Idaho "journalist" smears 2nd Amendment/NRA

[ericire12]

http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005126751

By PAT MURPHY

 If Arizona's state Legislature, now in session, fulfills its blood-oath bond with the National Rifle Association, the state will become the 41st to legalize carrying concealed handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol. Arizona restaurants oppose the legislation. However, restaurateurs discovered their rights have scant standing when the NRA yelps that gun owners deserve their "rights" and obliging politicians jump.

Long ago when the NRA was founded as an educational rifle owners' and sportsmen's organization, handguns and militant overkill about the Second Amendment had no discernible roles. Then an ultra-conservative element took over and transformed the NRA into a political juggernaut with a war chest of millions of dollars to threaten politicians with defeat if they didn't dance to the NRA tune.

The NRA has rewritten the Second Amendment to be anything it pleases. Where does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—grant unrestricted "rights" to gun owners?

Now the "rights" have been expanded to include concealed guns in restaurants, guns on campus, guns on hips in public and battlefield semi-automatic guns in the family armory, among others. The pastor of the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Ky., asked his congregation to bring guns to the Sunday service, presumably some sort of religious consecration of tools for killing

Is this the "well regulated militia" the Second Amendment calls for?

Most professional law enforcement organizations oppose the growing list of gun "rights" that have made the streets dangerous for police.

The NRA has been shamefully mute in campaigning to debunk the nonsense of wacko rumormongers that President Obama plans to take away their weapons. The wild talk recently touched off a spree of gun purchases across the nation.

Many, many sensible gun owners don't cotton to all these "rights" promoted by the NRA or its political scare tactics. Include me. I'm no anti-gun crusader. I own handguns and while in the service qualified on every infantry bullet weapon through .50 caliber machine gun and since then have fired Gulf War-era weapons.

There's something peculiar about people who're obsessed with packing a concealed handgun for fear they may need to defend themselves in a gunfight in such places as a restaurant. NRA argues it's a matter of self-defense.

If more and more Americans are packing guns, who're the ones that can be trusted and who're the nuts ready to open fire?

Contact Info:
http://www.mtexpress.com/contact.php

[tombogan03884]

 This is what I sent:

You recently published an uninformed anti gun owner tirade by "Pat Murphy".
If that sort of derogatory language were directed at any other group in America it would be labeled "hate speech" and you would be sued out of your shorts.
 The Second Amendment is the most heavily infringed of all the actual enumerated rights in the Constitution. The ignorance displayed in this column makes me think that perhaps some "reasonable, common sense regulation" should also be applied to the First Amendment. Perhaps "one pen a month", or individual FBI approval of word processor ownership. The Second Amendment was not written to protect the guns and activities you approve of but to protect the ones you don't, as Jefferson said, " The Second Amendment will never be needed until some despot attempts to dispose of it."
Or perhaps you just can't understand the phrase "Shall not be infringed".

[JC5123]

This is what I sent:

You recently published an uninformed anti gun owner tirade by "Pat Murphy".
If that sort of derogatory language were directed at any other group in America it would be labeled "hate speech" and you would be sued out of your shorts.
 The Second Amendment is the most heavily infringed of all the actual enumerated rights in the Constitution. The ignorance displayed in this column makes me think that perhaps some "reasonable, common sense regulation" should also be applied to the First Amendment. Perhaps "one pen a month", or individual FBI approval of word processor ownership. The Second Amendment was not written to protect the guns and activities you approve of but to protect the ones you don't, as Jefferson said, " The Second Amendment will never be needed until some despot attempts to dispose of it."
Or perhaps you just can't understand the phrase "Shall not be infringed".

You mean like they are doing now?

[tombogan03884]

You mean like they are doing now?

No I mean like the globalist, nanny state Dems have been attempting for the last 70 years.

[RTFM]

Ketchum / Sun Valley is our one and only bastard child here in Idaho - if we ever have had a bastion of liberalism it's there.
For some reason it has attracted the hollwood liberal elite who think that that area  is there home away from home and common sense need not apply there.

Along with that they attract there lap dogs that do nothing else but prattle and exhibit a fawning attentiveness to the "elite" - should they differ one iota for staunch liberalism they'd be run out of town on a rail for conduct unbecoming.

I left a voice mail for the editor - but realize it will fall on deaf ears.

[Sponsor]

[Kid Shelleen]

I sent the following letter to the editor:

Dear Sir,
Before you allow Mr. Murphy to go on an uninformed rant regarding the NRA and their support of those of us who are responsible, law abiding Americans that choose to accept the responsibility of concealed carry, please have him first take the time to check his facts.

Mr. Murphy stated: "Where does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—grant unrestricted "rights" to gun owners?". The individual right to keep and to bear, i.e. carry, arms was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Heller vs. the District of Columbia.

Mr. Murphy would also be well served if he were to check the undeniable statistics compiled by the U.S. Justice Department on violent crime and murder. The facts clearly show that states that have permitted law abiding Americans to carry concealed firearms have consistently demonstrated significant reductions in murders, violent crime and frequent reductions in property crime. The facts speak for themselves.

Concealed carry has been around in this country for quite some time and the unfounded fears of "wild west shootouts on the streets" have proved to be just that, unfounded. When law abiding citizens lawfully arm themselves, crime is reduced.

Gun free zones such as; establishments serving alcohol, public buildings, schools, some shopping malls, churches and others have been the places of choice for deranged criminals on shooting sprees. Coincidence? I think not.

Please responsibly present the facts and opposing points of view.

[ericire12]

I sent the following letter to the editor:

Dear Sir,
Before you allow Mr. Murphy to go on an uninformed rant regarding the NRA and their support of those of us who are responsible, law abiding Americans that choose to accept the responsibility of concealed carry, please have him first take the time to check his facts.

Mr. Murphy stated: "Where does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—grant unrestricted "rights" to gun owners?". The individual right to keep and to bear, i.e. carry, arms was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Heller vs. the District of Columbia.

Mr. Murphy would also be well served if he were to check the undeniable statistics compiled by the U.S. Justice Department on violent crime and murder. The facts clearly show that states that have permitted law abiding Americans to carry concealed firearms have consistently demonstrated significant reductions in murders, violent crime and frequent reductions in property crime. The facts speak for themselves.

Concealed carry has been around in this country for quite some time and the unfounded fears of "wild west shootouts on the streets" have proved to be just that, unfounded. When law abiding citizens lawfully arm themselves, crime is reduced.

Gun free zones such as; establishments serving alcohol, public buildings, schools, some shopping malls, churches and others have been the places of choice for deranged criminals on shooting sprees. Coincidence? I think not.

Please responsibly present the facts and opposing points of view.

Patriot

[JC5123]

I sent the following letter to the editor:

Dear Sir,
Before you allow Mr. Murphy to go on an uninformed rant regarding the NRA and their support of those of us who are responsible, law abiding Americans that choose to accept the responsibility of concealed carry, please have him first take the time to check his facts.

Mr. Murphy stated: "Where does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—grant unrestricted "rights" to gun owners?". The individual right to keep and to bear, i.e. carry, arms was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Heller vs. the District of Columbia.

Mr. Murphy would also be well served if he were to check the undeniable statistics compiled by the U.S. Justice Department on violent crime and murder. The facts clearly show that states that have permitted law abiding Americans to carry concealed firearms have consistently demonstrated significant reductions in murders, violent crime and frequent reductions in property crime. The facts speak for themselves.

Concealed carry has been around in this country for quite some time and the unfounded fears of "wild west shootouts on the streets" have proved to be just that, unfounded. When law abiding citizens lawfully arm themselves, crime is reduced.

Gun free zones such as; establishments serving alcohol, public buildings, schools, some shopping malls, churches and others have been the places of choice for deranged criminals on shooting sprees. Coincidence? I think not.

Please responsibly present the facts and opposing points of view.

How about they do their job and just report the FACTS. It is their job to inform, it is my job to make a judgment.