NEWSLETTER RESPONSES

Our recent newsletter piece, Forest Fire in Oregon Generates Heat for .50 Caliber Shooters, generated some "hot comments" from FCI members.

K.N. from San Diego copied us on his response to Statesman Journal columnist Carol Currie...

It sounds as though the guy shooting APIT rounds in a heavily wooded area, is just being a dumbass, and should be held liable for any costs associated with the fire. Yes, these rounds, and the bullets are available in many states. It should be clear that they would present a fire danger. M33 ball, and the "black tip" AP rounds do not present the same fire threat. I have a bit of a problem with some of your facts and arguments. You wrote, "So here's my question: If California, Connecticut and a few other states have banned BMG ammunition, why hasn't Oregon?" Would you also like to institute a 7.75% sales tax just because California has one? My mother used to live in Salem, and still speaks fondly of no sales tax in Oregon. I won't even start on the housing / building regs, ridiculous property taxes etc. Perhaps we can start bussing illegal aliens up North to you so the State of Oregon can keep up. Calling for legislation just to keep up with another state or country has no merit. By the way, 50 BMG ammunition is not banned in California. Explosive, tracer, and incendiary bullets are illegal once loaded into a cartridge, and of course loaded cartridges of these types are banned here. Armor piercing is permitted for rifle cartridges only. Military "ball" bullets, (M33 FMJ) are not regulated here, and neither are the myriad of non-military solid, soft point jacketed, hollow point, or lead bullets offered by numerous manufacturers. 50 BMG rifles are in fact used for hunting on bigger game in open areas. The trick here is that most military type bullets would be illegal for hunting purposes. I am unaware of any state that would permit any type of full metal jacketed bullet to be used for hunting game animals, regardless of caliber. There are hunting bullets available for the 50 BMG that do comply with Fish and Game hunting regulations. I am grateful to be an American. Our Constitution is what makes our county the greatest. I have always found it odd that so many people who support the 1st amendment with zeal, (and even count on it's freedoms to make their living,) seem to want to do away with the very next one in line. If you don't like guns, or don't have a use for them, that's fine. Please don't infringe my rights. I wouldn't push for legislation saying that the whole 1st amendment thing has gone too far, and journalists who want to use the internet need to be licensed, or otherwise regulated. If you honestly believe that firearms should be outlawed, please keep in mind that in a time of danger most people think to call the police, -people with guns! I seriously doubt that animal and habitat conservation efforts would go very far without the efforts and revenue generated by hunters. I will make you this offer. If you ever come to Southern California, (San Diego), it would be my pleasure to introduce you to the many types of shooting, including a 50 BMG rifle. I would like you to meet people who are involved in shooting sports and hunting. I would like for you to witness the families that shoot together casually and in competition. I would like for you to have seen the smile on my son's face when at 8 years old he and I won a 1,000 yard team match. I believe you would be pleasantly surprised. If you ever come to town, please contact me so I can meet you and take you shooting. Respects, K.N.

Randall Cooper enjoyed FCI Director Mike Marks' article very much...

This is in my opinion the best response to gun control I have ever seen, it should be emailed to every member of congress, every member of the judiciary system, the president, vice president, and printed in major newspapers. Very good piece !!!!! Randall Cooper

And Scott Edwards clearly agrees with Randall......

Michael Marks' remarks are the best I have ever read... they need to be submitted as an OpEd in every newspaper in this country! Spot on brother! Scott G. Edwards

Rodney Sabel had some choice comments in this reply sent to Ms. Currie (with us copied - thank you Rodney!)...

Another hate filled article by another cackling gun hater, gee how unusual? Not! It's a shame, a college educated person, like yourself, scribbles something so caustic and spiteful. The figures are not in for this year, however, according to the Oregon Department of Forestry 959 "Oregon forest fires" were "human caused" in calendar year 2006, 2007 should be about the same. You highlight one, yes one, ammo related forest fire. That leaves 958 other "Oregon forest fires" which were "human caused" that still await your indignant yelping outrage. Oh, wait a minute, those were caused by campers, hikers and motorists, not a rifle owner. When will you begin to bleat for banning all those Campers, hikers and other visitors to the National Forests? No time soon, I'm sure. Oops, that might include you, too? I'm not holding my breath that sanity will visit you any time soon. But, perhaps you could hold down the yowling and snarling in the mean time? Rodney Sabel

Leo in Kentucky agrees with Mike and raises a GREAT point......

Mr Marks, Amen to that.... Your reply was "on target". I would also like to add, if Mrs Currie was aware of the weapons that are on hand in all our prison system.... Aren't they ALL "banned"? I think "nuff said". Who Banned "common sense"? Leo, Ky.

Last but certainly not least, Curt Lundgren actually received a response from Ms. Currie and was able to carry on this dialogue...

I read your article of September 19th. You're typical of the reasons why I won't subscribe to newspapers - for some reason, they hire people like you who can't understand what it means to be American. The article was poorly researched, and your built-in bias showed so strongly you might as well have titled it "What I'm Telling You To Do". It's amazing to me that you bothered to interview John Burtt - of course, you gave favored treatment to the rabidly anti-gun representative of VPC. I won't bother to point out the numerous factual errors in your article - I've worked with "journalists" in the past while in my 20-year career in television and I realize the futility of pointing out factual errors to a journalist. Did you get a warm fuzzy when you were able to quote Tom Diaz of VPC when he reminds us that "there's no purpose" and so on regarding a particular type of ammunition? Don't worry - he'd say the same thing about .22 long rifle ammo, if given half an opportunity. But it fed into your prejudices and you were happy to parrot it. It's also pointless to remind you, but our rights under the Bill of Rights are not "needs based" - you're a "journalist" and you have no use for freedom . . . unless it's YOUR freedom to say what YOU believe. I do not oppose your right to freedom of speech. Why, then do you oppose my right to keep and bear arms? Regards, Curt Lundgren ---- Ms. Currie responds: I'm curious what your television career is given that you point out factual errors and make numerous ones yourself. Nowhere in the column did I call for a ban on your right to keep and bear arms. I called for a ban on ammunition that has one military purpose. As is typical of most, you want to see what you want to see as much as you point out my seeing what I want to see. Guess we have something in common. Carol McAlice Currie Statesman Journal columnist ---- My response: Are we feeling the heat, just a bit? As to my broadcast television career, it spanned twenty years, most of which were spent at WISC-TV, a CBS affiliate in Madison Wisconsin. In my positions, including Chief Engineer, I dealt with the news department and perhaps well-intentioned "journalists" who held their "journalistic standards" to be higher than mere facts. I've worked directly with them, and it's the primary reason I chose to move on to another industry, rather than to continue to be so associated. Yes, Ms. Currie - I understand "journalists" - and I've met people just like you, whose vision is clouded by a personal agenda. Perhaps you should consider another career...? As to "numerous factual errors I have made" - you failed to point them out. Perhaps you couldn't. Since sending you my original comments I have enjoyed reading what others have written in response to your column. If you have a failing, perhaps it's being a "journalist with a vision" - as opposed to being one who fairly reports the news. I've been on this earth way too long to believe that the only goal you have is to ban a particular kind of ammunition. Some idiot uses a firearm and ammunition inappropriately, even stupidly. OK, hold him responsible! But no - it gave you a chance to vent against what you apparently hate. I'd feel sorry for you, but I have relatives who live in the great State of Oregon, and I know how they feel about people who want to regulate every possible aspect of life. It's fortunate that you're mostly killing trees with your sentiments, and are not in the legislature, where you would certainly be bent on greater harm. Regards, Curt Lundgren