Thursday 24 Jul
 photo BO-Button1_zps13524083.jpg


OKG Newsletter

Home · Articles · Opinion · Letters to the Editor · Councilman...
Letters to the Editor

Councilman misfires with gun comment

None February 16th, 2011

In reference to “Citty under siege,” I have to respond to the comment by Councilman Sam Bowman. In reference to the AR-15 rifle he said, “This is a very, very different piece of weaponry out there that is military in nature and just separate from all.”

This is the exact same thought process (or lack thereof) and attitude that go along with prejudice against people simply based on looks, which could not be more wrong. All, and I do mean all, firearms are the same. All of them consist of a barrel and machinery that sends a metal projectile out at a high rate of speed. All firearms — every single one of them — work the exact same way.

It does not matter what color the weapon is, what coverings you put on the weapon, or the shape of the handle. Every firearm can be lethal to any type of animal (human or otherwise).

Therefore, any attempt or argument to take away “assault” rifles or militarystyle weapons is just a way to begin to take away all guns from law-abiding people. This assault-rifle argument is a bogus line, and an attempt to chisel away at your right to protect yourself. A gun is a gun, no matter how you dress it up.

Gun-control laws are wrong in every way imaginable. First, anyone who wants a gun can get one — law or not. Drugs such as marijuana and cocaine have been illegal my entire lifetime, but from what I see and hear about in the news, those things are still readily available.

Second, if we have the right to life, why would we not have the right to the tools to defend that life?

Third (but definitely not last), when all else fails, when all peaceful political processes have broken down, when a government turns on its own people, personal firearms are what keep a free people free. (Yes, the government has tanks and airplanes, but, at the end of the day, they are guarded by a person armed with a rifle.)

Gun control does not work. The examples are endless. The rhetoric and effort to enact these laws are smokeand-mirror actions to make people feel better and to make politicians look as if they care. Gun control laws and rhetoric are done out of emotion, not legitimate cognitive reasoning or rational thought.

It is crucial that we move past this moot point and address the real issue of the deranged individuals behind violent crimes.

—Grant “Jake”

Goss Mustang

  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


02.18.2011 at 09:49 Reply

These are the typical gun lobby arguments, so allow me a liberal and more constitutionally accurate argument.

When the 2nd amendment was past, the ability to wage war with such a sophisticated weapon as an AR-15 (which in case anyone doesn't know an AR-15 is a civilian variant of a semiautomatic military rifle) was none existent.  It is becoming common place for citizenry to imply they should have access to what can amount to a weapon of mass destruction.  By the logic that you should be allowed to own an AR-15, I should be allowed to own a rocket launcher pod, just so long as it's not capable of firing more than one rocket per trigger pull.  You see, the argument can seem like a slippery slope to me as well.  

These days there are a lot of stressors in people's lives (especially financial and job stressors) which make them apt to use a firearm in a very unconstitutional manner.  The framers never envisioned shooting sprees, snipers, drive-bys, and kids getting killed at school.  They thought the majority of people were sound enough to use these weapons with respect to law, and at that time, I’m sure they were right.  But when they wrote the second amendment, the U.S. population was only 2.5 Million people.  In 2010 the U.S. population was 308 million.  So there can literally be millions of people out there who are unable to handle the stressors in their life and can still legally buy a gun.  Quite simply, there are not 308 million moral, level headed, people in this country.  If there were, the need for self defense would be nonexistent.

So let's define what was intended when the right to bear arms was written.  At that time, there wasn't a single fire arm that had a "magazine."  And even the pistols of that era were powder loaded single shot weapons.  Had the framers envisioned the sophistication of today’s weapons, it stands to reason that some level of control would have been exercised.  Now, if you want to press for an unadulterated 2nd amendment, than I whole heartedly support your owning and using weapons of that era.  Those weapons probably predate rifling, so not only are they impossible to reload in a timely manner, they are also terribly inaccurate.

Let's face facts; a handgun has no other purpose than to kill a human.  It's not designed for anything other than close range activity.  I have no problem with anyone owning a gun for the sake of hunting. And even for home protection.  But weapons which can hold large quantities of ammo and fire in rapid succession are not what the framers visualized, and they certainly could not have imagined a world where weapons of this nature can so easily fall into the hands of the mentally ill.

As much as I hate to make this connection, irresponsible use of firearms witnessed on any myriad of prime time programming and motion pictures only serves to glamorize the illegal use of weapons.  Even on movies that are comedies a gun removed from a holster and waved about bears no negative consequence.  Perhaps the best form of control then is a federally mandated firearms course which must be passed by anyone purchasing a firearm.  I know in your mind, this is the typical government telling you how to live your life, blah, blah, blah.  But let me as you a couple questions? 


What are the negative consequences of making sure people understand the legalities of firearm use? 

Wouldn’t such a course make it easier to weed out people who are potentially unstable to own a weapon? 

If such mandated training guaranteed that the type of weapons available to you now would not be threatened, then would it be worth it?


I’ve been an armed courier, so I’ve had my share of firearms training.  I can honestly say that my knowledge of the laws regarding the use of a firearm make me significantly more aware of the need to keep it holstered unless a life is at stake.  The only additional regulation we need, is that everyone have those same understandings.


I suppose you’re one of those gun advocates who feels weapons need to be unrestricted for the sake of overthrowing the government.  You need only turn on the news to see that when the people want their government toppled, they need not resort to such violent means.  There is strength in numbers, and I can assure you if you have the numbers, you won’t need a single gun to accomplish an overthrow.  People who think they need a weapon for those means are cowards who will only bring more bloodshed upon their own nation.  Those people are not Americans.