TexasCHLforum.com

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!

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.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Huh. Tempting to reply to them. I wonder if they would publish an opposing view point on their paper?

Yes, they usually do post most letters.

Thanks Not RPB, will go through it all.

Up at 6 am, feed the dogs, get the local paper, prepare my cereal, then read that the op-ed of the local paper is proposing Australian gun control; yes, it is a liberal paper in the middle of a very republican county.
My instinct is that the op-ed probably left out some facts, turns out he/she did. The article implies that Australia only bans AR type rifles. Of course that is not correct, they ban almost everything.
Here is the linkto the op-ed:

https://shar.es/1lamMD

From Gunpolicy.org
"In Australia, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic and semi-automatic firearms, self-loading and pump action shotguns, handguns with a calibre in excess of .38in with only narrow exemptions, semi-automatic handguns with a barrel length less than 120mm, and revolvers with a barrel length less than 100mm"

Did some more internet search, found this article from about a year ago:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the ... 4e4.mailto

So, put the two together and the editor does not realize he is advocating for civil war. Or maybe he is, don't know for sure.
Will be writing a response to the paper, they do usually print them if it's not vulgar.