- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
4,730
2,223
Whose arguments have flaws?
This letter is in response to Edward Doolin’s recent letter (Feb. 14, “Flaws in recent anti-gun argument”) claiming that there were flaws in a prior letter I wrote (Jan. 23 “Faulty reasoning in assault weapon letter”).
Mr. Doolin states that ARs and AKs “are not assault weapons . . .” However, the legal definition in the California law banning assault weapons and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s proposed federal law banning assault weapons both list AR and AK rifles as weapons that are to be banned. What is the basis for Mr. Doolin’s claim that AR and AK rifles are not assault rifles?
Concerning the possibility that a foreign power would invade the U.S., Mr. Doolin gives two examples. He mentions the War of 1812. That was 200 years ago and at that time we did not have a strong army and navy. Britain, the invading country, at that time, had the strongest army and navy in the world. Now we are the country with by far the strongest military in the world. As for the second example, Japan’s bombing of Pearl Harbor, that was not an invasion. No Japanese soldiers landed in Hawaii.
Mr. Doolin’s statement – “The only thing that kept the Japanese from invading our mainland . . . was that we had guns.” – refers to a supposed quote by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto that the leading Pearl Harbor historian, Donald Goldstein, has called “bogus,” since he could not find a basis for that quote in his vast research.
Mr. Doolin refers to the battle of Athens 1946 as an example of an internal tyrannical government being defeated by armed citizens. That involved a wealthy family taking over a county in Tennessee. When Mr. Doolin refers to an internal tyrannical government, he is not referring to the county level. He is referring to the federal level and he thinks we need assault rifles to fight against President Barack Obama establishing a left-wing dictatorship.
The chances of President Obama or any other president establishing a dictatorship in this country are zero; for reasons I explained in my prior letter.
Charles McLaughlin
Fairfield
Discussion | 13 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
G-ManFebruary 19, 2013 - 3:35 pm
Chuck needs a reality check...US? Strongest military in the world?...China could walk all over us anytime they want...Thank God we owe them so much money and for now they don't want to damage their investments here..China has a bomb that can take out an aircraft carrier in one shot...there goes our superiority @ sea...So when you're thinking about that most powerful military in the world(that got kicked out of Vietnam..you do know we lost don't you?)..or that big bad military that can't even negotiate a presence in Afghanistan post conflict(btw we're losing there too...As for Assault Weapons..Assault is a word not a weapon..
Reply |rlw895February 19, 2013 - 9:06 pm
"Strongest" is somewhat subjective, but when you say China could walk all over the U.S. in the context of a military invasion, that's about as bogus as it comes, at least at present. That's not what we have to worry about. We have enough real things for that.
Reply |FibberFebruary 19, 2013 - 7:33 pm
Well, Charlie, let's see. Dianne and the foam-at-the-mouth press calls some weapons "assault weapons" and the public goes Ooooh and Aaaaah. At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security is buying 7,000 rifles with select fire capability (to fire a single shot or fully automatic, as in machine gun) and 30 round magazines. DHS, however, call them "personal defense weapons." I guess the definition depends upon whether you are a law abiding citizen or a government goon.
Reply |rlw895February 19, 2013 - 8:59 pm
Fibber: You learn something new every day, and I learned something new to see if the implication of your post held up. It doesn't. There really is a classification of "personal defense weapon" (PDW). It is a military weapon, but it is distinguished from an assault rifle. Look at the Wiki article after Googling for PDW. I imagine PDWs are banned too in California under another section of state law. It would make sense to ban PDWs if you are going to ban assault rifles. It may even be more important, reading about those things.
Reply |FibberFebruary 20, 2013 - 6:39 am
rlw: typical lawyer talk. You are just fiddling with words. The point remains: DHS's description of a PDW is the exact description of what DiFi calls an assault rifle.Plus: why does DHS need assault rifles? Who are they going to assault?
Reply |G-ManFebruary 24, 2013 - 4:27 am
Yeah..those 3yr degrees..1 beyond an Associates degree..can just blind you with their expansive knowledge..Shakespeare said first we keel all de lawyers..notRLW though..cause he ain't no lawyer..can I get a summary judgement on that?
Reply |G-ManFebruary 24, 2013 - 4:17 am
I don't even understand what you wrote..PDW?Assault Weapons..you've brought Semantics to a whole new level..and you're an arrogant little american too..china doesn't have to drop bombs on us..they can just drop people..theyhave so many.I study the military and China has a larger army than we do..their economy is all geared up to expanding their military capabilty 1st..and destroying us economicallysecond..experts predict China will be the Supreme World Power by 2050...this expert says 2050 is today.
Reply |G-ManFebruary 24, 2013 - 4:21 am
This joke of a Juris Doctorate needs Google brains and Wiki to formulate his arguments..Ipop you w/ a PDW,an "Assault weapon" or Jill Biden's Shotgun..as Hillary so incredulously said during her Benghazi farce hearing "What does it really matter?
Reply |laffsatliersFebruary 26, 2013 - 6:41 am
For a really good review of Joe Biden's "buy a shotgun" order, please see: http://youtu.be/jafkVM-jnbE
Reply |rlw895February 26, 2013 - 12:31 am
A PDW in the hands of a soldier of law enforcement officer is primarily devensive. It has rapid fire and short range. But naturally in the hands of a criminal, it can be used in a assault, but not in military parlance.
Reply |BobdawgFebruary 25, 2013 - 8:00 pm
Diane also picked the guns she picked because they looked scary.
Reply |VallejoanFebruary 24, 2013 - 9:41 am
"The chances of President Obama or any other president establishing a dictatorship in this country are zero" Maybe not zero, but pretty close to it. But that's now. What about 50 years from now? 100 years from now? We have a duty to future generations to ensure that they have the ability to remain free by whatever means are necessary, and history suggests that civilian ownership of firearms is one of the key items of insurance. That's historically; as much as the world has changed in the last 50 years I can't say with certainty that firearms will continue to be a means of insurance, although it seems quite likely. What I am saying is that we need to consider future generations when making these decisions. Once legal firearms ownership is taken away, it will be extremely difficult to get back.
Reply |mike kirchubelFebruary 24, 2013 - 12:19 pm
Gary = wrong.
Reply |