‘The only way to stop a bad guy with an A-bomb . . .’
Gage Skidmore | Wikimedia Commons | Stamp by Dan
Your daily Letter to the Editor — Jan. 14, 2013
Personally, for my own protection (and maybe some really big game hunting), I want an atomic bomb.
After all, the National Rifle Association and many in Congress believe the Second Amendment gives me the unmitigated right to “bear arms.” And, as you might recall, in the treaty acronyms SALT and START, the “A” does indeed stand for “Arms.”
To paraphrase NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the only way to stop a bad guy with an atomic bomb is for a good guy to have an atomic bomb.
I should point out, as a law-abiding citizen, I have never killed anyone with an atomic bomb. So why the heck can’t I have one?
Furthermore, to be on the safe side, let’s make sure every elementary school teacher, trained in proper detonation, has one stashed under her desk.
Oh yeah, those first few words of the Second Amendment — “A well regulated” — must have been a typo.
James Solomon
BUCHANAN
January 14, 2013 - 10:27 PM
C’Mon Dan, that’s not fair; this letter suggests, or at least implies, that the words “guns”, “firearms”, and “assault weapon” don’t appear in the Second Amendment!
Let’s start with mental health rights , crazy people don’t need to drive , buy knives or baseball bats , rat poison, alcohol. And yes guns . Let’s focus on fixing this problem because we all know if the mental issues had been addressed with these people we wouldn’t have the problems we face now! So Dan you still pissed off about the last fishing trip , so you want to blow them out of the water with that atomic bomb!
Here you go Dan. It is exactly this type of inflammatory, sarcastic rhetoric that ensures that there will be no compromise, nor even meaningful discussion of gun control, or anything else in America for that matter. Since hope appears to be lost, and lost, and just to play devil’s advocate, tell me, did the MAD doctrine work, or was there a nuclear war that I missed?
I understand that for many on the left, this is more about pushing their gun control agenda into the future and “striking while the iron is hot” so to speak than it actually is about school safety, but could one of you please tell me how you plan on responding to the next school shooter if you think putting trained, armed guards, preferably sworn law-enforcement officers (SROs) in the schools is such a mistake because “that just brings more guns” to the table. You surely aren’t going to call the police to respond because heaven knows they will just bring more guns to the scene. So tell me, what’s the plan? Because legislation enacted tomorrow won’t do the first thing to take the gun away from the nut who already has one and is already planning the next rampage.
(Yes Sandi, I realize I complained about the sarcasm and lack meaningful discussion and then did exactly as you often do, turned around and responded in kind, but it is exceedingly clear that no one wants a realistic discussion, even about this. They just want to push their political agenda and to continue to hate “the other side”.)
Well… perhaps we as private citizens shouldn’t have atomic weapons. But what about other countries? Like Iran, North Korea, China… I mean it is for National protection right?
Would someone pleasee tell me how Wayne identifies the good guys and the bad guys. Based on the number of heated divorces I come in which I come in contact, even someone who you once loved can easily become a bad guy or gal. If your spouse and lover can’t be trusted with a gun, then who the hell can you trust. More weapons is simply foolish.
hey justin,
based on the documented rhetoric issued by iran towards Israel about, well, “finishing them off” (I substituted my words…), I think a good-faith argument can be made that iran isn’t seeking a nuc for it’s own “national” protection, ya know?
This isn’t just about school safety, as important as that is.
This isn’t just about school safety, as important as that is.
Comment by Kristen — January 15, 2013 @ 10:15 am
Of course not. It’s about taking away guns.
Chuck, I don’t think sarcasm is responsible for an historically endless lack of compromise between parties – “or anything else for that matter.”