Member since Aug 26, 2010



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Guest Commentary

Greysailor, My intent is not to start an argument with you, but I must contest or expand on some of the statements you've made.

Firstly, if anyone has to use a firearm in their posession, whether it be belt or purse, it is indeed to defend my life or your life, from immediate and dire physical threat. Those like me, and I don't speak for everyone who choses to carry a firearm, DO have a protocol outlining when to use a defensive display or fire our weapons. These protocol are firstly outlined according to state and federal law, and also to STOP THE THREAT. Not to kill. Not to maim. Not to scare. Not to beat our chests. It is to use the most efficient means available with the tool of your choice to protect life and liberty.

Secondly, I am disappointed (in the truth, not you) that most police officers (specialty units like SWAT being an exception) are NOT highly trained and disciplined in the use of firearms. They 'qualify' and 'meet standards' during academy, then afterwards must meet an easy proficency re-qual once a year (most departments, tucson local included). Many officers never fire their weapons except on the occasions they have to qualify. Now, this is not to say that they are unqualified to carry and use deadly force, but this should not be the standard by which you measure a citizens level of competency and ability. Most citizens invest their own hard-earned money when purchasing a firearm, and it is important for them to know how to maintain it, use it, and be proficient with it overall. This is individual responsibility and the government cannot legislate that, not even among their own police departments.

Thirdly, Glock (or any brand name of choice) were not built for the sole purpose of shooting someone. The were, indeed developed to be reliable and safe defensive and fighting weapons. Most firearms, reguardless of brand, are primarily used by the public for recreational or sporting purposes. Less than %1 of legally civillian owned firearms are ever used against another person, and holes in paper are all they ever make.

Finally, I hope you don't think that just because someone is armed, that they want or may feel compelled to shoot you. While there are headline-making examples out there, most firearm owners are disproportionately responsible, private, patriotic, safe, and law abiding. There are too many reasons to explain why this is true in this forum, unless you would like to converse privately, I wouldn't mind. I would just like to make a point that it is already, and has been for a long time, illegal to own a firearm if you are 'nuts,' have addiction, or to carry a firearm while intoxicated or drinking at all in public.

And while the world and are communities are not perfect places, the fact is that there is a margin of error, the responsibilty that comes with freedoms. The police may make a mistake, a citizen may make a mistake. All should be held accounable when this happens, without exception. But the very nature of in imperfections in our communties is the same reason some law abiding niehbors choose to use a firearm as a self defense tool.

Our parks aren't all sunshine and grass. I do not let my family members run barefoot in a park unless I've checked the area for drug needles and broken glass (left by irresponsible, law-breaking drunks, who might assault you to show off to thier friends). In some areas of town, parks are simply not places for childeren, families, or even a capable adult walking through at the wrong time of day. Should their freedoms be restricted because of the criminal element? My good friend has to check their neiborhood park for bums, gang members and prostitutes before their childeren can play. The father likes to know, that even after taking every preperation for thier safety ahead of time, if the unexpected worst case happens, he can defend himself and his childeren. That is what freedom is about, and that is what we have won, among the recent laws passed in AZ.

With all respect. Thank you for voicing you concerns, and for hearing the 'pro 2A' point of view... Well just part of it, but thank you never the less.

Posted by bwamelissa on 08/31/2010 at 11:28 PM

Re: “Guest Commentary

Gun control legislation does not have a cause/effect relationship with the following statement(quoted below). A weapons regulation law does not affect any sense of maturity or self control.

"Just because someone is now openly armed doesn't mean squat about a person's maturity level or degree of self control he might have in stressful situations." (bkap)

If you mean to say that by government controlling ACCESS to a resouces, the results are legislated morality, your entertaining dangerous ideology. Any time a government attempts to control the behaviour or 'virtues' (however they may be arbitrarily defined) of its populace by seizing/restricting/regulating access to a product or a service is very dangerous ground indeed.

Secondly, to the remark about the confidence someone experience traveling both with and without a weapon concealed in a vehicle, that 'confidence' even if the firearm was never used or exposed IS a deterrent against crime, and it is statistically proven and emprically observable that those seeking to victimize (the bad guys) specifically seek out the easiest targets, which are those that appear weak, uncertain, or unaware. The confidence is observable, even if the reason for that assurance is NOT, and is therefore effective in itself. Some people have that confidence inherently, and some have it knowing they have a tool or other asset to defend themselves.

Finally, I would like to remind the opponents of these laws who point at criminal activity and violence as reasons why these laws are 'bad' or 'inappropriate' ... Those who fight for these freedoms are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum to those who would victimize the innocent, oppress them, and TAKE their rights. Those who fight for these freedoms, however trivial or symbolic they may seem to you, are NOT the same people who have had no respect for the rule of law in the first place, and THEY are they threat to your freedoms and peace of mind.

Posted by bwamelissa on 08/27/2010 at 6:28 PM

Re: “Guest Commentary

Congrats Ken. Finally a fair write up on your efforts and AZCDL, and recognition of your contributions to freedom. I'm happy for you, and everyone who worked so hard for what we have taken back. I'm glad to see an author also who recognizes the rights of the individual, protected by our constitution, and understands that liberty lends itself towards life. Thank you for your fairness Johnathan, and a well written to the point summary of our states (and citizens) recently recovered freedoms.

Posted by bwamelissa on 08/26/2010 at 10:39 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation