TexasCHLforum.com

I like the alcohol prohibition argument as well, but tend to get answered with "that was a long time ago." The drug war is still going on, and clearly failing miserably. Still, you're very right about it creating and funding large criminal organizations, and that would certainly occur with the prohibition of guns as well.

LucasMcCain wrote:I like the alcohol prohibition argument as well, but tend to get answered with "that was a long time ago." The drug war is still going on, and clearly failing miserably. Still, you're very right about it creating and funding large criminal organizations, and that would certainly occur with the prohibition of guns as well.

I like the Prohibition argument too, because when the government wanted to criminalize alcohol throughout the US they amended the Constitution...for prohibiting something not even in the Bill of Rights. But when pushing to take away a Constitutional right, they wish to do it via legislative or executive fiat...

ScottDLS wrote:

LucasMcCain wrote:I like the alcohol prohibition argument as well, but tend to get answered with "that was a long time ago." The drug war is still going on, and clearly failing miserably. Still, you're very right about it creating and funding large criminal organizations, and that would certainly occur with the prohibition of guns as well.

I like the Prohibition argument too, because when the government wanted to criminalize alcohol throughout the US they amended the Constitution...for prohibiting something not even in the Bill of Rights. But when pushing to take away a Constitutional right, they wish to do it via legislative or executive fiat...

Oooohh. I somehow missed that point. That's a good one. I'm going to remember that.

crazy2medic wrote:Please post what you send them and any reply to you, inquiring minds wanna know!

Well, here it is, my letter to the editor:

Aussies offer good path to citizen control

The editor in the 25 June "Aussies offer good gun control path" misleads by giving the impression that the Australian gun control effort only banned "assault rifle" type of guns. This is not the case, Australia has banned many different types of guns . In fact, Australia had gun confiscation. The last time gun confiscation was tried in this part of the world was in 1775, it occurred at Lexington and Concord, and we all know how that turned out. The colonists had firearms that were basically equivalent to that of the British army.

The 2nd Amendment was added in order to protect the preexisting God given right to self defense and the bearing of arms. The purpose of the government is not to allow or give this right, it is protecting a God given right. The founding fathers realized that only an armed citizenry is capable of withstanding a standing army and/or a tyrannical government.

The 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or sport, it is for protection. It is imperative that the civilian population, otherwise known as the militia, keep and bear arms that are of a sufficient deterrent to any power that might seek to strip away the rights of the citizens.
So, go read the Federalist Papers, numbers 28, 29 and 46, then read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and other comments/quotes from the founding fathers. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is very clear, anyone who proposes otherwise has a political agenda that includes power and control over the citizenry.

Loss of the 2nd will result in the loss of the other Bill of Rights, it is just human nature to want to control and subordinate others when power is given. The one thing that truly amazes me is why the liberal media is so set on abolishing or limiting the 2nd Amendment, it will only result in their loss of free speech. Read for yourself the documents I listed above, don't just listen to me, and don't just listen to the media or politicians or professors.. Read, read, read the documents related to the founding of this great country!

Forrester Lowrie

End of letter.

Great letter flowrie! I hope they will publish it unedited. I sent a response to a question in the Ft. Worth paper a couple of months ago, it was well under the maximum word limit, but they still edited it and lost the entire point. Thanks for the update.

Jusme wrote:

Great letter flowrie! I hope they will publish it unedited. I sent a response to a question in the Ft. Worth paper a couple of months ago, it was well under the maximum word limit, but they still edited it and lost the entire point. Thanks for the update.

Well thought and perfectly worded! Well done flowrie!

A physical paper? There has to be a better alternative to line your birdcage with.

crazy2medic wrote:I propose every journalist must obtain a permit to publish (PTP), they must submit for a background check and answer questions on their views, each story or article needs to be submitted for review prior to publication, all written articles must be written on a typewriter as no journalist needs to have access to a computer, only the government needs those!

While we are limiting the bill of rights, let's also require every person to get a permit (after showing good cause) to participate on message boards, review sites, and any other communications that are available to be read by more than one person. Person to person phone calls and texts are one thing, but why do ordinary citizens need the ability to potentially influence thousands of impressionable minds? Think of the children!

Great response letter, good job!

Just imagine the reaction the MSM would have if we did to them what they are trying to do to us!

UPDATE!!

The Denton Record Chronicle printed portions of my letter, but changed the title and deleted some important points.
I will be complaining to the DRC.
I removed paragraph breaks.

This is what they published:

Purpose of Second Amendment
The June 25 editorial headlined “Aussies offer good gun control path” misleads by giving the impression that the Australian gun control effort only banned assault rifle-type of guns.
This is not the case. Australia has banned many different types of guns. In fact, Australia had gun confiscation.
The last time gun confiscation was tried in this part of the world was in 1775. It occurred at Lexington and Concord, and we all know how that turned out. The colonists had firearms equivalent to the British army.
The Second Amendment was added in order to protect the pre-existing God-given right to self-defense and the bearing of arms. The purpose of the government is not to allow or give this right. The Founding Fathers realized that only an armed citizenry is capable of withstanding a standing army and/or a tyrannical government.
So, go read the Federalist Papers, numbers 28, 29 and 46. Then read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is very clear. Anyone who proposes otherwise has a political agenda that includes power and control over the citizenry.
Loss of the Second Amendment will result in the loss of other rights found in the Bill of Rights. It is just human nature to want to control and subordinate others when power is given.
It amazes me that the liberal media is so set on abolishing or limiting the Second Amendment. It will only result in their loss of free speech.

This is what I sent:

Aussies offer good path to citizen control
The editor in the 25 June "Aussies offer good gun control path" misleads by giving the impression that the Australian gun control effort only banned "assault rifle" type of guns. This is not the case, Australia has banned many different types of guns . In fact, Australia had gun confiscation. The last time gun confiscation was tried in this part of the world was in 1775, it occurred at Lexington and Concord, and we all know how that turned out. The colonists had firearms that were basically equivalent to that of the British army.
The 2nd Amendment was added in order to protect the preexisting God given right to self defense and the bearing of arms. The purpose of the government is not to allow or give this right, it is protecting a God given right. The founding fathers realized that only an armed citizenry is capable of withstanding a standing army and/or a tyrannical government.
The 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or sport, it is for protection. It is imperative that the civilian population, otherwise known as the militia, keep and bear arms that are of a sufficient deterrent to any power that might seek to strip away the rights of the citizens.
So, go read the Federalist Papers, numbers 28, 29 and 46, then read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and other comments/quotes from the founding fathers. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is very clear, anyone who proposes otherwise has a political agenda that includes power and control over the citizenry.
Loss of the 2nd will result in the loss of the other Bill of Rights, it is just human nature to want to control and subordinate others when power is given. The one thing that truly amazes me is why the liberal media is so set on abolishing or limiting the 2nd Amendment, it will only result in their loss of free speech. Read for yourself the documents I listed above, don't just listen to me, and don't just listen to the media or politicians or professors.. Read, read, read the documents related to the founding of this great country!

cherry pickin'...