Memphis Magazine "Getting Draconian" on Guns
Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:42 pmUntil last week, I never paid much attention to Memphis Magazine. I had looked at it a time or two in a doctor's or dentist's waiting room and had the impression it promoted the city and reviewed area restaurants and entertainment events. That impression changed last week when I learned that Memphis isn't all that the magazine promotes. TFA Member, Sam Cooper, showed me an article in Memphis Magazine by Managing Editor, Frank Murtaugh. Mr. Murtaugh answers his own question as to how he would bring about law and order; "We start by getting Draconian". Mr. Murtaugh is certainly entitled to his opinion and at least he let's us know where he stands with that honest statement. Fortunately, his sphere of influence is very small.
If these civil rights violations are where Mr. Murtaugh wants to start, what Orwellian nightmare waits for us when he's finished? Mr. Murtaugh advocates that, guns be "made the privilege of a select few responsible citizens", and even then, wants a one year waiting period for gun purchases. Spoken (written) like true hypocrite-elitist, just like his fellow travelers, Rosie O' Donnel and Michael Moore, both rabid anti-gunners, that both employee ARMED GUARDS. As Sam points out in his letter to Mr. Murtaugh, even the high priestess of gun grabbers herself, Sarah Brady, broke the very laws she lobbied for by making an illegal straw purchase of a gun, and was not prosecuted. In the world of Mr. Murtaugh and his comrades, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...
Mr. Murtaugh's proposed gun-free utopia has been attempted in the most perfect laboratory that Earth has to offer; The Island Nation of England. Predictably, when a black market was created by making guns illegal, violent crime associated with the now very valuable commodity, rose. Even the anti-gun BBC reported a 40% rise in gun crime years after the ban. How could such (unconstitutional) laws prevent banned guns from entering our nation, with it's porous borders? Of course, the law abiding people of England are being targeted by the violent criminals, who love the ban. It's been great for their business! Australia has had the same results with their gun bans.
Another TFA Member had worked in a South Carolina gun store when that state had a five day waiting period. A woman came in to purchase a gun to protect her life from a violent ex-boyfriend stalking her. She was told she could come back in five days to pick up the tool she needed to protect herself, sadly, the stalker got to her in two days...
My last observation of Mr. Murtaugh's opinion piece is regarding his ignorance of the topic about which he opines. Sam covers this quite well in his letter. For example, Mr. Murtaugh not knowing, or not fitting his agenda, that Jessie Dotson stabbed almost as many of his victim-relatives on Lester Street as he shot. Let me also share this glittering jewel of ignorance with you; "..those who advocate the free use of automatic handguns and laws that make it as easy to acquire a gun license as it is to get a passport..." I guess he means a Glock 18 full auto? Actually, I have had a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit for over ten years and also a U.S. Passport for a number of years. I was not required to take any training to get my passport, however, I was for the carry permit. Both require a background check, a thorough one for the carry permit to be sure. Mr. Murtaugh's bigotry aimed at armed citizens is based in his imaginary, prejudiced, stereotypes. He writes "The fact is...", but cannot substantiate that statement as Sam shows him. The fact IS, that carry permit holders are more law abiding than police, clergy, attorneys and journalist. We have an excellent track record of responsibility, much more so than Memphis Magazine's example of Yellow Journalism.
Please see the article below and Sam's response to Mr. Murtaugh and bear this in mind when considering where to spend your advertising dollars.
In Liberty,
Pat McGarrity
Director - Shelby County, Tennessee Firearms Association
http://www.memphismagazine.com/gyrobase ... id%3A43597
Stand Down
Until we gain control of firearms, the tears we shed over senseless tragedy will remain the norm.
By Frank Murtaugh
Print friendly | Send a letter | E-mail story
May 1, 2008
Joseph Daniel Fielder
The Lester Street Massacre — as the murders of four adults and two children in early March has come to be labeled — broke my heart. Just as the shooting at Mitchell High School a month earlier broke my heart. Then came the death of 6-year-old Charlris Fleming Jr. on St. Patrick's Day in Frayser. Charlris died from a gunshot wound, an accidental shooting after he and his 7-year-old brother discovered a .357 Magnum under a couch cushion in their apartment. If such a death doesn't break your heart, check your pulse.
But as heartbreaking as these violent, life-destroying outbursts were, here's the saddest footnote I can imagine: They did not surprise me. Until Memphis —America, really — gets a grip on the epidemic abuse of handguns, none of us should be surprised when another bullet ends another life far too prematurely.
Take a stand against the National Rifle Association — and life members like rocker Ted Nugent — at your own peril. Wrote Nugent last year in the Waco Tribune-Herald: "I am committed to standing absolute in our fight to expose the gun banners for the soulless, spineless anti-Americans they are." You've heard the refrain, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Find me someone who dies in a car accident without a vehicle involved, and I'll come around on the latter argument. It's that ridiculous.
Constitutional advocates stand by the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights as the pillar on which the very premise of democracy stands: "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." The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The United States, in its infancy, was frontier country, born under the threat of British soldiers marching — and firing their weapons — at the discretion of authority an ocean away. The craftsmen who drew up our country's first laws — deep-thinking, well-meaning men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison — had their hearts in the right place in arming the first U.S. citizenry.
More than 200 years later, those who advocate the free use of automatic handguns and laws that make it as easy to acquire a gun license as it is to get a passport have only self-interest at heart. The message seems to be this: A man without his gun is a cat declawed. And the vitriol with which they defend their rights would make a feral cat proud.
The fact is, there would have been no Columbine slaughter were it not for hopelessly flawed gun laws in America. There would have been no Virginia Tech massacre were guns made the privilege of a select few responsible citizens who had to earn — yes, Mr. Nugent, earn — their access to such weapons. Crazed men determined to murder will do so with or without guns? I'm betting those Colorado kids would have taken their chances against a knife-wielding Eric Harris.
How do we vaccinate an epidemic seemingly beyond the reach of law and order? We start by getting Draconian. How about suspending the driver's license — for a year — of someone found with an unregistered weapon? How about requiring a high school diploma to register a gun in the first place? (Again, the privilege should be earned.) And here's a regulation to consider: a 365-day waiting period. Those 32 Virginia Tech students would be alive today had Seung-Hui Cho been forced to consider his internal demons beyond a few disturbed days.
Gun advocates love our founding fathers. Well, here is some more wisdom from Thomas Jefferson:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Laws change. Nations evolve. It's time America gets a handle on guns. M
Mr. Frank Murtaugh
Contemporary Media Inc.
Memphis Magazine
460 Tennessee Street
PO BOX 1738
Memphis, Tennessee 38101-1738
June 19, 2008
Samuel L. Cooper
Mr. Murtaugh,
While waiting in a doctor’s office today, I came across the May 2008 issue of Memphis Magazine in which I read your editorial titled “Last Stand, Stand Downâ€.
I read with much dismay the way you generalized your opinion on how these terrible tragedies would not have happened had it not been for, as you put it “hopelessly flawed gun laws in Americaâ€. A person in your position needs to understand the power they have as an editor of a magazine. Nobody is an expert on everything and therefore when a subject, any subject is editorialized, care must be taken to insure accuracy and not present things as facts that have no way of being substantiated.
There is no way you can state that a given ending would have resulted had circumstances or laws been different. This is pure speculation unless you have some crystal ball that none of the rest of us has.
I understand the phrases often used by those of us who support our rights to have and keep firearms are tired and worn but that does not mean they are wrong. “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.†A study of violent crime in England since their gun ban will prove this to be true. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill peopleâ€. This is also true. Blaming a gun for a crime is like blaming the match for arson or the car for somebody dieing at the hands of a drunk driver.
Specifically you say that the Columbine massacre would not have happened had it not been for the flawed gun laws in America. How can you possibly know that? If you investigated that event prior to writing your editorial you would have found that in fact the firearms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had were actually the back up to the primary plan. In addition to the firearms they carried they also carried INTO the high school 99 home made explosive devices. These are in addition to the two others that they placed in a vacant lot a few blocks away that DID detonate a few minutes prior to serve as a diversion and the 13 other bombs in their respective cars in the parking lot and the 8 others that were at their homes.
Two bombs were 20 pound propane tank bombs placed in backpacks in the cafeteria timed to go off during the peak of the first lunch period. Those devices failed but had they gone off, investigators state that it is probable that all 488 students in the cafeteria would have been killed instantly. Of the 97 other bombs they carried in back packs, they threw 76, 30 of them exploded, 46 did not.
Also how can you say that if they had only been armed with knives, somebody may have taken their chances? There is no way you can presume that. Besides why would you think Klebold and Harris could not have killed just as many or more had they been armed with any of the many large knives, such as survival knives or bayonets that either of them could have EASILY purchased legally? Besides, they DID have knives with them.
You go on to argue that had a lengthy waiting period existed, 365 days, would have given Seung-Hui Cho time to “consider his internal demons†and prevented the Virginia Tech massacre, (“Those 32 Virginia Tech students would be alive todayâ€.)
I will counter this with the events leading up to Columbine. It is known that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris spent OVER a year planning the details of that massacre. Not only that but during that year they both got into trouble with the law placing them in a juvenile diversion program. During that time the attended workshops, spoke to counselors, worked on volunteer projects convincing everyone they were sorry. All the while planning their assault on the high school.
What is wrong is NOT the gun control laws we have (although I firmly believe that a majority of them could not withstand a challenge in The Supreme Court on constitutional grounds), it is that we do not enforce them.
One+3 of the most restrictive gun bills in our recent past is The Brady Bill. One of the most vocal and active persons associated with that bill is Sarah Brady. Odd that she would be one who would violate one of the provisions of the very bill she championed on her husband behalf by making a “straw purchase†of a shot gun for her son who could not qualify to purchase the gun under the provisions of that very bill. How hypocritical. This only cements in the hearts of supporters of gun rights that a majority of gun control advocates actually want that THEY should be able to have guns; they just don’t want YOU to have a gun. Only the socially elite? Heaven forbid the common man be allowed the right and ability to pursue sport shooting, hunting and ability to provide for their personal protection.
In NO uncertain terms do I want to be misunderstood here. I DO NOT wish to belittle or make light of the terrible tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Jonesboro Arkansas, Pearl Mississippi or Paducah Kentucky. These are tragedies of mammoth proportion. However events such as these are rare and these in particular took place over a period of several years. These in fact pale in comparison to the carnage that takes place every day on our nation’s highways. Also a VERY verifiable fact that we never hear about because of our liberal, in your face media is that fire arms are used over 2.5 MILLION times a year to prevent or deter a violent crime where a shot is NEVER fired. We don’t hear about that because it isn’t sensational, it doesn’t bleed so it doesn’t lead. It also could serve to undermine their liberal anti-gun agenda.
I will close by repeating my concern about people in our society using a position that is generally accepted as credible not carefully investigation facts before they present them to an unknowing public. That principle can be applied to ANY subject, not just guns. I have also included a copy of a very good chronicle of the Columbine massacre along with the bibliography. The list of sources, I believe are quite credible.
Thank you
Samuel L. Cooper
If these civil rights violations are where Mr. Murtaugh wants to start, what Orwellian nightmare waits for us when he's finished? Mr. Murtaugh advocates that, guns be "made the privilege of a select few responsible citizens", and even then, wants a one year waiting period for gun purchases. Spoken (written) like true hypocrite-elitist, just like his fellow travelers, Rosie O' Donnel and Michael Moore, both rabid anti-gunners, that both employee ARMED GUARDS. As Sam points out in his letter to Mr. Murtaugh, even the high priestess of gun grabbers herself, Sarah Brady, broke the very laws she lobbied for by making an illegal straw purchase of a gun, and was not prosecuted. In the world of Mr. Murtaugh and his comrades, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...
Mr. Murtaugh's proposed gun-free utopia has been attempted in the most perfect laboratory that Earth has to offer; The Island Nation of England. Predictably, when a black market was created by making guns illegal, violent crime associated with the now very valuable commodity, rose. Even the anti-gun BBC reported a 40% rise in gun crime years after the ban. How could such (unconstitutional) laws prevent banned guns from entering our nation, with it's porous borders? Of course, the law abiding people of England are being targeted by the violent criminals, who love the ban. It's been great for their business! Australia has had the same results with their gun bans.
Another TFA Member had worked in a South Carolina gun store when that state had a five day waiting period. A woman came in to purchase a gun to protect her life from a violent ex-boyfriend stalking her. She was told she could come back in five days to pick up the tool she needed to protect herself, sadly, the stalker got to her in two days...
My last observation of Mr. Murtaugh's opinion piece is regarding his ignorance of the topic about which he opines. Sam covers this quite well in his letter. For example, Mr. Murtaugh not knowing, or not fitting his agenda, that Jessie Dotson stabbed almost as many of his victim-relatives on Lester Street as he shot. Let me also share this glittering jewel of ignorance with you; "..those who advocate the free use of automatic handguns and laws that make it as easy to acquire a gun license as it is to get a passport..." I guess he means a Glock 18 full auto? Actually, I have had a Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit for over ten years and also a U.S. Passport for a number of years. I was not required to take any training to get my passport, however, I was for the carry permit. Both require a background check, a thorough one for the carry permit to be sure. Mr. Murtaugh's bigotry aimed at armed citizens is based in his imaginary, prejudiced, stereotypes. He writes "The fact is...", but cannot substantiate that statement as Sam shows him. The fact IS, that carry permit holders are more law abiding than police, clergy, attorneys and journalist. We have an excellent track record of responsibility, much more so than Memphis Magazine's example of Yellow Journalism.
Please see the article below and Sam's response to Mr. Murtaugh and bear this in mind when considering where to spend your advertising dollars.
In Liberty,
Pat McGarrity
Director - Shelby County, Tennessee Firearms Association
http://www.memphismagazine.com/gyrobase ... id%3A43597
Stand Down
Until we gain control of firearms, the tears we shed over senseless tragedy will remain the norm.
By Frank Murtaugh
Print friendly | Send a letter | E-mail story
May 1, 2008
Joseph Daniel Fielder
The Lester Street Massacre — as the murders of four adults and two children in early March has come to be labeled — broke my heart. Just as the shooting at Mitchell High School a month earlier broke my heart. Then came the death of 6-year-old Charlris Fleming Jr. on St. Patrick's Day in Frayser. Charlris died from a gunshot wound, an accidental shooting after he and his 7-year-old brother discovered a .357 Magnum under a couch cushion in their apartment. If such a death doesn't break your heart, check your pulse.
But as heartbreaking as these violent, life-destroying outbursts were, here's the saddest footnote I can imagine: They did not surprise me. Until Memphis —America, really — gets a grip on the epidemic abuse of handguns, none of us should be surprised when another bullet ends another life far too prematurely.
Take a stand against the National Rifle Association — and life members like rocker Ted Nugent — at your own peril. Wrote Nugent last year in the Waco Tribune-Herald: "I am committed to standing absolute in our fight to expose the gun banners for the soulless, spineless anti-Americans they are." You've heard the refrain, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Find me someone who dies in a car accident without a vehicle involved, and I'll come around on the latter argument. It's that ridiculous.
Constitutional advocates stand by the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights as the pillar on which the very premise of democracy stands: "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." The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The United States, in its infancy, was frontier country, born under the threat of British soldiers marching — and firing their weapons — at the discretion of authority an ocean away. The craftsmen who drew up our country's first laws — deep-thinking, well-meaning men like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison — had their hearts in the right place in arming the first U.S. citizenry.
More than 200 years later, those who advocate the free use of automatic handguns and laws that make it as easy to acquire a gun license as it is to get a passport have only self-interest at heart. The message seems to be this: A man without his gun is a cat declawed. And the vitriol with which they defend their rights would make a feral cat proud.
The fact is, there would have been no Columbine slaughter were it not for hopelessly flawed gun laws in America. There would have been no Virginia Tech massacre were guns made the privilege of a select few responsible citizens who had to earn — yes, Mr. Nugent, earn — their access to such weapons. Crazed men determined to murder will do so with or without guns? I'm betting those Colorado kids would have taken their chances against a knife-wielding Eric Harris.
How do we vaccinate an epidemic seemingly beyond the reach of law and order? We start by getting Draconian. How about suspending the driver's license — for a year — of someone found with an unregistered weapon? How about requiring a high school diploma to register a gun in the first place? (Again, the privilege should be earned.) And here's a regulation to consider: a 365-day waiting period. Those 32 Virginia Tech students would be alive today had Seung-Hui Cho been forced to consider his internal demons beyond a few disturbed days.
Gun advocates love our founding fathers. Well, here is some more wisdom from Thomas Jefferson:
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Laws change. Nations evolve. It's time America gets a handle on guns. M
Mr. Frank Murtaugh
Contemporary Media Inc.
Memphis Magazine
460 Tennessee Street
PO BOX 1738
Memphis, Tennessee 38101-1738
June 19, 2008
Samuel L. Cooper
Mr. Murtaugh,
While waiting in a doctor’s office today, I came across the May 2008 issue of Memphis Magazine in which I read your editorial titled “Last Stand, Stand Downâ€.
I read with much dismay the way you generalized your opinion on how these terrible tragedies would not have happened had it not been for, as you put it “hopelessly flawed gun laws in Americaâ€. A person in your position needs to understand the power they have as an editor of a magazine. Nobody is an expert on everything and therefore when a subject, any subject is editorialized, care must be taken to insure accuracy and not present things as facts that have no way of being substantiated.
There is no way you can state that a given ending would have resulted had circumstances or laws been different. This is pure speculation unless you have some crystal ball that none of the rest of us has.
I understand the phrases often used by those of us who support our rights to have and keep firearms are tired and worn but that does not mean they are wrong. “Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.†A study of violent crime in England since their gun ban will prove this to be true. “Guns don’t kill people, people kill peopleâ€. This is also true. Blaming a gun for a crime is like blaming the match for arson or the car for somebody dieing at the hands of a drunk driver.
Specifically you say that the Columbine massacre would not have happened had it not been for the flawed gun laws in America. How can you possibly know that? If you investigated that event prior to writing your editorial you would have found that in fact the firearms that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris had were actually the back up to the primary plan. In addition to the firearms they carried they also carried INTO the high school 99 home made explosive devices. These are in addition to the two others that they placed in a vacant lot a few blocks away that DID detonate a few minutes prior to serve as a diversion and the 13 other bombs in their respective cars in the parking lot and the 8 others that were at their homes.
Two bombs were 20 pound propane tank bombs placed in backpacks in the cafeteria timed to go off during the peak of the first lunch period. Those devices failed but had they gone off, investigators state that it is probable that all 488 students in the cafeteria would have been killed instantly. Of the 97 other bombs they carried in back packs, they threw 76, 30 of them exploded, 46 did not.
Also how can you say that if they had only been armed with knives, somebody may have taken their chances? There is no way you can presume that. Besides why would you think Klebold and Harris could not have killed just as many or more had they been armed with any of the many large knives, such as survival knives or bayonets that either of them could have EASILY purchased legally? Besides, they DID have knives with them.
You go on to argue that had a lengthy waiting period existed, 365 days, would have given Seung-Hui Cho time to “consider his internal demons†and prevented the Virginia Tech massacre, (“Those 32 Virginia Tech students would be alive todayâ€.)
I will counter this with the events leading up to Columbine. It is known that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris spent OVER a year planning the details of that massacre. Not only that but during that year they both got into trouble with the law placing them in a juvenile diversion program. During that time the attended workshops, spoke to counselors, worked on volunteer projects convincing everyone they were sorry. All the while planning their assault on the high school.
What is wrong is NOT the gun control laws we have (although I firmly believe that a majority of them could not withstand a challenge in The Supreme Court on constitutional grounds), it is that we do not enforce them.
One+3 of the most restrictive gun bills in our recent past is The Brady Bill. One of the most vocal and active persons associated with that bill is Sarah Brady. Odd that she would be one who would violate one of the provisions of the very bill she championed on her husband behalf by making a “straw purchase†of a shot gun for her son who could not qualify to purchase the gun under the provisions of that very bill. How hypocritical. This only cements in the hearts of supporters of gun rights that a majority of gun control advocates actually want that THEY should be able to have guns; they just don’t want YOU to have a gun. Only the socially elite? Heaven forbid the common man be allowed the right and ability to pursue sport shooting, hunting and ability to provide for their personal protection.
In NO uncertain terms do I want to be misunderstood here. I DO NOT wish to belittle or make light of the terrible tragedies at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Jonesboro Arkansas, Pearl Mississippi or Paducah Kentucky. These are tragedies of mammoth proportion. However events such as these are rare and these in particular took place over a period of several years. These in fact pale in comparison to the carnage that takes place every day on our nation’s highways. Also a VERY verifiable fact that we never hear about because of our liberal, in your face media is that fire arms are used over 2.5 MILLION times a year to prevent or deter a violent crime where a shot is NEVER fired. We don’t hear about that because it isn’t sensational, it doesn’t bleed so it doesn’t lead. It also could serve to undermine their liberal anti-gun agenda.
I will close by repeating my concern about people in our society using a position that is generally accepted as credible not carefully investigation facts before they present them to an unknowing public. That principle can be applied to ANY subject, not just guns. I have also included a copy of a very good chronicle of the Columbine massacre along with the bibliography. The list of sources, I believe are quite credible.
Thank you
Samuel L. Cooper