South Jersey paper slams hunters
01-03-2003, 02:53 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Andover NJ USA
Posts: 226
South Jersey paper slams hunters
Smart guns? How about just fewer of them? – By Andrew Lisa
Smart guns, stupid people. Only in New Jersey.
Let me get this straight. The guys in charge of the state that has not yet figured out how to electronically collect tolls are going to use a microchip to solve the epidemic of gun violence?
Am I the only one who thinks this is yet another policy designed to waste millions of dollars without denting the problem? They tell me “smart gun” technology will make guns fire reliably, but only in the hands of the registered user. There is an old saying, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
People, this will not work.
In the Legislature, once again, putting politics ahead of practicality. This bill is designed not to reduce gun violence, but to give politicians an easy way out of a difficult issue: They can shut up those pesky gun-control advocates without having to confront the NRA.
But, it will do nothing to curtail the overwhelming problem we have with guns. The problem is not how guns are made. The problem is how many of them there are and how easy they are to get.
There are a quarter billion privately owned guns in American homes. There is only one way to reduce the outrageous number of gun-related deaths in this country: Reduce the outrageous number of guns. The negatives of gun production and possession so greatly outweigh the positives that it’s beyond me why and argument on whether or not we should be allowed to have them even exists.
For the NRA, there are three basic arguments for why, in the 21st century, we shouldn’t revisit an ancient provision from a time when people owned slaves and cooked with fire: Home defense, hunting and the provision itself, the Second Amendment.
First, home defense. The idea that a handgun will somehow make you safer is a fairy tale. The best way – bar none – to get shot or to have one of your loved ones get shot is to own a gun.
Ordinarily, I hate columnists who spew statistics, but the numbers here are just irresistible. Less than one in four violent crimes are committed when the victim is at home. In the instances the victim is home, a gun is used to shoot the burglar just 2 percent of the time. The other 98 percent of the victims shoot a family member, shoot themselves, or are overpowered by the burglar and shot with their own gun.
Here’s some advice, Commando: Buy an alarm system.
Yes, but we need our guns for hunting. Personally, I don’t understand why, when we have Taco Bell and Super Fresh, we still need camouflage fatigued hillbillies running around shooting the animals that live on the 11 acres of land we haven’t yet paved over. And I am sure that having an antler on your wall helps with your insecurities, but no, killing things for fun is not a sport. But, if you feel for whatever reason you have to hunt, you still don’t need a handgun. Keep your rifle unloaded and locked in storage when you are not wreaking havoc in the woods.
I’ll stay at home and pray you mistake your redneck brother-in-law for an eight point buck.
And last but not least, stop throwing the Constitution in my face. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say, “Any mope with a driver’s license can buy a shot gun at Walmart. If kept in context-which it never is by the gun lobby-the amendment allows members of “a well-regulated militia” to keep and bear arms. Times have changed slightly since 1790. The Redcoats aren’t really a problem anymore, we don’t use leeches for medicine, and we have a well-regulated militia. It’s called the police department. Can we please leave the shooting to them?
The word “amend” means “to alter.” You get that? When things are no longer relevant, you alter them. When the Second Amendment was written, they had unrifled muskets. Now we have surface-to-air Sidewinder missiles and anti-personnel cluster bombs. We may want to take a second and rethink that one.
The smart gun bill is not only stupid and destined to fail, but it’s cowardly. It’s designed to appease both sides without confronting either at the expense of solving the problem. Charlton Heston can rant about his cold dead hands all he wants, but a microchip in the handle will never make me think a Bushmaster assault rifle is something anyone outside the military could possibly need.
Andrew Lisa is a copyeditor at the Daily Journal. Respond to this column by emailing him at [email protected].
Please email your letters to the following people at the paper:
David Stump - Managing editor: [email protected]
John Garrahan- Editorial editor: [email protected]
Nancy Monaghan, Publisher & Editor [email protected]
David Stump's direct phone number is (856) 563-5244
Smart guns, stupid people. Only in New Jersey.
Let me get this straight. The guys in charge of the state that has not yet figured out how to electronically collect tolls are going to use a microchip to solve the epidemic of gun violence?
Am I the only one who thinks this is yet another policy designed to waste millions of dollars without denting the problem? They tell me “smart gun” technology will make guns fire reliably, but only in the hands of the registered user. There is an old saying, “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
People, this will not work.
In the Legislature, once again, putting politics ahead of practicality. This bill is designed not to reduce gun violence, but to give politicians an easy way out of a difficult issue: They can shut up those pesky gun-control advocates without having to confront the NRA.
But, it will do nothing to curtail the overwhelming problem we have with guns. The problem is not how guns are made. The problem is how many of them there are and how easy they are to get.
There are a quarter billion privately owned guns in American homes. There is only one way to reduce the outrageous number of gun-related deaths in this country: Reduce the outrageous number of guns. The negatives of gun production and possession so greatly outweigh the positives that it’s beyond me why and argument on whether or not we should be allowed to have them even exists.
For the NRA, there are three basic arguments for why, in the 21st century, we shouldn’t revisit an ancient provision from a time when people owned slaves and cooked with fire: Home defense, hunting and the provision itself, the Second Amendment.
First, home defense. The idea that a handgun will somehow make you safer is a fairy tale. The best way – bar none – to get shot or to have one of your loved ones get shot is to own a gun.
Ordinarily, I hate columnists who spew statistics, but the numbers here are just irresistible. Less than one in four violent crimes are committed when the victim is at home. In the instances the victim is home, a gun is used to shoot the burglar just 2 percent of the time. The other 98 percent of the victims shoot a family member, shoot themselves, or are overpowered by the burglar and shot with their own gun.
Here’s some advice, Commando: Buy an alarm system.
Yes, but we need our guns for hunting. Personally, I don’t understand why, when we have Taco Bell and Super Fresh, we still need camouflage fatigued hillbillies running around shooting the animals that live on the 11 acres of land we haven’t yet paved over. And I am sure that having an antler on your wall helps with your insecurities, but no, killing things for fun is not a sport. But, if you feel for whatever reason you have to hunt, you still don’t need a handgun. Keep your rifle unloaded and locked in storage when you are not wreaking havoc in the woods.
I’ll stay at home and pray you mistake your redneck brother-in-law for an eight point buck.
And last but not least, stop throwing the Constitution in my face. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say, “Any mope with a driver’s license can buy a shot gun at Walmart. If kept in context-which it never is by the gun lobby-the amendment allows members of “a well-regulated militia” to keep and bear arms. Times have changed slightly since 1790. The Redcoats aren’t really a problem anymore, we don’t use leeches for medicine, and we have a well-regulated militia. It’s called the police department. Can we please leave the shooting to them?
The word “amend” means “to alter.” You get that? When things are no longer relevant, you alter them. When the Second Amendment was written, they had unrifled muskets. Now we have surface-to-air Sidewinder missiles and anti-personnel cluster bombs. We may want to take a second and rethink that one.
The smart gun bill is not only stupid and destined to fail, but it’s cowardly. It’s designed to appease both sides without confronting either at the expense of solving the problem. Charlton Heston can rant about his cold dead hands all he wants, but a microchip in the handle will never make me think a Bushmaster assault rifle is something anyone outside the military could possibly need.
Andrew Lisa is a copyeditor at the Daily Journal. Respond to this column by emailing him at [email protected].
Please email your letters to the following people at the paper:
David Stump - Managing editor: [email protected]
John Garrahan- Editorial editor: [email protected]
Nancy Monaghan, Publisher & Editor [email protected]
David Stump's direct phone number is (856) 563-5244
01-13-2003, 01:15 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Andover NJ USA
Posts: 226
01-18-2003, 03:42 PM
#4
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ USA
Posts: 243
RE: South Jersey paper slams hunters
Dont bother emailing Lisa, he is a waste of time!! Call and write to:
David Stump - Managing editor: [email protected]
John Garrahan- Editorial editor: [email protected]
Nancy Monaghan, Publisher & Editor [email protected]
David Stump's direct phone number is (856) 563-5244
Become a better shot —> practice, don't just shoot
David Stump - Managing editor: [email protected]
John Garrahan- Editorial editor: [email protected]
Nancy Monaghan, Publisher & Editor [email protected]
David Stump's direct phone number is (856) 563-5244
Become a better shot —> practice, don't just shoot
