Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Letter to Bill Johnson of the Denver Post

This is a letter I wrote in response to the following article in the Denver Post by Bill Johnson:

“Handguns Make it Way too Easy for Criminals to Kill Good People”
March 23rd, 2011

Just like that.


It is a sentence, or at least a fragment of one, that should have a question mark pinned to the end. But I think I have been around much too long to really ever be surprised anymore.

"Give me all your money," the man waving a black semiautomatic handgun and wearing a black bandana to hide his face barked at the young couple early Friday.
The young woman, Elizabeth Roach, figuring it all a joke although it was 2 in the morning, but also because it was Boulder, yanked the bandana from the man's face.
"I'm not (expletive) around. Give me all your money!" the gunman then replied, firing one shot into the air for emphasis, as if the 900 block of Pennsylvania Avenue was some dusty road somewhere in the Old West.
Somehow still not convinced, the woman grabbed the young man she was with, Todd Walker, 20, by the arm and set out.

"Come on, we're leaving," she said.

At this point, Walker, apparently also still unconvinced, shoved the gunman, who shoved back.

"This is ridiculous. Leave her alone," Walker told the man holding a gun.

The gunman raised his gun and shot Walker once through the heart before running south down an alley.

Todd Walker died. Just like that.
All of it ticks me off. It has since the day I first read it. You have no idea.

Have we really reached a point in our evolution where a young man's life can be taken so cheaply?

I would pose the question to every politician who mattered, but they retreat, frozen as if truly stupefied, for fear of angering every last gun group and gun lobbyist, who you have to know by now got us here and Todd Walker in the ground in the first place.

Not even the president, a half-dozen people slain in Phoenix and a congresswoman shot through the brain, can muster the courage to at last say, enough.
No one says it, and people continue to die.
I have been grinding on this for better than two decades of column writing now, so I know exactly the argument: The gun did not kill Todd Walker. A stupid criminal did.
Stupid criminals I can abide, sort of.
I cannot and will never abide this society's turning a blind eye to the very instrument that allows them to take the life of a kid like Todd Walker.

Handguns, and I have said this so many times, are an abomination in this society. They are the preferred tool of the crazed and weak. They believe it gives them power.
They make good people, like Todd Walker, a sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, where he was a business major and played football, easy victims.
And we should talk about the handgun and Tucson.
Did you know that from the January slaughter there until mid-March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates 2,405 people in the United States have been shot and killed?
Think about that. How can such a number of gun deaths, such violence, be tolerated?
In the days since Todd Walker's killing, Boulder police arrested Kevin McGregor, a 22-year-old sandwich-shop employee. He has been charged with first-degree murder, and prosecutors are considering the death penalty.
Yet more killing.
I tried without success to reach Mark and Pam Walker, Todd's parents. It is never an easy assignment.
Mark Walker, in the Colorado Daily the other day, spoke of his son's killing and called him a hero for trying to protect his companion during the attempted robbery.

"It seems like a really, really silly reason to take a life," he lamented.

When a handgun is involved, it is really, really way too easy, as well.

Bill Johnson writes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Reach him at 303-954-2763 or wjohnson@denverpost.com.


My letter:

Dear Mr. Johnson,


After reading your opinion in “Handguns make it way too easy for criminals to kill good people” on March 23rd, I felt compelled to reply. I have never replied to an editorial before, so please bear with me. As you will come to find in reading further, I happen to be one of the power-crazed weaklings you label—you know, the people in possession of the “abomination of this society”—handguns.

I appreciate your heart-felt sympathies for victims of senseless violent tragedy. I too share your angst over the death and destruction of human life for such menial reasons. However, I am constrained to point out a glaring hypocrisy in your stage-one thinking pertaining to handguns and their use.

Your mantra claims that Todd Walker, the murdered individual your article speaks of, was an “easy victim” simply because a handgun was used in his murder. Rather than decisively label you immediately as an overly emotional individual with no real education on firearms, I decided to follow your train of thought and ask the next valid question. If Mr. Walker had a handgun and used it to defend his life and the life of the young woman, would you be equally critical of Mr. Walker as you were of the criminal? Would you label Todd as “crazed and weak” and a power-crazed individual using the “abomination of society” to easily victimize someone? If the roles were reversed and Todd used a handgun to defend his life would you continue your rant of being outraged that society continues to turn a blind eye to the very instrument that allows this type of violence? My contention is that you would not because to do so would be illogical and half-witted and I do not think you are stupid or irrational. I believe you are a smart man with a good heart; however, in my opinion, you are misguided in your stance to handguns and violence.

Allow me to offer a hypothetical scenario in an effort to further shed light upon the hypocrisy that comes from the attitude that handguns are evil. Let us imagine for a moment that humankind never invented the handgun or firearms altogether. The technology was never discovered, and therefore, the very word “gun” is totally foreign to all humans on the planet. Would you still have written your article with as much revulsion toward the murder weapon if Mr. Walker was murdered with a club or a sword or knife or rock? Although this is a hypothetical question, I feel it loses none of its relevance because clubs, swords, knifes and rocks exist today—along with a myriad of other implements that are used to murder, and yet you only choose to demonize the handgun.

My question, and the question of most of us who do not agree with your stance is: Why? Why are you so adamantly determined to excoriate and misrepresent guns? The logic just doesn’t add up. Any half-wit can look at the surface of this issue and label the physical gun as the crux of the problem; however that makes about as much sense as claiming it is a pencil’s fault for misspelling a word. I fear expressing your anti-gun emotions to any “politician that matters” will be in vain largely because your arguments do not intelligently articulate in a convincing manner that guns are the root-problem and should therefore be aggressively protested against.

Would you support legislation that completely bans handguns, or at least makes it extremely difficult to purchase one? If your answer is yes, then allow me to offer another side of the debate that you have possibly not considered. Constitutional reference and 2nd Amendment arguments aside, banning handguns will only succeed in disarming the law-abiding citizens and significantly hindering their ability to defend themselves against the criminals who will still obtain handguns illegally. For example, current legislation prohibits a convicted felon from purchasing a handgun; however, anyone can easily observe that the legislation does not curtail them from coming into possession of handguns. This is because they are criminals. Another way to put it is that they are outlaws—they choose to live outside of the law. Restrictive gun legislation dose not apply to those that choose to live outside of the law. Unfortunately for law-abiding citizens however, restrictive gun legislation will successfully limit their ability to legally own a gun, and therefore limit their ability to defend themselves against those that do have the guns.

Evil lives in the world. People commit unexplainable acts of cowardice and violence every day. Evil has always been present in humankind, and unfortunately, evil will continue to be a part of the world. Human life has been taken cheaply throughout our history, not just since the handgun came into being. The fact that a criminal has a gun in his hand while he perpetrates an evil act is mostly irrelevant to the genuine root of the issue and the actual evil act itself. People kill people Mr. Johnson—it happens. The fact that handguns exist does not aggravate the issue any more than the fact that knives, swords, baseball bats, and chainsaws also happen to exist.

I own a handgun, yes, one of the “abominations of society” and I have never shot it at another human being nor do I have the desire to ever do so. This is because I am a sane and responsible citizen with a healthy respect for life and the power of firearms. Furthermore, I do not fear firearms because I possess a lengthy education on the proper use of them. Unfortunately, there are plenty of violent individuals, without the proper respect or education, who succumb to cowardice and selfishness and choose to use handguns to perpetrate unthinkable acts. However, according to your fuzzy-logic, by virtue of the fact that I possess a handgun, I will undoubtedly use it in an act of senseless violence because I believe it gives me “power.” Because, obviously, possessing a handgun automatically overrides my ability to make rational decisions, use good judgment and common sense, and reject my natural instinct to respect life. (Obvious sarcasm there…)

Rest assured Mr. Johnson, if I ever found myself in a situation in which my life or the life of another was being threatened unjustly by a “crazed and weak” individual, if circumstances allowed, I would utilize my handgun against that individual in an effort to preserve innocent life and circumvent a violent criminal from creating another statistic that you can later emote about in another article. I would do this with a clear conscience knowing the sanctity in defending one’s own life or the life of an innocent person. Yes, I would use my handgun to protect innocent life, even if that innocent life was yours.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Obama: A War Criminal?

Our president has declared war on another country without congressional approval. Is he going to be held accountable for this action, or will this matter be shrugged off and Obama given another complete pass to continue to be a total failure of a Commander in Chief?


In 2007 Obama told the Boston Globe:

“The President does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

In a press conference on March 21st Obama said:

“The core principle that has to be upheld here [military action against Libya] is that when the entire international community almost unanimously says that there is a potential humanitarian crisis about to take place, that a leader [Qaddafi] who has lost his legitimacy, decides to turn his military on his own people, that we can’t simply stand by with empty words. That we have to take some sort of action.”

So, by Obama’s logic, if this so called “international community” is involved, then the US Constitution is irrelevant? Since when does the president cease to be answerable to congress and the American people regarding involving the country in a war? What is the “actual or imminent threat” to our nation from Libya?

Several presidents over the past 40 years have been notorious for committing acts of war on other nations without proper congressional consent. Kennedy sent “advisors” to Vietnam which were later involved in combat action against the Viet Minh, Johnson had the controversial Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which committed the US to combat action in Vietnam, Nixon bombed Cambodia, Clinton brought US military action against Kosovo and Somalia then left those places in a mess, and now Obama moves the US into Libya. It takes an act of congress to make war on another country—whatever the reason, humanitarian or otherwise, and Obama failed to seek congressional authorization. What is this “international community” that the US is apparently answerable to according to Obama? Are we not a sovereign nation with our own Constitution?

What Obama has said about Libya could easily describe Saddam and Iraq even going back to before Operation Desert Storm--the very same Saddam and Iraq that Obama and democrats blasted the Bush administration for being irrelevant to the War on Terror. Furthermore, if circumventing a “potential humanitarian crisis” is the reason Obama is citing for declaring war on Libya, then why doesn’t he declare war on any number of the dozen or so other countries in the world in which humanitarian crises take place. Why was Obama totally silent during the humanitarian crises in Iran during the beginning of his term? There are “humanitarian crisis’s” happening every day in our own southern states pertaining to illegal immigration and the injustices and intimidation of ranchers and farmers. Does our own federal government do anything about that? Absolutely not. And don’t tell me the Bureaucracy of “Homeland Security” and Border Patrol is an acceptable answer.

By the way, Bush did get unanimous authorization from congress in October of 2001 to conduct military action on any nation that harbored, supported, or was sympathetic to terrorists.

Where is the “international coalition” here? Despite no congressional approval, military action against Libya thus far has been solely American—the US is conducting the operations, the US is supplying the operations, the US is financing the operations. As far as Qaddafi and all Muslim terrorists around the world are concerned, the 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles that exploded in Tripoli last Saturday came from the US—not this phantom “international community” Obama speaks of.

How many wars can one nation be involved in and still maintain some semblance of functionality on the home front? Our nation is currently reeling with economic distress, the highest unemployment in 30 years, ever increasing prices, fear of inflation, fear of tax increases, a large illegal immigration problem, political discourse, war fatigue, decreasing morale in the military, many states are virtually bankrupt, and our Commander in Chief commits the nation to yet another war-front! What is his goal? What is the plan, strategy, endgame, anything? The fact that we have no idea is further proof that this administration is dangerously incompetent and completely in over their heads. Even Hillary just announced that if Obama gets another term, she’s out.

Aside from all of the glaringly bad decisions and indecisions the Obama administration has made domestically, ultimately it has been our president’s embarrassing failure as our Commander in Chief and foreign policy blunders that have really reinforced my resolve that the election of Obama was a shameful mistake that America must remedy in the next election cycle. I know every president has flaws and makes mistakes, and we will never be able to elect the “perfect” individual; however, Obama has proven he was not ready for the job of president. His past which contains absolutely no leadership experience, to our detriment, is catching up to him.

Obama’s first impression on the world pertaining to war matters was anticlimactic to say the least. He dithered on Afghanistan for over six months when we needed decisive action, strategy, and leadership. Under Obama, the US is a stagnate-occupying force in Iraq with no real direction on how to proceed. He completely dismissed the Iranian uprising, thus being absent on a crucial international opportunity to stand for freedom and democracy and denounce tyranny and oppression. He has now inserted the US into a third front on wars against Muslim nations (so much for his tireless outreach to the Muslim population…).

The stench of hypocrisy coming from this president, his administration, and the democrat-party-biased-media regarding war is staggering. Where are all of the war protestors now? They couldn’t contain themselves when Bush was in office, but now they got their guy in the White House, so all is quiet. By the way, at least eight Marines lost their lives in Afghanistan last week. Did the media make a peep about that? When was the last time we ever heard anything, good or bad, about the war on terror? It seems once Obama took power it basically vanished from the media’s vernacular. But of course the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods’ girlfriends, Charlie Sheen’s melt-downs, and Obama’s brackets for March Madness make much better cover stories for anything that could potentially shed a negative light on Obama and his failed handling of these wars. Must be nice to have a large portion of the media covering for you all the time…

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

The Truth Comes Out

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/npr-president-schiller-resigns/

Big surprise…

The curtain has finally been pulled back to reveal NPR executives for what they truly are: liberal ideologues with a warped and fearful outlook of anyone and anything that does not fit their social-political paradigm.

This story underscores a concrete example of how certain liberals or “progressives” at higher media or political levels view you—the conservative. They label you as stupid and racist. Of course the irony here is that they label you as fearful of many groups of people such as Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants, minorities etc. and yet it seems that they are in reality fearful of conservatives.

Maybe we could coin a new phobia: Conserveatiphobia…

Say nothing of the blatant anti-Semite remarks from Schiller in the video.

Logical thinking and genuine honesty dictate that generalizing an entire group of people is not intelligent or even rational. Labeling the entire Tea Party as “racist” is simply a hasty generalization that does not hold any concrete evidence or proof; however, it seems logic, proof, evidence, and truth do not matter to the staunch liberal or “progressive”. Labeling the entire Nazi party of the Third Reich as fascists however is not a hasty generalization due to the multitude of historical proof, evidence, and objective deduction from their actions. By the way, didn’t the Nazis also dabble in the generalization of an entire people as being inferior, stupid, inhuman, not to be given any real credence or platform? Sounds eerily familiar from what we find continually coming from the hard-left in the political spectrum today.

The blatant political and ideological slant to the left demonstrated by the Main Stream Media is becoming more and more obvious all the time. How can a person take them for “objective journalists” anymore unless they themselves subscribe to the same brand of leftism in the first place?

Although this NPR story comes as no surprise, the unfortunate reality of it is, their mindset is not isolated. The White House, Executive Branch, Senate, and the majority of the large media outlets on TV and in print are full of individuals of the same disposition.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Another Demonstration of the “Religion of Peace”

The prime suspect in the murder of two U.S. Airmen in Germany, Arif Uka, confessed to specifically targeting Americans. Authorities have stated that the murderer has ties to **big surprise** Islamic fundamentalist groups in Germany.

When is the spin on this religion as a “religion of peace” going to end? Are there peaceful Muslims who denounce murderous behavior from other Muslims? Yes, of course there are; however, these murderous zealots are by and large all Muslim.

And Obama is “outraged”…


Well, he should be. Especially given the fact the Muslims are his “brothers” and he has taken such great strides toward praising them, backing them up, and apologizing to them.

Wait for it…

Some left-winger is going to call me a “fear monger” for simply stating the obvious.