I was going to write and publish the Part Two of my piece on Disarming Veterans, but then I read my local blatt, and it seems that their "sweet little old lady" historian has joined the ranks of the screaming gun-banners, so I took the time to write an Op-Ed for the paper she publishes in instead of the Part Two. I'll get to that Part Two shortly.
Here is her Op-Ed (sorry about it being sideways, print it out and read it like a newspaper). No, you can't link it, my local blatt is a low-budget publication, and they haven't put Friday's Editorial stuff online yet.
Here is my reply, as emailed to the blatt:
This letter is in reply to Sharon Nesbit's op-ed piece of 12/28/2012 in the Outlook. Please consider publishing this letter it in it's entirety as an Op-Ed.
Most of us don't write very well in the "tirade" format. I've tried, but all editors who have ever worked with my screeds say they would be better in some other format. I guess the Outlook Editors all gave Ms. Nesbit a pass because she has published a book of "tirades", so you probably consider her an expert in the genre.
I was going to ask to join her "conversation on Gun Control", but then, upon my second reading, I noted that she never invited any replies or "conversation", so I will have to be content with trying to dig out her points and suggesting improvements.
Her first point is that the National Rifle Association is an accessory to numerous murders. She has used a legal term there, and she needs to watch using legal terms. The NRA now owns Ms. Nesbit if it wants to sue her, but I'll satisfy myself by pointing out that she has never accused the National Automobile Dealers Assn of being "accessory" to any of the thousands of deaths using the cars they rep, the drivers of which which were later ruled culpable (drunk driving). Nor has she so accused the National Marine Manufacturer's Assn, an umbrella org for boat manufacturers, of any similar crime, although products they push are responsible for many culpable deaths every year.
Her next point: "Clackamas Town Center was barely over when we did it again." (My emphasis added). I'm not sure just what your reference to "we" was, Ms. Nesbit, but I am offended that you paint us all of us as deranged killers. I have had no part in any of the killings you mentioned, and I doubt that you have had either. I won't sue you like the NRA might, but I think an apology for your intemperate accusation is certainly in order here.
Her third main point seems to be that those who bought semi-auto military-style rifles recently are somehow on the same level as the mass-killers. I didn't buy one, but I'm offended anyway, because the recent purchasing of those rifles by folks who have desired one is a perfectly-normal reaction to the hysterical screaming of the gun-ban zealots who are now in full cry to ban those rifles. My reply to Ms. Nesbit is, why would any rational person believe that a killer with unlimited time to plan a horrible crime such as this would not do the crime if semi-auto rifles or pistols weren't available? He could have attacked a full school bus by pushing it off a cliff with a large truck, but do we hear calls for banning large trucks (or fortifying school buses)?
I completely agree with Ms. Nesbit's final point: write your political representatives to express your outrage. My outrage is that the deaths of all these people are being used as a political tool to try to destroy an enumerated Civil Right, the right to keep and bear arms. The "security of a free State" (ours) is indeed threatened here, but it is NOT threatened by those who lawfully own arms, arms of any type. It is threatened by those who feel it appropriate to tear down the only Civil Right that stands by and for itself, and the only Civil Right upon which all the other Civil Rights depend for survival. Without the Second Amendment, our Constitution and it's Bill of Rights are mere scraps of paper which any politician could ignore without peril. With the Second Amendment, permitting military-style weapons as it does, those who consider themselves our political masters and betters HAVE that peril, they KNOW that peril, and that is why we are still free. Look carefully at those who want to remove or restrict the Second Amendment. If you look closely enough, you will probably find that there are other Amendments which those people would destroy as soon as they have destroyed the Second.