Just what we need...another Zumbo.

[Bailey Guns]

Those who purport to stand for their 2nd Amendment rights by attempting to pull the rug from beneath others’ 1st Amendment rights are on mighty shaky ground.

How ironic. Jim Darnell gets to say his piece. Express his opinions. Others, however, who disagree with him and voice their opinions, are chastised for doing so. And it somehow matters that they're not locals. Huh.

So the 1st Amendment, like the 2nd, only applies to certain people.

Mr Ray...you're a moron.

(Nevermind the obvious fact that the government isn't trying to stifle Darnell's 1st Amend right, therefore Mr Ray's argument is pretty stupid since it isn't a 1st Amend issue. Like I said...he's a moron.)

[Pancho Villa]

Wait, wait, wait...

All of a sudden not supporting a column from a man you find repugnant is "pulling the rug" out of his 1st amendment rights?

Where's my weekly column in this paper, then? The editor is pulling the rug out from under my 1st amendment rights!

I sent in this email:

Dear Sir,

I was disgusted to read Jim Darnell's ignorant abuse of the 2nd Amendment - with the audacity to claim that guns that have a bad history, or look a certain way, are somehow less worthy of protection than "sporting" arms - and now I am outraged to see an apparently educated man, "Managing Editor" of a newspaper, no less, abuse the 1st Amendment with equal disregard of reality.

It bears repeating, a million times if necessary, that the 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government. The purpose is to keep the government from censoring any words you or I might wish to publish or share with others. When we your readers send you angry letters, expressing displeasure at the opinions of one of your writers, we are not "assaulting his 1st Amendment rights" - we are, as customers, telling you what we want from your product. We are not obligated to support ignorant trash - and publically disagreeing with, disapproving of and wanting the firing of one of your writers does not constitute an assault on his 1st Amendment rights (we are not crashing your gates and threatening you with harm if you do not fire him,) but the exercising of our own.

I had the pleasure of living in San Antonio for a period of time a few years ago. I kept up with your paper online to keep up with local news, since some of my friends still live there. No more. There is no excuse for the chief editor of a newspaper to display such disgusting ignorance of what the 1st Amendment - the one amendment I would expect a newspaper man, above all, to be intimately familiar with - means and I refuse to support it in any way, however slight. I don't expect the economic impact to be great but I hope you are ashamed of the display of ignorance you put on for all to see.

Santiago Valenzuela

[Bailey Guns]

^^

Both very nice responses.

[MichiganMilitia]

hahaha wow... Pancho and Foxtrot, those are both very nice responses and I'm glad you shared them with us all. Thank you.

[palepainter]

Just think about Ft. Hood for a second. I believe the disarming of our men and women on military bases has illustrated, on a micro scale, the possibilities of disarming our entire civilian population.
Great responses above that resonate with intelligent debate.

[Troublco]

If you look into what the 2nd Amendment actually protects, look up the definition of "Militia" in the U.S. Code, and dig into the actual intent of the 2nd, AR type rifles are what's protected at this point in time. Along with Barrett 82's, Winchester M40's, M14's, and whatever else is in common military service. In fact, since the phrase I've seen is 'expected to show up carrying arms in common use at the time', everyone that fits in the category specified ought to own an AR in 5.56 since that's the primary weapon of the U.S. Armed Forces. Not a darn thing in there about deer hunting, or how 'sporting' something is.

For the militia info, go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10...1----000-.html