« Continue Browsing

e-mail article Print     e-mail article E-mail

Rick Baukol, Christine, N.D., Published April 27 2013

Letter: ‘Toadie’ argument falls flat

I guess I’m one of the responsible gun owners whom The Forum called “a fearful toadie,” in the editorial published Sunday, April 21. I am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association, I’m on the city council and the fire department. I spent more than eight years in the U.S. Coast Guard, I’ve worked at the same job for 37 years, have four kids and nine grandkids. I would say I’m just an average person.

I’ve liked guns from the time I was old enough (mid-1950s) to accompany my dad when he would butcher cows/pigs for local farmers on the farm site. I have concealed carry permits from North Dakota, Minnesota and Utah, yet I’ve never carried a gun concealed on my person. I have the permits so I can have a handgun in my vehicle when I travel; multiple permits increases the number of states that will allow me to legally have a gun in my car. I realize you have no interest in who I am, but I wanted you to know who a typical “toadie” is.

Here’s a quote from the editorial: “The bipartisan bill would have closed the gaping gun show loophole, but exempted private gun sales.” I’m not sure what your definition of “bipartisan” is, but having approximately 10 percent of the Senate Republicans vote for the bill is hardly bipartisan. If the Senate had passed it, this bill wouldn’t have done a thing because the Republican-led House would not have passed it.

The truth is, President Barack Obama knew the House would never pass its own version of the Senate bill, but had the Senate bill passed, it would have allowed the president to blame the House Republicans for being soft on gun violence. This would then set the stage for the 2014 elections.

Overall, I wouldn’t have a problem with requiring background checks for all sales at gun shows, but the government has no way to enforce a law on Internet sales without gun registration. Historically, gun registration leads to gun confiscation. That’s not “irrational fear” as you called it in the editorial, it’s a fact.

Look at what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. The authorities went door to door confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens. Can you imagine how many firearms they could have seized if they’d had a list of names and addresses of all gun owners in New Orleans? During the time when people needed to protect themselves because there was no law and order, they had their guns taken away. Irrational fear?

No matter what laws are passed, the nut cases out there will find a way to kill and maim people. Case in point is the recent bombing in Boston. Also, the shooter at Virginia Tech didn’t use an “assault weapon,” he used a .22 semi-auto and a 9mm Glock (both handguns) to commit the worst modern day mass killing in U.S. history. These types of handguns are owned by millions of people around the country. My prediction is every firearm that future nut cases use to kill and maim will be on the government’s hit list. Irrational fear? Only time will tell.

I think the editorial calling people names and indirectly calling them a bunch of sheep does not advance your arguments. Editorials and opinion articles are supposed to influence the way people think. Your editorial seemed like you were more into venting than influencing.