Front Page  »  

Ian Parkinson does not speak for me

March 12, 2013
Ian Parkinson

Ian Parkinson

OPINION By ALLAN COOPER

Ian Parkinson is my sheriff but he does not speak for me when he opposes gun control. He argues that the problem does not lie with the over-preponderance of guns in our society but rather with the untreated problem of the mentally ill.

Though I fully agree society has not fulfilled its obligation in the latter case, I am almost certain that teenagers with too much time at their disposal and an oversupply of guns and testosterone engaging in gang killings are not mentally ill.

I am convinced that accidental killings committed by minors are not committed by the mentally ill and I am convinced that momentary fits of rage on the part of those who possess and use guns against their loved ones are not acts committed by the permanently mentally ill but rather by those who need classes in “anger management.” Go ahead Ian, “pass the buck” and do nothing in the area of gun control.

But the rest of society is “fed up” with this obscene gun fixation that presumably began with TV cowboy westerns in the 50’s and remains to this day a “sacred cow” among conservatives.

 


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


98 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I also want to point out that gun control is not a “liberal/conservative” issue. Plenty of pro-Second Amendment “liberals” out there and plenty of anti-Second Amendment “conservatives” as well. Leave such labels to politics.


Gun control efforts are a product of a decaying society — pushed by the very people who introduced rot into it. There are several reasons for the decay of society. By far the most important reason in my opinion, is the systematic stripping of God out of our culture by hateful and misguided secularists.


0

Excellent point.

Case in point is Diane Feinstein, one of the most liberal legislators ever, and the author of the most recent anti gun ban bill. Yet, by her own admission ,she is a CCP holder and an owner of at least one semi automatic pistol. She admits that she did it for personal protection, and still she wants to prevent other law abiding citizens the same rights…


0

She actually carried concealed illegally while Mayor of S.F. – so, like most every politician, is a lying hypocrite. But that won’t stop the lo-fo nitwits from re-electing her.


0

But the rest of society is “fed up” with this obscene gun fixation that presumably began with TV cowboy westerns in the 50’s and remains to this day a “sacred cow” among conservatives.

Fixed just for you.

But the majority of society is fed up with this obscene fixation of taking away a law abiding persons way of defending their family,home and life and in many cases a means of gathering food. This fixation presumably began with some jackass thinking the police are always a few seconds away, the government will always protect them and criminals and gang bangers buy guns at Big 5 sporting goods.


0

“obscene gun fixation”. isn’t that the truth for some people?


0

“Opposes Gun Control”? Really? Is that what Ian Parkinson said Mr. Cooper? Not in the context of your letter. I encourage everyone to re-read or re-watch Ian Parkinson statement. Stop with the half-truths and generalizations. Thank goodness he’s not going to enforce those which may step on our constitutional rights. At least he’s doing his job.


Mr. Cooper – you can ‘CONVINCE ME’ or ‘FORCE ME’ to agree with your letter. Thank goodness we have the 2nd amendment whereby you can only ‘CONVINCE ME’.


The day americans lose the 2nd amendment is the day americans will lose the 1st amendment and all the rest. Its clear to me americans are forgetting the mistakes of history so guess what, we are going to repeat them. Good bye freedoms.


0

How about giving this law abiding citizens his guns back Mr. Parkinson? You know the ones that your department stole from him.Seems Parkinson is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Nothing new for our county officials. As far as you Mr. Cooper…..you are pretty insignificant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wKRKGqYZjI


0

San Luis Obispo in 1963:


* Shooting range in basement of SLO City Hall. (Yes, really.)


* Shooting range in basement of SLO Junior High School Library. (Yes, really.)


* Shooting range on Cal Poly Campus (Yes, really.)


* Firearms safety training and hunter safety was widely taught in schools, Cub/Boy Scouts, Indian Guides, etc. SLO had at least one rifle club for kids sponsored by a national fraternal organization. Cal Poly had a competitive rifle team.


* Handguns, rifles, shotguns and ammo could be purchased through the mail with no background checks, registration or waiting periods.


* Colt introduces the AR-15 modern sporting rifle, for sale to the public.


* Firearms were widely available at hardware stores (like Forden’s), drugstores, some gas stations, department stores (Sears, et. al.) One paid for their new firearm and took it home on the spot. There was no such thing as a “Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer.”


* Need .22 ammo on a Sunday when Ed’s was closed? No problem — Don at Uptown Liquor always had a stock of .22 ammo for locals who knew to ask.


* Many homes proudly displayed firearms (many were family heirlooms) in gun cases located in their living rooms or dens.


* Never heard much about shootings/massacres. Gun were not a political issue.


San Luis Obispo in 2013:


* There is no firearms safety training in local schools. Rather than endeavor to train student to understand and respect firearms, they are taught to fear and hate them — and the law-abiding people who own and shoot them.


* Politicos vilify modern sporting rifles like the AR15 (“Armalite Rifle Model 15) by referring to them as “assault weapons” (a term originally coined by the Nazis.) The drive to misrepresent semi-automatic modern sporting rifles as fully automatic machine guns or “assault weapons” is in full force.


* Want to buy a gun from a local shop? Be prepared to pay a $25.00 Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) fee. If you want to buy a handgun you’ll also first need to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) which requires passing a test and paying another $25.00. In most cases you’ll also need a gun lock with a sales receipt less than 6 months old (don’t ask.)


* Want to purchase a firearm from a relative, friend or neighbor? That’s be a $10.00 transfer fee (many shops try to charge more even though it is illegal to do so) plus the $25.00 DROS fee plus tax even if it’s an old single shot .22 rifle that was originally purchased in downtown SLO in 1973 for $19.99.


* Want to buy a gun from out of the area? Maybe your aunt wants to ship you your favorite uncle’s shotgun? That would require it to be shipped to a local deal. They are free to charge you as much as they want (typically $50-150.00/gun) if they agree to receive it at all. They’ll be the standard $25.00 DROS fee of course and they’ll collect tax even if you’re buying it from someone out of state.


* Want to purchase some .22 ammo? Good luck! Nut-jobs like Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein have triggered panic buying with their antics. There’s none to be had!


* If you own guns today you keep them locked-up and you keep quiet about them.


* Hear a lot about shootings/massacres. Gun are now a hot political issue.


What changed? Hint: It was neither the guns nor access to them. An absolutely disgusting development…


0

great vignette of a decaying society


0

Most excellent post. Of course, similar vignettes could be done with ANY social engineering…


0

Strengthening the gun laws is only a tool to get to what concerns the liberal progressive politician the most…the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The United States Constitution is a book of rules. Rules that are aimed at politicians holding office. The elected officials on both sides really don’t like having rules. If they could they would bury the Constitution forever. Ripping open the Constitution and redefining it to their liking is what they really want and changing the nations gun rights will do just that and they are salivating in anticipation of that day.


0

There is no such thing as gun control. Only people control.


0

“Gun control” is best defined as being able to hit the target…


0

Wasn’t the debate about large capacity ammunition “clips” and assault rifles? This topic has officially been “spun out” post media blitz. But I like silliness, so I am asking our dear sheriff to begin issuing concealed weapons permits to all who wish to carry concealed handguns and provide a good reason to do so, including “at any time, anywhere, I could be shot by anyone of the millions of gun owners with a large ammo capacity assault rifle, and how else would I protect myself?”. In addition, my weapon of choice is a fully automatic pistol with a high capacity clip for my ammunition (I admire the methods and technology employed by the Mossad, why settle for less?). I am legally sane, I pay my taxes and willingly support my government, and I follow the Constitution unquestionably. While I’m asking, I wouldn’t mind a few of those rifle-launched hand grenades either, that would keep the deer out of my roses.


0

There is not an over-preponderance of guns nor are they a sacred cow but the cow people seem to think so, as is the case for their mooly herd who expect someone else to look after them.


0
1 2 3 4 5