Response from Randy Kotz at WMMR regarding Moms Against Guns

[Slim Pickens]

For those who don't know, Randy Kotz at WMMR is promoting the gun grabbing group "Moms Against Guns." There was a thread around here someplace about this last week but I couldn't find it, so I started a new thread. Below is the up-to-date transcript of my emails and responses with Randy Kotz.

My original email:

In response to your statement about illegal guns being a problem in Philadelphia, I totally agree that illegal guns are a problem in Philadelphia. Unfortunately, the "Moms Against Guns" group that you are supporting and discussing on air is pushing several agendas and legislative changes that infringe badly on the second amendment rights of legal gun owners such as myself.

Isn't it odd that someone who makes his living on the first amendment is openly advocating trampling the second amendment? If you would be interested, I would be more than happy to discuss how MAGs positions would violate the Constitution. In the mean time, some food for thought:

MAG supports an assault weapons ban. What percentage of gun crimes in the City of Philadelphia are committed with "assault weapons?"

Thanks,

Slim Pickens

His "response:"

Thanks for writing, [Slim]......can you be more specific on how your 2nd
amendment rights would be "badly infringed upon"? Also, "making a
living on the 1st amendment"....what does that mean? Is that similar to
making a "killing" on the 2nd amendment?
And you know what, you're right...more crimes SHOULD be committed with assault weapons....let's proliferate!

Randy

My reply:

Typical knee-jerk reaction. The point is that banning so-called "assault weapons" would do nearly nothing to combat crime in Philadelphia, but it's clearly stated in their agenda. So, is the issue banning guns, or is it banning illegal guns??

Speaking your political views or your opinion over the airwaves, as you clearly have done in this case, qualifies as exercising your 1st amendment rights. You do it daily, and you're being paid for it...ergo you are making your living in the first amendment. Or am I missing something?

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Shall not be infringed" means that it is unconstitutional for anyone to forbid me to keep and bear arms- it's that simple. Oh, and please don't give me the "only militias have the right to have guns" line, unless you're also going to explain why the second amendment alone among the 10 Bill of Rights amendments confers power to the government, while the other 9 limit the government's power. In fact, if you would like to get better insight into how the second amendment is construed as an individual right, I suggest you take a look at US vs. Emerson and, more recently, Parker vs. DC.

A blanket ban on firearms is a violation of the second amendment- and it's also bad policy. How many murders this year have been committed with legal firearms? I'm sure you've heard "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" before. Look at Washington DC- total ban on guns (which was determined to be unconstitutional and overturned this year) and still the highest murder rate in the nation.

The fact of the matter is that guns don't kill- it's a hard heart that kills. Guns are merely a tool- I have several of them and none of them have ever caused an act of violence. If you want to stop the killing in Philadelphia, I suggest you focus your efforts on ending poverty, shoring up the family structure and education.

Speaking of education- you could probably use some yourself. Your response to my email was sophmoric and emotional, but devoid of any substance or logic. I would be happy to continue to educate you on the second amendment, individual liberty, or the Constitution.

Or maybe, you would prefer to educate yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

Thanks and have a nice day,

Slim Pickens

That's all, as of now. I'm sure I'll get some more of his emotional blathering, and I'll post it when I do.

Slim

[Slim Pickens]

Here's the link to the original for more info:

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/general-2...fm-philly.html

Thanks,

Slim

[Azzy]

Sad thing is, no matter how well written your responce will be, it will just read "blah blah bla" to him.

Go watch the movie Idiocracy, and see what you are up against.

[Philadelphia]

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"Shall not be infringed" means that it is unconstitutional for anyone to forbid me to keep and bear arms- it's that simple. Oh, and please don't give me the "only militias have the right to have guns" line, unless you're also going to explain why the second amendment alone among the 10 Bill of Rights amendments confers power to the government, while the other 9 limit the government's power. In fact, if you would like to get better insight into how the second amendment is construed as an individual right, I suggest you take a look at US vs. Emerson and, more recently, Parker vs. DC.

Also, don't forget the last clause of the 2A ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." When the forefathers intended to confer individual rights, they did so as in the 2A. When they intended to confer or reserve or limit powers of the state, they did that too.

It's a personal right reserved to "people" (as in each of us ;-) and the drafters of the Constitution knew what they were doing.

Some later arguments have cobled together the concept that the "people" is collective of all the people and therefore it is a collective rather than individual right. Of course, there was no concept of "collective" rights when the Constitution was drafted and it's therefore impossible that the drafters intended some "collective" right (which has no meaning anyway -- even if it's a "collective" right then we all "collectively" should have the right, each of us -- what the gun grabbers try to argue is that it's a "collective' right and therefore nobody has the right; makes no sense).

[Slim Pickens]

You're right. They're governed by their emotion- not logic. How do you reason with someone like that? It's like trying to convince my dog that veggies taste better than mailmen. It ain't going to happen, even though the dog doesn't know why she feels that way.

I really have no intention of changing his mind, I just want him to know that he's an ill-informed child.

[DaveM55]

I'm posting just cause I want to stay informed of your battle. Thanks for fighting the good fight.

[NY Refugee]

Nice reply Slim.

The Political Correctness crowd in this counrty can not have a reasonable dissucsion or debat on a topic. But instead with replay with condisending retoric with no facts or substance.

And exactly who is "MAG". meaning who is this group. Put the word mom or mother in the title and anyone who confronts them will be accussed of being cold and heartless to mothers wanting to protect their kids. So I question who exactly is this group and who are their members.

NY Refugee

[Coop650]

Well written letter and reply Slim. It is my experience when dealing with anti gun, anti hunting, anti anything people often they cannot deal with a question one on one without degrading you or trying to make you feel like a criminal or low life.

[Slim Pickens]

So I question who exactly is this group and who are their members.

Ahhhhh, now we've reached the crux of the issue. Here's a link to their "powerful voices" page:

http://www.momsagainstguns.org/voices/

It's women from "The Caring People Alliance" and "The Philadelphia Children's Alliance" and others from Philadephia government such as Lynne Abraham.

One "lady" actually calls gun violence "the polio or typhoid of our time." Funny, I would think obesity and poverty would be higher on their list of priorities. In fact, if you read their founders message and the "powerful voices" page, they attempt to make it seem like "children" are shooting "children." Riiiiiiiiiiiight....children.....18-30 year old drug dealing jobless children......

[/vomiting]

Slim

[Azzy]

Looking at that site, all I see are useful idiots, acting on emotion and nothing more.

"Who will stop gun violence?"

a better questions would be

What can WE do to stop violence in our community?

(perhaps enforce 2 old standbys... shame and responsibility)