DMN 05/29/09

[jimlongley]

Tomorrow's news today.

Over the past two weeks the Dallas Morning News has published one editorial and two cartoons critical and even purely ridiculing the national park carry issue, and this is after it passed.

Tomorrow's DMN has one of my letters in response, and there is already a growing blog about it.

We have rights in our parks
Concealed carry in national parks by licensed law abiding citizens will do nothing to increase "urban style violence" and will not cause armed idiots to be out hunting ants, bears, and raccoons with unconcealed weapons.

All it does is allow law-abiding citizens to exercise their God-given right, protected by the Second Amendment, in our national parks, where previously they had merely been potential victims.The history of concealed carry in the U.S., despite apocalyptic predictions, has been unremarkable.

Despite ample evidence that your blood-in the-streets predictions were wrong, the news media in general, and The Dallas Morning News in particular, continue to use that scenario to justify an anti-rights stance, while never reporting the actual successes of concealed carry laws.

Our national parks are just another venue to demonstrate that law-abiding citizens can be trusted to abide by the law. Gun-free zones are merely target-rich environments for criminals and nuts. It's time for common-sense gun laws to be passed to allow law-abiding citizens to regain their precious right to self-defense.

Jim Longley, Allen

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnew ... uns-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DoubleJ]

as always, well done, sir.

[A-R]

Jim, very well done. Just read your piece and the whole set of blog responses. Your follow up posts and those of others stated the pro-CHL case very well.

[TxRVer]

I read your letter in the paper this morning. Good job.

[Oldgringo]

A voice of reason, Good Job!

PS:

Keep it up.

[bryang]

Good Job, Jim, keep up the good work, it is folks like you that make things happen.

-geo

[gwholt1]

Well said, elegantly succinct and understandable. Thank you for speaking so well for the CHL community!

Garry

[Excaliber]

Well said, elegantly succinct and understandable. Thank you for speaking so well for the CHL community!

Garry

[joe817]

Jim, thank you for the letter you sent to DMN. Thank you for standing up for all of us. Thank you for becoming so incensed at those cartoons, you DID take the time to write to that newspaper, and voice your opinion.

The comments in the blog though, was disturbing to me. The academics, who tried to justify their position, and those who posed rebuttal remarks. In my opinion, the academics(and the public in general, for that matter), are totally unaware of the true benefits that CHL holders promote. As I see it, it is a deterrence to violence. Unfortunately, many do not hold the same opinion. BUT THEY COULD.........if they could be educated. I think education(of the general public is the key). I'm just not sure as to how to go about doing it.

On the other hand, I have to admit, I can see why the anti-gun people get the idea that many pro-gunners are quick tempered, quick to react violently, people. I literally cringe when I see a bumper sticker saying "they can have my guns once they've pried them from my cold dead hands". I've even seen it on baseball caps. It just puts a hollow feeling in my gut.

I'll get off my soapbox now....that's just something I had to say. In closing, I'll say I don't know how to go about educating the public, but I think it is necessary and beneficial. For if we were able to do so, then pro-gun legislation might become a little easier for us(again, IMHO). I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone by those remarks.

Joe

[jimlongley]

Thanks, Joe, and today's DMN has one of the most disappointing letters of all, which I have answered by email to DMN and in the blog.

Today's letter states that I said we had a God-given right to carry concealed weapons, and the letter writer rightly says he can find no such scripture.

True enough, but my statement related to a right to self-defense, and religious nit picking arguments aside, call it a natural right, or a pre-existing right, it is that right which the Second Amendment protects, not carry concealed.

My answer, hopefully not too insulting to publish, and on the blog, points out that if the author make a habit of reading between the lines and interpretation to satisfy his own prejudices, he has served his flock poorly.

If someone wants to start a new thread relating to religion, then go ahead, I'll gladly participate.

One of the things about the bumper stickers, on both sides, is that they tend to portray extremist positions, anti-gun or pro, anti-women's rights, or pro, even anti-religion and v/v. I am proud to call myself a Christian these days, it took me a long time to get here, but I still get a personal kick out of the Darwin fishes on people's cars, it appeals to my sense of irony if nothing else.

I used to have lots of pro-gun bumper stickers on my cars, and I didn't care who knew, these days I still don't care who knows, but I have developed the philosophy that most bumper stickers are ugly, and I don't have any, for the moment.

That said, my license plate is a TSRA Snorting Bull plate, with my ham radio call letters proudly displayed: K5NRA and I have a NRA trailer hitch light.

And Joe, the only way I get my letter published is by staying on my soapbox, something we all need to do more in order to educate the public, and the way I turned TWO anti-gun wives pro.

[Commander Cody]

Thank you Mr. Longley.

[Purplehood]

Thanks, Joe, and today's DMN has one of the most disappointing letters of all, which I have answered by email to DMN and in the blog.

Today's letter states that I said we had a God-given right to carry concealed weapons, and the letter writer rightly says he can find no such scripture.

True enough, but my statement related to a right to self-defense, and religious nit picking arguments aside, call it a natural right, or a pre-existing right, it is that right which the Second Amendment protects, not carry concealed.

My answer, hopefully not too insulting to publish, and on the blog, points out that if the author make a habit of reading between the lines and interpretation to satisfy his own prejudices, he has served his flock poorly.

If someone wants to start a new thread relating to religion, then go ahead, I'll gladly participate.

One of the things about the bumper stickers, on both sides, is that they tend to portray extremist positions, anti-gun or pro, anti-women's rights, or pro, even anti-religion and v/v. I am proud to call myself a Christian these days, it took me a long time to get here, but I still get a personal kick out of the Darwin fishes on people's cars, it appeals to my sense of irony if nothing else.

I used to have lots of pro-gun bumper stickers on my cars, and I didn't care who knew, these days I still don't care who knows, but I have developed the philosophy that most bumper stickers are ugly, and I don't have any, for the moment.

That said, my license plate is a TSRA Snorting Bull plate, with my ham radio call letters proudly displayed: K5NRA and I have a NRA trailer hitch light.

And Joe, the only way I get my letter published is by staying on my soapbox, something we all need to do more in order to educate the public, and the way I turned TWO anti-gun wives pro.

I too liked your letter in general, Jim. But in reality you too read between the lines in order to satisfy your own (and most of ours) own prejudices.

[longtooth]

Thanks from ME too & happy birthday.

Now back on topic.
LT

[jimlongley]

Thanks, Joe, and today's DMN has one of the most disappointing letters of all, which I have answered by email to DMN and in the blog.

Today's letter states that I said we had a God-given right to carry concealed weapons, and the letter writer rightly says he can find no such scripture.

True enough, but my statement related to a right to self-defense, and religious nit picking arguments aside, call it a natural right, or a pre-existing right, it is that right which the Second Amendment protects, not carry concealed.

My answer, hopefully not too insulting to publish, and on the blog, points out that if the author make a habit of reading between the lines and interpretation to satisfy his own prejudices, he has served his flock poorly.

If someone wants to start a new thread relating to religion, then go ahead, I'll gladly participate.

One of the things about the bumper stickers, on both sides, is that they tend to portray extremist positions, anti-gun or pro, anti-women's rights, or pro, even anti-religion and v/v. I am proud to call myself a Christian these days, it took me a long time to get here, but I still get a personal kick out of the Darwin fishes on people's cars, it appeals to my sense of irony if nothing else.

I used to have lots of pro-gun bumper stickers on my cars, and I didn't care who knew, these days I still don't care who knows, but I have developed the philosophy that most bumper stickers are ugly, and I don't have any, for the moment.

That said, my license plate is a TSRA Snorting Bull plate, with my ham radio call letters proudly displayed: K5NRA and I have a NRA trailer hitch light.

And Joe, the only way I get my letter published is by staying on my soapbox, something we all need to do more in order to educate the public, and the way I turned TWO anti-gun wives pro.

I too liked your letter in general, Jim. But in reality you too read between the lines in order to satisfy your own (and most of ours) own prejudices.

Yes, I might very well read between the lines, but my wife says that I am the world's foremost literalist, so I know that I try very hard not to. My problem with his re-interpretation is that he is in a position of ultimate trust, and he has a responsibility to practice the utmost in literal bibliology, whereas I don't.

When the authors of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights declare that certain rights are "endowed by the creator" then I do kind of interpret that as God-given and by extension the statement follows well, but that could be between the lines and I will acknowledge that. The point, in this case, is not who gave us the rights, but that they exist and are protected, and that is not between the lines anywhere.

[joe817]

Jim, just keep on doing what you are doing. In reading the blogs, those people who challenge you to find anywhere in the Scriptures anything about guns, just do not understand the analogous nature of the Scriptures taken in this context.

Back then there WERE no guns(a deadly weapon), BUT they had swords(a deadly weapon). A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, is a deadly weapon. It is irrelevant that the term used in the Scriptures was "sword", IMO it's all the same, and the same applies.

Keep on keeping on!

BTW, I'm known as AA5LD in ham circles. (I love your callsign!)