Love-Hate Mail
The case for guns
I've got some serious questions for you to consider regarding your recent article in the Nashville Scene ("Shot With Their Own Gun," Nov. 25).
If a gunman decided to start firing at will in the Wildhorse Saloon or any other bar or restaurant in downtown Nashville, how many people do you think would be killed before he a) turned the gun on himself, or b) was taken down by the cops? How many dead? Thirteen (as with Ft. Hood and Columbine)? Or how about 32 in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre? All three incidents, which occurred in your preferred "gun-free" zones, happened because the gunmen were given the green light. They knew they wouldn't be stopped by any law-abiding civilians who had been prohibited by unconstitutional laws to defend themselves.
Let's say you happened to be enjoying a few drinks with your wife in that bar being shot up by a crazed Nidal Hasan or Dylan Klebold. Do you think there's a chance that one of your so-called "gun nuts" or "gun freaks" could save your life, or your wife's life?
What anti-gun folks like you don't seem to understand is that no matter what the venue is, the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.
What you are essentially saying is that you'd rather take your chances with the criminals of society—those who are in and out of jail, who don't obey what the law says anyway—than with ordinary people who've taken tests, paid fees, and learned how to safely use a gun in order to defend themselves and their fellow citizens. Explain to me how this makes any sense, Mr. Woods. You can't, because it doesn't. (And don't tell me you're worried about the .0016% of permit holders who committed crimes recently.)
Before you go on labeling people who could save your life someday "gun nuts and freaks," you might think twice about the reality of how many lives are saved every year because of handgun carry permit holders like myself. I guess you didn't think that bit of info was important enough to look up for your biased, one-sided article.
I'm not a nut or freak, Mr. Woods. I'm a college-educated communications professional with a family and a mortgage. I love life and refuse to roll the dice with the real freaks of this world who don't care any more for your life than they do for mine—and wouldn't think twice about gunning us down in the name of drugs, money, addictions, a twisted political ideology, etc.
I sincerely hope you will overcome your fear of guns and accept the reality that evil can strike anywhere, anytime. There is good and there is evil, and the more you appease evil by restricting good, law-abiding citizens, the more Ft. Hoods and Virginia Techs we're going to have. Is that what you prefer to roll the dice with, Mr. Woods?
Matt Bonner
www.americanrevolutiontwo.us
Nashville
Mixed feelings
My goodness, that's got to be the best (albeit saddest) article I've read in a long time in a Nashville publication ("Our City in Ruins," Dec. 3). My compliments to the Scene and Ms. Phillips. I hope much good comes from it.
I can think of many more happy endings like the Union Station itself and the Frist arts building. But overall I agree with the story. Nothing shocked me like the tale of the McCampbell house, though. Early 1800s structures are truly remarkable.
Jason Parrish
Nashville
That's a lot to look up
In a mid-November letter to the Scene, Jack D. Walker demonstrated a typical conservative approach to history: "Just make it up, most people won't know the difference" ("Love/Hate Mail," Nov. 12). And then he played the conservative trump card: "Be the victim."
Walker claimed "the South" still is being mistreated by "victors" who "write the history," and blamed all of "the South's" bad press on slavery. He clearly hoped we'd forget the real bottom line on the Civil War: "Secession was treason. Confederates seceded. Therefore, Confederates were traitors," for, you see, "the South" was not and could not be a legitimate country. No, the Constitution does not allow secession. Look it up.
So with all the current talk of secession heard on amhateradio and FAUXNEWZ, and the question of secession having been answered as "settled law" in 1865, it's important to keep in mind that the next generation of "secesh" will be traitors too. And all who advocate secession are automatically guilty of sedition. And, no, sedition is not protected speech. Look it up.
God help America.
John Roberts
Nashville
Brantley says thanks
"Rocketman" is a literary masterpiece, one that will linger in your readers' consciousness for months and years to come ("Death of a Rocketman," Nov. 25). Left in the hands of a lesser writer, Rocketman [Hal Graham] might well have suffered the fate of so many extraordinary characters left in the hands of hack journalists. But using all the elements of great storytelling, [Brantley] Hargrove managed to bring Rocketman to life, and honor his legend. After reading about the Rocketman, I feel more alive, more human today, convinced that the rocketman is looking down from space, smiling on the writer who captured his life and his legend in full.
George Getschow
Flower Mound, TEXAS
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
Mr. Bonner, Thank you, thank, thank you! For your artical. This county, state, and the whole country needs MORE MEN like you. I'd rather have you as a friend and neighbor than those sissy no gun law cowards. Robert Hagood
like
dislike
Matt Bonner writes, in his case for guns, that "the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun." Is he aware that it was a woman who stopped Nidal Hasan at Ft. Hood? A woman with an impressive body of firearms training and experience, who herself was shot multiple times and nearly killed? She was a police officer, her daily work dedicated to understanding and defusing the very situtation in which she found herself. But Mr. Bonner expects me to believe that he or some other "good man" would perform as effectively or rationally? If he quits his communications job and goes through years of police and firearms training, I might believe that.
Apparently, John Roberts has read just enough history of the US Constitutional Convention and The War Between the States to be dangerous. An humble suggestion: take the time to thoroughly review the contentious debates regarding State sovereignty that took place before and during that Convention. When the US Constitution was adopted, there was absolutely no prohibition against secession. Had there been, the Constitution would never have been accepted. Each of the original States feared a powerful central government, for good reason. That is why The Articles of Confederation preceded The Constitution. The default was to establish a very weak national government. When that government proved incapable of functioning in an adequate manner, it was replaced by the result of the Constitutional Convention---a government intended to be INCREMENTALLY stronger. Additional reading will probably surprise Mr. Roberts with the facts that (1) New England States threatened to secede in 1814--The Hartford Convention, and (2) that those same States actually supported the concept of Southern secession, early in the process. The simple point is that each State joined the Union voluntarily and DEFINITELY presumed that it retained the right to leave in the same manner. The fact that the US government claimed, after The War, that the Union had been indivisible ab initio DOES NOT make it so. There never would have been a "United States of America", under the original Constitution, had such a precondition existed----period. The current "Tea Party" movement is seismic. Whether the State Sovereignty movement takes on those characteristics remains to be seen. An aggressive, wasteful, extremely intrusive, and--a rapidly increasing number believe---incompetent national government is at the root of these initiatives. Confederates firmly believed they were following in the footsteps of their Patriot Forefathers, by fighting a Second War for Independence. A quote from that earlier period might well be applicable today--"If this be treason, make the most of it!"
