Cloudy
47°
Cloudy
Hi 53° | Lo 35°

Letter: Just like 1936

The Feb. 26 Monitor photo taken in front of the State House, with the headline “Gun rally: ‘Come and take it’’ reminds me of a similar photo from 1936. The difference was the two out in front were in storm trooper uniforms showing their might and the fellow on the podium, instead of a beard, had a small black mustache. What are we coming to? Think about it!

Bradford

Legacy Comments19

This letter by Dick Keller is perfect- a perfect Orwellian reversal of reality.

Bruce, recognizing that gun laws are not effective and also realizing 3-d printing is a genie we will not get back into bottle would only result in a somlia-like situation if we let. OR we could focus on thew real problem - human behavior. I still have not seen signs of parents chnaging strategies and engaging with their kids on issues like violent games/movies. I still see Hollywood producing endless ulta-violent movies while those who cry for "gun control" do apparently nothing to alter that programming of the young. Samples of reasons why violence continues......,.

Give it up TCB, you can't argues with know it all types and hard Left ideologues. You can talk to that one until you are blue in the face and they remain "red".

I might remind responders here, aka the usual denier suspects that the Department of Homeland Security purchased 1 billion bullets in an attempt to make them scarce for regular citizens. I might also remind all of you that they also orders 3700 light armored vehicles. For what purpose??? And this story came out yesterday: "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy. Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones “shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not” and must be equipped with “interception” systems capable of reading cell phone signals. The first known domestic use of a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North Dakota when rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbor’s cows that had wandered on to his property. Critics say the fact that domestic drones are being used in such minor matters raises serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach. Last month, NBC News uncovered a confidential 16-page Justice Department memo that concluded the U.S. government may execute a drone strike on an American citizen it believes to be a “senior operational leader” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force.” Progressives under Bush were worried about their phone calls being monitored, what say you about this??? It seems much more nefarious.

Let me get this straight, a drone was actually used to aid in the arrest of a suspected criminal? Well I'll be the nerve of infringing on a criminals rights! Just how is a drone any different than using a plane to scour the countryside, that's right, it's technology is more effective, not fair.

I would like to remind people to also look at those parts of the world that currently have massive amounts of firearms in the hands of the general populous and what is going on there. I of course refer to Africa and the middle East where the population is convinced through religion, propaganda, ethnic history, etc that thier way is the right and only way. This has resulted in nothing but anarchy and mass killings of the populous as one group tries to force it's views on another. Even here in the US we have people saying that their view is the best and that they are willing to use firearms to enforce that belief. Once you think about that, ask yourself if some restrictions on firearm possession should be considered. Everyone talks about their freedom but no one has ever bothered to define it as it applies to anyone but themselves.

Somewhat agree. We have people saying that their way is the best and they are willing to lie, connive and bully over half of the population as progressives try to force their views on others. I can tell you that if anarchy ensues or a dictatorship is established you should be glad that people will bear arms, that will be your only defense.

The letter writer is wayyyyyyy off base.

NHdriver, I'm not so sure. Taking the letter-writer's argument a step further, consider these characteristics of today's far-right, most of which showed up in similar form in pre-war Germany and which routinely show up in TP and Republican writings and strategizing, not to mention finding frequent expression on this site. If you were to put all these together in a larger populist movement than currently exists on the right, it would signal some hard times ahead. 1) A jingoistic and bellicose super-patriotism-- expressed as American exceptionalism and support for an attack on Iran; 2) Disdain for human rights in the conduct of the "War on Terror". 3) Regular scape-goating, name-calling, and paranoia--'Birthers", Agenda 21 paranoia, fear of the U.N. 4) Rampant sexism and hatred of women--continued efforts to restrict, limit, and outlaw abortion, contraceptives, and enact a "human life" amendment; 5) An increasing turn to religious fundamentalism and its corollary-- intolerance of other religions; 6) Worship of corporate power and a corresponding hatred of unions; 7) Attempts to rig elections via deliberate voter suppression measures. 8) Anti-intellectualism--belief in creationism, climate science denial, and anti-vaccine paranoia, and a fondness for medical and dietary quackery. 9) The politics of resentment coupled with economic wing-nuttery-- restoring the Gold Standard, support for a rebirth of Social Darwinism--an obsession with the 47% who are supposedly "takers" rather than "makers", and who have become weak and dependent by virtue of receiving 'lavish' social spending and deficit-inducing entitlements.

I am Back! Was away for 9 days. The background checks we have now are useless. HD has it right. We need to enforce the laws we have now, make the background checks thorough with waiting times for those checks to be done, and close loopholes at gun shows. What is the sense of having laws that are half baked and allow for abuse? We also need to do more state wise about making the transfer of guns from state to state more severe. Caught doing that, 10 years minimum sentence. There are better ways to enforce illegal guns, stop folks with mental illness from getting them, and not have the rights of legal gun owners infringed upon. We seem to go for what we think will be the quick fix always. Never works when you jump on fixes that do not encompass the whole problem. Leaves the door open for abuse because the laws are poorly written and allow for abuse.

Hunter - what evidence is there that criminals and the criminally insane will obey the the stricter laws you propose if they have not been inhibited by similar laws for 1000's of years? Criminals do not obey the laws. Now let's start afresh looking for solutions by not repeating what hasn't worked....

Well I didn't mention this because it wasn't pertinent to the discussion of guns but I do also believe that LE needs to be better able to work with mental health agencies(or rather, mental health agencies need to be FORCED to give up more info to LE) in order to keep the "criminally insane" away from firearms. As for criminals, yes I'm aware that they don't follow the laws - that's why they're called CRIMINALS! But the gun show loophole is a common-sense approach which takes away ONE of the avenues by which criminals have been shown to have obtained weapons, Capiche?

The campaign that "criminals get their weapons from gun shows" is another bogeyman. Also, “reasonable compromises” are more of the same of what hasn’t worked by those pushing a political agenda that they could not get to a legislature or pass commonsense voters. Again, a stricter gun laws had ever worked we wouldn’t be having this conversation. In any event the gun debate is now pretty much moot now that three-dimensional printers can produce operational weapons in anybody’s garage. I can conceive of no law that could effectively stopped such activity. Producing rifles and a 3-D printer is just the tip of the iceberg but I will say no more on this: go on a plant any suggestions. To any who would raise their voice and say there ought to be a law about those” well, sadly they still don’t get it. I do salute your call for improved efforts on the part of law enforcement and the mental health community. New York City was able to pull itself out of the worst of its violent crime problems by putting violent criminals in jail on a wholesale level. That’s a sort of thing that works.

Progressives are the perpetuators of bogeymen. Guns in the hands of patriotic citizens scares progressives as they know that without guns people would not be able to rise up should progressives and Socialists start to dictate to the majority. If criminals want guns, they will get them. Obama said: "if it saves only one life", well what if self defense saves "only one life", does that count?????

Uniform national standards that apply to every state regarding background checks and gun show loopholes, as well as limits on the size of magazines and on semi-automatic weapons are reasonable limitations on a right never intended to be absolute in a civilized society. The alternative you imply would turn us into Somalia. As for 3-D printing of guns--single use plastic guns? Anyone who seriously thinks that the 3-D printing of weapons would be other than a threat to civilized society is deluded; it will likely invite draconian measures in response. The gun nut/2nd Amendment absolutists misread the amendment-- and are their own worst enemies. Wayne LaPierre is a fool. Gun rights absolutists are inviting/daring states and the federal government to enact new laws--they don't believe they'll pass. Time will tell. Likewise the technological 'advances' may invite more draconian measures. When you write: "I can conceive of no law that could effectively stop such activity....": Restrictions on bullets?

"PROGRESSIVES ARE THE PERPETUATORS OF BOGEYMEN"!?!?!?!?!? "OH NOOOOO - IF WE LET GAY PEOPLE MARRY IT WILL RUIN MY MARRIAGE!!!!!!" Care to rethink your claim that Progressives are "perpetuators of bogeymen" itsa???

I also think it's ironic that, here I was, defending the 2nd amendment from the likes of the letter writer, by saying he was wrong to compare 2nd amendment advocates to Hitler, and along comes TCB . . . a person who is a perfect example of just how "kooky" the hard-right gun-nut fringe has fallen. Perhaps the Hitler comparison wasn't far off in your case?

Hunter Dan, Do I hear you attacking the debater instead of the issues? Is common sense kooky? Is evidence kooky? Do you contend that the volumes and volumes of gun laws, already enacted, have been effective? I do not think so. If, yes - please illuminate the evidence. If they had been, we would not be having this conversation.

Obvisously, DICK, you HAVEN'T thought about it! You're actually comparing folks who want to protect their right to bear arms with a fascist dictator who took away that right from his citizens?!?!?!? I wasn't at that rally. I do not hold as extreme a pro-gun view as the folks who were at that rally. I think some of them are frankly a bit kooky. I'm for closing the gun show loophole, stricter background checks, and possibly . . . even limiting the capacities of mags and clips. But to compare those who have a more rabid pro-gun view to Hitler tells me that you have either not heard of Godwin's law, are under the age of . . . say . . . 30, or are just plain ignorant.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.