The reporter posted a while back...

[eric_t12]

...she responded on her blog to apparently large numbers of emails she received over her article for the FLorida Sun Times.

Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]: Gun 'enthusiasts' united

Originally Posted by Reidblog

I got more response to this "Face Off" column about the Second Amendment and the Roberts Court's D.C. v. Heller decision than any column I've written for the South Florida Times. Gun lovers are filling my email with long, long, long soliloquies about how wonderful guns are, how they shouldn't be "taken away" or "denied" to "law abiding gun owners" and even a couple of emails inviting me to grab a pistol and come to the shooting range so that I, too, can fall in love with the handgun. I wouldn't have enough time to respond to them all. Too much to do. So let me respond to all the Second Amendment enthusiasts collectively.

First: the Supreme Court in the Heller case sided with you. The individual right to bear arms is now the law of the land, and not in dispute, including by me.

Second: Nowhere in my column did I argue that the men in the black helicopters (or anyone for that matter) should come and confiscate your guns. Even the D.C. gun ban included no such confiscation order. No men in black. No helicopters rousting District residents and snatching away their beloved pistolas. One more time, just to close this matter out: no one from the government is coming to take your guns away, and I can't think of anyone who has ever argued that they should. I certainly haven't. What I have argued is that after Heller, the NRA can no longer use the specter of confiscation to scare up votes for the GOP.

Third: the SUPCO ruling also affirmed the constitutionality of common sense gun laws enacted by the people, through their local and state governments. Indeed, liberal carry laws are appropriate for some states (low crime, rural states like Vermont and Oregon have liberal carry laws, and few homicides) but not for others, where violent crime is making life a living hell for citizens and law enforcement alike. The D.C. handgun sales ban, whether you agreed with it or not, was passed by representatives of the people of the District. It was an attempt to deal with soaring violent crime. If Washington D.C. wants to have different gun laws than Vermont or Colorado, where I grew up, and where hunting is a major, popular pastime (and where hunters are some of the best proponents of environmental protection) I say more power to them. States should have the right to do what's best for them. If you want to walk around with a gun on your hip because that makes you happy, move to a state where you can do so.

It's time for America to come to grips with the violence in our society, with a combination of addressing the social ills and economic deprivation that feed criminality, and well enforced laws, including gun laws. The Heller ruling clears the way for us to do just that.

So please, no more emails warning me not to try and take your guns away. Believe me, I'm not coming anywhere near you or your guns. You can trust me on that.

UPDATE: One thing I have noticed from the responses I've received from gun enthusiasts, is that there is a kind of obsessive vibe to the love of guns. People who consider themselves to be Second Amendment guardians are really, really into their firearms, and rather paranoid about a fictional, imminent government attack that they seem to believe will lead to the confiscation of their guns. It's actually kind of creepy...

Here's my response to her response, as posted above...

Originally Posted by Eric_t12

Hello again,

I'm one of the apparent "gun lovers" (although I feel it's my pleasure to inform you that it is the FREEDOM to own them, not the guns themselves, which I love so much) that you posted a response to in your blog.

First - The supreme court finally declared it to be an individual right. true.

Second - I'm not sure I was in the group lamenting about black helicopters and confiscation, but your position intrigues me. In Washington DC and Chicago, places that had complete bans, if you were caught with a pistol you would have it *taken from you*, and you would be arrested/fined.

If that isn't confiscation... I don't know what is.

Third - The Supreme Court decision was an exercise in the disturbing for me. The sheer amount of 'common sense' gun laws they allowed for completely left touch with reality. Allowing for banning of guns where gun crime obviously occurs, like colleges, courtrooms, and other 'sensitive areas' seems ignorant of history.

Your claim that 'common sense gun laws' can now be enacted everywhere also equally boggles my mind.

How is it - in a place with a *complete ban* like DC or Chicago - where high amounts of overall crime are prevalent *with a total gun ban* - that one can assume any other form of gun control will somehow work?

*The total bans didn't work* - whether it be DC or Chicago - even places like Virginia Tech.

Virginia tech (while the state technically allowed firearms on College school grounds) the VT Student Handbook clearly states firearms are not allowed. IE - they were banned from the campus.

If a total ban doesn't work, why are you still arguing for (apparently new) 'common sense gun laws' (when the 20,000 plus of them right now, including total bans, just aren't enough)?

How much more controlling can you get than a TOTAL BAN?



This reply was not sent in anger, nor necessarily frustration. It was sent in an attempt to display the (at least to me) quite shocking 'common *in*sensibilities' any new laws would portray.

Crime in America is a problem. That is undoubted. I urge you to find out where the high-crime areas in the country are, and take note that they are in places of 'high gun-nut' rates, and places that had total bans, and ask yourself this question:




knowing that there is crime whether guns are legal or not, would you rather have the legal, relatively unfettered option to carry one, or know that you cannot carry one no matter how endangered you may be?


PS - I also urge you to read up on a shooting that occurred in the Appalachian School of Law, on 16 January 2002.

Legally owned firearms were used to prevent further escalation of an already very serious crime. It may not happen every time - as it did then - but at least they had the option to exercise their individual right.

One of my favorite points of contention is emboldened above.

[Sirius1963]

Not to mention the "order" from the mayor of New Orleans to confiscate all firearms. Remember the video of the burly cop body-slamming the 90 year old lady? Nobody's taking anythin away...

[eric_t12]

I forgot that one.

maybe it wasn't so

fictional,

[nikon777]

Yup, she sent me that email. I got on her about being a typical brainwashed anti gun African American. I sent her a article on the racist roots of gun control. If anyone should be for the 2A, its Blacks. Too bad she sent out a canned response.

[nikon777]

Originally Posted by Sirius1963

Not to mention the "order" from the mayor of New Orleans to confiscate all firearms. Remember the video of the burly cop body-slamming the 90 year old lady? Nobody's taking anythin away...

That video gets me fired up just thinking about it. Those cops think they're so bad ass.

[eric_t12]

I wonder if she read any further into emails that didn't contain the words "gun grabber," "confiscation," or "liberal whackjob?"

it sure seems like mine fell on deaf ears.

[Pugs]

Originally Posted by nikon777

That video gets me fired up just thinking about it. Those cops think they're so bad ass.

And, if anyone wants to get riled up about it, or missed the video the first couple million times around, here it is again:

[eric_t12]

...and some cops wonder why other people hate them.

...or why some people aren't just happy happy-joy joy about letting them circumvent the law, even if its just traffic law.

BoT,

I encourage everybody here to write the reporter initially Posted, and let her know we're not all crazy, and that 'the specter' of confiscation is pretty visceral.

[FunkyD]

One thing that really grates me is liberal reporters and antis using the phrase "common sense gun laws" as a smokescreen for potentially unconstitutional (and certainly ineffective) legistation. What is "common sense" to them is "unreasonable" to us (and hopefully a lot of others as well!).

Also, it's not SUPCO, it's SCOTUS.

[Ride the Lightning]

Originally Posted by Sirius1963

Not to mention the "order" from the mayor of New Orleans to confiscate all firearms. Remember the video of the burly cop body-slamming the 90 year old lady? Nobody's taking anythin away...

I had never seen that before. Does anyone else find it a bit comical that a trained LEO had to use that much force to disarm a little old lady? That's horrible.