Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

143 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is her original article, and the link to it.

Let's get assault weapons off our streets
Staff Writer

A man drives downtown in Tyler and opens fire on the county courthouse steps, killing his ex-wife, an innocent bystander and wounding numerous others.

A sheriff's deputy remains in critical condition from his wounds.

Unfortunately, this story is very familiar.

It happened last Thursday afternoon at the Smith County Courthouse when the shooter was due in court concerning a child custody case.

The man used an AK-47 semi-automatic assault firearm to kill his victims.

A quick check on the Internet revealed that on the same day a Los Angeles city employee shot two co-workers using the same type of gun that was used in the Tyler killings - a semi-automatic assault weapon.

Who needs a semi-automatic weapon?

I fully understand the United States Constitution allows people the right to protect themselves and their homes by owning guns.

But semi-automatic weapons?

What in the world would you kill with a semi-automatic, unless you are just purposely going hunting for other human beings?

Are you going to go out and shoot a deer with a semi-automatic?

I admit that I don't know a lot about hunting, but seems like if you use a semi-automatic there won't be much left of the very animals you're trying to take home for dinner.

Plus, animals will hear a multitude of gunfire, not just one shot.

Personally, I'm scared of guns. I will not go near them, whether they're pistols or rifles. I don't care. I have buried too many friends and family members who died from shooting incidents.

A better question to ask is, why are semi-automatic guns even manufactured?

Most large corporations are driven by the profit motive - cold, hard, green cash. It's a simple true hard fact of life.

How money-hungry and greedy does a corporation have to be to put killing machines on the streets?

In 1994, Congress banned automatic and semiautomatic weapons, but it seems there are more reports than ever about shootings involving assault weapons.

"Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry evaded it by making slight, cosmetic design changes to banned weapons-including those banned by name in the law-and continued to manufacture and sell these "post-ban" or "copycat" guns," as reported in a study by the Violence Policy Center.

In May 2003, a congressman from New York authored a bill to make it harder for gun manufacturers to make and sell the post-ban weapons.

I hope it passes. These types of weapons need to be taken off the streets once and forever.

Federal law states that automatic weapons can only be used by the military.

I can understand the military needing automatic weapons. They conduct business in war zones, where the enemy is likely to be equipped with equally powerful and destructive automatic weapons.

But on the streets of our cities right here at home?

Assault weapons have no place in America or on our streets.

It's not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind when they said we have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves.

And this is my emailed response.

A law officer's opinion of your article.

I just read your article on the shootings at Tyler and your opinons on semi automatic weapons, and I have a few questions and comments. First of all, do you even know what a semi-automatic weapon is? And do you know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic wepon? It seems from reading your article that you don't. From reading your article, I am pretty sure that your idea of a semi-automatic weapon is in reality an automatic weapon, which is a lot different. You go back and forth between using the terms semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons throughout your article, when the fact is that the weapon used in Tyler was a semi-auto weapon, not an automatic weapon. And Federal law does not say that only the military can have automatic weapons. Any person who files the proper paper work and has a clean criminal record can own any automatic weapon he or she can afford to purchase as long as they follow all ATF guidelines.

As a law enforcement officer I take great offense to our stating that no one needs semi-automatic weapons. What is it exactly that you think keeps this country free from foreign invaders as well as domestic criminals? In your aticle you make it sound as if every law abiding citizen in thsi country who owns a firearm, is a criminal and a blood thirsty maniac. I guess it never occured to you that this whacko that attacked the people in Tyler would have found a way to kill them even if every firearm on earth were destroyed. And it apparently escaped your notice that the reason this psycho's son is alive, is because of a brave selfless hero, named Mr. Wilson, who used a semi-automatic firearm to resuce the young man. You also apparently did not notice that the police used semi-automatic firearms to put an end to that miserbale bastards life. But none of the lives saved by these weapons means anything to you because it doesn't suit your agenda to write about them. It's easier for you to pretend that all firearms are for evil people and evil purposes.

And I can't believe you actually stated that people don't use semi-automatic weapons to hunt. Of ourse people hunt deer with semi auto weapons, every single day. And have for the better part of a century. What do you want people to shoot a deer with? Rocks aren't exactly an affective long range weapon. If you admittedly don't know anything about hunting, then why would you speak ignorantly on a subject you have no knowledge of?

You really dropped the ball when you said that Congress outlawed semi-automatic firarms in 1994.Congress did not in any way shape or form ban any semi-automatic weapons in 1994, or at any other time in the history of this country. What they did was ban the addition of certain cosmetic features to semi-automatic weapons, which in no way has ever had any affect on the manner in which the firearm operates, and had no impact crime in this country. It was a pointless stupid ban, but it never banned any semi-automatic weapons. Your source at the Violence Policy Center is about as biased on the subject as any group on earth, so I can't imagine why a journalist would ever use their "information" in an article. You really need to do some research and fact checking for future articles before publishing blatant lies in.

I will anxiously await your reply to my letter and any explanations you might want to provide in regards to the errors in your article.

(S.O. Interceptor)-Peace Officer and gun owner.

Premium Member
20,035 Posts
That's what we're up against boys and girls. They have no clue yet they want them all banned. :screams:

Hats off for the email back at her S.O. I may do that myself. :wink:

145,227 Posts
I Blame The NRA

Tons of our dollars pouring in to NRA coffers from American Shooters & they can't print up a simple easy to understand reference guide mailer book as to different types of various firearms complete with photo differences and definitions of each. Explanations of which ones are single shot ~ which are bolt action ~ what exactly is fully automatic. The differences between a semi~auto AK & a fully auto AK. And a simple break~down of our existing gun laws and what recent changes have taken place to those laws. It should get mailed to every newspaper editor & TV news station. That sure would help!
Then AT LEAST the NRA could publicly call the stories false & state that they (the reporters) HAVE the exact correct information but...CHOOSE not to reference it.
By not providing them with an easily understandable CORRECT firearm information source ~ we then force these gun ignorant reporters to search incorrect sources to obtain their biased story information.

5,050 Posts

Such a thing exists, the Basic Rifle Course or Basic Pistol course book. They cost $6 per and you can get as many as you would like to give to your media people. The problem is will they bother to read it and will they even understand it given their bias.

The NRA does put out counter stories, but they had to buy a news outlet to get anything out. I have experience with press releases and such, and they media will print what they want to print. Often if it disagrees with their particular bias it will never see the light of day. For some unless you have a lot of letters before or after your name it will not get printed. What makes a dentist an expert on unpaved roads is beyond me, but the local rag prints his rants on them regularly because he has PhD after his name.

Another thing we as members of the NRA can do is contact the media regularly about firearms issues and offer our assistance on any story relating to firearms to assist with accuracy. Some reporters will accept and use this and some will not. I have had writers/reporters in my pistol and rifle classes so they can learn about guns and so their stories will be accurate. My deal with them was if they were going to quote anything out of the course I asked to read it first. They were all good about that.


145,227 Posts
My Beef With The NRA

The Knife Cuts Deep with me. The $$ going in compared to the effort going out...frankly "sucks big time" :mad:
They act like a crippled, mute, elephant most of the time.
The are great for preaching to the choir & sending out "Total Panic"
"They're Going To Take Our Guns Away!!!" mail as long as it's to garner more membership fear money.
I am talking about a firearm information book specifically tailored to the press and media outlets.
Why should I provide it? I'd much rather do without the stupid "FREE" NRA hat or coffee mug & let them spend THAT money on it. :frown:
It's pathetic that the only mailboxes that they ever "flood" belong to their own members and always have a price tag attached it.
Just my personal opinion but, I sure would run things differently there.

615 Posts
Great response, bless ya for doin it! Today, journalists, like lawyers are a dime a dozen, and for both professions there's just a bunch of rotten apples out there that just don't do their homework....I mean no offense to any of our members in either profession....just gotta remember that nobody (media) talks about plumbers and bricklayers .....or prospectors for that matter!

143 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
She sent out this same email to everyone who wrote her. Bah, I feel jipped. I asked her specific questions, and got a forward.


I got a lot of response from my assault weapon opinion/edtiorial article
that ran in our paper earlier this month.

I realize that some of you may not be from Texas (I noticed that a few
emails were from other states with the sign-off signatures at the bottom.)

I have been born and raised in Texas, Dallas to be exact. I did NOT mean for
my article to indicate THAT ALL GUNOWNERS are bad and evil. I know it
depends who is holding the weapon.

But after the Tyler incident, I began having flashbacks to the night my
friend died.

It was 11 years ago. We had just graduated high school two weeks before, a
group of us were going to a party for high school 2004 graduates near
downtown Dallas. We were just going to have fun. We were teenagers. We
didn't bother nobody. We pulled into the parking lot and started to walk to
the party. Well there were some other teenagers in the parking lot, stealing
a car. As we walked to the party my friend happened to look over and saw
them. He could recognize one of the guys from our neighborhood. The kid
pulled out a weapon and began firing. It hit two of my friends. It hit one
in his main artery in his leg * he lived. My other friend was not so lucky.
He took a bullet in the back and a bullet in his side through his ribs. He
died protecting me. I was right next to him. It could have been me. I held
him as the ambulance was the way. He died on the operating hospital at
Parkland Hospital (the same hospital President John F. Kennedy was taken
to). Three weeks after graduation we buried him. We were just going to have
fun. FUN,,,,FUN,,, we were teenagers. He was scheduled to leave later that
summer for a full football scholarship to a 4-year university in Louisiana.
I vowed that day I would never ever go near a gun. (and yes I have undergone
years of counseling and prayer to move forward. It doesn't make the pain any
less painful though)

I realize that everyone with guns is not a bad person and some people do
feel safer with them. The point I was trying to make is I don't. I sometimes
wonder and ask myself what if guns had never been invented. Would my friend
still be alive. Sure the other guy could have ran and had a fist fight with
the guys or even try to cut them with a knife. We might have been able to
run into the club by the time the guys got near us if that had been the
case. My friends and I couldn't out run a bullet no matter how fast we ran.

When I want to talk to my friend. I have to go to a grave. A grave. I can't
call him up and say hi. I can't say let's go get desert or watch a movie.

I am not nieve enough to know that guns will never go away. It's like saying
rapists will go away. It doesn't mean that I have to like it.

The problem is guns wind up in the hands of the wrong people. If we didn't
have guns they couldn't wind up in their hands though.

My father has friends who own guns and other weapons. When his friends start
pulling them out to look at, load, prepare their bullets and other things I
leave the room. A friend of a friend in college was raised around guns his
whole life. He pulled out a pistol one day and played with it like it was a
children's toy plastic gun. I couldn't get out of the room fast enough. He
almost blew off part of his foot. He was twirling it around and stuff.

While I realize some of you may be like, well tough...your friend died. They
meant a lot to me. I don't expect everyone to understand. You can't
understand unless you have been there. Unless you've experienced the same

I would also like to note that this was not an article that ran on our front
page. It was an editorial/opinion/column. Which means just that. It was my
opinion. I understand you may not agree with my opinion. THAT'S OK. Can you
imagine what life would be like if everyone never disagreed or had
differences in opinion. When differences in opinion are expressed in a
logically and rational manner new things can be established. It's called
compromise. It's called seeing the other person's point of view.

I thank you for your responses. Granted, all of them were opposing mine, but
I didn't expect everyone to have the same opinion as mine. But please keep
in mind, it's my opinion.

Everyone in America is granted the right to voice their opinions. Whether
others may think they are wrong or not. My dad, uncles and countless of his
friends fought for that right in the Vietnam War. I got lucky my dad came

For the record....I am considered by my collegues, friends, and family a
(and consider myself to be a) very open-minded person.

I would like to say something to a couple of know who you
are...while I respect your right to voice your opinion, you do not have to
belittle me with disrespecting, vulgar comments. The rest I thank you for
your opinions and the tasteful way they were presented.

Sherry Long

Premium Member
20,035 Posts
Pardon me while I cry for her friend. I will tell you straight out that if my best friend (for the past 35 or so years - known here as Prospector) - were shot in a situation similar to her friend I would not be yelling for further restrictions on firearms. I would vent my hurt and outrage at the root of the actual problem, BAD GUYS. If every single firearm on this planet were to disappear today, there would be just about the same level of crime tomorrow. If instead we put guns on every single person on the planet, crime would drop to nothing by morning. :mad:

236 Posts
Bumper said:
That's what we're up against boys and girls. They have no clue yet they want them all banned.
You got it!

“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it.” – Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes.

Feinstein & her fellow cronies want the American public to believe mass murderers and crime would somehow be stopped if law-abiding gun owners were disarmed. Unfortunately, there are many people that are not as well versed as ourselves that buy into their lies and deceit!

They cite new “loopholes” that allow criminals access to firearms. They justify it with the mantra “If it saves one life, it’s worth it.” But they never factor in the costs of not owning a gun for personal protection, nor the lives saved because a physically weaker woman shot and killed the man who was stalking her with intent to kill, or the children who still have a mother.

Nor do they talk about the costs to society when civilian firearms are confiscated, such as what has happened in Britain and Australia.

Nor do they mention that no study has ever concluded that the 1994 Assault Weapons ban or that gun control laws reduced crime.

The hypocrisy is that Feinstein has a CCW...and like Rosie O'Donnell, Michael Moore, and other high profile outspoken anti-gunners blowhards, believe their lives are somehow worth more that of the "little guy". Sick!! :mad:

Premium Member
25,481 Posts
Sherry - good email - and I can empathize. That's all I'll say.

Thank you.

767 Posts
I am truly sorry for the loss of her friend. I lost my best friend before we could graduate to a drunk driver. I have never even considered the idea that if all (cars/alcohol) were taken away, we couldnt have (car/alcohol) related deaths. Her logic is faulty on a purely logical scale. I realize I am preaching to the chior, but just had to say something. She still has not defended her position nor her errors.


1,759 Posts
Interesting thing about the Tyler courthouse shooting is that Arroyo (the shooter) was shot twice by an individual that had a CHL. Mark Wilson was the individual and had it not been for Arroyo's body armor Wilson would have ended the shooting. Unfortunately, Wilson was killed by Arroyo. The bravery that Wilson showed that day saved countless lives and forced Arroyo to retreat.

466 Posts
Did anyone explain to her that she would be writing for another government's newspaper if we had no guns? She makes my eyes roll, I can't control it. Truly naive people have no business writing on a subject. Do some research before you attack! Barf! Barf! She sounds like a politician the way she rants and raves. Lets start a pity party and ban all weapons! Good reply to her article. Her "xeroxed" reply to you shows her true dedication to the subject(as if her blatantly false accusations weren't enough).

104 Posts
She does sound like she's reasonable, just not about guns. Apparently, her only experience with guns was having a friend shot to death and dying in her arms. Ouch.

That being said, that's as much slack as she's getting from me. Her opinion will be irrevocably biased by that decision, essentially invalidating her opinion. It's not an opinion based on fact or truth, but pure emotion and 1 (terrible) incident.

She should have at least mentioned her friend in the original article, so readers could weigh her opinion more accurately.

Super Moderator
18,279 Posts
After reading the response sent from the author, I think that sending any further comments is a waste of time.

Using logic and facts are against emotion and lack of critical thinking skills is like trying to teach a pig to aint gonna happen and it just pisses off the pig.

S.O...I applaud your desire to speak up and set the set the record straight. This is an example of the attitude of sheeple. Some can be led away from the slaughter house, others wont realize whats happening or the error of their ways until their last breath.
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.