Guns should be seen as protection, not danger

Chuck Pinkey

Discussion

COMMENTING ON STORIES:

Welcome to our story comments feature. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including the unpopular ones. We only ask that you keep your conversations clean, civil and on the topic of the story you are commenting on.

Coinciding with our websites redesign, we launched our new story comments feature through Disqus.

Disqus gives users the ability to log into our story comments feature so that they may be able to track their conversations, receive emails when their comments get a reply or to even have your comments update onto your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

For the time being, our story comments feature will continue to have the ability to post comments anonymously. We reserve the right to require registration in the future using your name and verified email address.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified at the newspaper’s discretion for a number of different reasons. Please follow our Online Rules of Conduct at all times.

RULES OF CONDUCT:

We reserve the right to remove comments that are unacceptable, to wit:

1. False and inacurate statements.
2. Personal attacks. Explicit name-calling.
3. Harassing, harmful, vulgar, obscene and defamatory language.
4. Threatening statements or statements that suggest violence.
5. Hate speech of any kind.
6. Intolerant comments on religion, race, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities.
7. Accusations of criminal activity.
8. Content that is harmful to children and minors in any way.
9. References to any type of sexual activity and other private matters.
10. Random and inflammatory statements that are off topic.
11. Advertising of any kind.
12. Typing in all caps.

WE ENCOURAGE REASONABLE AND COURTEOUS COMMENTS THAT:

1. Create conversation on issues of interest and concern to fellow readers and local community members.
2. Express opinions and contrarian views.
3. Stimulate debate with respectful language.
4. Stay within the boundaries of these rules.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE ACCESS FOR:

1. Violating any of these Online Rules of Conduct.
2. Deliberately disrupting discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or spam.
3. Misrepresentation of identity or impersonating another user.

WE WELCOME:

1. Flagging violations of these rules that you observe to our attention.

MONITORING:

We monitor comments regularly Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Approval of comments outside of this time (including weekends) will be sporadic.

comments powered by Disqus

January 17, 2012

Guns should be seen as protection, not danger

Anonymous Daily Star The Daily Star Tue Jan 17, 2012, 02:24 AM EST

Yesterday, 85 million American gun owners, with their 350 million firearms, shot no one.

Bill Masters, a liberal columnist for The Daily Star who stokes the flames every other Tuesday, stated in his column last week that, "In emergencies, a civilian carrying a gun just might add to the danger, and if many guns were at the scene, one can imagine a chaotic circular firing squad."

Is that so? Armed citizens adding to the danger of an emergency? Chaotic circular firing squad? I don't recall that ever happening. Do you? Since when has an armed, law-abiding citizen made the slaughtering of innocents at a fast-food restaurant or a high school worse? I only wish that one of those innocents had a firearm handy and maybe, he or she would have had a fighting chance.

Only last week a Midwestern mother with a baby in her arms, after calling 911, shot and killed an intruder as he pounded on her door and burst through. The shooting was deemed justified. Imagine if she had been unarmed.

Bill further states, "It is all too common for guns to hurt or kill family members by accident, or owners by suicide, or spouses by temporary insanity."

Really? To the contrary, firearm accidents and deaths are extremely uncommon. According to the National Safety Council, children are seven times more likely to drown than be shot and 130 percent more likely to die from choking on their dinner.

Why do liberals make it sound like firearms are on the prowl? They "hurt or kill." Good heavens, one would think they're stalking us! Firearms do not kill anyone or anything! People do! In the case of a drunk driver fatality, do we accuse the Ford or Chevy of murder? Of course not!

Bill continues: "Automobiles give us more everyday freedom than guns ever could do. We use our cars under strict regulation, requiring operator fitness and licensing, registration."

If one looks at history, it is precisely the gun carried by a young American soldier that has given us true freedom. Real freedom, Bill, not fluff like driving your car to the shopping center of your choice.

By the way, is there any freedom or right that a liberal does not want to "regulate ... require ... license ... or register?" I'm sure there must be, but one doesn't come to mind.

He goes on, "Cars are more useful and dear to us than guns, and it seems it would be a small sacrifice to register guns, to control their appropriateness for use, license owners."

Speak for yourself, Bill. My Winchester 94 in 30-30 is far more "dear" than my Chevy Cavalier. And, who would "register ... control ... license" guns and their owners? It would be the very government that the Second Amendment was intended to protect us from.

I don't believe that a huge push for gun control is imminent, because Obama and his gang can't walk and chew gum. However, there is a legitimate concern over the U.N. and this proposed "Small Arms Treaty." After the "fast and furious" diabolical and with the huge black market in international arms smuggling, why is the U.N. so concerned over guns purchased through legal channels? It's a drop in the bucket!

Our Second Amendment is about free people having the right to own weapons, to protect our nation from threats from abroad, but even more so, to secure our liberty from tyranny within.

To me and millions like me, the freedom to own and carry firearms is essential. We will not tolerate licensing, registration or the vague "appropriateness for use" requirement any more so than we would tolerate the "register ... control ... licensing" of our freedom of speech, religion or peaceful assembly.

We already have in the United States a "National Instant Background Check" system.

When you purchase a firearm at a gun shop or show, your information is called into a database in Washington, D.C. If you have a criminal record, a history of violence, restraining orders or any mental health issues, your purchase will be "denied."

If there is a question about your background, you will be "delayed" while you are checked out. Should you be a law-abiding citizen, your purchase will receive a "proceed." Every purchase is checked and you must be crime-free.

What more do liberals want? The fact that they are still not happy shows why we on the other side are skeptical of their motives. They will never be content until guns are banned, one "reasonable requirement" at a time.

Let me ask you a question, Bill. Suppose you are in a restaurant and the unthinkable happens; another lunatic goes on a killing spree.

When your heart twists in your chest, the back of your throat goes numb, and you believe your time is spent, wouldn't you like to be sitting next to a good-old-boy redneck carrying a Colt 1911 loaded with Remington hollow points? I would.

Chuck Pinkey is the owner of River Valley New Holland Inc. in Otego. He can be reached at chuck.rvnewholland@gmail.com. The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect those of The Daily Star and its editorial board.