What is it with you gun lovers? Don’t you see damage they do?

What is it with you gun lovers? (And I feel as though I am asking the minority of Americans).

You cling to the Second Amendment as though it were written yesterday; it was written 228 years ago, and back then, the “arms to bear” were single-shot rifles or pistols. What if the amendment stated: “Only single-shot arms allowed”?

Even I would approve of that, and I hate guns. Why do any of you need a automatic rifle?

How anyone can find “beauty in a well-designed and manufactured rifle or pistol” is beyond my comprehension. There is absolutely no beauty is a “manufactured and designed” device, that, when loaded with a powered projectile, is capable of the destruction it can administer.

Oh, I forgot! It’s not the gun that kills?

A few years ago, President Obama attended a town hall meeting in a city that has laws on the book, allowing one to carry a loaded gun. (Portsmouth, N.H.). A man there attended this meeting with a pistol and holster strapped to his leg. Do you suppose he felt threatened by The President being there? (“Is The President gonna pull out a gun and try to shoot me?”)

Why teach a 12-year-old how to shoot a automatic rifle, or any other powerful weapon?

(If she rolls her eyes at you, give her the water pistol and she will be much happier.) You don’t know the memories that might cling to a child, when the child is taught unordinary teachings. I’ve never been to a gun range, but I would assume that, once the firing is completed, that you examine your target to review, not the damage done to the target, but your accuracy. You would not want any student to see the damages that these same type bullets could inflict upon flesh and bone; even the news media won’t show us the horror of it all.

When I was a child, a father in our neighborhood thought he heard a burglar in the middle of the night, and he took his loaded pistol from beneath his pillow, and killed his only son. You could hear the mother crying throughout the neighborhood. She cried for three days and three nights. And I cried too.

One of my best friends loved guns, and he had a locked gun rack cabinet in his home. His young son learned how to “pick the lock,” and killed himself. The guns and gun rack are no longer in my friend’s home.

After completing my four years in the US Air Force, I started college, under the GI Bill.

After the first quarter, I went home that weekend to visit my parents. Looking through the closet, I found the trusty old BB gun that I had as a young boy. With nothing better to do, I went for a walk in the woods behind our home. I spotted a bird in a tree, aimed, and pulled the trigger.

The bird fell to the ground. I walked over to examine my “kill,” and picked up the lifeless body of what had been a beautiful woodpecker.

Immediately I asked myself, ”Why?” I buried the bird, took the rifle home, smashed it to pieces, and put it in the garbage can.

Since that time, I have fired no weapon, not even a sling shot. No guns are in my home. I can still laugh, though, at fun with a water pistol.

I must agree that a deranged individual who has thoughts of causing bodily harm to others has more than guns as his weapon of choice; but we should at least start the framework of trying to make the gun less popular for these sick people. The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence would be the place to start.

Hugh Buchanan

Peachtree City, Ga.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
He's half white

Mulatto is the proper term

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
Mr. Buchanan, I am responding . . .

. . . not because your letter is aimed (pun intended) at me for my column last week. My response is for a different reason.

I wish anti-gun enthusiasts would at least try to understand the argument they are making. I explained more than once in my column last week, just for those few who aren't privy to what any informed teenager knows about guns, rifles and pistols are available to you and me in either single shot or semi-automatic, NOT automatic.

Since you clearly don't know the difference, I'll explain again: automatic fires continuously and rapidly as long as the trigger is depressed, semi-automatic means it fires one round for each trigger pull.

Semi-automatic weapons have been available to the American public for a VERY long time, an automatic requires a special permit.

Now, I understand your hatred of guns, though I don't share it. If you argued that the law should be changed to disallow semi-automatic guns, I would disagree with you but at least your argument would make sense.

If you argued that rifles that can be easily - even if illegally - modified to fire on full automatic should be disallowed, at least your argument would make sense.

But your letter, like so much of what we see from the anti-gun left, is just emotional nonsense that makes a fatal error in the foundation of your argument.

Terry Garlock

bopeep
bopeep's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
Automatic/Semi-automatic

I do remember that you expressed the point that Automatic was not allowed, and that you have Semi-automatic, one firing for one trigger pull. So, I'll rephrase my question:
Why do any of you gun lovers need Semi-automatic rifles?
Hugh Buchanan

renault314
renault314's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2007
BoPEEP- why I need a semi automatic rifle

Because im better with it, thats why. its my personal choice. many people have tried to ask what the best gun is, and the knowing man will answer that the gun you shoot the best is the best gun for you. After a decade of military service I am an expert marksman with a rifle and pistol. I own both. But any cop or soldier will tell you that a pistol is just what you use to fight with until you get to a real gun, i.e., battle rifle/assault rifle. If I am to defend my home, I want a gun that I am good with, and holds lots of bullets. No one, anywhere, ever, after winning a gun battle, said "dang, i wish i had brough less bullets" or "man, i wish i had used smaller capacity magazines so i could have reloaded more." As someone familiar with firearms, you know that is silly. Of coure, i dont take my rifle to the mall....., but thats just me. I do take my pistol, because it is convenient and concealable, tradeoffs i accept in exchange for a decrease in accuracy, lethality and capacity. I also have a shotgun with which i am more than competent, but even being heavily modified for competition shooting, still only holds eight rounds. Not enough. There is an old pashtun saying i learned in my first trip to the desert. "there is no substitute for more." There is a reason the taliban and jihadis dont fight with pistols and shotguns. for fighting, they arent as good. period, end of sentence. I am not one of these "black helicopter in the sky, the UN is trying to take over, blah blah illuminati" nutjobs. I want to be able to defend myself with the tools i am most comfortable and lethaly competent with. If you are going to ban assault rifles, the criminals will not obey. Surely you have to agree with me on that point. Why must I be required to defend my life with firepower inadequate to that which the criminal has? why do they get high cap magazines and I do not? You dont bring a pistol to a rifle fight. Not if you want to be standing at the end of it anyway. Thats why

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
OK, Mr. Buchanan, I’ll try . . .

. . . to comply with my own request and be more rational. I don’t know how you can look at various features of a weapon, which we all have a right to own as stated in the 2nd Amendment, and require that feature to be justified based on “need.” You could ask why you need a folding stock, a reflex sight, a picatinny rail for attachments, a short barrel, and so on just as easily as questioning semi-automatic, which is "convenient" until you get into a self defense situation, then it can be a life or death need to protect your family.

However, consider a gun control measure now being introduced in California, SB-249 introduced by Senator Leland Lee.

SB-249 will likely warm your heart because it is specifically a move against semi-automatic weapons. Please note this bill does not make the enormously stupid mistake of the Assault Weapons Ban that outlawed selected rifles – based on the foolish criteria of how they looked – but did nothing whatever on the millions of semi-automatic handguns. That must have broken the Stupid Meter since handguns are the prime tool of criminals and the Assault Weapons Ban ended up accomplishing nothing at all - zip, zero, nada - just symbolic pap to sooth uninformed anti-gun enthusiasts.

But here’s what SB-249 proposes. It makes ALL semi-automatic rifles AND handguns with interchangeable magazines disallowed, and provides a six month period for current owners of those guns to install a conversion that semi-permanently affixes one magazine with a 10 round limit (there’s my 10 round nemesis again) making quick reloads impossible.

Now here’s my take. This bill at least has the merit of being partly rational in its goal, although I’m not sure Senator Lee knows much about guns and the impossibility of making a conversion kit to make a semi-permanently affixed magazine work on thousands of different models of guns. For many, perhaps most, it would simply couldn't be done. But even if it is possible for this to work, I don’t think this law would have even a tiny chance of passing nationally. The nutjobs in California just might pass it.

Before you could pass SB-249 nationally, I think you’d have to amend the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Whether Democrat or Republican, people treasure their freedom to own guns and don’t appreciate the government imposing new limitations on what the can buy, or what they already own.

As for me, if I find myself in a situation of defending myself and my family against armed thugs, I don’t want to be handicapped by new limitations put on my guns. And I'm not willing to give up my gun freedom anyway.

And there’s the conundrum. I am not willing to give up the right to own semi-automatic weapons in exchange for the chance that limitation might slow down a future mass murderer. You are willing to take away my right to have semi-automatic weapons to possibly slow down a mass murderer. And neither one of us is willing to budge.

If your side is able to prevail in laws like SB-249, then the Supreme Court decides where the limits are to the 2nd Amendment, and your side’s only effective means of gun control in the end is a Constitutional amendment. In today’s America that doesn’t have a chance. In the future, who knows?

I do appreciate you taking ownership of your public comments by attaching your name.

Terry Garlock

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Terry... This exactly why we can't give an inch..

Sorry for the late response been out zip lining, white water rafting all week... Now it's back to reality.

....but to your post. This is exactly why giving up a little to make peace just won't work. Your info is a perfect example of it.. Not only do they want a hi-cap mag ban they also want to semi-permanently lock the mag down so you cannot re-load it..

So exactly who do I sue when I have a mag failure and a family member dies as a result of me having to find a "screwdriver" to take out the set screw or whatever other contraption they come up with?

Terry it will never be enough... Just like Education no matter how much money we throw at it... it is never enough... a Gun mag would be no different.

tgarlock
tgarlock's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/26/2005
SL, my hard head tells my . . .

. . . soft heart you are exactly right. However well intended or sensible, any concession short of outright ban will never be enough.

Terry Garlock

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know Terry I know....

Believe me I wish we all could live in Peace, Harmony and all work together for a better Society...but here comes that word.... BUT...Humans being what they are.. Predators, there will always be those that prey on the weak.

Sort of reminds me of the Movie.. Demolition Man.. Where Society has disarmed and banned everything from "Harsh" thought to even "gasp" physical contact... and one man from the past almost crashes the Society because they have lost the ability to take care of themselves.

This in the Nirvana they want to drag us neanderthals to.

taxed too much
taxed too much's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/15/2012
If CA lawmakers suggest it, then it must be bad

tgarlock,
I liked your article on guns very much and feel sorry for those that don't appreciate the freedoms that our Constitution provides. I also have come to the conclusion that most anything that California lawmakers suggest is usually fiscally stupid, constitutionally wrong and will usually result in loss of liberty. Sad because CA is such a beautiful place.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Buchanan/Garlock

No, Terry, there is much more than weapon functionality that Mr. Buchanan does not grasp. The ability to rationalize normal human thought processes escapes many of our citizens when coupled with the absence of logic.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Oh so true...

Mr. Buchanan has a life changing moment ...he killed a bird.

Thank God he has never had to defend his life much less someone else's for I doubt he would have the ability to do so.

Truly this "letter"/rant is not worth much more time.

bopeep
bopeep's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/02/2010
The Bird

You unfortunately never got past the feathers to digest the remainder of my article. If need be, I will stand next to any man to protect my family and/or my country. Do not be misled as to my not liking guns. But as long as I can put faith in our military and our police force, I choose not to have a gun in my home.
Hugh Buchanan

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
So Mr. Buchanan

does that mean when a home invasion is taking place you are ok with the 10-12 minute response time of the Police department and that is if you even get the chance to make the call in the first place?

I don't care what you choose to do or not do.. Why is it that you care what I choose to do or not do...now that is the question.

It is not the Law abiding citizen that commits the crimes it is the CRIMINAL and it will be the CRIMINAL that IGNORES those silly bans now isn't?

btw- sir the title to this uhhh... letter couldn't the same be said for tobacco, alcohol, big macs and automobiles? I mean these kill more people every year then guns so.....

Liferfrom65
Liferfrom65's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2007
Police
bopeep wrote:

But as long as I can put faith in our military and our police force, I choose not to have a gun in my home.
Hugh Buchanan

The police were a lot of help to these people...after the fact. Last time I saw this lady on TV she had a gun with her.

http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/07-24-2012/3-arrested-ptc-home-invasion