Gun anarchy has arrived

Advertisement

Start practicing your quick draw because today, in this country, we have arrived at the gun extremists’ utopian world of gun anarchy. No doubt partly driven by nostalgia for the days of “Wild West” vigilante justice with a peacemaker pistol, the reality of modern gunfighting with its semi-automatic weapons will, unfortunately, turn a 1950s John Wayne shootout into a bloody Tarantino-style mess.

Just last month two Milwaukee conceal carry holders (at the urging of their local sheriff for citizens to arm themselves against criminals) had a running gunbattle through town and down a highway.

In this state, we have conceal carry permits being handed out like party favors and de facto stand your ground laws sanctioning murder of unarmed people.

Washington state protects wildlife from poachers (by confiscating the poachers’ guns) but abusive husbands with court orders against them who threaten to kill their wives and children are not required to surrender their firearms at all. We have now reached a point of gun lawlessness that threatens the civility of our modern society.

We can thank the surreptitious efforts of the NRA who have been working tirelessly, state by state, to undo all those archaic gun laws that attempt to govern responsible gun ownership, but in reality just violate the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding gun owners. Unfortunately, the NRA’s definition of law-abiding includes felons, domestic violence abusers and terrorists on the FBI’s watch list — yet still it has been fighting hard to protect these groups of gun owners (aka “reliable customers”).

In truth, the NRA’s definition of “law abiding” is just about any white male citizen owning a gun.

We can get rid of police, the sheriff, courts and all laws (because criminals don’t obey them anyway) so it will be every man, woman and child for themselves. Maybe all this lawless anarchy will be a good thing.

With the legislative impotence of Congress today — unable to pass any laws, we can fast track our rights instantly with a gun. Women and minorities, who have waited decades for the slow wheels of justice to serve them will be instantly served.

Your abusive husband threatens you and your family? You no longer have to stand by your man, just stand your ground.

A .45 is quicker than obtaining that toothless restraining order — just be sure to practice your quick draw first.

Carin Gordon

Walla Walla

Comments

grammaphyllis 9 months ago

Carin: I don't know what qualifications you have to be able to broadcast what the NRA's definition of "Law-Abiding" might be, or to declare that permits are handed out without background checks or other safeguards before issuance. Actually, your letter is just a "Rant" because you don't know what you are talking about. Please, seek professional help. You need counseling.

1

PearlY 9 months ago

Well, thanks for telling us what you REALLY think. Of course, accuracy counts too.

In Washington, concealed carry permits are not "handed out like party favors." You must fill out an application under penalty of perjury, pay a fee of $52.50, get fingerprinted, have a criminal record check run on you, and wait as much as 30 days. You can't have a felony conviction or various misdemeanor convictions or pending trial or outstanding warrants or mental health prohibitions. Some party!

And your claim about abusive husbands with court orders against them who threaten to kill their wives and children being allowed to keep their guns is absolutely false.

Gun violence by concealed carry permit holders is practically non-existent. Granted, not completely non-existent. But extremely rare.

The NRA's efforts are far from 'surreptitious' - they're right out there in the open for everyone to see. As their efforts have succeeded over the past three decades, gun violence and other violent crimes have decreased dramatically. Just the opposite has happened in countries like the U.K. and Australia that have banned guns in that time frame.

And the NRA defends the 2nd Amendment rights of minorities and women just as strongly as those of white men. You might check out who the plaintiffs were in the gun rights cases the Supreme Court has ruled on recently, people like Otis McDonald, a black Chicago Democrat in his 70s who'd endured repeated break-ins, or Shelly Parker, a D.C. woman whose life had been threatened on multiple occasions by local drug dealers, or Tom Palmer, a gay man who had been threatened by a group of men, on the basis of his sexual orientation, and was able to escape unharmed by brandishing his handgun.

By the way, semi-automatic doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. James Bond's little handgun was a .32 caliber semi-automatic. You could cause a whole lot more damage with a .45 caliber John Wayne-style revolver.

0

namvet60 9 months ago

Ms Gordon - maybe you should take your ministry on the road to Chicago and preach on the corner downtown and then beware of the next driveby in a city that has total gun control.

0

VinoTinto 8 months, 4 weeks ago

Owning a gun carries great responsibility and most people are too irresponsible to do so. Gun violence is a public health issue and a crippling economic issue. How much do we spend on the prison system and criminal justice system versus education? It's eye opening!

Owners need to carry hefty liability insurance policies to cover property damage, hospital stays for the injured and mamed as well as wrongful death lawsuits. Citizens can own guns they just need to take way more responsibility for their right to bear arms.

0

PearlY 8 months, 4 weeks ago

FIrst, let me say how nice it is to read a post of yours that presents a reasoned argument without insulting anyone. To respond to it:

If most people are too irresponsible to own a gun, why are we allowing them to vote on the person who's finger will sit on the trigger of a huge nuclear arsenal?

And why are the same people who argue generalized irresponsibility when it comes to gun ownership often the same people who want to insist people should be allowed to vote even if they can't manage to produce valid ID? (Not saying you do this, but there's a lot of overlap.)

There are many huge responsibilities that are also inherent rights: The right to marry and the right to have children come to mind; should we insist on insurance against divorce, child abuse and neglect, etc. before allowing people to do these things, and ban marriage or childbearing for those who can't afford the insurance?

The right to defend yourself, your home, your spouse and your children is a basic human right, as basic as the right to wed, procreate, speak one's mind, practice one's religion. To limit it only to those who can afford to insure against misuse of the right is not consistent with the way we treat other basic human and civil rights.

I'd also like to point out that gun violence has very little to do with concealed carry permits - the topic of this letter. Almost all gun violence is perpetrated by those who do not qualify for permits and don't get them, and who would not get liability insurance either.

The demand for liability insurance is a thinly disguised effort to burden law-abiding gun owners while doing very little about gun violence.

0

paco1234 8 months, 4 weeks ago

Almost 90% of Americans, and 75% of NRA members are in favor of doing a proper background check before buying a gun. What's wrong with that? It takes a few minutes to do a background check. Responsible gun owners-to be should not object to it! It takes longer to buy and wait for an onion sausage at the farmer's market than to wait for a background check. Yes, the temperature inside the sausage needs to reach 150 degrees, otherwise it could kill you from the inside out. Guns, from the outside in! So, in both instances it's worthwhile the wait. Sorry, I'm just thinking that in both instances we could have a serious Public Health problem, that's all!

0

PearlY 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Unless you've already obtained a concealed carry permit, it takes a couple of weeks for background checks to be run by most gun dealers. It can be expected to take considerably longer when run by Grandpa trying to pass his shotgun on to his grandson, or me trying to sell the pistol I don't like to my neighbor of 40 years. Not to mention that gun dealers, who do this every day, know what they're doing. Grandpa and I don't, so the chances are high that a fair number of us will end up doing it wrong and visiting prison with a felony conviction for our mistakes.

And still, the people who don't care about the law still won't run background checks. Just like they do now.

0

VinoTinto 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Pearl your argument is bogus. Should we eliminate the speed limit because not everyone will obey it, and because it will not save every single person's life? Please, I need more than 5th grade logic here.

0

PearlY 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Vino, the problem with your criticism is that you're starting with an analogy that doesn't apply. No one expects a law to prevent ALL harm, but we do expect it to bear a rational relationship to the harm it is intended to prevent.

Some gun laws, for example, focus on the cosmetic appearance of guns. It would be like deciding to ban all two-tone cars or all cars with spoilers and expecting that to meaningfully reduce accidents.

We also expect laws not to be overly burdensome for the benefit they offer. We make trade-offs. Even though we could probably cut the morbidity and mortality rate from accidents by 90% if we reduced the speed limit to 15 miles an hour on all roads, most people accept that is too burdensome. But I'll bet if you polled the people who have been seriously injured or have lost family members to car accidents, you would find their ideal speed limit to be lower than that of people who have not.

And except for guns, there are very few areas where we target for extra burdens a population that DOESN'T commit harm, just because we can't seem to reach the population that does. Ample studies have shown that private sales of guns between lawful owners of them rarely result in criminal violence with those guns. Most guns used in crime were obtained by the shooter from someone who did not possess it legally, or were obtained through straw purchasers (which are already illegal), or less commonly, were stolen.

Laws should have a rational relationship to what they are trying to accomplish; they shouldn't simply be a means for one group to inflict its cultural bigotry on another. I get that lots of people have strong prejudices against guns and their owners (often while knowing little about them). But most people (and I'm talking 99+%) who acquire them legally under our current laws DO use them and manage them very responsibly.

In the meantime, four (4) young men were shot dead in Chicago yesterday alone, in four separate incidents, and if the police ever catch their killers, which is unlikely, odds are overwhelming that not one of them bought their gun at a gun show or from its lawful owner. One of those victims was convicted last year of felony aggravated unlawful use of a gun, the maximum sentence for which was three years. Actual sentence, one year. Actual time served, somewhere between three and six months. Ironically, meaningful enforcement of the laws we already have would have saved his life. If saving lives were the goal, that's what we'd be focusing on.

To use your flawed analogy, it's as if, in trying to reduce car accidents, we kept lowering the speed limit more and more, while rarely ticketing. much less arresting, the actual speeders no matter how recklessly they drove. Law-abiding citizens would be stuck on the roads for hours longer AND at greater risk, while those who couldn't care less about the laws continued to speed and crash with impunity.

2

barracuda 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Great reply to his question.... Thank-you for your answer

1

paco1234 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Careless drivers who respect no laws and continue to speed and crash without IMPUNITY? As Vinotinto said, I need more than 5th grade logic here, please. Just to keep it local, we all know of many poeple ( including me) getting speeding tickets for going over 30 mph. In the state of Washington many have lost their driver's permit for traffic violations. Please check the DOT statistics! If anarchy doesn't work, hyperbole neither!

0

PearlY 8 months, 3 weeks ago

The word "analogy" obviously did not register with you, along with the phrase "as if".

1

VinoTinto 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Stop Pearl, you're killing me!!! Pearls World, Pearls World, Party-on! Where's Dana and Mike when you need them? I'm picturing you commenting from your bunker.

0

PearlY 8 months, 3 weeks ago

I had no idea tripping over unfamiliar ideas was so dangerous for liberals. Please do take care; I have no desire to kill you.

Who are Dana and Mike? I suspect they're TV characters, but I don't watch much TV. Can't let those dangerous TV waves into my bunker, you know. ;-)

1

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!