Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GUNS: Sane limits are patriotic

Letter by Fred LaMotte, Steilacoom on July 24, 2012 at 2:40 pm with 27 Comments »
July 24, 2012 2:43 pm

My friends on the left tell me that George Bush engineered the 9/11 massacre – you know, to give oil companies an excuse to invade Iraq.

Now my friends on the right tell me that Barack Obama engineered the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre – you know, to give U.N. black helicopters an excuse to take away our semiautomatic assault rifles, the ones we use to hunt rabbits, with clips that fire 100 rounds in less than a minute.

So here I am in the middle, trying keep my head together. Maybe the center between two conditions of madness is also insane.

Nevertheless, I support HR 308, which would end the legal sale of mass-murder ammunition clips, the kind that have been used in several slaughters since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

The Second Amendment was written in the implicit context of self-defense. It gives citizens the right to bear arms for a sane purpose, not the right to commit mass murder with weapons that the founders couldn’t conceive of.

If you argue that the right to bear arms applies to any and all possible weapons that will ever be invented, then there is no reason why civilians shouldn’t have the right to carry chemical weapons and atomic bombs in briefcases. Which reduces your argument to an absurdity.

Therefore, I support HR 308 because sane gun control, that restricts weapons of mass murder, is patriotic.

Leave a comment Comments → 27
  1. Fred, you have been reading Hill’s comments for way too long. The flaw in your argument is that mass murder is already illegal. As are weapons of mass destruction.

    As to your conspiracy, I read a lot of conservative blogs/news sites and have never heard this was engineered. Did you just invent that?

    Now, this admin is known to ‘never let a crisis go to waste’.

    Last, you are never in the “middle”. You are far to the left. Be honest with yourself and the readers here.

  2. aislander says:

    It is despicable to use the outrage in Aurora for a political purpose…

  3. menopaws says:

    Sensible people, right or left, see no need for these for these clips to be sold over the Internet………good letter and your only bias is the safety of innocents……..That should be everyone’s real focus—not all the whining about protecting the right to walk into a movie theater and slaughter innocent people. Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers had that in mind needs help.. Thanks

  4. GHTaxPayer says:

    Fred – Kathleen Sebelius of HHS gave James Holmes $26k grant (of our taxpayer money) which he used to buy guns and kill people.

    Does Sebelius have blood on her hands?

    And why are you dragging in Obama’s use of drones to spy on American citizens? What’s your REAL reason for this letter?

  5. lylelaws says:

    Fred LaMotte,

    Sane limits are needed, but don’t try to wrap legislation in patriotism, and forget about the conspiricy nonsesnse.

    I would strongly support a ban on the sale or possession of assault rifles and other weapons designed for mass killings.

  6. sumyungboi says:

    You need some new friends, homes. You’re surrounded by whack jobs. No wonder you’re so wrong minded most of the time.

  7. LeePHill says:

    aislander says:
    July 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm It is despicable to use the outrage in Aurora for a political purpose…

    No, it’s despicable for the NRA to call members seeking donations after the Aurora episode…..but they did.

    The founding fathers never intended for the 2nd Amendment to become the patronizing point for knuckle draggers from the NRA, and in fact, for those not afraid to learn something, the 2nd Amendment was a vehicle to control the military, via militia, not a haven for gun obsessed animals of the 20th and now 21st centuries.

  8. LeePHill says:

    We’d wait until the pain goes away from the Aurora incident to talk about gun violence, but the conservatives would say there is nothing happening.

  9. LeePHill says:

    I’ll bet that the NRA stopped lobbying Congress in honor of the dead from Aurora…..

    NOT!

  10. averageJose says:

    I don’t know of one person that has said Obama engineered the Aurora shooting. Your strawman fails Fred.
    Now, as far as your “friends” and 911… you should consider an intervention for them.

  11. Hill, a crazy man killed those people. Given his intelligence, he would find a way no matter what.

    Shame on you for making this political.

  12. SwordofPerseus says:

    There are more than enough “Gun Laws”. The problem is people being isolated and our fragmented society. That fragmentation makes it difficult to discover those among us who are so mentally disturbed that they resort to killing strangers in closed, crowded places. No man with the mindset capable of perpetrating mass murder should be allowed access to any weapon. There are laws which are supposed to work to prevent these types of massacres. Gun laws will not stop mass killings. Hell he could have jammed the exit doors and tossed Molotov cocktails into the theater and probably killed many more than he did with his gun. Sadly more laws will do nothing. Mental health reform might.

  13. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    As a responsible gun owner, I find the letter writer to be using reprehensible hyperbole.
    Nobody outside the military or law enforcement has access to any weapon that can “fire 100 rounds in less than a minute”- the AR-15 (the civvy version of the M16) lacks autofire AND three round burst shot capability.
    That means, quite simply- one pull, one shot. Period.
    Furthermore, civvy guns are stuck with a magazine capacity of thirty rounds, so his blubbering about “mass murder ammunition clips” is ridiculous and stupid as well. You could ban every single gun made, and villains could simply build themselves some fragmentation grenades and start tossing them into theater crowds for the same effect.
    People who really want to hurt people don’t CARE about gun laws- they just want to get their psychotic “points” across. You can enact a million laws and (as shown in places with the strictest gun laws, like Chicago and DC) it makes NO DIFFERENCE.

    Wait, this is Fred Lamotte?

    AGAIN?

    How much of his crap is the Trib going to PRINT?
    Seriously.

  14. harleyrider1 says:

    I disagree with you Fred regarding gun laws; I do agree the situation was abhorrent.

    America’s freedoms have been eroded by the past two President’s and Congress. There are plenty of laws in place and we need to stop selective and political enforcement of certain laws. All laws need to be applied equally.

    As for complaining to the Tribune for allowing you to express your opinion or subscribing adjectives to you and your opinion, I have no need to do that. That thinking over the years has led also to disrespect and less tolerance of one another.

    You are an American and so I am. I don’t know if you served in this Nation’s military. I have but it doesn’t make my voice louder than yours or more correct.

    Thank-you Fred for your civility.

  15. averageJose says:

    Knee slapper of the day —- “So here I am in the middle”

  16. scooter6139 says:

    Safeway – I can pull the trigger at about two to three times per second on an AR-15. Given a large enough magazine capacity, firing over 100 round a minute is easy.

    What I find pathetic is this lame conservative contention of not making this tragedy political and that this is notthe time to be talking about gun control. The minute you mention politics in a conversation it becomes political, not to forget those calling for this non-politicization are politicians themselves. The fact conservatives don’t want to talk about it tells me they have already lost the argument, at least in their minds.

  17. I bought a rifle last year, just a little .22 lever action. When I was looking at it the salesman almost apologized when he told me that the magazine wouldn’t hold more than 11 or 15 bullets…sorry I can’t remember the exact number. My response was, if you can’t hit what you’re aiming at in 5 or less, preferable less, having more than 15 rounds isn’t gonna do you any good. He had a funny look on his face and then said he’s wanted to tell so many other customers what I just said and just smiled.

    Large magazines aren’t necessary, aren’t needed. People seem to want them to show off…oh wow listen to all the bullets I just wasted, or because they are lousy shots and hope one of those bullets won’t be wasted.

  18. sumyungboi says:

    murigen: “Large magazines aren’t necessary, aren’t needed”

    You should lobby for the cops to by custom built magazines that only hold five bullets.

    And the rifle salesman “almost apologized” for the magazine capacity of a .22 lever action? Please.. That may sound cute to your friends, but unless you complained or otherwise questioned the capacity in a negative light, I can guarantee you that the guy could’ve cared less.

  19. lylelaws says:

    People do not need to have AK47s and other assault weapons to secure their homes.

    We have a gate that locks, a dog that barks and a shotgun that works, so why would we need to have firearms clearly designed for mass kiilling?

  20. aislander says:

    A Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster will fire large-caliber ammo in exactly the same way as so-called “assault” rifles, but looks less “techy.” Should that hunting rifle be banned along with the rest, or should it be spared because of its understated appearance?

  21. Single shot, reload, that’s it. Simple. What true sportsman needs more?

  22. aislander says:

    Ruger 10-22?

  23. aislander says:

    Besides, the Second Amendment is not about hunting…

  24. SafewayOrangeSoda says:

    “I can pull the trigger at about two to three times per second on an AR-15. Given a large enough magazine capacity, firing over 100 round a minute is easy”

    You’ve never shot an AR-15. You’re lying about that, and you’re lying about being able to fire “a hundred rounds”- because, as was mentioned before, the AR-15 doesn’t support a magazine higher than thirty rounds.

    That’s the problem with leftists- whether it’s you, or Brian and his “Blue Byline”- you want to get your point across, but then you have to lie about it! ID laws? Lie about it, and claim it’s racism. Gun laws? Claim that an AR-15 can somehow shoot a hundred rounds when that’s physically impossible. Lie, lie lie, and all because why? You want to convince people of the veracity of your argument?

    If you want to win a debate, stop lying about it! If you think your argument is valid, then let it stand on its own without lying about it! Stop saying patent untruths, because for the love of GOD that doesn’t help anyone at all!

  25. “protecting the right to walk into a movie theater and slaughter innocent people.”

    yeah…that’s what conservatives want to do all right. good grief.

    Norway has very strict gun control laws yes? Hmmm. We saw last summer how well that protected the kids in that camp.

    Delusional people will not be dissuaded by increased gun control. The disease in this culture goes much deeper than that.

  26. sumyungboi stole my thunder. I was going to suggest that you pick your friends a little more carefully.

  27. LeePHill, you keep giving your interpretation of the 2nd Amendmant as if anyone really cares what you think. As I’ve said before, if you don’t like it, change it or stop your whining.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0