----- Those who don't own any firearms have made that choice, and I respect their decision. But that respect needs to travel both ways. I can guarantee my home is made safer (to me) with the presence of firearms, and the ability to use them. So I'll be keeping mine, thanks!


Mike,

Golf may not be the safe-haven either.

Today's Oregonian editorial page had a cartoon showing Obama and Tiger on the golf course. Obama asking a perplexed Tiger, 'Have I told you of my views on redistribution of strokes?'

You shouldn't have any difficulty imagining it. Overthrowing the government -- or more precisely, overthrowing an "oppressive" government, or defending one's self from such -- is one of the main reasons, I hear gun rights advocates cite when they talk about the supreme importance of the Second Amendment. If I had a buck for every time I've seen or heard some variation of that (ridiculous) argument since Newtown, I'd have a small fortune. So I'm waiting. I'd like some clarification. I want to know how the Second Amendment protects the populace from a government that has the power (as all "nuclear states" do) to murder millions of people with the press of a button. Or the power to park a camera-bearing insect-sized drone in your living room. Seems to me the ideal protection from the latter, at least, would be a good eye and a fly-swatter.

"You shouldn't have any difficulty imagining it. Overthrowing the goverment....
....bla....bla..bla, bla bla....bla....."

David,

Please don't put words in my mouth. Never have I implied or advocated for any overthrow of our government at any level. Those are your own words, not mine. There have been acts of civil disobedience in our country, some have been much more grander in scale than some others.

Typically, your more raucous un-lawful acts and/or grand gestures such as full-blown rioting in the streets, rage against the machine anarchy crowd, tend to think more like you do, and not such like a conservative thinker such as myself, would tend to.

Michael:

I am not putting words in your mouth. I am referring to an argument that I have heard and seen made repeatedly in the weeks since Newtown -- in print, online, in the blogosphere, on Twitter, etc. I've seen it here at the Newsregister online forum. Those that I'm thinking of were not made by you.

And as long as we're on the subject of putting words in others' mouths, please do not presume that the "rage against the machine anarchy crowd"(a description so vague as to be meaningless) thinks like I do, or that I think like they do, whoever "they" are.

David,

Then I owe you a sincere apology for having placed my own thoughts into your mind. Never been good any at mind reading, I'll make a point to refrain from doing so from here on out.

I am going to take at least a month, possibly longer, hiatus from commenting.

Good night.

David,

When you stated, "You shouldn't have any difficulty imagining it.", I presume you were referring to my not 'imagining' an armed charge on D.C. I still don't!

The citizens of this country may be mad as hell at the government from time to time, but most would rather live here than any other country.

As for 'pressing a button to murder millions', that's a dictatorial style of enforcement, and never witnessed in the U.S., to my recollection. Sensationalism, at best.

Lastly, those who don't own or haven't used guns will always have difficulty understanding the mindset of a gun owner and his/her rights. And there is no substitute for the experience.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing some rioting in the streets if it would stop these stupid, pointless, criminal wars encouraged by graying politicians, most of whom weaseled out of combat, while kids my age were ordered to the front lines in Vietnam based on a lottery.

"In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Don,

You are basically, making my own point: To listen to the rhetoric of the gun rights constituency (which, I realize, comprises a range of opinion) you would think that they think that an "armed march" on Washington D.C. (an insurrection, in other words, regardless of where it occurs) at some point in the future, under certain conditions, might be necessary. And so long as that's a possibility, the logic goes, we all need to have our guns so we're prepared for battle ... with, obviously, the most powerful military machine on the planet.

This is a ridiculous argument, and to say that you literally can't imagine it bodes well, I think. I can't imagine it either. It's laugh-out-loud absurd.

As for my point about obliterating a city, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that the government would resort to such measures. I was only alluding to the exponentially vast military superiority (to lay down an 'armed march,' for example) of the U.S. government by referring to its most powerful weaponry.

Even so: It isn't necessary to have a "dictatorial" form of government to "press the button." I refer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the same time, I think it is a sad commentary on the American life that there is felt a need by so many to protect one's property with guns. Too much freedom is proving to be too much freedom.

kona,

Protecting one's property is only one issue of gun ownership.

When my friends and I cut firewood, weapons are present (cougar). Yes, a chainsaw is quite a formidable form of protection, but not all duties with our work require the saws to be running. And being in the woods when a nearby cougar lets out a scream, the adrenaline stream is quite impressive and immediate. Hairs you never knew existed raise and tingle on the back of your neck. So being armed is not only comforting, but somewhat necessary.

David,

Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- not domestic unrest, but foreign war -- and no 'button'. A bomber(s) with mission instructions was the delivery system.

But your are correct on gun ownership. The reasons vary by individual, and cover a large range.