Trib Columnist Takes Aim At Peaceful, Responsible Gun Owners

The Tampa Tribune ^ | Oct 31, 2005 | Mark A. Walters

[neverdem]

As much as I disagree with Daniel Ruth's bleeding- heart liberal politics, I do enjoy reading his columns as I much appreciate his wit and sarcasm. His column on Oct. 21 though, must be countered.

I have never understood what it is about law-abiding citizens that scares the antigun crowd so much. What makes it so difficult for them to understand that a criminal, by definition, doesn't follow the law? What, for instance, is so difficult to understand about the fact that a law-abiding citizen isn't going to walk into his place of employment and begin shooting?

Does Ruth not understand that a kook, a criminal or any other loser does not need a concealed-carry permit, nor will a law against keeping a gun in the car keep a wacko from obtaining a gun and shooting up his place of employment? Why is it so difficult for these anti-gun folks to understand that a gun doesn't turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal any more than a vodka and tonic turns a social drinker into a raging alcoholic?

I get sick and tired of listening to these same folks who predicted ``blood running like rivers'' in the streets when Florida passed its right-to-carry legislation in 1987. I wonder how many ``rivers of blood'' Ruth steps over each day on his way to work? How many more lies do we need to hear from the Brady campaign, who can't get their agenda passed in any legislative body and must turn to activist courts to legislate from the bench?

Here's the deal, Dan: You forgot to mention that it was a teacher with a gun in his car that stopped the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. and saved countless lives. Two students and a teacher with concealed- carry permits that stopped the shooter at the law school in Virginia and saved countless other lives. It was a law- abiding permit holder that stopped the scumbag in Acworth, Ga. last month after abducting and killing a mother of three.

These are stories of law- abiding people stopping criminals from doing more harm. There are countless thousands of these stories across the nation each day as well as the ones the Tribune has printed many times in our own city. Stop putting the actions of criminals on the backs of law- abiding people.

Mark A. Walters is a nationally published writer for Concealed Carry Magazine and writes ``The Ordinary Guy'' column each issue.

[Sam's Army]

Daniel Ruth is a whiny, passive-aggressive, know-it-all. Email him sometime, he will usually respond and fight for a while until he gets his ass kicked solid; wish I had saved some of our missives leading up to the election last year.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[E=MC²]

I accidentally heard daniel ruth on the radio one Saturday morning; it was as pleasant as going to a dentist for a root canal in the middle of January.

[ncountylee]

Another pro criminal leftist inflicts his bogus claims.

[GOPJ]

If, in order to stop stabbings, a law was passed outlawing kitchen knives - even the bread and butter kind, liberals might start to understand. Until then, it's hopeless. Liberals, until something impacts them, are totally incapable of empathy.

[NRA1995]

Don't need to e-mail him....we were stuck with columnist Bill Press on WMAL's morning show in the DC area for a long time....both Press and Ruth are men in serious need of some wild oral sex.....

[Lancey Howard]

(( bam ))

[Retired Chemist]

I've had several E-mail exchanges with Ruth.

[Clock King]

I have never understood what it is about law-abiding citizens that scares the antigun crowd so much. What makes it so difficult for them to understand that a criminal, by definition, doesn't follow the law? What, for instance, is so difficult to understand about the fact that a law-abiding citizen isn't going to walk into his place of employment and begin shooting?

Because they have the minds and emotional make up of children. They think everybody is as immature as they are. They think that adults will throw temper tantrums because that is precisely what they would do.

[geopyg]

From the thread "We're all Victims":

---"Doctors writing in the British Medical Journal called for a ban on the sale of long, pointed kitchen knives."----

[GOPJ]

"Doctors writing in the British Medical Journal called for a ban on the sale of long, pointed kitchen knives."----

OK, it's official, the Brits are nuts.

[GladesGuru]

Dan Ruth is often funnier than the proverbial rubber crutch, but like that proverbial implement, his arguments are often based on a faulty premise.

Before the PC flamers start, consider that a rubber crutch would be non-corrosive, the perfect aid for the injuried who wanted to take a bit of a walk on Florida's beaches.

Premises count, dontcha see?

[Banjoguy]

Actually, it's more insidious than that. In order for the left to gain significant power over you, they need to have you unarmed. This is one of the areas that Hitler and others knew well. Ban and confiscate guns, and the population will be like sheep, nearly helpless and unable to defend itself.

[coloradan]

I don't know, it didn't help Clinton any. He's still the same corrupt raging socialist he always was.

[Redbob]

What Daniel Ruth and other pantywaists like him fear most is not guns, but what guns represent: taking responsibility for your own safety and welfare.
That is what terrifies them: the responsibility.

Outlawing guns absolves them of this responsibility, and allows them in good conscience to pass the buck to "the authorities."
It's a sure sign of arrested development that people will go through their entire lives hoping that somehow "Daddy" will take care of things for them.

[School of Rational Thought]

"What makes it so difficult for them to understand that a criminal, by definition, doesn't follow the law?"

Let's take my liberal brother-in-law for an example to possibly shed light on the greater population of liberals.

He is adamant against having a pistol in the house, although his wife would like one.

He sat next to me on my couch when Newt Gingrich popped up on the TV. He said, "Somebody needs to shoot him".

OK, now my hypothesis. Liberals perhaps are projecting their own knowledge of self on others. They must figure that if they themselves would kill if they had the opportunity that the rational class (conservatives) would also do so.

[Clock King]

You're absolutely right. I think I was talking more about the "useful idiots" who support this stuff.

[Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi]

There's more to it than that.

What these dipwads really fear is the latent anger burning beneath the civility. For 40+ years we and our children have been forced to be labrats in leftist/socialist experiments. We have seen the distruction of our history, culture, and religion in the name of "equality, social justice" and "diversity". Our pockets have been picked to fund all of this nonsense.

Here and there, there are rumblings of revolt and to keep the bullets from flying in their direction, the great unwashed has to be disarmed.

"'Social justice' is one of those phrases that unerringly identifys a scoundrel. Whenever you hear it, grab your wallet and reach for the .45. Someone is out to rob you of your money, your freedom .... and/or your life."

[appalachian_dweller]

>> What Daniel Ruth and other pantywaists like him fear most is not guns, but what guns represent: taking responsibility for your own safety and welfare.
That is what terrifies them: the responsibility. <<

>> Outlawing guns absolves them of this responsibility, and allows them in good conscience to pass the buck to "the authorities."
It's a sure sign of arrested development that people will go through their entire lives hoping that somehow "Daddy" will take care of things for them. <<

That's the way I read it. I've said much the same.

Freedom and Responsibility go hand it hand. We have far too many people in this country that don't want that responsibility and they are willing to sacrifice OUR freedom to shirk that responsibility.

Good insight Redbob!