Time for reason

Posted on January 16, 2011


Mr. Rector,
I am rather amazed that eight days after the Tucson tragedy your column in today’s Star News lists political rhetoric as one of the motivating factors behind the murderer’s (not alleged suspect) action. You obviously have unearthed some evidence for this conclusion that somehow has eluded every other human on earth. What a scoop! Now let’s have that proof because without that proof I will have to level a charge against you that I don’t recall ever having done to a columnist before. You,sir, are a liar. Your transparent two fold agenda of demonizing the right/tea party and renewing gun control efforts was easily predictable, given the track record of the liberal media in these circumstances, within an hour of the Tucson attack. Provide the proof and I’ll retract my characterization of you as dishonest. Otherwise you are what you are.


One of my readers shared with me the above column / letter to his local paper from an individual (rare at this point) still clinging to the notion that 1st and 2nd amendment freedoms resulted in Jared Lee Loughner (‘Loff-ner(d)’) shooting up a public event.   I’ve also posted my friend’s straight and to the point rebuttal that he ipso post facto sent to the Editor – directly above this paragraph.

What a Jack Ball this Mr. Rector is.    He obviously doesn’t understand the Constitution.  People (crazy or not), have ALWAYS done random, strange, bizarre things – all throughout history.   It does not logically follow that you suspend the freedoms of 99%+ of society in order to possibly prevent the random, strange and bizarre person from doing a random, strange, bizarre and despicable act.    It’s amazing how someone can blabber on for 100’s of words without having even thought through their ostensible premise.   Only a totalitarian, fascist state can control access to everything, every situation and every movement of an individual.   Where does he think criminals get their weapons?  Obviously, the law already says they shouldn’t have them.   They get them because they are criminals and so are the people selling them under the table.  As to the Police or the Justice Department database being the last line of defense between citizens and a looney tune – cut me a friggin’ break, puhleeeze!  

What in particular would the police have taken him into custody for prior to the event?  What could they have held him on and for how long?   Once he was inevitably released – how would they prevent his intended atrocity?   I suppose – what?, they have people to follow him around 24/7/365?  As to the mental evaluation – that’s not the slam dunk Mr. ‘Rector’ imagines it to be.   Liberals have largely (as part of a civil rights agenda), denuded the ability of public agencies to institutionalize persons whose behavior is suspected to be a danger to themselves or others.   That’s something that could be argued on the relative merits of it, but we’re not dealing with theories here, we’re dealing with reality as it exists.

Once again, everything comes with a price tag.  You want civil liberties?  It comes with the possibility of unpredictable behavior.   You want freedom of speech? – it comes with the possibility of incivility and offensiveness.   You want the ability to enjoy what the Constitution defines as ‘inalienable’ rights (such as the 2nd Amendment)?   It comes with the possibility that even an ever so small segment of the population will use an inanimate object for a despicable purpose.   There’s an old expression, “One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor”.   One man’s ‘vitriol’ is another man’s impassioned, satirical, barbed and offensive retort or argument.

What else is illogical about this goon’s letter?  A couple of things.   It is irrational to believe that selectively putting a clamp on semi-autos and mag clips will suddenly lessen the possibility of murders.   Mr. ‘Rector’, have you possibly forgotten the ‘Washington D.C. Snipers’ – Muhammed and Malvo?    The attacks were carried out with the firearm found in the vehicle, a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a reflex sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards. This is an extremely close range for the .223 Remington cartridge.  The sniper shots were taken from the trunk of the car through a small hole created for that purpose.   I quote Wiki here and emphasize the statement of fact – ‘This is an extremely close range for the .223 Remington cartridge’.   Someone like Loughner could find a handy, unobtrusive spot 100’s of yards away and take quite a few people out with items that are not on Rector’s ‘disallowed’ list.

The other  absurd presumption of Rector’s is the notion that somewhere along in his letter he drops on us that  his armed forces service bonafides  legitimize  every point he has made and serves to render any other viewpoint unreasonable and irrational.   Mr. Rector’s service is appreciated, but is not germane to the discussion.   People who have served in the Military have differing views on many things and not having served does not incapacitate or invalidate one’s ability to apply deductive reason or common sense.    I certainly won’t attribute Mr. Rector’s military service to his nonsensical views or vice versa.   Long live the 2nd amendment (many countries without it have traveled all the way to the end of the Road to Serfdom.  And long live freedom of speech, offensive or otherwise.