Translate this page

“It’s time for common sense” [Letter, Village News, 12/20/2012]


Thursday, January 3rd, 2013
Issue 01, Volume 17.


Mr. Monday, you evidently have very little knowledge of firearms and I question your common sense.

You say you’re a gun owner, but you don’t sound like a true gun owner. You must be an anti-gun liberal.

First off, the worst school massacre in U.S. history didn’t even happen with a gun. In 1927, Andrew Kehoe blew up a school with explosives; 45 dead, 38 were children. Unfortunately these bad events have been happening since the beginning of time. The first school shooting happened July 26, 1764.

Most gun owners, like me, believe that the last school shooting, at Sandy Hook Elementary School Advertisement
Advertisement for Casa Tiene Vista
[ Casa Tiene Vista ]
in Connecticut, could have been avoided or less carnage, if the anti-gunners made it easy for Adam Lanza and alike to do their acts. Notice these schools are all gun-free zones and no responsible school employees are allowed to carry a gun.

Because of these gun-free areas, I believe the best way to stop these school shootings possibly is with armed guards in the schools. Schools and children need to be protected.

Remember Mr. Monday, Adolph Hitler also supported gun registration.

Supporting more anti-gun laws do nothing to make us safer, it only takes away our rights and freedoms.

David Stagg

Life member NRA


 

19 comments

Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #1 | Thursday, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:53 pm
To David,

You live in a bubble if you think all (or even most) liberals who advocate for reasonable gun control don't know about, or own guns.

Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA.

I grew up with guns in my home.

In the mid-60s I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne division (enlisted - not drafted) and qualified as an expert with the M14 and M16.

I own a .357 revolver and a .30-30 rifle, among others.

All gun owners should support reasonable restrictions on the sale of assault rifles, body armor, armor piercing ammunition, and high capacity clips. There's no need for these things in our society. The only purpose of these things is to kill humans at a high rate.

All gun owners should support reasonable background checks on all purchases of weapons and ammunition. I think there should also be at least some requirement for safety training, prior to gun purchases.

We live in a democracy, and a majority of Americans don't feel threatened by our own government. We change governments as often as we want - no guns necessary - just vote. If you feel the elected government doesn't represent you - run for office. After all, we, the people, are the government. See how popular your views are with the general public.

You say, "bad events have been happening since the beginning of time". Yes, that's true, and with each tragedy we learn a little more about how to prevent them - or at least minimize the carnage.

You say, "I believe the best way to stop these school shootings possibly is with armed guards in the schools" But, there were armed campus guard at Virginia Tech and Columbine - they were either out gunned or too late to stop the killing. In the Holocaust Museum shooting, the armed guard was the first to be killed.

More guns is not the solution - making these kinds of guns, clips, and ammunition illegal and unavailable is a big part of the solution. Law enforcement agencies
are for these restrictions.

As God would have it, just a few days after Sandy Hook, there was an attack on 22 school children in China by a crazy person. But, no one died there because all he had was a knife - no access to semi-automatic riles and high capacity clips.

There should be a lesson in Sandy Hook for all gun owners - a very well armed and trained gun owner was the first to die, and that person (the shooter's mother) also provided the weapons and ammunition for the slaughter of 20 school children and 6 adults.

There are some 98,817 public and 33,366 private schools in the US, according to the department of education.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average pay for a police officer is $55,010 per annum.

In that case, a crude estimate for the overall bill for the placing of an armed guard in every US school could be as much as $7.2 billion.

If we really need to have armed guards at all schools, how about we have an annual license fee, per gun owned, to cover the cost of the training, the guards, the compensation for victims, as well as the after-incident costs of courts, police, and medical treatment. It should come to about $100 per gun, per year.

Will you be willing to pay for it?

There's a problem with our society. Canada has a lot of guns, watches the same movies, the same TV, the same video games, but has far fewer gun-related deaths. The problem is our violent society, and adding more guns, with higher capacity to kill a bunch of people fast, is definitely not the answer.

Let us reason together - this is not about a citizen's right to own firearms, but about the right of society to protect itself from crazy people.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #2 | Friday, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:05 am
Here's another data point, showing that a solid majority of NRA members support reasonable gun restrictions and background checks.

Frank Luntz, the genius Republican pollster and wordsmith, was recently commissioned to do a survey of NRA members:

87% of NRA members agree that support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

74% percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

79% support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

But, the NRA itself does not support these common sense steps, in fact, fights against them. Who do they represent? Certainly not their members or society at large.
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #3 | Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:38 am
Mr Monday . Its time again to staighten up your false hoods ,again First off Michael Moore. Moore,s standing with the NRA doesn't count . Moore sent in $35 to join the NRA , but somehow he slipped though the cracks . Moore admits joining the NRA to attack it .He admits he joined the NRA to dismantle and destroy it,in his own words . He also claims the NRA is deranged & delusional & hates freedom . Fact, as soon Mr Moore recieved his NRA card he showed up at Charlton Heston,s house for interview ,and blamed the NRA & Heston for a killings .
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #4 | Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 at 5:06 am
Mr Moore has no legal standing with the NRA . In the the NRA we call Moore a chatterbox & a anti gunner , just like you Mr Monday. Mr Moore doesn't believe in our core values or in the Constitution . There is millions of NRA members , Mr Moore is not a board member ,nor is he representative of the NRA . Since you have a problem with the truth , I think you should stand by Colin Goddard . Colin Goddard belongs to the Brady Campaign and claims to be a gun owner , John Kerry claimed to be a hunter , what a bunch of fakes !
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #5 | Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Mr Monday , I remember Bill Clinton saying he was a gun owner & then releasing pictures of him hunting . Well we later found out , that good old Bill had made mocked up pictures made up of this . He just made it up . A true anti gunner Bill was , he then got passed anti-gun bill in 1994. He lied , and Lied, and Lied . I see what you really stand for Mr Monday , it follows you .
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #6 | Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:18 pm
To David Stagg,

Call me anti-gun if you want, but it's just keeping you in a bubble, hiding from reality.

The NRA does not work for its members, but for gun manufacturers. Hence the recent Republican poll that shows:

87% of NRA members agree that support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

74% percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

79% support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees

It's just common sense stuff, that the NRA fights against, despite the vast majority of their members wanting common sense regulation.

Stay in the bubble if you like, but in the end, it will be like all the Faux News people and their followers in the bubble, who thought Romney was going to win by a landslide. A rude awakening was waiting for them on election night.

I know my constitution (I carry a copy in my address book), and nothing I've suggested goes against it.

Even the most recent rulings from the conservative Supreme Court upheld gun regulations - at the same time they ruled that we have a right to own firearms, but with common sense regulations. Look it up.

In the 2008 Heller case, Justice Scalia wrote that the court had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Justice Scalia also added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”

I guess Scalia is just another anti-gun liberal pinko - right?
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #7 | Monday, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Every NRA member I know says your dead wrong . You like to twist the facts, Mr Monday . You can stand by Obama /Dianne Feinstein / Michael Bloomberg /Michael Moore . Clinton/ Ted Kennedy and the rest of your freedom haters . I will stand by true American Patriots Reagan/ Chuck Norris / Ted Nugent /Charlton Heston / Tom Selleck /John Wayne and many other freedom lovers , P.S all these great men belong to the NRA and or are board members , or and , Pres. of the group . I notice Mr Monday you don;t like the Constitution very much. You don;t believe in it .
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #8 | Monday, Jan 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm
To David Stagg,

I just wanted to reiterate this point, since you're concerned about the constitutionality of efforts to enact reasonable gun controls laws:

When the Supreme Court rules on an issue, they are declaring a law constitutional or not. As I mentioned, Scalia (writing for the majority) said that the court had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Scalia also said that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”

That is the end of the argument, right? The supreme court has ruled on the constitutionality of gun control, including conditions and restriction on all purchases as well as limiting certain dangerous types of weapons.

Since it's absolutely constitutional, do you have any other objections to the simple common sense measures I suggested:

Background checks on all gun purchases
Restrictions on the sale of assault rifles
Restrictions on the sale of body armor
Restrictions on the sale of armor piercing ammunition
Restrictions on the sale of high capacity clips
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #9 | Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Mr Monday -see comments from NRA vows to prevent school attacks by Tom Evans .
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #10 | Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:24 pm
Hi David,

Maybe you didn't read Tom Evans letter closely enough - he and I are on the same page.

OK - the NRA wants to put armed guard in every school (although his has show this is fairly useless, as they tend to be the first one shot - or, as in the case of Virginia Tech, armed guard that were on campus couldn't get there fast enough to stop anything).

But, Tom's idea is to have all the guards, training, administration, liability costs (medical, courts, etc.) be paid for by an annual license fee on all guns owed. Of course that would mean registering all guns and gun owners. I calculated it would come to less than $100 per gun.

Just like gasoline taxes, the consumers who use the roads pay for the costs. Just as gun owners should shoulder the cost to society for the damage they create.

You say all your NRA friends feel the same as you, which just means you and your friends are a tiny minority of NRA members who don't support common sense regulations.

Please tell me your specific objections to the following proposals. I can't see that you, or anyone needs these things:

Background checks on all gun purchases
Restrictions on the sale of assault rifles
Restrictions on the sale of body armor
Restrictions on the sale of armor piercing ammunition
Restrictions on the sale of high capacity clips

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that these are, in fact, constitutional, I don't understand your objection.

Thanks.
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #11 | Thursday, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:44 pm
Mr Monday I object to all your proposals . In California for example most gun purchases already have background checks , very , very old guns and black powder guns are exempt for example ,so background checks already in effect .2nd you want to restrict & ban guns that are no more dangerous than a lot of other guns . You want to ban a rifle just because it looks like a military rifle ! You don;t know the differance between a M16 and a AR15 rifle . 3rd body armor only stops low powered handgun rounds mostly , so its not much of issue . 4th armor piecing amo is illegal in California .5th after the year 1999 guns were limited to 10 rounds for a center fire firearms ,22LR tube feed guns are exempt for example . Older guns and magazines before this are mostly exempt . Besides Mr Monday if there is a riot or several people are trying to kill you at once 10 rounds may not be enough , to save your life .
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #12 | Thursday, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:19 pm
Mr Monday .Criminals don not follow the rules ,why should you want to give the criminals a edge . Mr Monday , you want to restrict my rights and disarm me, .Yet criminals do not follow the law , so basically most of these laws are in effect in California , yet these laws have done nothing to stop school shootings by a crazy person . Evil , sick people find a way to do their sick acts , no gun law will stop it . Mr Monday should we outlaw Ted Kennedys car and call it car violence ! Do you remember Chappaquiddick and the young girl Mary Jo Kopechne ? Good old Teddy got away with murder .
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #13 | Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Hi David,

No one is proposing to disarm you.

I've not heard of an example of "a riot or several people [who] are trying to kill you". Can you provide an example of one? It seems to me that imagined fear is driving effort to block common sense laws.

If things are illegal in California, but not nationally, pretty useless - right? We need national gun regulation of background checks, and restrictions to be more effective.

I know the difference between a M16 and a AR15 - the M16 can be fired in fully automatic mode - which I have used, and qualified expert with. Have you ever fired a M16, in full auto mode?

According to the Supreme Court, the type of regulations and restriction that I'm talking about are Constitutional - you keep avoiding that fact, and bringing up silly unrelated issues, such as Ted Kennedy, etc.

You say, "Evil , sick people find a way to do their sick acts , no gun law will stop it ." It may be true, but no gun will stop all of it either, but keeping the most dangerous guns out of their hands, will prevent some deaths - and that's worth it. Especially since it doesn't restrict Constitutionally protected gun ownership.

You also don't comment on the poll that Frank Luntz conducted that shows you're in a tiny minority of NRA members that resist these simple, common sense measures.

Are you concerned that you wouldn't pass a background check?
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #14 | Friday, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Hi David,

Seriously, I wonder if you think any weapon restrictions are a good idea for society? How about:

Flame throwers
Regular bombs
Nuclear bombs
Fully automatic rifles
Shoulder fired rockets
Tanks with operational main guns
Submarines, with torpedoes
Nerve gas

Are there any restrictions you could agree with? Can we find common ground at all?
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #15 | Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:29 am
Really , Mr Monday you are blowing hot air with your last response , good try. Let me put it in simple terms , a 5 year old child could understand . The second Amendment clearly says , A well regulated Militia -this means a civilians can protect our country , not just the government . it also says -the right of the people , this includes gun owners , and my NRA friends & me as well . 3rd , to keep and bear Arms , that means firearms/guns Mr Monday . Last part, shall not not be infringed , this means , restrictions bans, and your so called{ common sense laws } are unconstitutional ! People like you Mr Monday have no respect for the Constitution . I will not submit to slavery . I will not give up my semi-automatic guns to you , or the government ! My freedoms are not for sale ! Proud NRA member .
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #16 | Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 4:59 pm
Mr Monday . You just lost the debate . You can not handle the facts&truth . I think I will go to Cal Customs and look at guns . You will not change your mind ,&will not . Benjamin Franklin said -Those who can can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety , deserve neither liberty nor safety . Charlton Heston said about taking his guns away{FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS !! } The end . David Stagg NRA&California Rifle&Pistol Association life member,& gun history buff .
Comment Profile ImageDavid Stagg
Comment #17 | Saturday, Jan 12, 2013 at 9:29 pm
I would like to thank the Fallbrook Village News for letting me give my opinion . Thank you .
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #18 | Sunday, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Hi David,

You should take your arguments about the constitutionality of gun rights restrictions up with the Supreme Court, whose job it is to say what is, and what is not constitutional.

It's not what I say (or what you say), but what they say that counts. And they have made it clear (see above). It's only a matter of where to draw the line.

Yes, hats off to the FVN for providing a forum for these discussions.

Thanks,
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Post Continued
Comment Profile ImageJon Monday
Comment #19 | Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:44 am
Here's some brand new data on who supports common sense gun restrictions:

The results came out from a Post/ABC News survey last night. The toplines show that Americans support an assault weapons ban by 58-39. Here's the demographic breakdown:

* White non-college men are by far the least supportive, at 43-55.

* Meanwhile, white college educated men support a ban, 57-41. White college educated women are even more supportive, 73-25.

* Nonwhites overall are also very supportive, at 63-33.

* Americans from the ages of 18-39 support a ban, 52-46.

Non-college white men are the only constituency that opposes a ban.

The coalition that powered the Dem victory in the last election — the “coalition of the ascendant” that will increasingly comprise the core of the Democratic Party’s support as demographic shifts continue — is made up of nonwhites, young Americans, and white, college educated voters, particularly women. These groups all support a ban. This finding is also backed up by a new National Journal poll, which finds that these constituencies are markedly supportive of stricter gun laws in general.

The times are not, as Bob Dylan said, "a changin", but have changed. The Republican Party has to acknowledge this or perish. It's all about the demographic shift and trends.

We live in a democracy, and if the people elect a majority of officials who support an assault weapons ban and pass legislation, that's the law, and the Supreme Court has indicated they will uphold it as constitutional.

Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Fallbrook Village News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.

 

Add your Comment


Name

Images, Formatting, or HTML is not allowed : plain text only. You may post up to 5 website addresses within your comment.




Disclaimer

The Fallbrook Village News has tightened its' policy regarding comments.
While we invite you to contribute your opinions and thoughts, we request that you refrain from using vulgar or obscene words and post only comments that directly pertain to the specific topic of the story or article.
Comments that are derogatory in nature have a high likelihood for editing or non-approval if they carry the possibility of being libelous.
The comment system is not intended as a forum for individuals or groups to air personal grievances against other individuals or groups.
Please, no advertising or trolling.
In posting a comment for consideration, users understand that their posts may be edited as necessary to meet system parameters, or the post may not be approved at all. By submitting a comment, you agree to all the rules and guidelines described here.
Most comments are approved or disregarded within one business day.

RSS FeedFacebookTwitter



Advertisement for Fallbrook Healthcare Partners





Subscribe




Most Commented


Reach Local Customers



The Fallbrook Village News The Fallbrook Village News
760-723-7319 - 1588 S. Mission Rd. Suite 200, Fallbrook CA 92028
All contents copyright ©2014
About Us
Earthquake Information
Business Listings
Contact Us
Letter to the Editor
Report a website error
Sitemap
Online Digital Edition
RSS Feeds
Login