Dennis Olson
New member
Just got an answer from her. My response (along with snips from her email) follows:
-------------------------
Okay, I'll try to answer some of your points, as best I can. Please note that some answers may be lengthy.
---------------------------------
Dear Dennis,
You say you love shooting, but you don't say why. Your letter was long
and I read every word, but all you seem to say is that you like guns
because you have fond memories of target practice in the woods.
[Me] Because IMHO the act of placing a tiny projectile at a great distance onto a small target is, quite frankly, a challenge. Stripped of all "political" subtext, successful shooting is a difficult feat under the best of circumstances. I love it because it takes much MORE skill than clicking a button on a camera. (BTW, some would say that I'm also an accomplished amateur photographer...) There are no excuses; if I hit my target, I had proper control and technique. If I don't, then I didn't. I imagine that a baseball pitcher might get the same feeling if he pitches a great game, but it's MUCH more difficult to place a tiny metal projectile onto a tiny target at 100-300 yds than it is to place a 3" projectile into a 3 foot area at 50 feet. So it's the challenge, I guess, and the feeling of personal mastery (of the technique and the equipment) that I get from "doing it right". (Incidentally, I'm a computer consultant and electronic engineer, so there's some element of obsessive perfectionism in everything I do...)
Also you say that you view the 2nd Amendment as an obligation to carry a gun.
[Me] Perhaps I was unclear. I consider the 2nd as an obligation to OWN a firearm, and to LEARN/KNOW how to use one properly. This includes proper conduct under the law, and personal firearms responsibility, which are traits SORELY lacking in many people today.
Since we both know that my column dismissed any infringement of the 2nd
Amendment, I won't get into that with you -- I don't propose that it be
touched. I only suggest that gun owners might take a straightforward look
at what they get out of being around firearms.
[Me] I hope my answer above was informative on these points. Now, as to your claim to "dismissing any infringement of the 2nd", I'll let your own words speak FOR you:
"Never mind why a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers would allow guns--why do people continue to crave the things? This is one of the safest, richest, most open democracies on the planet. Some 200 million guns are floating around in it. Why? What inner imperative are they addressing? What lust? What imagined inequality?
Why do gun owners' claims that they're defending the Constitution always sound so much like the protestations of those Playboy subscribers who "only buy it for the articles?" Why does it seem fitting that alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms under the same federal regulatory agency?"
[Me]:
1) The phrase "never mind why a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers" IMPLICITLY condemns the 2nd as being anachronistic and unnecessary in our modern (non-"colonial farmer") world. So indeed you DO slam the 2nd. Please don't lie.
2) "This is one of the safest, richest, most open Democracies on the planet...." These statements are VERY open to dispute, depending on which "experts" you talk to. (And I'm not talking about "lunatic fringe wacko" experts here, make no mistake). I CERTAINLY would not feel safe were I to venture into certain areas in certain cities. Do you remember the family that was gunned down in CA, just because they got lost and drove into a "gang area"? I sure do. You might make the admonition that people should "stay out of those areas", but last time I checked, the right of safe passage ANYWHERE in the U.S. was supposedly allowed. And if we do NOT go in to those areas, are we not admitting that certain parts of America are "off limits" to regular law-abiding citizens? Why do the police not arrest and jail the gangsters? Why can the police not guarantee our safety? Here's a question for you: WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE *NO* LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT US? (This is based on multiple lawsuits brought by citizens alledging police non-protection. Are you even AWARE of those facts?)
I don't even vilify gun owners.
[Me] You say "Why do gun owners' claims that they're defending the Constitution always sound so much like the protestations of those Playboy subscribers who "only buy it for the articles?" Excuse me, but as an Elder in my church, I take offense at you telling me that I enjoy pornography, just because I like to shoot. Great offense. That characterization is flawed and untrue, and I feel QUITE "vilified", thank you.
You say: "Why does it seem fitting that alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms under the same federal regulatory agency?"
[Me] I don't know "why" it seems fitting, but it was DONE for tax purposes, so "the common people's" luxuries could feed the ever-growing coffers of the Federal government.
I say that guns are a vice, like cigarettes and pornography,
which, last time I checked, were legal and considered garden-variety
fetishes. Ditto for bathhouse sex, for that matter. I say guns give
people a cheap thrill.
[Me] I know what you say, and you say it based upon prejudice, ignorance, and arrogance. Pure and simple. I never thought I'd see a LIBERAL BIGOT. (BTW, I am a LIFELONG Democrat, and have the precinct card to PROVE it.)
And so far, you haven't contradicted me.
[Me] Actually, I have. But you'll never see it. A bigot is NEVER willing to accept the fact that the hated group might have merit.
Why was target shooting in the woods with a gun better than, say, taking pictures
of wildlife with a camera?
[Me] Answered above.
If it's only the outdoors that you enjoyed, why not make birdwatching your hobby?
[Me] Why should YOU have the right to DICTATE what outdoor activities I should be allowed to enjoy? Again, your arrogance is showing.
The only difference is that guns are lethal weapons,
[Me] Guns are only WEAPONS if you USE them that way.
...and that makes them thrilling to have in your hands.
[Me] Your attempt to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head is quite funny. Only trouble is, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, at least in regard to my personal motivation.
Obviously, that takes a little confidence to admit, but only a little --
you say yourself that you've never done harm with your guns. Just as I'm
sure most users of pornography don't rape people, and most smokers of
cigarettes try not to give others lung cancer. Still, what's wrong with
calling a spade a spade?
[Me] Because, Ms. Hubler, the characterization is inaccurate and flawed, as has been your logic during this discussion. However, you will never understand this fact, so the debate is quite pointless. You did fail, however, to answer my statements on how you'd feel if someone saved you from a rape by shooting the assailant, or what YOU would do if confronted by an IMMEDIATE life-threatening attack. (call 911 and WAIT?)
You see, if I own a gun for self-defense, I get something that YOU never will. I get a CHOICE. I can CHOOSE to defend myself (or my family) using a tool that has the power to STOP a violent attack RIGHT NOW. You (and those who think as you do) would REMOVE that choice from me. I consider that a very great infringement on MY rights. You and your like-minded Pollyannas do NOT have the right to condemn me or my family to potential violence at the hand of those who would ravage our society. You advocate the victimization of my loved ones because of YOUR fear. YOU are a much more dangerous person than I.
Dennis Olson
-------------------------
Okay, I'll try to answer some of your points, as best I can. Please note that some answers may be lengthy.
---------------------------------
Dear Dennis,
You say you love shooting, but you don't say why. Your letter was long
and I read every word, but all you seem to say is that you like guns
because you have fond memories of target practice in the woods.
[Me] Because IMHO the act of placing a tiny projectile at a great distance onto a small target is, quite frankly, a challenge. Stripped of all "political" subtext, successful shooting is a difficult feat under the best of circumstances. I love it because it takes much MORE skill than clicking a button on a camera. (BTW, some would say that I'm also an accomplished amateur photographer...) There are no excuses; if I hit my target, I had proper control and technique. If I don't, then I didn't. I imagine that a baseball pitcher might get the same feeling if he pitches a great game, but it's MUCH more difficult to place a tiny metal projectile onto a tiny target at 100-300 yds than it is to place a 3" projectile into a 3 foot area at 50 feet. So it's the challenge, I guess, and the feeling of personal mastery (of the technique and the equipment) that I get from "doing it right". (Incidentally, I'm a computer consultant and electronic engineer, so there's some element of obsessive perfectionism in everything I do...)
Also you say that you view the 2nd Amendment as an obligation to carry a gun.
[Me] Perhaps I was unclear. I consider the 2nd as an obligation to OWN a firearm, and to LEARN/KNOW how to use one properly. This includes proper conduct under the law, and personal firearms responsibility, which are traits SORELY lacking in many people today.
Since we both know that my column dismissed any infringement of the 2nd
Amendment, I won't get into that with you -- I don't propose that it be
touched. I only suggest that gun owners might take a straightforward look
at what they get out of being around firearms.
[Me] I hope my answer above was informative on these points. Now, as to your claim to "dismissing any infringement of the 2nd", I'll let your own words speak FOR you:
"Never mind why a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers would allow guns--why do people continue to crave the things? This is one of the safest, richest, most open democracies on the planet. Some 200 million guns are floating around in it. Why? What inner imperative are they addressing? What lust? What imagined inequality?
Why do gun owners' claims that they're defending the Constitution always sound so much like the protestations of those Playboy subscribers who "only buy it for the articles?" Why does it seem fitting that alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms under the same federal regulatory agency?"
[Me]:
1) The phrase "never mind why a law written 200 years ago for colonial farmers" IMPLICITLY condemns the 2nd as being anachronistic and unnecessary in our modern (non-"colonial farmer") world. So indeed you DO slam the 2nd. Please don't lie.
2) "This is one of the safest, richest, most open Democracies on the planet...." These statements are VERY open to dispute, depending on which "experts" you talk to. (And I'm not talking about "lunatic fringe wacko" experts here, make no mistake). I CERTAINLY would not feel safe were I to venture into certain areas in certain cities. Do you remember the family that was gunned down in CA, just because they got lost and drove into a "gang area"? I sure do. You might make the admonition that people should "stay out of those areas", but last time I checked, the right of safe passage ANYWHERE in the U.S. was supposedly allowed. And if we do NOT go in to those areas, are we not admitting that certain parts of America are "off limits" to regular law-abiding citizens? Why do the police not arrest and jail the gangsters? Why can the police not guarantee our safety? Here's a question for you: WHY DO THE POLICE HAVE *NO* LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT US? (This is based on multiple lawsuits brought by citizens alledging police non-protection. Are you even AWARE of those facts?)
I don't even vilify gun owners.
[Me] You say "Why do gun owners' claims that they're defending the Constitution always sound so much like the protestations of those Playboy subscribers who "only buy it for the articles?" Excuse me, but as an Elder in my church, I take offense at you telling me that I enjoy pornography, just because I like to shoot. Great offense. That characterization is flawed and untrue, and I feel QUITE "vilified", thank you.
You say: "Why does it seem fitting that alcohol and tobacco should be grouped with firearms under the same federal regulatory agency?"
[Me] I don't know "why" it seems fitting, but it was DONE for tax purposes, so "the common people's" luxuries could feed the ever-growing coffers of the Federal government.
I say that guns are a vice, like cigarettes and pornography,
which, last time I checked, were legal and considered garden-variety
fetishes. Ditto for bathhouse sex, for that matter. I say guns give
people a cheap thrill.
[Me] I know what you say, and you say it based upon prejudice, ignorance, and arrogance. Pure and simple. I never thought I'd see a LIBERAL BIGOT. (BTW, I am a LIFELONG Democrat, and have the precinct card to PROVE it.)
And so far, you haven't contradicted me.
[Me] Actually, I have. But you'll never see it. A bigot is NEVER willing to accept the fact that the hated group might have merit.
Why was target shooting in the woods with a gun better than, say, taking pictures
of wildlife with a camera?
[Me] Answered above.
If it's only the outdoors that you enjoyed, why not make birdwatching your hobby?
[Me] Why should YOU have the right to DICTATE what outdoor activities I should be allowed to enjoy? Again, your arrogance is showing.
The only difference is that guns are lethal weapons,
[Me] Guns are only WEAPONS if you USE them that way.
...and that makes them thrilling to have in your hands.
[Me] Your attempt to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head is quite funny. Only trouble is, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, at least in regard to my personal motivation.
Obviously, that takes a little confidence to admit, but only a little --
you say yourself that you've never done harm with your guns. Just as I'm
sure most users of pornography don't rape people, and most smokers of
cigarettes try not to give others lung cancer. Still, what's wrong with
calling a spade a spade?
[Me] Because, Ms. Hubler, the characterization is inaccurate and flawed, as has been your logic during this discussion. However, you will never understand this fact, so the debate is quite pointless. You did fail, however, to answer my statements on how you'd feel if someone saved you from a rape by shooting the assailant, or what YOU would do if confronted by an IMMEDIATE life-threatening attack. (call 911 and WAIT?)
You see, if I own a gun for self-defense, I get something that YOU never will. I get a CHOICE. I can CHOOSE to defend myself (or my family) using a tool that has the power to STOP a violent attack RIGHT NOW. You (and those who think as you do) would REMOVE that choice from me. I consider that a very great infringement on MY rights. You and your like-minded Pollyannas do NOT have the right to condemn me or my family to potential violence at the hand of those who would ravage our society. You advocate the victimization of my loved ones because of YOUR fear. YOU are a much more dangerous person than I.
Dennis Olson