Letters to the Editor
by Our Readers
Send Letters to TLE@johntaylor.org
Letter from "C.W." with answer by Vin Suprynowicz
[To Vin Suprynowicz]:
Thank you so very much for the spelling and grammer lesson. You see
unlike "REPORTERS" we do not have proof reader's and I did not really
feel like using the grammer and spell check. I also hate to destroy
your little world, but I am a college graduate. Yes, a full fledged
product of higher education with honors. You see I figured out a long
time ago that spelling cat correctly and putting commas in the
correct spot of a sentence do not amount to much when you have to
tell a parent that their child will not be coming home ever again
because of a drunk driver who only made a "simple mistake". Or when
you return a lost child to the parent's who are going out of their
mind with worry, or the nice old couple you stop in on just to make
sure that everything is ok and give them their mail, that they just
couldn't seem to get since there is 10 inches of snow on the ground
and it is 5 below 0. Or the officer who spend's countless hours
gaining enough evidence to convict the rapist, child molester or wife
beater who didn't meen to do it. Forsaking his or her family to get
the scum bag criminal off the street. Or the officer's who risk thier
lives to save countless other's. Funny, it seems that opinion
reporter's are never there to report on these action's or
situation's. I am not saying that the police officer you are speaking
of was in the right or wrong. I was not there so I cannot pass
judgement. I did not investigate so I cannot pass judgement. From
what I can tell in your opinion column you were not there either.
Yet, it is very easy for you to pass judgement. Not only on this
incident, but on law enforcement as a whole. In a society where kid's
are taking gun's to school and shooting other kid's. Women are raped
at a rate of one every 3 minutes, children are being molested and
abducted in record number's not to mention malitia groups, drug
dealer's, gang member's and the countless individual's who feel that
they do not have to comply with a police officer's order then it is a
great wonder that more criminal's are not shot. It is a real shame
that you chose to cruisify the one entity that is there to seperate
good from evil. Tell me something. If you and or your family is
again the victim of a violent crime, who are you going to call?
Richard Henry Lee, along with others of the founders, defined the
militia (not "malitia," of course) as "all men capable of bearing
arms." By falling into this pattern of identifying "militiamen" as
criminals, you clearly imply no American (other than cops and the
Army, of course) has a right to keep and bear military- (or police-)
style firearms. If you feel it is your duty to arrest, disarm or kill
all members of the militia, please be advised you are outnumbered at
least 300-to-1, and it may not go well for you in the long run.
This is why it might have been better had you received a somewhat
more well-rounded education, instead of attending a "college" which
produces graduates who believe "grammar" is spelled with an "e."
At least we have the comfort of supposing that -- study habits being
developed at an early age -- you have studied the proper use of your
issue weapon about as well as you paid attention in elementary
school. I presume you always rack the slide before dropping the
magazine, and then check to make sure the chamber is empty by
pressing the muzzle to your temple and pulling the trigger? No need
to pay attention to little details like how to spell or punctuate a
sentence, or the proper order of steps in unloading your weapon.
Rules! Who needs 'em ... even if they might help folks figure out
what message you're trying to communicate ... or save a life.
The problem with the lack of confidence you inspire with your
messages full of misspellings, you see (one doesn't need a comma
before the "s" to form a plural, in English) is that you're asking us
to trust your judgment, maturity, and attention to detail when you're
out rousting citizens late at night, shining bright lights into their
eyes and trying to bully them into waiving their Fourth Amendment
rights against unconstitutional searches and seizures. We don't LIKE
having thugs interrupt our peaceful travel, hoping to seize our cash
and possessions and leave us unarmed. Has that fact never occurred to
If a would-be criminal tries to assault me or my family, I'm
certainly not going to call in the UNIFORMED killers here in Las
Vegas. (It now takes an average of 20 minutes to get a response to a
9-1-1 call in Los Angeles; thank goodness all rapes, robberies and
murders take longer than that. And what will the cops ask for if any
when they finally do arrive -- seconds?) I'll take care of the
After which, a bunch of glorified, uniformed record-keepers with
clipboards will probably come and try to seize my arms and arrest me
for defending myself.
See if you can grasp one point before returning to this endless dirge
about all the "sacrifices" you make to "protect" me: I don't WANT any
more of your protection. When is it I supposedly had a chance to vote
on whether I wanted it, or that I was given any chance to pull the
lever or push the button that reads: "No more protection, PLEASE.
Refund me my tax dollars so I can afford a few more 'pre-ban'
magazines"? And if you justify looting people's pocketbooks to
provide them with armed "protection" they've never asked for --
"protection" which can include breaking into their houses in the
middle of the night, stopping them at random to check their "papers,"
or even shooting unarmed citizens for failure to obey your orders
quickly enough -- how does that differ from the kind of "protection"
the Gestapo and the SS offered the peoples of the captive nations
from 1938 to 1945?
They were "only folliowing orders." They told us so at Nuremberg.
Or didn't they cover that in your "college"?