Comments for Another Poster Child for the NRA at http://atlanticfreepress.com , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://atlanticfreepress.com Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:12:07 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-8789 Mike Wells Said Mike your comments were intelligent and well spoken until you got to the point where you defended the rights of the idiots that made threats against the life of the lady that wrote the original piece. There is no defense for them no matter what organization they may belong to. With 4,000,000 members you can bet some of them are going to be nut bags that have no business having fire arms. Anyone that was stupid enough to email her a death threat may face federal prosecution and loose their right to own any fire arm. Imagine the irony in that. So what this guy was a part time deputy and he killed some people. Recently a doctor in New York hired a killer to killer her husband. I write about homicides all over this county and there are a lot of them. A few of them though not nearly the number claimed by some NRA members are even law abiding citizens defending themselves or others, there called justifiable homicides. The NRA does not deserve to be trashed they have done a lot of good. Personally I think we go a little over board with some of the weapons people have but hey I also agree that the people that lay out several thousand for a 50 cal. are not out committing crimes with it. Problem is some of these weapons are being stolen and ending up in the hands of gangs. How the heck are cops supposed to defend themselves against a 50 cal? Hasn't happened but it will. Oh well very well written piece until you tried to defend these shit head that threatened a woman because they didn't like what she said. I'm an NRA supporter but I'm a person that hates a chicken shit coward! So any of you big bad boys that feel tough making email threats to a woman want step up and get a piece of this old soldier take your best shot. Sounds like most of you your best shot would be from a distant at my back!!!!!!! Damn I hate cowardly chicken shits! - Doyle Wheeler Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:22:02 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-4850 I can't believe you can keep your job after writing something like that!!!! - Todd Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:57:24 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-4712 With that comment and your derogatory remarks about the NRA, you tell everyone that reads your trash what you are really all about. How did you determine that those who alledgedly threatened anyone was White? My guess it's just another example of what how you do business. You can try to make yourself look like a concerned citizen but the truth shines through. I am forwarding your column to as many people as I can as an example of what a true cowards and idiots, the anti gun fanatics are. You have no idea what you are saying it's obvious and you didn't do much research either. What we know about you and your publication is that you hate white males and anyone that stands up for their 2nd Amendment Rights! And by the way, I know the First Amendment rather well......and in my opinion it doesn't cover yellow journalism like Stahl's article or your comments at the top of this page. The imagery you used was also a falsehood. The NRA only defends a gun owners rights from being stolen by groups such as yours. The 2nd Amendment was written by our founding fathers....but I guess you just see them as enablers, huh? - T.L. Kiser, Sr Sun, 09 Mar 2008 15:25:56 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-4106 It is interesting that only the people that commit crimes with guns is reported in the headlines, but the many instances of people that stop crimes or protect them selfs with a weapon is seldom (if ever) reported in the headlines. It is also interesting that in the UK a person was shot in the head by police that do not carry guns. Police shoot 27-year-old Jean Charles de Menezes seven times in the head.... http://www.rationalreview.com/content/37823 - MIke Phillips Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:52:39 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-3573 As a political science major, I study the constitution and the founding fathers opinions on that document with some regularity. The First Amendment does NOT protect opinion, nor does it guarantee anyone the right to speak as they will. What it does guarantee is protection for political dissidents against the Federal Governments powers of censure. Think the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams. Those laws reflected those of ancient Rome, making it illegal to speak out in opposition to the Federal Congress, the major powerhouse of the era. So to express your opposition against the Federal Government was against the law at the time. However, these laws were thrown out under Jefferson as they were "unconstitutional." But, time and time again, the Supreme Court has ruled that offensive, slanderous, or libelous words are completely illegal, and that speech codes are completely acceptable. There is, in fact, an entire battery of words that you cannot say in public, without facing some kind of fine. Look at Mr. Imus or Dwayne "The Dog" Chapman. One was fired, and one is looking at losing his television show, over a WORD that some find offensive. Opinions are no more protected against other citizens than the wind is driven by giant birds that hover over the poles. If the Federal Government was coming down and saying that Ms. Stahl was to be censored, you would be correct to whip out the Constitution and point out their error. When other citizens say she is misplaced, or foolish, that holy document offers you no protection. If you are so concerned about people having the right to their opinions, then the opinions of those who wrote in to Ms. Stahl, even the idiots who threatened her life, are protected as well, and you have done them a disservice by calling them on it, as they called you. The entire Bill of Rights is Holy, from the Freedom of Political Speech, to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, to the Right to be Safe in your Person, the Right Not To Be Searched By a Cop Who Is Having A Bad Day, to the Right Not to Self-Incriminate, all the way to the last, the Tenth, that states that any right not found explicitly laid out or enumerated in the Constitution lies within the power of the States and the People. Let's not look at the morality of the thing, but the LEGALITY. And, according to our Constitution, the most stable governing contract ever written by the hands of man, we Americans have an inalienable right to own, possess, carry, arm ourselves, and defend ourselves against tyranny or oppression in all it's fine forms, the firearms the Ms. Stahl argues against. That she is entitled to her opinion cannot be argued. That her opinion is protected by the First Amendment is questionable. That her opinion is correct, well, that is up to each of the readers to decide. - Mike Willis Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:49:00 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-3548 Ca, ca, can't we all just get along? - Rodney Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:36:47 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-3422 I read your article on the police article and a couple of others, directed at Hillory C. and the President. You're quite good at penpointing some very serious issues. Thank you. I agree with all that you said (time to drop the other shoe), but it would seem that you would have seperated the NRA's stances and the murders by the off-duty officer. I say that in my limited literary experience. The tragedy of the murders fairly speaks for itself and your ability to bring light to issues connected to the crime might well have been more directed to screening of officer recruits, training, mental health support, etc. of our law enforcement officers. The NRA like any other organization has a very broad agenda. Might it not be more prudent to point out both the good and the bad aspects of the NRA and not throw the baby out with the bath water? They have done some very good things in being proactive on gun safety for those who may choose to defend their own home, business, family members. The other issues might be addressed seperately and not raise ire and alienate some of the very people whom you wish to convert to your side of the issue. Your style is up front and thought provoking. Thank you for bringing up some burning issues to your readers. Hopefully, they will take some of your good and use it when they go to the ballot box. I will continue to read some of the other editorials you've written and may be able to use them in my class. You may not be a favorite to some, but I'll bet you have your following. Yes, our governments (plural, referring to local, county, state and federal) have some huge problems, but they also have a huge following that still believes in the Constitution. Many of us just want to follow the fabled American Dream and live our lives in peace and safety. Unfortunately, there are those predators that depend on that and use our good faith in our system to commit their crimes, taking advantage of others. Keep on them, Ms. Stahl, and expose those to the light, part of our hope is that good people, like you, will foil their graft and help America to heal its wounds before too many are hurt. Just a bit more. Please spend some effort on shining some light on the good things people and organizations do. It is such a drag to constantly be bombarded with doom and gloom when there is so much good going on that is ignored by the media. Perhaps some might see the good as efforts of propaganda to cover up some of the more dasterdly events, but reflect for a moment what effect all that negetivity might be having on our youth, they might think evil and bad in normal. I don't think it is. - John Cochran Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:34:51 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-3253 Statistically NRA members have lower crime rates than police offices. Maybe if all police were NRA life members their numbers would improve. I have carry permits in four states and I can assure you if I was present during this incident or the Virginia Tech tragedy there would have been fewer victims. Why do authors like this preach that it’s wrong to judge people because of their beliefs unless it comes to firearms ownership? - NRA life member Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:43:56 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-3182 [url]http://www.pinkpistols.us[/url] If Wisconsin (and Illinois) joined the other 48 states and allowed concealed carry for self defence, there might not be 6 dead victims. In deed, there might have been just one dead attacker. Not that the liberal left would ever admit this. But in general, those of us to take the time and expense to get a CCW permit, are generally much more law-abiding than the public at large. - Big Gay Al Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:48:06 +0100 http://atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/2576-another-poster-child-for-the-nra.html#comment-3163 off-duty cops carry guns because cops are never really off duty. If, on his way home from work, a cop sees an armed robbery in progress and doesn't do anything about it, and if his superiors find out he saw it happen and did nothing, that off-duty cop is in deep doo doo. Off-duty cops carry guns because they never know when they're going to be confronted by someone they arrested and sent to prison or by someone they beat up in the back of a squad car. Off-duty cops carry guns because it's the smart thing to do. So do district attorneys and judges and other such types. Cops and district attorneys and judges, furthermore, don't need permits to carry concealed weapons. If I was a judge and someone told me I had to go about in public unarmed, I'd quit my job. You would, too, in that situation, if you were smart. - Jimmy Montague Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:42:49 +0100