Time to lay down our right to own firearms!?!
So says Uber liberal College professor, and LA Times Editorial Contributor, Tom Plate.
Read Here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Here is my response to him:
"I would like to take a few moments to address some of the more rediculous points in this 'article,' no, propaganda.
1. "Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud...Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much..."
Well, sir, how else but by an armed citizenry do you guarantee your right to freely speak? Trust the government you say? They'll protect your rights? Bullox and hogwash. The Bill of rights, in its entirety, was developed as a mechanim to allow the people to defend themselves against an all-powerful, tyrannical government. No government in the history of the world, including this one, respects the rights of individuals. In fact, its fair to say, that government exists solely to restrict the rights, freedoms, and liberties of individuals.
2. "...Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean..."
You're the only one that's making an issue of this. To everyone else, his ethnicity is nothing more than a description of the individual. Not everyone has a television on at all times, and without someone describing what the person looked like, and where he came from, we wouldn't know. I can imagine what a news broadcast in your world would sound like: Dead air. Which in your case is pretty close to correct. You have nothing to add to this debate other than diatribe and dead air.
3. "...Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor."
I think that formula is "Bend over, grab the knees, and wait for penetration." What is happening in Sudan cannot be 'solved,' as you claim, by the United Nations (which have failed to solve even the simplest of problems, such as where 20 billion dollars of the "Oil for Food" program went). The problems in Sudan can only be fixed with a bullet to the head of those who would victimize their neighbor. You can't bargain with evil, you can only destroy it.
4. "...These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun."
Just as your article wasn't penned by you, but your typewriter. It is the actor, not the tool. Get it? You are responsible for what you do, not an inatimate object.
5. "...In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor."
Ummm, no. The responses were from the average citizen who didn't like elitists such as yourself trying to disarm them, and make them totally dependant on a despotic city government who already prooved it was not only incapable, but totally disinterested in protecting the citizenry in LA. Thank the Almighty the city wasn't able to follow your hairbrained scheme. Were they able to, you'd have a hell of a lot more blood on your hands than the evil "gun lobby."
6. "...But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era..."
So, lemme get this strait. If someone is opposed to you, they are a wacko and a member of the gun lobby. But if they are in agreement, they are an average citizen and full of common sense?
7. "..."Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger..."
Using your logic, fewer restaurants would then logically result in fewer deaths due to high cholesterol, which ironically is the largest killer of all. Fewer automobiles would result in fewer deaths due to sudden impacts. Fewer oxygen molecules would result in fewer deaths due to oxidation of vital chemical compounds in the blood...
8. "...When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities..."
Who says he was "great?" He was famous, but a despicable human being. In fact, he was a communist. Hardly One that I would describe as "great."
9. "Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head...Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?"
Well, lets declare who wasn't there to stop him: The police. Why didn't he kill you? Perhaps your whining and goveling struck a nerve, perhaps he thought you were too pathetic to waste a bullet on. Or perhaps, murder wasn't in his heart. Either way, you survived. But what about those store clerks who comply and are still herded into the freezer and shot to death, stabbed, raped, or left to freeze? What did they do wrong that you did right?
I think your story is a lie. I think you are a liar.
I can't find any police report with your name on it, in LAPD's or LACSO's database.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
However, using your model of "surrender," fewer people would surely be alive today. Remember Auschwitz? Treblinka? Dachau? The Kmer Rouge? Pol Pot?
I guess the "guests" of such hosts were just poor 'surrendurrers,' and were killed for not having complied fast enough.
You sir, are what's wrong with this country. All people like you want to do is give up instead of fighting. If that's the way you feel, perhaps a trip to the showers for 'special treatment' sounds appealing?
Get out of my country, and take those who fall on their bellies to beg with you. Perhaps the "brillinat Ban Ki Moon" can find a nice place for you to be safe... In Darfoor."
Read Here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/commentary.plate/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Here is my response to him:
"I would like to take a few moments to address some of the more rediculous points in this 'article,' no, propaganda.
1. "Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud...Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much..."
Well, sir, how else but by an armed citizenry do you guarantee your right to freely speak? Trust the government you say? They'll protect your rights? Bullox and hogwash. The Bill of rights, in its entirety, was developed as a mechanim to allow the people to defend themselves against an all-powerful, tyrannical government. No government in the history of the world, including this one, respects the rights of individuals. In fact, its fair to say, that government exists solely to restrict the rights, freedoms, and liberties of individuals.
2. "...Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean..."
You're the only one that's making an issue of this. To everyone else, his ethnicity is nothing more than a description of the individual. Not everyone has a television on at all times, and without someone describing what the person looked like, and where he came from, we wouldn't know. I can imagine what a news broadcast in your world would sound like: Dead air. Which in your case is pretty close to correct. You have nothing to add to this debate other than diatribe and dead air.
3. "...Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor."
I think that formula is "Bend over, grab the knees, and wait for penetration." What is happening in Sudan cannot be 'solved,' as you claim, by the United Nations (which have failed to solve even the simplest of problems, such as where 20 billion dollars of the "Oil for Food" program went). The problems in Sudan can only be fixed with a bullet to the head of those who would victimize their neighbor. You can't bargain with evil, you can only destroy it.
4. "...These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun."
Just as your article wasn't penned by you, but your typewriter. It is the actor, not the tool. Get it? You are responsible for what you do, not an inatimate object.
5. "...In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor."
Ummm, no. The responses were from the average citizen who didn't like elitists such as yourself trying to disarm them, and make them totally dependant on a despotic city government who already prooved it was not only incapable, but totally disinterested in protecting the citizenry in LA. Thank the Almighty the city wasn't able to follow your hairbrained scheme. Were they able to, you'd have a hell of a lot more blood on your hands than the evil "gun lobby."
6. "...But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era..."
So, lemme get this strait. If someone is opposed to you, they are a wacko and a member of the gun lobby. But if they are in agreement, they are an average citizen and full of common sense?
7. "..."Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger..."
Using your logic, fewer restaurants would then logically result in fewer deaths due to high cholesterol, which ironically is the largest killer of all. Fewer automobiles would result in fewer deaths due to sudden impacts. Fewer oxygen molecules would result in fewer deaths due to oxidation of vital chemical compounds in the blood...
8. "...When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities..."
Who says he was "great?" He was famous, but a despicable human being. In fact, he was a communist. Hardly One that I would describe as "great."
9. "Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head...Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?"
Well, lets declare who wasn't there to stop him: The police. Why didn't he kill you? Perhaps your whining and goveling struck a nerve, perhaps he thought you were too pathetic to waste a bullet on. Or perhaps, murder wasn't in his heart. Either way, you survived. But what about those store clerks who comply and are still herded into the freezer and shot to death, stabbed, raped, or left to freeze? What did they do wrong that you did right?
I think your story is a lie. I think you are a liar.
I can't find any police report with your name on it, in LAPD's or LACSO's database.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
However, using your model of "surrender," fewer people would surely be alive today. Remember Auschwitz? Treblinka? Dachau? The Kmer Rouge? Pol Pot?
I guess the "guests" of such hosts were just poor 'surrendurrers,' and were killed for not having complied fast enough.
You sir, are what's wrong with this country. All people like you want to do is give up instead of fighting. If that's the way you feel, perhaps a trip to the showers for 'special treatment' sounds appealing?
Get out of my country, and take those who fall on their bellies to beg with you. Perhaps the "brillinat Ban Ki Moon" can find a nice place for you to be safe... In Darfoor."
posted by Medula Oblongata at 4:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home