Another Anti from Beverly Hills

[hi-power]

Thank goodness the ivory towered-people are watching over us!

(My comments in brown)

Let's lay down our right to bear arms

POSTED: 11:25 a.m. EDT, April 20, 2007
By Tom Plate
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, is a professor of communication and policy studies at UCLA. He is author of a new book, "Confessions of an American Media Man."

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.. Right here is where I believe the root of the problem is for most liberals. I ain't buying the "most days" bit either. They hate America 24/7/365.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America. Wow! They feel like they're in a movie? All of them?

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down. So what's the problem?

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one. Liberals also never get it that without the orange, the apples can be easily taken away.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much. Here it comes. Wait for it...

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor. No normal person believes the shooter shot Americans because he was Korean. Next.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun. And there it is. Those inanimate little pieces of steel and plastic shot all those people. Good Lord, he didn't even acknowledge the shooter as the person who carried the terrible guns into the buildings where they did their damage!

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor. People who disagreed with that stupid gun ban are not even real people. They were the "well-armed U.S. gun lobby".

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens . (Oh! There's the real people..."ordinary citizens") told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments. Don't be alarmed...I think we made the Immature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments!

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens. Professor John Lott would like a word with you, Nancy.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities. Doy!!

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible. Another example of the ease with which one can purchase guns in New York...wait a minute. Guns are banned in New York, aren't they? Why yes, they are. The assassin was apparently lucid enough to buy his gun in Hawaii and travel all the way to New York, (illegally), to do the deed.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), (Barf!) he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him? Oh, this guy was in control of the gun? The gun wasn't running the show like the VT incident you mentioned above?

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings. Yeah, we've heard of it.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head. He's not Korean? You definitely know that? Or is that some cheap way of continuing your thread of perceived racism throughout your entire little diatribe here?

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns. And here we are at the end, and we couldn't be farther apart on the solution.

What is your take on this commentary? E-mail us Let him have it!

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.

[kauboy]

I had a feeling I might push the allowed limit. It won't let me send my response because its too big. I may size it down in order to do so, but I felt its entirety should reside somewhere. Why not here?

My response to the rather pompous commentator:
I normally don't give my real information in these things, but on this, I feel I must. I will not cower behind an anonymous screen name.

Sir, this commentary is simply and plainly wrong! You rely solely on the fear and heartache of the victims and their families to pass this awful solution as being right for the country.
The lives lost on that terrible day were taken by an evil person's actions. Not the weapons in his hands. I carry a gun on my hip everyday (concealed, per state law). That may frighten you, but that is of little concern to me because you will never know I have it with me. It will never be used against you, or in any crime whatsoever. I would be able to walk right up to you, strike up a conversation, chat a while, and both of us would walk away with a smile, because I am a very cordial person who gives respect to all who deserve it.
You will never know that you were less than five feet from a fully loaded .40 caliber handgun, because it will never be produced.
The simple idea behind my decision to carry my firearm is for protection from those who would commit horrendous crimes against me or my family.
If all guns were banned, being a law abiding citizen, I would not have this option, and would have to result to giving in to every demand that an assailant made. What if the perpetrator that mugged you had wanted more? What if he wanted to take you inside, tie you up, destroy your house, take what he wanted, and then set it on fire with you inside? I know that seems far fetched, but is has happened, and you have no idea what is going on in the mind of a criminal. Would you simply let him do this?
I sure wouldn't! He has no authority. The gun in his hand does not give him any power over me. In his hand, it is simply an intimidation technique. That's why he had a laser on it, to intimidate you. Honestly, from arms length, do you think he needed a laser? Most likely you were staring down the barrel of a $20 BB gun with a $5 laser pointer attached. Again, possibly far-fetched, but it has happened.

Your wish for an outright ban on all guns would undoubtedly throw this country into the same situations that countries, whom have enacted such policies, around the world now suffer from. Higher crime rates, increases in violent crime, and a criminal underground that has no fear of retaliation from their victims. I don't wish to live in fear my entire life. The gun on my hip levels the playing field when an attacker produces their weapon. It also tilts the advantage slightly in my favor, because he isn't expecting an armed and ready victim.

Sir, I do understand your distaste for firearms. Believe me, there are many things that others find enjoyable that I do not. And that is fine. But please, for the love of God and country, don't assume that because you loathe them, and you see them in the news all the time, that they should be taken away from everyone. Firearm related deaths account for about 8/10ths of 1 percent (%0.8) of deaths in this country. If your honest goal is to save lives, take up a more worthy cause. Start parading a ban against automobiles. They claim far more lives per year and we hear nothing of the astonishing losses. Yes, I am being somewhat satirical, but I believe the point is proven. If your goal is to save lives, removing firearms should not be at the top of your list.

You may wish to label me a "gun nut", and I don't mind. If classifying me into a category of people that you find appalling makes you feel better, then by all means, have at it. It won't affect me one bit.
However, I do ask that you also see me as a fellow citizen. Someone who deserves the same freedoms as yourself. Our Constitution, which you seem to only enjoy bits and pieces of, does indeed contain an amendment that ensures that I may carry a weapon for the potential defense of my country, but more importantly, for the defense of myself. Though you may consider this a barbaric clause, there is no denying that it is a necessity. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that this country would always have the means to defend itself, even if the military failed to do so. I find amazing wisdom in the ideas of our founding fathers. They knew that even though it may never be necessary for the citizens to defend their country, if ever a time came that it must be done, weapons in the hands of able bodied Americans would prove to be a force so strong, no enemy could quell it.
That sir, is the true reason for the 2nd Amendment, and why the banning of firearms would inevitably prove to be our country's downfall.

Best regards and wishes,
-Tim

[Will]

Wow....very nicely spoken.

[wjmphoto]

Well, the first thing I am going to say is that the author of the article is guilty of the same knee jerk reaction that is to be expected from the press in general. He is also guilty of pandering to the people that would deny us many of our rights, not just our right to bear arms. These same people would deny us of our right to freedom of speech and call it political correctness, deny us of our right to peaceable assembly for the same reason, and deny us of everything that they disagree with. The real problem with most so-called liberals is that they want to appear progressive in their beliefs when they fall back upon the same tactics of forcing others to bend to their wishes by legislating any speech, behavior or beliefs that they disagree with out of existence and making criminals of dissenters.

I will further state that these people are only liberals in name (thus the reason for calling them so-called) in the first place. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal; the founding fathers themselves were liberals to the bone. They put forth new ideas of government, new ideas of tolerance by the government and even more radical ideas about human kinds rights in regards to religion, speech and just about everything else. It was their liberalism that made them criminals in the eyes of the crown (a bastion of conservatism if there ever was one).

Let’s face it; the basis of this nation, the Constitution, is a liberal document to its very core. It is this document that makes me a liberal in every sense of the word. It is this document that allows people to believe and worship as they wish rather than bowing down to whatever dogma the crown or government forces upon us. It is this document that gives us very liberal freedoms in the way we are governed, elect our leaders and establish our system of justice. The idea that one is innocent until proven guilty is a liberal idea, especially when compared to the legal system of the founding father’s time as well as when compared to much of the world’s legal systems in which you are assumed to be guilty and given little chance to defend yourself.

So yes, I am a liberal in many things, in no small part, because of the very document that gives us our freedoms and established our nation. Liberal is not a dirty word, unless you believe that the liberals who wrote the constitution were evil men for bucking against the status quo and choosing to not be conservative in their beliefs.

No, the writer of this article is not a liberal in any sense of the word because he is not tolerant of those who believe differently than he does and does not value the very foundation upon which this nation was established. If anything, he is a mockery of the great liberal men who fought to establish a free nation made up of freethinkers who are not constrained by narrowness of thought and purpose. To call Mr. Plate a liberal is an insult to the great liberal thinkers who founded this nation as well as those who came even before them and established the liberal philosophies upon which our founding fathers based our version of government and the freedoms that it grants us.

So please stop referring to these fascist writers and sycophants who would force their beliefs upon us as liberals as they are not in any way shape or form liberal in their politics or beliefs. The definition of liberalism is, after all, a society with an emphasis on individual rights, that values freedom of thought, limitations on power, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. (All of these are embodied in the Constitution itself!) Most of the people who are referred to as liberals are really socialists and fascists, not liberals.

[alabama]

What these people do not understand is that there are bad people in this world. If a gun were not available it would be something else (for example - NC State student runs down folks with a car) If this person did not have a gun it would have been a chain saw, knife, bomb, poison or some other thing. Wasn't it Mark Twain that said "an armed society is a polite society"?

[stroo]

The deadliest school massacre in our history was a bomb. The first recorded school massacre in the late 1700s during Pontiac's war was by Indians who I believe used knives and tomahawks. The deadliest massacre in our nation's history was by commercial airliner. The second most deadly, OK City, was by bomb.

[romcneil]

Alabama said: "Wasn't it Mark Twain that said "an armed society is a polite society"?"

No. It was another famous author, the Science Fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein who wrote this statement.

Bob