Guns Rule in U.S. -- We're the Victims

J

jinx_the_cat

Inactive
Source: Cincinnati Business Courier
Published: March 3, 2000

Guns rule in U.S. -- we're the victims
Rob Daumeyer (rdaumeyer@bizjournals.com)

Here's a novel thought for all you gun people: Find another hobby. Collect stamps. Or Beanie Babies. Or salamis.

Something, anything. Just so it's not guns. Still need a touch of violence in your free time? Fine. Collect knives or sharp rocks.

But let's get rid of guns, OK? When a 6-year-old Michigan boy kills a little girl in front of their first-grade classroom because she yelled
at him, we've got to move ahead with gun control.

Why are these things still sold? Who are guns helping? What else has to happen? How many people have to die? If licking stamps killed
32,436 people a year in the U.S., as guns did in 1999, wouldn't we get rid of stamps?

The little Michigan boy shouldn't have had a gun. How did he get it? He stole it from his home, but that doesn't matter. He had a gun
because guns are everywhere.

If his home doesn't have a gun, the little 6-year-old can't shoot his classmate. Instead, maybe he pushes her or tries to conk her on the head
with the teacher's coffee mug. Either way, she's still alive. Follow?

This little boy is obviously disturbed. Crazy people do crazy things. Crazy people with access to guns often use them to kill people. Give a
crazy person a bomb and you're taking a risk that he'll blow up your street. Crazy people with access to coffee mugs give people deep
bruises before they get carted off for psychological counseling and drug therapy.

"But Rob," the gun mavens say, "gun ownership is an inalienable right. It says so in the Constitution. Heck, even Moses himself packs
heat." My reply: The Constitution was written, I believe, in the days of flintlock muskets and pesky Brits. And Charlton Heston is a bad
actor. Yul Brenner stole that movie.

Anyway, if there had been automatic pistols lying around the manse, I'm thinking James Madison and the rest of the constitutional fathers
would have had second thoughts about the Second Amendment.

"But Rob," the pistoleros say. "I need to protect my home."

The statistics aren't on your side. Owning a gun doesn't make your home any safer. In fact, when guns are actually used in the home, gun
owners are 40 times more likely to shoot someone they know than they are to shoot an intruder.

That's 40 times. When it comes to deadly force, even a 1-to-1 ratio would get me feeling a little squirrely. Two-to-one is a no-brainer.
Forty-to-one? You've got to be an absolute doorknob to have a gun in your home. If I gave you a vial of Ebola, and told you to store it in
your dresser, would you take that risk? Hey, the glass probably won't break. Everything's cool.

Think back. When was the last time you read a story with this headline: "Man kills intruder in upstairs hall; gun hailed as lifesaver"?

I can't think of any. And trust me, as a card-carrying member of the media, I can tell you that newspapers would be all over that story -- if
it would ever happen.

Still, owners don't seem to care. Almost 5 million guns are made available to individuals in the U.S. each year. About 30 percent of U.S.
homes contain at least one gun. Why don't I feel so safe?

And don't even start with the violence-in-society crap, or video-game-as-brainwash hooey. Violence is nothing new. Violent games are
nothing new. The proliferation of guns is the only thing new here.

Only in America. And thank God for that. The civilized world, where people are afraid of guns, would laugh at us if they weren't too busy
crying.

Daumeyer is editor of the Courier.
His email address is: rdaumeyer@bizjournals.com
 
"Think back. When was the last time you read a story with this headline: "Man kills intruder in upstairs hall; gun hailed as lifesaver"?

I can't think of any. And trust me, as a card-carrying member of the media, I can tell you that newspapers would be all over that story -- if
it would ever happen."
---------------------------------------------
I think this card-carrying member of the media needs some remedial lessons in 1)media bias, and 2)statistics.
 
Thanks for the morning chuckle Jinx

Fact is, there are thousands of "Guns hailed as lifesaver" stories, annually.....if you card carrying media members would print them. But, then you'd have to be aquainted with the concept of objective reporting, wouldn't you.

BTW, I'd have no problems having a vial of Ebola around....then again, I paid attention during my doctoral studies in molecular biology. Proper training and proper precautions.... apparently not a requisite in your field ;)
 
When reading Mr. Daumeyer's article a media catchphrase comes to mind: "obsessed with guns." However, the people who are obsessive about firearms are not the gun buffs. After all, we're fairly knowledgeable about guns, are accustomed to them, and treat them pretty much like any tool. Of course, we tend to get righteously angry when a media know-nothing or a demagogic politician slanders us or tries to suppress our civil liberties. But to an American, adherence to a cherished freedom is hardly an obsession. Rather, it is a first principle, although seemingly forgotten by many, including Mr. Daumeyer.

The people who are truly "obsessed with guns" are anti-gunners like Mr. Daumeyer. For him and others like him, guns are bogeymen: evil, frightening, threatening monsters that loom large and haunt their consciousness, thereby pulling their minds away from perspective, fact, reason, and reality.

Perhaps the saddest element of this obsession is that the Daumeyers of the country are no longer 10 years old. True, they are adults in years. But they never grew up emotionally, so down inside they remain frightened little kids. Very sad, very unhealthy, and surely to be pitied. Unfortunately for our republic, though, their adult years give them the articulateness and authority to translate their childish fears into articles like this one, and sometimes into political action. They try to normalize themselves by calling others sick. Through it all, they pretend to be rational advocates of "common sense." But, in the end, they betray themselves, as Mr. Daumeyer does.

Who knows?--maybe even Mr. Daumeyer could become a productive member of society if he got some help. But from the sound of this article, I'd say that he's become too addicted to the bogeyman to give him up.

[Edited by jimmy on 01-05-2001 at 01:22 PM]
 
Well, folks, I've got to admit he's right. I've never seen a story that included the words "gun hailed as savior." Seen plenty about vicious intruders being killed, but many were weepy over the poor "victim" 18-yr old crackhead who only had a knife, after all.....
 
Well, this is a bit dated - almost a year old, but I just checked and Daumeyer is still there, as editor.

If you write this bozo, cc the owner at: dbolton@bizjournals.com

There's also a "tell us what you think" address: WhatDoYouThink

Besides the hysterical tone, what has the pro-con aspects of gun ownership doing in a business newspaper, unless the writer is less a journalist and more an idealogue posing as one.

Let me paraphrase the lead paragraphs: "Here's a novel thought for you, Mr.Daumeyer: Find another job. Something, anything. Just so it's not journalism. Still need a touch of propaganda in your free time? Join Handgun Control, Inc."

It's a slow day - think I'll write them along that line. ;)
 
The writer is a beanie babie

But let's get rid of guns, OK? When a 6-year-old Michigan boy kills a little girl in front of their first-grade classroom because she yelled at him, we've got to move ahead with gun control.
Click to expand...
People that display this kind of 'logical' thinking are really not worth the time. Even on a slow day.

Regards from AZ
 
I agree, Jeff. Nonetheless, I sent the following to Mr. Daumeyer:

Easy Access

© 2001 by David Codrea
Codrea4@earthlink.net
http://www.GunTruths.com
http://www.CitizensOfAmerica.org



Half a lifetime ago, my friend Howard's dad bought him a Stevens bolt-action, single-shot .22 with a Weaver 4X scope. By the time he was 13, his dad trusted him enough to take the gun by himself to the range in Santa Monica. The rest of the world didn't have a problem with it either.

Stevens rifle in hand, he and a friend walked down the street and boarded a bus, opening the action to show the driver that the gun wasn't loaded. After getting off at their stop, they walked another half-mile to the range. And they returned home the same way.

Fast-forward to the present. The place is Hawthorne, California, the scene, the 99 Cents Plus Mini Market. Two predatory teenagers have decided the store is a low-risk target, with vulnerable prey. This is the third robbery at the place in two months. It's not as if the cops are around. And when you're an easy mark, word spreads on the street.

Still, there is nothing like an overwhelming show of force, just to make sure your victims know who's in charge, and violent criminals always seem to understand this. To that end, one approaches a 62-year-old female clerk and sticks a gun to her head, a machine pistol according to the news accounts.

Another gun crime committed by troubled adolescents. Isn't this further proof that youth today have all too easy access to guns, and that if we don't do something about it, the senseless killings will continue?

Let's stop for a moment and examine the facts. In California, a juvenile cannot legally own a gun. He cannot legally handle one outside the supervision of an adult. He cannot legally carry a concealed weapon, nor can that weapon be loaded, even if carried openly, which he's not allowed to do. So at this point, we have several violations of state gun control laws, each enacted under the promise that it will help end this sort of thing. And, as automatic weapons have been regulated, licensed and taxed by the federal government since 1934, illegal possession of a machine pistol makes this a federal rap as well.

Like any of this matters to any but opportunistic politicians and those incapable of separating reason from emotion who elect them. Street hoodlums are smarter than that. They know they can get a gun any time they want. They laugh at anyone who thinks that another law is going to slow them down one bit, as if someone who would commit armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon by sticking a machine pistol to a 62-year-old woman's head would worry about the penalties for violating one of the 20,000-plus gun control laws already in place. No?

But let's return to the 99 Cents Plus store and see what harvest easy youth access to guns has reaped. There is a struggle. The woman's 12-year-old grandson grabs a hidden handgun and fires at one of the attackers, killing him and causing his accomplice to flee.

He has repelled two monsters, this brave youth, most certainly saving his grandmother, and probably himself, as murderers tend not to look upon witnesses with favor. He has stopped a violent crime from happening and assured that at least one sociopathic reptile will never again find human victims.

So where are the headlines: RESPONSIBLE ARMED YOUTH SAVES LIVES...? I mean, the press is supposed to be objective and unbiased, right?

Do you think the scenario may have played out differently had the wonks at Handgun Control, Inc., been heeded? What do you think the outcome would have been had the grandmother kept her gun unloaded, locked up and separated from its ammunition, or if she had installed a trigger lock? What about if her firearm was a personalized "smart gun" that no one but herself could fire? And had these "safety methods" resulted in the death of this valiant boy and his grandmother, would HCI have exploited this to call for yet more gun control?

Half a lifetime ago, a boy carrying a scoped rifle boarded the Santa Monica bus and no one gave it a second thought. There can be no doubt what the result would be if he tried the same thing today, in our climate of "easy youth access to guns."
Click to expand...
 
I converted this guy

"Thanks. I just changed my mind. I LOVE guns!

rob

"J. Andrew Lauer" wrote:

> Sir,
>
> I'll keep this short, so that you might actually read it. Regarding guns,
> your numbers are wrong, your understanding of the founding father's intentions
> are wrong, and your bias is glaring.
>
> People use guns to defend themselves all the time. Why don't you print it?
> My suggestion to you is to leave this uncivilized place, and go to live
> somewhere that guns are banned. In most cases, you'd have to worry about your
> columns being censored, but at least you would have an illusion of safety.
>
> Good Day.
>
> J. Andrew Lauer"

But I do detect a hint of sarcasm.
 
"If licking stamps killed 32,436 people a year in the U.S., as guns did in 1999, wouldn't we get rid of stamps?"

No. A whole lot more people are killed yearly by :

Automobiles
Incompetent Doctors
Drowning
LIGHTENING STRIKES

The list has about ten things (or more) that Americans die of more frequently than they do from 'gun violence'. How come I don't hear of you (and all rabid anti-gun people) DEMANDING that all those other problems be taken care of first, before jumping down law abiding citizens throats? We both know the answer to that one, don't we? Because no one would read copy about why we should abandon our cars 'for the children'. Or actually prosecute incompetent doctors! I know, let's get rid of drowning by making water illegal to own, purchase or sell so we can 'just save one child'. Better yet, let's make electricity illegal and then we can all live like the Amish do (go to http://www.lehmans.com for a glimpse of that lifestyle). This is just one of those subjects you can write about and then show to all your liberal friends and say "Hey, I TRIED to do something!" and then go home feeling good about yourself.

"When a 6-year-old Michigan boy kills a little girl in front of their first-grade classroom because she yelled at him, we've got to move ahead with gun control."

Gee, some smarmy six year old criminal wanna-be stole the pistol his crack addict mommy and feloniously jailed daddy left laying around so he could take it to school and prove to his parents he was just as 'bad' as they were by shooting some poor defenseless girl? Yeah, it's the guns fault.
Absolutely.

"When was the last time you read a story with this headline: "Man kills intruder in upstairs hall; gun hailed as lifesaver"?"

I can't think of any. And trust me, as a card-carrying member of the media, I can tell you that newspapers would be all over that story -- if it would ever happen."

All the time. Apparently you are inadequately sourced. If you had properly research gun information, you would have found thousands of articles printed across this nation about how different peoples lives were saved by the fact they were able to protect their own lives with a gun. Of course, I am assuming you actually looked. Try subscribing to any of the three NRA publications (American Rifleman, Americas 1st Freedom or American Guardian). In each of these magazines, stories taken from local newspapers are reprinted about how a gun owner saved himself (and others)from a violent offender who was intent on doing harm. The stories are out there. You just have to look. This type of information would not fit into your story line very well though, would it?

And by the by, I wouldn't trust you (or anyone else I don't know) as far as I could throw you. And to try and impress your reader that you are a 'Card carrying member of the media'... Wow, could I get your autograph? You are obviously smarter than I am, because you carry a card with your name and picture on it saying you are the editor for some 'biznez jurnil'. Wow!!!

Apparently not smart enough to do actual research on a subject. Just sit in your office and repeat what others have spewed forth. And then add a little of your own twisted nonsense stirred into the pot to make it sound 'local'.

Just so you can find out what SOME gun owners think of you, here is the link where your story is being discussed. And no, you aren't fairing very well there. What a surprise!

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=52349

Sincerely,
JW
Denco
 
I, Jinx_the_Cat, have communicated with the author of this detestable editorial, one Mr. Rob Daumeyer.

Below see his message to me and my reply.

Note that this message reveals what we always suspected:
he doesn't know a damn thing about guns, rights, freedom,
or American history. He does know that he hates guns and
somehow thinks its his "right" to take them away from us.
Very scary stuff, is it not?


----------
>From: Rob Daumeyer <rdaumeyer@bizjournals.com>
>To: Jinx_the_Cat
>Subject: Re: Sources on DGUs
>Date: Fri, Jan 5, 2001, 2:29 PM
>
>
> certainly, but some people just don't like guns,
> and it's their right as
> Americans to try to get rid of them
>
> rob
>

I think what you mean is that people who don't like guns
have the right to not own them. They don't have the
right to take other people's guns away.

Otherwise, you would logically have to argue that each
of us has the right to take away anything from anyone
else that we do not approve of.

As a journalist, you do support the right to free speech
guaranteed by the First Amendment, don't you? Or would
you support my right to take away any book you might have
that I would find offensive? You do agree that books
and ideas are more dangerous than guns, don't you?

One final note. I think it would have been more
honest of you in your editorial just to state what
you said above: you don't know anything about guns,
but you do hate them and want to take them away
from people. Instead, you wrote a lot of stuff
that wasn't true--which is one reason you made
so many people mad. Its irresponsible for a journalist
to present an uninformed opinion as fact.
 
Great letters up there ...

... I mean, really great. That Codrea piece is top notch.

But, really ... this is simply having an argument with a moron. I do the same thing from time to time ... I should join RKBAWA ... RKBA Writers Anonymous. ;)


However, excellent letters directed to 'Letters to the Editor' of your chosen paper can actually sway hearts and minds because they're read by decent, intelligent people ... I mean, in addition to the editorial staff. ;)

Regards from AZ
 
You are correct, again, Jeff Thomas. I know what it says in the 5 minute handbook, but I just couldn't resist. :)

Believe it or not, I agree with Mr. Daumeyer's statement that, "...it's their right as Americans to try to get rid of them [guns]..."

There is nothing that says that people do not have the right to try and get rid of guns. I support their right to try. Of course, we only have the Constitution on our side.

Nothing left to say but, "MOLON LABE!"
 
Here's my $2.00:

Greetings, Mr. Daumeyer,

Recently, while surfing the web, I came across an old editorial that you wrote during March of last year. Generally I don’t respond to editorials such as yours, but I’m on holiday break, and I’m bored. Additionally, I found your attitude towards the Bill of Rights, gun owners, and individual freedom to be flippant and uninformed. Flippant I like, uninformed is not so good. So please indulge me for a minute or two while I do a point-by-point refutation of your article. Please note that your comments have been marked with curly braces.

}Here's a novel thought for all you gun people: Find another hobby. Collect stamps. Or Beanie }Babies. Or salamis.

Quite honestly, I have several hobbies. Firearms are only one of them. To be quite honest, your suggestions are quite dull. None of the items that you have suggested have quite attraction of firearms. Mostly for the fact that you cannot use them to hone a competition skill.

}Something, anything. Just so it's not guns. Still need a touch of violence in your free time? Fine.
}Collect knives or sharp rocks.
}But let's get rid of guns, OK? When a 6-year-old Michigan boy kills a little girl in front of their
}first-grade classroom because she yelled at him, we've got to move ahead with gun control.

Ah, but why should the 80 million+ law-abiding gun owners be forced to give up their unalienable rights because an irresponsible, drug abusing parent had no problem with leaving firearms out. This smacks of personal irresponsibility. I am not responsible for this death. Do not blame me.

}Why are these things still sold? Who are guns helping?
}What else has to happen? How many people
}have to die? If licking stamps killed 32,436 people a year in the U.S., as guns did in 1999, wouldn't
}we get rid of stamps?

Yet another fallacy that so many adhere to is that firearms are not helping, when this is patently untrue. Gary Kleck, a professor in criminology did a rather extensive study during the late 1980’s which showed that firearms were used roughly 2 million times annually to stop a crime. In more than 90% of the time without a shot being fired. More recently, John Lott of the University of Chicago has published a much more extensive study on defensive gun use. Please feel free to read his book ‘More Guns, Less Crime.’ It should be available at your local Barnes and Noble, or failing that, order it from Amazon.com.

}The little Michigan boy shouldn't have had a gun.
}How did he get it? He stole it from his home, but
}that doesn't matter. He had a gun because guns are everywhere.

No, the boy should not have had a gun. Again, I point out that he was the product of not only a broken home, but one inhabited by habitual users of hard drugs. Parents like this are not going to teach a child responsibility, least of all about firearms.

}If his home doesn't have a gun, the little 6-year-old can't shoot his classmate. Instead, maybe he
}pushes her or tries to conk her on the head with the teacher's coffee mug. Either way, she's still
}alive. Follow?

Ah, but how do you propose removing said gun from that house? Write all the laws you please, you will not be able to remove firearms from the hands of the criminally negligent. And even if said laws are passed, how do you propose enforcing them without violating the 4th amendment to the Constitution?

}This little boy is obviously disturbed. Crazy people do
}Crazy things. Crazy people with access to
}guns often use them to kill people. Give a crazy person a
}bomb and you're taking a risk that he'll
}blow up your street. Crazy people with access to coffee
}mugs give people deep bruises before they
}get carted off for psychological counseling and drug
}therapy.

To be quite honest, no, crazy people (a subjective, insulting term if ever there was one) do not just give others ‘deep bruises’, they get creative, you know, like Jeff Dahmer? I must also point out that the child was probably not ‘disturbed’ as you put it, but the product of a home free and clear of any teachings that actions can and do have consequences, and that the rights of other individuals must be respected at all times.

}"But Rob," the gun mavens say, "gun ownership is an
}inalienable right. It says so in the Constitution.
}Heck, even Moses himself packs heat." My reply: The
}Constitution was written, I believe, in the
}days of flintlock muskets and pesky Brits. And Charlton
}Heston is a bad actor. Yul Brenner stole }that movie.

Yes, Rob, gun ownership is an inalienable human right, but I must point out that the founders of this nation believed these rights to exist above and beyond the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was written only as a reminder that these rights exist. Kind of like a Post-it note to future generations.

As for your contention that the 2nd Amendment was written during the days of flintlock muskets, well, might I point out that the 1st Amendment was written during the days of moveable type. If modern firearms are not covered under the Constitution, then neither is film, video, DVD, the internet, and even the word-processor you hold so dear. Ya dig?

As for Charlton Heston being a bad actor, well, it could be worse, just remember, Cher is on your side. ‘nuf said.

}Anyway, if there had been automatic pistols lying around
}the manse, I'm thinking James Madison and
}the rest of the constitutional fathers would have had
}second thoughts about the Second Amendment.

Oh gawd. Allow me to point out that there is, in fact, no such beast as an ‘automatic pistol.’ There are self-loading pistols, aka semi-automatic pistols, but no such item as an ‘automatic pistol’ is to be had at your local gun shop.

}"But Rob," the pistoleros say. "I need to protect my
}home."
}The statistics aren't on your side. Owning a gun doesn't
}make your home any safer. In fact, when
}guns are actually used in the home, gun owners are 40
}times more likely to shoot someone they
}know than they are to shoot an intruder.
}That's 40 times. When it comes to deadly force, even a
}1-to-1 ratio would get me feeling a little
}squirrely. Two-to-one is a no-brainer. Forty-to-one?
}You've got to be an absolute doorknob to
}have a gun in your home. If I gave you a vial of Ebola,
}and told you to store it in your dresser, would
}you take that risk? Hey, the glass probably won't break.
}Everything's cool.

Please tell me that you can present more of an intellectual challenge than a bunch of warmed-over leftovers. At any rate, the study, published in the New England Journal of medicine purported to show that a gun in the house is 43 times more likely to cause a death. Rob-baby, you were low-balling it! However, even 43 times is, well, a skewed number, and here’s why; that study only took into account instances where using a handgun resulted in someone’s death. There was no attention given whatsoever to defensive gun usage that did not result in someone dying. Once again, only a tiny fraction of defensive gun uses result in a firearm being discharged, let alone someone dying from a gunshot wound. Please refer back to Gary Kleck’s writings on this subject.

}Think back. When was the last time you read a story with
}this headline: "Man kills intruder in
}upstairs hall; gun hailed as lifesaver"?

I haven’t, but not because it doesn’t happen, because it does, every single day in this country someone saves their life or the life of a loved one through the use of a firearm. As I understand it, in the world of journalism there is a saying: ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ Well, what makes for a more dramatic story? A person who stops a rampaging psychopath before he gets started, or a story where a rampaging psychopath posts a body count in the double digits. Hmmm, if I were a producer for a TV news show, I know which one would get me higher ratings and therefore more money.
But again, one only need to look at the statistics: 2 million times annually. Even if Kleck were off by a ridiculous margin of say, 95%, that is still roughly 100,000 defensive gun uses per year. Now, I’m no math major, but last time I checked, 100,000 was a bigger number than 32,400.

}I can't think of any. And trust me, as a card-carrying
}member of the media, I can tell you that
}newspapers would be all over that story -- if it would
}ever happen.

The sad fact is that as a card-carrying member of the media, you aren’t all over that story. Please refer to the aforementioned phrase involving bleeding and leading.

}Still, owners don't seem to care. Almost 5 million guns
}are made available to individuals in the U.S.
}each year. About 30 percent of U.S. homes contain at least
}one gun. Why don't I feel so safe?

Hmm, 5 million guns you say? The reason that you don’t feel safe probably has more to do with your feelings of Hoplophobia than the irresponsible use of firearms.

}And don't even start with the violence-in-society crap, or
}video-game-as-brainwash hooey.
}Violence is nothing new. Violent games are nothing new.
}The proliferation of guns is the only thing
}new here.

Why would I start blaming films or games? Those who blame society’s ills on entertainment mediums are just as ignorant as those who blame them on firearms. As a free-thinking individual, I am completely capable of separating a film like ‘The Matrix’ from the reality of everyday life.

}Only in America. And thank God for that. The civilized
}world, where people are afraid of guns,
}would laugh at us if they weren't too busy crying.

Why should a person be afraid of a gun? That’s kind of silly. A gun is no more responsible for a murder than a shovel is for digging a ditch. Living in fear is a very negative thing. I implore you to do more research in this area to alleviate your fears. Please read the aforementioned publications by Gary Kleck and John Lott. Maybe even venture out to a shooting range for yourself, just to see what it’s like. After all, don’t knock something until you’ve tried it.

}Daumeyer is editor of the Courier.


Cordially,
Justin Otis
 
What this editor needs is a couple of things... One... a copy of Robert's book.... The Best Defense... two is for someone to e-mail him a self defense story daily for the next year.
 
"If licking stamps killed 32,436 people a year in the U.S., as guns did in 1999, wouldn't we get rid of stamps?"

The answer: No. Driving automobiles killed over 42,000 people in 1999 yet no one has called for a ban on automobiles or a curb on the right to drive a vehicle.

This nut is a nut's nut. Shun him. He is living proof of the truth of my signature which appears below.
 
Brothers & Sisters in Arms,
There is resonance in this. For those of us whom have served to defend the rights of others we hold a knowledge more dear than life itself.
If the writer Mr. Daumeyer believes that guns are bad he has overlooked the essence of what it took to achieve the freedom of his profession, (as suggested by one respondent).
The Colonists proposed THROUGH THE PRESS to oppose the untenable imposition of restricted liberty. THEY backed it up with their lives.
I expect that Mr. Daumeyer will ante up a fine article to the families of the named defenders of his rights residing on a little black Wall in D.C.
For this entry I can only state with the certanty of experience that when my comrades died I wasn't thinking of writing. I know the tears of my friends and comrades families.
What's that little whiney Nancy's email address again?
I think that I'll get on a plane and state my case to him personally. Let's see him print THAT! I challenge him!
And I get to write my response and have it posted under his by-line un-edited.
I know how to report news as well. Fortunately I belong to that genre of author that "walks the walk" and not just "talks the talk".
So, Mr. Daumeyer, lets see you face to face with a pimp, a perp, a drug dealer, a rapist, seven escaped bastards from Texas, Charles Manson, The Khmer Rouge, Communism. When you've DONE that: WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN THERE: When YOU have the wisdom experience teaches AND SURVIVED...THEN, you sniveling twit, can you DARE to put pen to parchment and comment on how I will live my life!
Ergo, when my fellow man or woman decides to take responsibility into their own hands I will know that it is due in some small part to DEEDS and not words of those who may have been, at first, un-willing or un-commited to defend themselves. But as we have seen THESE are the men and women whom have earned through their blood and tears the
authority to comment.
For your information.
By your leave.
Regards,
Lance Gothic
Shibumi
 
P.S.

Rob Daumeyer - Editor
rdaumeyer@bizjournals.com
Cincinnati Business Courier
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati

Letters to the Editor:
cincinnati@bizjournals.com

Home address(?):
[Anyone who wants the home phone numbers or address, contact Lance at the e-mail address found above. LawDog]

Since you value freedom of the press, then I'll express it as well.
And can it equally be stated that we could also become victims of the press?

[Edited by LawDog on 01-06-2001 at 05:01 PM]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top