- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
2,211
1,729
Another ridiculous comparison with guns
In a recent letter defending the right to own semi-automatic guns (Jan. 13), Tony Naramore compared President Barack Obama to Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot of Cambodia and the leader of North Korea.
Does he really think that the democratically elected president of the United States is comparable to those tyrants?
He compares the Nazi takeover of Germany, based on the attack on the German Reichstad, with President Obama’s attempt to control assault rifles based on the killing of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary School. In other words, he is comparing a brutal dictatorship in Germany that was responsible for the death of millions of people with the attempt to prohibit the sale of assault weapons to civilians. Those same assault weapons have been used in massacres in this country, including the murder of the children at Sandy Hook.
Mr. Naramore is comparing Adolf Hitler, a mass murderer, to President Obama, who is trying to take steps to prevent the further massacre of innocent civilians, especially children. That is a ridiculous comparison.
I still don’t understand why certain gun lovers feel it is necessary for private citizens to own assault guns. Ordinary handguns, shotguns and rifles can be used for defense of your home, hunting and target shooting. I heard a relative of one of the victims of the Colorado theater massacre stated he uses a shotgun to defend his home. He also said he did not understand why owning an assault weapon was necessary.
What is so important about owning an assault weapon that gun lovers are not willing to give up that ownership if it will save innocent lives, especially the lives of children?
Charles McLaughlin
Fairfield
Discussion | 21 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
- Candice Tells All: Basement fireplace becomes focal point of retreat
- Sally Forth
- Dilbert
- Peanuts
- Blondie
- Frank and Ernest
- Wizard of Id
- Beetle Bailey
- The amazing human brain
- Bridge
- Travis’ death among Solano’s most memorable military crashes
- Former landlord collected rent while house was in foreclosure
- Word Sleuth
- Sudoku
rlw895January 15, 2013 - 5:19 pm
It's because most of those people really aren't concerned about defending their home from criminals--they have enough firepower for that, and then some. And those legal guns are not likely to be outlawed, even if they could be (and the Supreme Court recently ruled they can't). What they are really concerned about is our own government. They have been listening to anti-government rhetoric for so long, it's become engrained. They have become convinced the constitutional protections we have against tyranny that have worked for over 230 years are not enough, and they want a weapon adequate to fight the police and military when "the time" comes. It's a sort of insanity that comes from that anti-government toxin. The interesting thing is the spreaders of government animus aren’t interested in guns; they do it for money—to generate public sentiment against regulations that are in the way of amassing more even wealth regardless of damage to the country or the public. Such folks probably see the kids killed at Sandy Hook as collateral damage.
Reply |CarmenJanuary 16, 2013 - 6:28 am
I recently read the following quote: "Which amendment protects our children from the second amendment?"
Reply |CarmenJanuary 16, 2013 - 6:44 am
"How did we get to the point that 85 per cent of the children killed by guns are killed by guns in the United States." This is a quote by Captain Mark Kelly, Senator Gabby Gifford's husband....
Reply |CarmenJanuary 16, 2013 - 6:46 am
Let me correct that... 85 per cent of the children killed in the world by guns are killed by guns in the United States.
Reply |G-ManJanuary 16, 2013 - 11:52 am
In another time people like RLW were lined up to take a shower wondering why there's no soap...You got your Bozo in the White House again..you're not getting the guns.".A Government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything away".Ronald Reagan...There are so many facts and statistics stacked up in favor of gun supporters it's daunting..72% of America is with me. A good number Dems and Repubs in Congress are with me...Harry Reid is even with me...that said there's over 300million guns in this country...GO FETCH you schlepp!
Reply |rlw895January 16, 2013 - 2:02 pm
All I have said is being able to have an armed rebellion against our government is not a good reason to have a military-style rifle. It would have done the Jews of occupied Europe no good if they each had a Mauser. Well, maybe they could have taken a few more Nazis down with them and given each major city its own version of the Warsaw ghetto, but the result would have been the same otherwise. Just like before 9/11 we couldn't envision someone hijacking a jetliner and turning it into a guided missile, no one could envision the holocaust, so passivity appeared to be the safest course. The real solution to the German Third Reich problem was to have a constitution that prohibited the executive from declaring an emergency and taking extraordinary powers. We came closest to that in our history during the Civil War and, more recently, in the "war on terror" during the Bush/Cheney administration. We do have to keep an eye on Obama, because he hasn't given back all the authorities Bush/Cheney took on. And he's not likely to give them back because his opponents would accuse him of being weak, when, in fact, it would be a sign of incredible strength to do so. It's back to whether we are a nation of virtue again. A virtuous nation would force him to give up those powers and give him a “pass” when he does.
Reply |The MisterJanuary 16, 2013 - 7:16 am
Hitler WAS democratically elected.
Reply |S KJanuary 16, 2013 - 8:11 am
Charles, in answer to your question, "Does he really think that the democratically elected president of the United States is comparable to those tyrants?">>>Yes he probably really does, or really believes himself that he does. These SORE LOSER extremists will be COMPLAINING & COMPLAINING (Would like to use a different word but fear the censor>>LOL) for the entire 2nd term. They just will not let it go. GET USED TO IT LOSERS!!!!! Just ignore their rants. It will just give you a headache :-)
Reply |laffsatliersJanuary 16, 2013 - 11:05 am
"Necessary?" I still don't understand why it is "necessary" for private citizens to own a Merdedes or Lexus or Cadillac. I still don't understand why it is "necessary" for private citizens to own a yacht or ski boat or snowmobile or 70"HD 3D TV, and on and on. This sort of argument serves no purpose whatsoever. One man's "need" is often another man's luxury and so forth.
Reply |rlw895January 16, 2013 - 11:46 am
Then you wouldn't object if we regulated guns like we regulate cars?
Reply |G-ManJanuary 16, 2013 - 12:07 pm
We DO regulate guns..God did you grow up under power lines?...And to Charles..who protects children against the 2nd amendment?..Didn't know it was a danger..kinda thought it was a right given to us by our founders..That Mark Kelly figure will get a Google for sure..but know in the last 100yrs there have been 156 cases of mass shootings ( 4 or more persons fatally shot)..but some of those really don't qualify as an intentional pre-meditated assault against humans..commission of robberies etc..Those poor babies in Newtown were shot with a legal gun stolen..how you gonna fix that Chucky?..You want all guns gone?..believe me you will be long gone before that ever happens...
Reply |G-ManJanuary 16, 2013 - 12:12 pm
Sorry Chucky I meant Carmen..Chucky probably thinks once in awhile..if he exists..
Reply |rlw895January 16, 2013 - 1:32 pm
Just drawing the analogy out. We don't regulate guns like we regulate cars, so the comparison is not apt. But it would be apt IF we regulated guns like we do cars. Trying to see if laffs is willing to go there.
Reply |Tom ChalkJanuary 16, 2013 - 2:05 pm
RLW: I am wondering if you are implying that guns are "under-regulated" here in CA as opposed to cars?
Reply |laffsatliersJanuary 17, 2013 - 6:57 am
rlw895: we regulate guns much more strictly than we do automobiles. One can walk in a dealership and drive out with a car in minutes! In CA one must wait ten (10) consecutive 24-hour periods before one can pick up a gun. When one buys a car, all the dealer wants is money. Go look at the Dealer Record Of Sale paperwork in CA and what information one musy provide the state. So, your proposition fails from the outset, a completely false argument. Hogwash!
Reply |rlw895January 17, 2013 - 11:45 am
Well all right then everybody! Do we regulate guns more than cars? No right answer, I suppose, but let's run with it. Yes, we have a lot more freedom buying cars, but we can't go into an auto dealer and buy a tank, can we? Or one of those James Bond numbers.
Reply |MarkJanuary 16, 2013 - 1:32 pm
I find it interesting that when people can't understand why someone might have something, in this case an "assault rifle" (which is a misnomer, full auto guns in the US are very hard to get and few have them) they want to take it away. Tell the ranchers along the border with Mexico, that have drug runners and other nastiness coming across their property, that they don't need a semi-auto assault rifle. I certainly am not going to. Also lost in the discussion on assault rifles are the real facts....rifles, which assault rifles are a subset of don't kill nearly as many people in the US every year that the media make it appear. In 2011, the latest FBI statistics I can find, 323 people were killed with rifles of all types. Yes that's 323 people too many, but 1694 people were killed with knives, 728 were killed with bare hands/feet and 496 were killed with hammers and other blunt objects. Those deaths are equally tragic and more abundant yet you don't hear a word about them. And drunk driving related vehicle deaths? those dwarf the number of people killed by assault rifles ...about 11,000 people died in alcohol related traffics accidents. Where is the national outcry for all those innocent deaths? Why isn't the media and President calling for even more stringent laws to combat those 11,000 deaths? Other facts...violent crime in the US is down 50% over the last 20 years. The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, but we're not even in the top 20 for gun related murder rate (we're 28th). Other countries that have banned guns, like Great Britain, have higher violent crime rates than the US. 1,300 violent crimes per 100,000 people in Great Britain vs 386 per 100,000 in the US. The US with the highest gun ownership rate in the world isn't even in the top 10 most violent countries. Australia, which recently banned guns, has seen its armed robberies (up 69%), assaults with guns (up 28%), gun murders (up 19%), home invasions (up 19%) go up significantly. Banning assault rifles here isn't going solve anything.
Reply |rlw895January 17, 2013 - 9:31 pm
Mark: Thanks for all that. One question: What is your source for the U.S. being 28th in the world in "gun-related murder rate?" And while that may be true, what we are really interested in is gun-related death rate, preferably excluding justifiable or excusable homicides. Where does the U.S. rank there? Wiki says we're 10th. I agree with you that in special circumstances, people should be allowed to own advanced firepower. Someone who has to defend his property from drug smugglers all the time would be in that category. But that's nuance, and the exception that proves the rule.
Reply |CD BrooksJanuary 17, 2013 - 7:22 am
I have always supported Gay and women’s rights and we have had some good arguments. Last year I made a comment to many of you hypocrites opposing those rights about how crazy you’d go if someone threatened to take away your guns. Okay, so here we are and even though there are sensible restrictions proposed and easy to understand reasoning for those restrictions, every rabid gun owner/NRA type is assaulting the president and anyone else supporting these very simple regulations. The president is NOT taking away your 2nd Amendment right to own a gun, and could not do so even if that is what he wanted. Conversely, the Republicans WERE threatening to strip the rights of women and gay citizens of America had the support within their party and would have easily done so if given the opportunity. If you’re okay with that, I clearly made my point. Good grief, wise up.
Reply |rlw895January 17, 2013 - 12:06 pm
Starting a new string. We regulate cars to protect the environment and save energy, and we regulate them for safety, big time. We think of cars as having a huge variety, and that's true. But they're still cars. Guns have a huge variety too, and they're still guns, but I argue that a military-style gun is something significantly different and can be regulated further or even banned altogether. We don't know all the variations on cars that are effectively banned because we never see them. It's all a matter of opinion where you draw the line, but I hope you see my point. If it were up to me, I would ban military-style long guns (and certain related equipment, such as laser sights), limit clip capacity to something like six shots, and tax guns and ammo to fund mental health programs. I would respect the right of self protection so would not ban handguns. I would respect hunting and sports that use guns, so those long guns would not be banned.
Reply |