Keep and Bear Arms Home Page
This article was printed from
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit

A/C Ignoring Scandal at Emory?

From: "Ross, Ken" <>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:07:25 -0500
Subject: Guns Commentary

Dear Editor,

In regard to the "Guns, guns, too many guns" commentary you posted:

Now while Mr. Contreras is completely entitled to his opinion (guaranteed by the 1st Amendment) I need to remind him that it is because of freedom loving patriots back in the 1700's who originally fought for that right and thousands more patriots ever since. Those first people were ordinary citizens, much like he or myself, rising up against the tyranny of government, in this case, British Government.

Currently in the U.S. there are 31, if not a couple more, states that are "shall-issue." That means if you obtain a pistol permit, you have a legal right to carry. Since those states adopted such law, there have not been any "shootouts" as described, nor have there been mass murders by lawful permit holders.

Now let's look at some other claims by Mr. Contreras:

Airplanes - Please see this article: With today's ammunition technology, it is highly unlikely for a bullet to penetrate the airplane's fuselage. There's a wonderful comment regarding the one case that a bullet hole in an airplane caused a catastrophic event which depressurized the entire cabin and sucked the contents was the movie called Goldfinger.

From the commentary: 

"Whom does the Constitution protect ---- a wife who needs protection from a gun-carrying, violent husband, or the husband? Gun nuts say the husband." 

Not so. As a lawful citizen interested in my right to self defense, or as you call me 'gun nut,' it is not fair to say a violent husband is gun carrying. Spousal abuse is an awful thing and any harm that comes to someone that feels better after beating his wife gets whatever is coming to them...preferably in 9mm doses. We do not condone spousal abuse, nor ever will. It is our intent to make sure that when a woman goes to get a firearm to protect herself, she is fully capable of doing it. Your argument simply looks at the negative end of the right to self defense.

While Dick Olsen acted with complete disregard for public safety, it is not the fault of gun owners across the U.S.. He should be charged and tried just as any other citizen.

If Mr. Contreras is so afraid of guns and doesn't want them in his life, then I suggest he doesn't get one. It is not his place, nor anyone's for that matter, to tell me that I cannot own the means to defend myself and my family.

Ken Ross
Molon Labe

To Get Your Letters Printed Here
Click here and read submission guidelines.