Gun control advocates, including Kevin Foley, care little for facts
January 07, 2013 12:48 PM
| 1957 views | 7
In his column, “Public Safety, gun safety not mutually exclusive”, appearing January 4th, MDJ columnist has broken his own record at misrepresenting the facts. In the first paragraph has says that NRA president Wayne LaPierre told Americans to buy more guns. He did not make any such statement. Foley than goes on to say “that just happens to be the products sold by the companies his outfit represents.” The NRA represents America’s gun owners, not gun manufacturers.In the second paragraph, he says that LaPierre called for arming every teacher. That is another blatant untruth. At no time did he advocate arming every teacher. What he did advocate was putting trained, armed guards in every school. Something that President Clinton started, though not on such a grand scale. Why do you think private schools have been exempt from Columbine, or Sandy Hook type shootings? They are all guarded and secured, just the same as the private school to which President Obama sends his children.In the third paragraph,. He engages in a little melodrama intended to make LaPierre look like ghoul. He alludes to LaPierre making his first statement “as the babies of Sandy hook were being laid to rest”: Sorry, Kevin, but LaPierre waited a respectful 9 days after the tragedy before making his statement, unlike the gun control crowd, who, like a bunch of vultures, did not even wait 9 hours, much less 9 days, before they verbally hung up the bodies of the 20 babies and pointed to them as proof that we must abolish the 2nd Amendment. His next two paragraphs address public safety, as if it were a given that outlawing guns would make the public safe. Of course, anybody with reasoning power greater than that of a fence post knows that is not true.Try this one on for size, by the way, Kevin. According to the FBI, in 2011, there were 35% more murders committed with hammers, than with rifles. Yet, what is it you want to outlaw? Rifles isn’t it? Why not hammers? Close down the hammer department at Home Depot.Public safety discussions do not end where the topic of guns begins. It ends when you advocate surrendering liberty for a false sense of safety. Our founding fathers warned us about that repeatedly.Foley makes the erroneous statement that you can walk into almost any gun show and buy “assault weapons”, high capacity magazines and ammunition, no questions asked. I will not dignify that by calling it an untruth. I will call it what it is. It is a bald faced lie. Dealers at gun shows are bound by the same regulations requiring background checks, as they are when they are in their places of business. Since Foley is only parroting something he has heard, I have no way of knowing whether he is aware of that or not. But, I repeat, the statement is a lie.Foley, Charles Gregory, is at this time a private citizen and his inane ravings do not, in any way, reflect the belief of most sane people. As to the Second Amendment, it does recognize our unfettered access to weapons. The Second Amendment has been attacked in court many times and is still just as pristine as the day our founding fathers wrote it, without reservation, time limit or expiration date.BTW, how many instances of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun will it take to convince you? It’s not a “wild west” thing, it is a fact. Your fantasies regarding teachers and people in church are just that. Fantasies, concocted to prove your point. They have no basis in fact. Nobody is advocating arming all the teachers, so your scenario of a gunman killing the teacher first is pure fantasy. You reckon one armed member of the congregation could take out a shooter, but not before some people died. That may be true, but is that not better than all the people being killed? Without a gun, the killer could always toss in a stick of dynamite, or a firebomb and not risk getting shot at all. Your fantasy scenario is invalid. You make a lot of noise about sensible, well thought out laws relating to firearms. We already have such, and you are not satisfied. What you are ignoring is the fact that people who intend to use guns for illegal purposes do not care about the law, whether it is well thought out or not. What you are advocating is restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of over 3 million people for a false sense of safety.Hammers and hand guns are used for killing far more often than rifles. A third of all mass killings are accomplished without guns. The first recorded murder in history was done before guns were ever invented. Extremely strict guns laws in Chicago did not stop 440 school children from being shot, 62 of them fatally, in 2011. Chicago has an assault weapons ban. So does Connecticut. The children of Sandy Hook were not killed by the 2nd Amendment. They were killed by a crazed maniac, who murdered his own mother to gain illegal possession of legal weapons. .Had he not been able to do that, he would have found another way to accomplish what he set out to do. Many have done so in the past. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He had a much higher body count without firing a single shot.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service
for full guides