Awesome Letter to the Editor in Washington Post

[learn2shoot]

Ok.... so I might be biased in it's awesomeness because I submitted it... but here it is.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301520.html

Regarding the Nov. 21 front-page article "Justices to Rule on D.C. Gun Ban":

People come from all parts of the world to America for opportunity and freedom. However, in our own nation's capital, people are not given the right to own handguns.

I am glad that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this important case, which if upheld would once again allow the good people of the District the freedom to own handguns, a right that is recognized nearly everywhere else in this great nation.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said: "We should have the right to make our own decisions." I could not agree more.

WILLIAM CLARK
Springfield
The writer owns a firearm instruction company.

Of course the other LTE is absolute untrue garbage.

The problem with giving a gun to Dick A. Heller, the security officer who is a plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, is that the court would also be giving a gun to thousands of violent criminals in the District, which already has a murder rate among the highest in the country -- because there are just too many guns.

 

[joab]

Read that second letter
It's the funniest thing I've seen all week, it has to be satire

 

[learn2shoot]

ya know.... the fact that the second letter is most likely not satire - it is actually quite angering.

 

[General Geoff]

It's not angering at all to me.. It's just sad that people can be so ignorant of existing law.

 

[Robert Hairless]

The problem with giving a gun to Dick A. Heller, the security officer who is a plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, is that the court would also be giving a gun to thousands of violent criminals in the District, which already has a murder rate among the highest in the country -- because there are just too many guns.

MARK CONTE

I can sense the anticipation of all those thousands of violent criminals in the District who are holding their breath, hoping that the Supreme Court will "give them guns."

The District of Columbia must have the only law abiding violent criminals in the world. Violent criminals in other places don't care about the law.

One thing, though. I am going on record as stating that if the Supreme Court gives Dick Heller a gun I want them to give me one too.

 

[jeepmor]

Per Mr. Conte's letter.

Criminals wait for legal channels to purchase their guns, huh?

Out of touch with reality is the nicest comment I can come up with for this guy.

 

[cobrian45]

Funnier than criminals that obey the law is that the writer doesn't see the contradiction in his own letter. Strangely, this contradiction occurs in only a few sentences which alerts me to the intelligence of the author. I've come back to edit this. The contradiction does NOT occur in a few sentences. It occurs in one long run-on sentence. Excuse me for my lack of attention.

In essence: A. We have some of the strictest handgun control laws in the country. B. We currently have one of the highest murder rates in the country (even though the Supreme Court hasn't started passing out guns to criminals yet). What??

I'm in line after Dick Heller, all of the D.C. criminals, and Robert.

How is A not related to B?

 

[Megistopoda]

Mark Conte wins the "Idiot of the Day" award for his lack of understanding of gun laws, and his lack of understanding of what upholding the lower court's decision would mean.

 

[Red Neck64]

The problem with giving a gun to Dick A. Heller, the security officer who is a plaintiff in District of Columbia v. Heller, is that the court would also be giving a gun to thousands of violent criminals in the District, which already has a murder rate among the highest in the country -- because there are just too many guns.

MARK CONTE

Now I'd like to see a picture of this brainwashed fruitcake.

 

[SWATcashJeremy]

Is Mr. Conte (-e and replace the o with a u?) aware that the criminals in DC already HAVE guns? Making them legal just evens the odds

 

[Jim K]

Mr. Conte and others (some of them here) simply don't get it. Or maybe Mr. Conte does, and it is not criminals he is afraid will get guns.

The D.C. law was not passed in order to control crime, but in order to control black people, who were seen as irresponsible, out-of-control and dangerous to the D.C. white "establishment." The "Uncle Tom" city council was willing to surrender the civil and constitutional rights of the city's black population to satisfy the demands of the whites to suppress the uprisings that had taken place in 1968 and 1972. (Remember that the buildings burned in those riots were owned by absentee white landlords who didn't live anywhere near them.)

The GCA 68 was passed for essentially the same reason. The (then) lily white Congress looked out over a burning city in the wake of Dr. King's killing and thought "we have to keep 'them' from getting guns." That law banned mail order gun sales, and much was made in the press about how the buyer would have to be "face to face" with the dealer. No one can tell if a person is a criminal by looking at his face, but he surely can tell if the person is black, and that is what counted. It was fully intended that no licensed dealer would sell a gun to a black person; the idea that a black person might actually obtain a dealer's license was simply unthinkable.

Jim

 

[4v50 Gary]

Mr. Conte's reasoning is flawed. By analogy, if guns caused crime, are unwanted pregnancies caused by the widespread availability of contraceptives?

BTW, I posted this response at their website.

 

[Moondancer]

Although the sheer mass of stupidity in this country never ceases to amaze me, I would be surprised in Mr. Conte's letter is not satire.

Just imagine talking to someone who says they agree with Mr. Conte.
Me: "So, we need to keep the laws that prohibit criminals from getting guns?
Them: "Yes"
Me: "Because there are so many of them already?"
Them: "Yes"
Me: "Because the criminals have been so good at abiding with the current laws?"
Them: "........."

 

[Wire]

Rights aren't given. They are recognized, acknowledged, respected, abridged, etc.

License can be granted or denied.

The distinction is permission.