allwirl

allwirl 1 year, 8 months ago on PARKER: Guns without roses

So the armed civilian used restraint, common sense, and prudence when faced with danger? No one got hurt because he was armed? And you admit that the cops need more training? Maybe if cops were raised in the shooting sports they would be better shots as adults (The very principle learned in the War between the States that brought about the founding of the NRA). Maybe you should write your representatives and encourage them to fund the CMP (Citizen Marksmanship Program) and the NRA (National Rifle Association) so we can be more proficient with firearms rather than uneducated and ignorant. Thanks for making our point for us!

0

allwirl 1 year, 8 months ago on PARKER: Guns without roses

I'm pretty sure you didn't read my post entirely. If you did read it, you failed to comprehend my meaning. I merely pointed out that the American "left" wants to disarm everyone and the "right" wants to conserve and preserve the right to keep and bear arms which presents an irony. The irony being that most atrocities committed against a country's citizenry is usually committed by "conservative" (albeit leftist) governments.

I used my liberal upbringing to frame my current conservativism to illustrate the irony...We are always accused of being racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, etc, ad nauseum. My point, which you failed to grasp, is that I want Mexicans, gays, blacks, single moms, everyone we conservatives allegedly hate...even the athiest minority in this country...to be armed and able to defend themselves against the next Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Use your mind, not your emotions and maybe that chip on your shoulder will heal. Just because I say, Jesus loves you and I love you doesn't make me a biggot.

P.S. Don't misquote and misinterpret scripture to advance an agenda...that's what we Christians do ;)

0

allwirl 1 year, 8 months ago on PARKER: Guns without roses

Kathleen Parker lists her right-wing/republican/pro-gun bona fides, ostensibly perhaps to stave off the flurry of right-wing/republican/pro-gun responses like mine. Allow me my bona fides before I begin. I was raised by a single mother in the Midwest of these United States. We lived in taxpayer funded housing for a while and ate sandwiches provided by a city program. My mom was an interior decorator who disliked guns, republicans, and wars. She loved art, Kennedy, and her friends. The company she kept was mostly gay males, single mothers, and black men whom she dated frequently. Did I mention she was a lapsed catholic turned agnostic and had been married and divorced four times by the time I was in middle school? It was a hyper-stereo-typical liberal childhood.

As I have listed my liberal bona fides, keep in mind I LOVE my momma, but I am a white, Christian, conservative, male, happily married (20 years to one gal) father of two. And a gun owner. Not just any gun owner...a "from my dead fingers", "will never register my guns" NRA Life Member gun owner. I used to hate guns too, until I came home married one day and realized that someone needed to protect my wife and she needed protection while I was away at work for 24 hours at a time.

But you see, I don't love my guns. I love my country. I love my mom, my wife, and my children. I also love the gay friends she had, the black men she dated, the single moms, and all the liberals she befriended. It's what we as Christians are taught to do; love God and love thy neighbor. In Ms. Parker's column, she tried to paint the racist, southern, white male, gun-lover picture but she used too narrow of a brush.

There is an irony that people neglect to see. It is we conservatives, we "gun nuts" that are fighting for all of our rights to protect liberals from...

Us. We want the black man to be armed so the dragging of James Byrd can never again occur. We want the homosexual to be armed so Mathew Sheppard can never again be found dead on a fence, We want a woman to be armed so she can defend her twin nine year old boys when a career criminal breaks in. We don't want the 2nd Amendment to remain in place just for white Christian men, We want it to protect all Americans, white, black, yellow, red, brown, rich, poor, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, athiest. You. Me. Everyone.

Ms. Parker, I will keep my semi-automatic rifle with the 30 round magazine in my safe. Unless I want to go to the range and practice. Or unless someone tries to take away your 1st Amendment rights or my 2nd Amendment rights by force. Liberals love it when conservatives quote George Orwell because it always makes us look like paranoid nuts....so let me not disappoint and share a prophetic Orwellian quote to my liberal, gun-controlling friends:

"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot." -George Orwell

You weren't expecting that were you?

0

allwirl 1 year, 9 months ago on AHMAD: Maybe it's time to limit free speech

The Constitution absolutely does NOT restrict speech. Defamation is not covered in the Constitution. In fact, there is nothing to prevent lies or falsehoods either. One can publish an article in a newspaper propagating a lie about a movie that no one ever heard of as causing an uprising in the Middle East, or even write a rebuttal on the internet stating things exist in the Constitution that in fact, do not.

Maybe we should restrict freedom of the press also??? No, much like hate speech, we must endure, and openly debate it to keep it in check. Liberty requires work. It's not free or easy.

0

allwirl 1 year, 9 months ago on AHMAD: Maybe it's time to limit free speech

Simple. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." Our founders knew that eventually we would forget the contests, struggles, and bloodshed that brought our freedom and liberty and become easily tempted by temporary security. I am leary of anyone who is willing to give up any right. It's usually from ignorance, laziness, or incompetence that one forfeits something so precious, that has cost so much. Too many have died to protect and pass on those rights, those responsibilities, for me not to speak out against anyone who would so willingly and easily give them back.

0

allwirl 1 year, 9 months ago on AHMAD: Maybe it's time to limit free speech

In response to Ms. Saima Ahmad's comments published 12/18/12:

America was founded on certain principles that should not ever be forgotten. Our Founders risked everything by standing up to an oppressive regime. We were a small colony with little power taking on the mighty British Empire. When we eventually won that war, we established a new government..."of the people, for the people, and by the people".

As the Founders spent several years developing and writing a document that would later become our Constitution, several realized that it wasn't good enough to merely write a document laying out the role and responsibility of the government. A fight brewed between them but eventually they agreed that the document lacked something; a supporting document enumerating the rights and responsibilities of the people. Without this 'Bill of Rights', the government holds all the power.

They realized that without these God given rights written down for posterity, we would all again become subjects. The First Amendment notes our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. If we sacrifice any of these, we do so at our own peril. The Founders wanted the power to rest in the hands of the people, not a ruling class.

Whom would Ms.Ahmad like to be the arbiter of "hate speech"? I assume she would have the govenment determine what is hateful? Her very premise that the "Innocence of Muslims" video caused a reaction that "shook the whole world" has been proven false. The press initially reported that and our government repeated it and now she continues with it in this publication. Shall we limit the freedom of the press? Must I endure a lie from the press, from my govenment, from you? Is that YOUR freedom of speech? Will I be charged with "hate speech" if I call you a liar?

This country has a long history of tolerance, albeit somewhat painfully arrived at times. Our founders understood that we needed to be able to pray to whom we wanted to, say what we wanted to whom we wanted to, gather our friends and talk to those who will listen and debate with those who will disagree. The also knew that at some point an ever growing government would try to gain power at the expense of liberty taken from it's people. The Bill of Rights is what keeps the government from holding us all as subjects or slaves. Why would anyone in their right mind want to give up any essential liberty for a temporary safety? As Benjamin Franklin said...they deserve neither. So, any other rights you wish to give away? Liberty isn't easy. It isn't clean. It isn't always pretty...but it's ours as long as we don't give it away.

0