.
Feedback

Letter to the Editor: I Voted for Obama But Not for Gun Control

"There is no right more important to me than that granted by the Second Amendment because, philosophically at least, unfettered gun ownership truly represents power to the people."

 

Many of my friends consider me a leftist. As evidence, they point to the fact that Barack Obama was my choice in the last two presidential elections. I certainly am left enough to think that crime has paid – and paid well – for many unprosecuted executives of corporations, Wall Street and the banking industry.  I think Obamacare does not go far enough to provide health insurance that is the right of all. But the only way the government will ever get my gun is, as Charlton Heston so famously said: “You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands.”

I am a hunter and enjoy shooting skeet and at targets but that is not why I oppose additional controls on firearms ownership except, perhaps, for expanding the requirements for background checks. My constitutionally guaranteed right to own a firearm and, for that matter, equip it with a 30-round magazine if I wish is integral to my status as a free citizen of a free country. There is no right more important to me than that granted by the Second Amendment because, philosophically at least, unfettered gun ownership truly represents power to the people. It signifies that my government recognizes that it is aware that the responsible and able citizen has the right and wherewithal to protect his or her rights and, if necessary, protect the nation. Trite, perhaps, but true is what a bumper sticker popular among gun owners proclaims: "If there was gun control in 1775, we would all be British subjects.” 

Speaking of Britain, it is virtually impossible for the ordinary subject there to have a firearm for self-defense. But you can bet your boots that the lords and ladies and other persons of privilege can pack heat if they wish. That is usually the way it is in countries with tight gun control. I am not adverse to the requirement that I have a permit for carrying a handgun on my person. I will not register long guns and the government has no business knowing what guns I own, period.

Not all law enforcement, by the way, favors stronger gun control. I think back to a dark, snowy night where there was a disturbance on the woods road near my home and a lone trooper who responded asked me to grab my shotgun and accompany me while he investigated.

I am sick of smug liberal commentators, who could not survive outside of their comfortable urban cocoons, smirking at gun ownership. They betray woeful lack of knowledge about firearms and firearms laws, such as equating a carry permit with a license to have a gun. They inhabit an elitist, urban bubble that leaves them culturally deprived when it comes to how the rest of us live. I stopped watching Fox News eons ago. Since the Newtown tragedy, I no longer watch MSNBC, either. I am tired of wealthy oligarchs like Mayor Bloomberg telling the masses how to live, what soda to drink and crying about how guns create crime in his city. If he wanted to walk his talk, he would disarm his bodyguards. 

I am against virtually any new gun control measures because they are only the beginning. The gun grabbers do not want control. They want elimination of private firearms ownership. There is no better example of their intent than the bill proposed by Connecticut State Senator Ed Meyer that would limit gun ownership to single-shot firearms, making possession of guns that fire multiple rounds a crime. Meyer needs to add provisions to his bill providing funds for more police to enforce it and more prisons to house me and the others like me who would defy it and thus be classed as felons if it became law. His bill only provides fodder for extreme right wing visions of jackbooted enforcers breaking down doors to seize the guns of law-abiding citizens. It irks me no end that I voted for the guy.

I am secretary of a rod and gun club, many of whose members think President Obama has horns, to put it mildly, and not only because they view him as anti-gun. Since Obama first ran for office, I have argued with them his case for greatness. Now, I fear I will have to consume my own words in front of my fellow sportsmen. I pray that Vice President Biden and President Obama realize that, like me, many of their supporters revere the Second Amendment.  I was a Democrat who turned Republican because my party had fallen under the rule of special interests. I quit the Republicans because the party is dominated by oligarchs using Tea Party dupes to work their evil. I should note that I have allowed my NRA membership to expire because I believe that that organization now exists to promote right wing causes and is no longer focused solely, as in the past, on keeping America a “nation of riflemen.” I hope my president does not create a situation that will force me to pay dues to the NRA once again.

Edward R. Ricciuti

Killingworth, CT 

Tim Smith January 16, 2013 at 07:05 pm
Big K,
The 2nd Ammendment was written by the very same men that had just fought a Revolutionary War against the British Army. They wanted to make sure that "We the Pepole" had "Arms" to defend the country and the constitution, they fought their war with the same weapons that the British were using against them, had the technology existed in 1775, I'm sure both sides would have been using the most effective tool to defend themselves. I understand that 200 years can make memories of war on our home soil hard to imagine, or just go back 150 years, or so ago, the people that fought in those wars brought the guns that they had at their disposal... If you don't think that a government would turn on it's own citizens, just look at the atrocities commited by Germany during WWII, if you say, that could never happen here, ask a Japanese US Citizen what their government did to them during the war...
Brigid January 16, 2013 at 07:12 pm
So if I decide to purchase a cache of automatic rifles, who will win in a fight between me and the government? Me with the rifles or them with the nuclear weapons, drones, fighter planes, etc?
Tim Smith January 16, 2013 at 07:19 pm
It seems that for the past decade a bunch of nomadic people who lived in mud huts and caves have been holding their own pretty well against our troops (and prior to us being there, the Russians tried).... So well, in fact that we're "thowing in the towel" and have let them know we're leaving their country.
Michael Hayes (Editor) January 16, 2013 at 07:24 pm
Just stepping in here because I've heard PDY's theory mentioned quite a bit and I think it's an interesting one to consider. So, here goes: If one assumes that half of the country has arms, that's 150+ million people. I find it hard to believe that anyone could beat an army of 150+ million people. Plus, who's pushing the button to fire the nuclear weapon or to control the drone? A U.S. soldier? The likelihood that he'd take up arms for a country at war with its own people is slim. So, what you have left is Congress, or other talking heads in Washington with the remote control to detonate an atom bomb. How many of us are confident they could pull it off?
Rob Proctor January 16, 2013 at 07:24 pm
I would simply suggest that "Big K" and "PDY" both take some time to figure out the difference between a SEMI-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon (a.k.a. machine gun). Just because the gun is black and looks like a military AR-15 does not make it an automatic weapon. It makes you look really ignorant when you chime in and your level of understanding is this lacking. Here's a hint for you... Neither of the weapons used in Newtown or Colorado recently were automatic weapons. They were however, both AR-15 style SEMI-automatic weapons. An automatic weapon fires, typically between 400 & 1000 rounds per minute. A semi-automatic weapon fires every time the trigger is pulled, but only one shot per trigger pull.
Today, I did not find Pres. Obama's remarks totally unreasonable, other than his giving the murder for entertainment media a free pass, but then again they were big donors. I'm willing to be reasonable and compromise as a gun owner. But my point is here that it's hard to have a thoughtful dialog when people like "Big K" are so clueless about what they are talking about!
Scott Wheeler January 16, 2013 at 07:41 pm
Hollywood also received pork from the tax deal, tax cuts. People really need to stop giving hollywood business, such a crap group of people who only care about themselves.
Brigid January 16, 2013 at 07:53 pm
Tim Smith, surviving is not the same as thriving. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have died directly and indirectly from the war. When the constitution was written, everyone had the same type of weapons. That is just not so today.
Ex-Democrat January 16, 2013 at 08:27 pm
To pdy. All right lets look at it your way. The text of meyers bill is right there in that post the repubs put out a few days ago and it literally says it bans everything that can fire more than one shot. Thats right it even bans deer rifles revolvers and old cowboy guns. At first I thought it sounded so stupid that it had to be some stunt the repubs were pulling but I looked it up and saw it was true with my own eyes. The last i checked they stopped making single shot guns when they stopped making flintlocks which means if meyers gets his way you just told me to break the law when you said i can have my pistols and shotguns . So please explain to me in your own words why banning deer rifles revolvers and old cowboy guns will stop crazy people from shooting up schools with assault weapons because that is exactly what you just said you think it will do.
Good grief what part of people need to wake up and realize we are just being fed mindless propaganda from the democrats am i not explaining properly?
helen h January 16, 2013 at 08:40 pm
When the 2nd amendment was established the musket was the most popular rifle, Today the most popular rifle is the ar-15. Almost 4 million of them. 273 rifles were used in muders in a country of over 330 million people last year. .01 % of all murders used an ar-15. Thats 1/10 of 1 percent .Statistically negligable. The amount of muders using rifles have DROPPED every year since the assault weapon ban expired in 1994. Clueless demonazation of a piece of steel that is statistically used in almost no murders is ridiculous and simply hysterics by the uninformed. Learn your facts, emotionalism is useless in a factual debate. And before you try using dead kids for an agenda is shameless and a deflection of the whole picture
Ex-Democrat January 16, 2013 at 08:49 pm
Good question. Let's ask the cubans vietnamese rhodesians poles romanians egyptians libyans and syrians if a bunch of poorly armed guys can overthrow a government armed with tanks and fighter planes.
Brigid January 16, 2013 at 08:50 pm
Mr. Proctor, I apologize for not being up on the proper gun terminology, but that is no reason to call me ignorant. It is akin to a writer (me) calling someone ignorant because he miss-spelled a word in a post.
helen h January 16, 2013 at 09:01 pm
Great letter Mr Ricciutti, you should run against Ed Meyer for state senator. I have $500 for you if and when you announce.
helen h January 16, 2013 at 09:03 pm
Actually I have $500 for anyone that ends up running against our idiot senator.
madison mom January 16, 2013 at 09:46 pm
The 2nd amendment has been recently upheld by the supreme court and even strenghtened further. I dont believe "muskets" were anywhere in that recent decision lol. Try again. The stupidity and dishonesty of some of these anti gun zealots is astounding
Brigid January 16, 2013 at 09:58 pm
Dear Gun Enthusiasts: Having a debate is one thing, but making snide remarks and calling people ignorant, stupid, etc has never been effective in changing peoples' minds on any issue. I'll quote the old saying, "You attract more flies with honey than with bees", though for the life of me I can't understand why someone would want to collect flies in the first place.
madison mom January 16, 2013 at 10:09 pm
After this debate well revisit the abortion debate again
Ex-Democrat January 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm
You will have to excuse us if we appear angry but the reason for that is because we are angry. If a politician said you should be held responsible for crime even though you did not even have an overdue library book against you and hordes of people were perfectly happy that the government was about to hurt you and a lot of other innocent people just as long as they did not get hurt themselves you would be angry too.
Actually why arent you angry? Meyers lied through his teeth to you too when he told you he was only going to ban assault weapons to get you to support it when he was fully intending to ban deer rifles cowboy guns and pretty much everything except flintlocks. Is that the kind of politician you want representing you?
Brigid January 16, 2013 at 10:33 pm
LOL, Madison Mom.
Big K January 16, 2013 at 11:11 pm
I served 11 years with the U.S. Military and I know my weapons Mr Rob Proctor. I suggest you yourself to read what you write "difference between a SEMI-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon (a.k.a. machine gun). They are both automatic assault weapons, no matter what You call them. " if it looks like a Pig and Squeals like a Pig, it must be a Pig"
Tim Smith January 16, 2013 at 11:38 pm
My comments are not being shown. .. First Amendment not allowed, either??
Big K January 17, 2013 at 12:22 am
Mr Rob Proctor "I would simply suggest"
YOU read the definition below prior to making any comments. You are the one that is clueless. Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON : any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially: assault rifle First Known Use of ASSAULT WEAPON 1973
Sgt bilco January 17, 2013 at 02:36 am
There is no such thing as an assaultvweapon for civilians. Your being dishonest
Daniella Ruiz January 17, 2013 at 03:19 am
considering the communications needed to collectively support a 'public response', even to act in any coherent manner is ludicrous. cell phones have replaced much hard wired systems, even those would be 'terminated' by our govt brutes as their first means of hobbling any popular revolt. internet and tweets likewise, those options 'to disable' are already 'in place' to be acted upon on authority by high level national security commands.
radio comms disruption and 'detection of sources' is common first year tactical training for the basic intel officers and grunts, and they have the most advanced means to do so, here or in any other 'theatre'. what may seem like a great advantage in numbers, armed civilians would be decimated by the disciplined trained units we have in the force, as once they sense their own life is endangered, they will kill, not out of loyalty, & but for simple self survival. where the USA has misjudged, is the capacity of criminal organizations to effectively perform their business WITH complicit civilian cooperation, mostly out of desire for drugs, contraband and with the use of ILLEGAL guns of ANY SORT. (see following comment for continuation)
Daniella Ruiz January 17, 2013 at 03:21 am
part two>>
that segment of society (criminals) , does not adhere to what is being promoted as 'gun control', in the way these legal blabbermouths seem to think. they are already 'on the other side' and have no desire to accommodate or cede any profit or gain from use of illegal and tactical methods of manipulating the people who actually are peaceful (the nice folks that work, play nice and don't beat each other to hell) . criminals thrive on creating fear, anxiety and pursue any means (including political/financial corruption) to seek their ends. the few imbeciles that hyper-react by mass murdering innocents are few, but seem to find the media as a foolish associate with only one goal, to increase their market share and visibility.
Big K January 17, 2013 at 03:28 pm
Sgt bilco. Iagree with you and I never mentioned "assaultvweapon for civilians" so why do you state "Your being dishonest"???
Tim Smith January 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.
These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children. Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heroes” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts. We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen. Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Tim Smith January 18, 2013 at 10:37 pm
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.
As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for “our safety”.
Tim Smith January 18, 2013 at 10:38 pm
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We cannot legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it. And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power- governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Tim Smith January 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves...
Willow February 17, 2013 at 04:30 pm
I do not know enough to make a reasonable argument either way, but I do know one thing...I never want to see repeat of what happened in Newington again. Nor, am I a proponent of taking away anymore rights from Americans. But, this could have been us, the question at hand is: What do we need to do to prevent this from ever happening again? How do you stop someone with so much firepower? I do think that this man had massacre on his mind and would have found away even if he could not get his hands on these weapons. They just made it easier for him, but he could have maybe found a way to blow the school up or set it on fire causing even more carnage. It seems we're are only focusing on one solution, banning these guns, are there not multiple issues at play here? How could no one know, this man was so unglued? Why aren't these WMD's stored in a steel case under lock and key when not in the hands of their owners? Once something is banned, it is gone for good, so I understand the frustration of owners. What in their opinions are alternative solutions to this type of violence? If you own these guns, do you take measures to make sure no one can get to them? Is this in the law? If not, should it be? Could anyone address?

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Durham-Middlefield Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Cindi Dale Pietrzyk June 18, 2013 at 07:40 am
Hi Jean! Where are you located?
Lisa Sattler Biesak June 18, 2013 at 09:56 pm
still available? if so, when can i take a look at it?
Jean Fairchild June 19, 2013 at 10:13 am
Our phone number is 860-349-8770, we are on Oak Terrace Durham.
nana of 5 June 14, 2013 at 02:34 pm
Dr Perrin is a great doctor. I hated to see him leave the Middlesex family practice in durham. AfterRead More he left they never really got anyone to fill his shoes. All the best at St Francis