Letters to the Editor - April 5, 2013

Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .


The enormous respect I used to have for Sheriff Crabtree is now gone with his participation in the outrageous Second Amendment rally. Let's hope the person winning the raffle is not a maniac.


Enough with the Sandy Hook references and using those innocent victims to pursue selfish and political agenda's.

Perhaps we should ban fertilizer and diesel fuel. That was the chosen weapon for Oklahoma. Let's get rid of shotguns, and pistols, those were used in Colorado. Then we can start on Prius's. That was the weapon of chose yesterday in Portland.

There is an awful lot going on out there in the world beyond Sandy Hook! We have gun control bills in Salem, gun control bills in Washington DC., ..................
I can recall several benefit auctions and raffles every year that use these rifles. No one has said a thing until now. They are used because they are popular. They are used because people like them and they sell tickets. They like them because they are good rifles for deer and small game, target shooting, competitions and thanks to comments like in these letters are gaining value faster than gold!

Yes I own an AR15. I have won two state championship matches with it, numerous other shooting awards and I have hunted deer with it quite a few times.
Get off the high horse and come back to earth!


People kill people.
I wonder how Sheriff Crabtree would feel if a medical marijuana card holder won a raffle for a bushmaster?

David Bates

Surely someone could have thought of a way to "celebrate" the 2nd Amendment without the ugly symbolism that is the inevitable result of employing the same type of weapon that was used a few months ago to kill dozens of children.


I disagree with your assessment, David. It is you that are inferring 'ugly symbolism' upon the event. Obviously, the AR-15 has come to be recognized as the firearm of choice in our society for a plethora of reasons, the least of which among those that wish to own one, would be for murdering people.

I myself was pleasantly surprised to know that our Sheriff participated in the event. Hopefully, he's not the one that won the raffled rifle, as no doubt he probably already owns one or two of the rock & roll selector switch equipped models safely tucked away at his home.


You hunt deer with an assault rifle? How sporting.


Define 'sporting' from your perspective, Lulu.


Lulu, I would submit to you that you may want to study the topic a just a little bit. I would also suggest you refrain from the snide snipes and being the sole arbiter of what is sporting and what is not. In the process you may save yourself some embarrassment.
The proper nomenclature for that rifle is Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter in .223 Remington caliber. It does not meet military specifications, it is not military grade, has an entirely different bolt, trigger group, selector switch all of which are specifically designed to prevent full automatic firing.

"AR-15's" come in various calibers and not just the traditional or "original" .223 Remington. It is a popular rifle for hunting because of the lighter weight and its design which reduces recoil by keeping the barrel and muzzle in direct alignment with the shoulder stock. There is no comb or drop. National Geographic, Discover and The Outdoor Channel quite often have shows where the hunters are using these rifles, including in Alaska.

The only difference between this rifle and the Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster, Model 742 Woodsman, Browning BAR Stalker, BAR Longtrac Stralker, ShorTrac Hog Stalker and many other rifles would be the appearance. All of these rifles come in various calibers.

I also hunt deer with a Muzzleloader. Does that make you feel better?

Now, if you have a problem with hunting, that is for a different forum.

David Bates

MT: The Bushmaster assault rifle has assumed a powerful association beyond its own existence in the minds of hundreds of millions of Americans on both sides of the debate over guns. If you randomly asked 1,000 Americans on street corners across the country, "What do you know about the Bushmaster assault rifle?" I suspect that the majority, if not the vast majority, would say, "It was the rifle used in the Sandy Hook massacre." That's how symbolism works. It may not be fair, you may not like it, but to quote Cronkite, that's the way it is.


I'm not so certain that most would recognize or simply associate the Bushmaster with that. Assault Rifle, Assault Weapon, yes. I'm not so sure that those unfamiliar with firearms would know Bushmaster from DPMS, Olympic, Armalite, Rock River, Colt or any of the others. But, they certainly have learned the names and terms of M4, M16, (which are the "true - real" assault rifles) and the civilian AR-15 (which is still a licensed trade name to Colt) and all of the derivatives of that platform.

troy prouty

I think having a rifle at a drawing to symbolize the 2nd amendment is no more appropriate than having a person smash a window for freedom of speech.


troy prouty

There is nothing in the second amendment aboyut felons having a gun, I wonder if Jack would be okay with that?



No doubt that when the Native Americans started acquiring repeating rifles, they'd in all probability soon discovered many benefits to ones ownership. Don't you think, David?

To quote Joaquin Phoenix, "I'm Still Here"


Lets see here.
Rifle, Raffle, 2nd Amendment, winner passes background check. No problems, No violation of the law.

Smashing Windows, damaging someone else's property, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF, arrest, fines and possibly jail time.

I think I detect a bit of a difference.

Since the premise is that a person convicted of a felony looses certain rights of a citizen, one of those being the right to possess a firearm and then there are the laws on the books covering a felon in possession of a firearm, it is probably a moot point.

Just in case it is confusing, Yep, and this is a wild guess on my part, but I think Jack would probably have a problem with that. : )

troy prouty


"Smashing Windows, damaging someone else's property, CRIMINAL MISCHIEF, arrest, fines and possibly jail time."

I didn't say who windows they smashed. You assumed.

posted ""Since the premise is that a person convicted of a felony looses certain rights of a citizen, one of those being the right to possess a firearm"

Does the 2nd amendment address it or not? Or was there a change in polioy after the 2nd amendment that made it so?


troy prouty

my point is .. The 2nd Amendment probably didn't deal with felons having guns, because it wasn't a problem at the time. I think one probably could compare a lot of things in regards to laws created a long time ago, things like Semi-automatic ruifles for example, clips.. etc.etc.. Smashing windows for freedom of speech (someone elses) BUT truthfully you can probably get in troucble smashing your own in this age. So why everyone wants to speak of amendments and rights of laws created yesterday, it might not really apply to what is really happening today. We can choose to live in the past and risk losing our future, OR we can adjust and make things better for tomorrow because we realize "Today".



I understand that Troy. And, I didn't assume, I included "someone else's" to make a distinction between tearing up your own place and someone else's.

I think if you go back in history, some things were recognized right away. To start with they hung murderers, traitors and horse thief's (or lined them up against a wall and shot them). Felons were stripped of any citizenship privileges, were banned from towns and villages along with a loss of many other privileges.

SCOTUS has rendered decisions, and even though we may not agree with all of them they are there. People refer to the amendments and rights of laws created yesterday, because they are the laws of today, If people don't like the second amendment, there are provisions in the Constitution to make changes. Those people should perhaps follow that route if the legislatures and/or the courts are constitutionally prevented from making changes or don't fall in line with their way of thinking. Perhaps the "majority rules" thingy gets in the way every once in a while. Now, talk about an outdated idea!

Semi-Autos have been around since the late 1800's. No "clip" made, that I am aware of, exceeds 10 rounds so where is that problem? The "clip" that feeds the rifle that killed President Kennedy held 5 rounds. Clips for the M16 and AR platforms hold a maximum of 10 rounds, the clips for the M14 hold 5 and the clips for the M1 Garand hold 2, 5 and 8 with 8 being the standard issue clip.

At the same time I'm pretty sure the Constitution didn't mention automobiles or a specific right to ownership of them....................................

David Bates

MT, I suppose some Native Americans may initially have believed firearms would bestow them "benefits" against European invaders, but history has shown in brutal fashion that those who did were being hopelessly naive -- as naive, I would argue, as those who today insist that the Second Amendment is our last and/or best defense against government tyranny.

Between 1492, when Columbus first arrived in the "new" world and 1892, when the US Census put the number of indigenous people in the country's claimed borders at fewer than a quarter million, a hemispheric population estimated to have once stood at 125 million was slashed by more than 90 percent.

So much for the "benefits" of repeating rifles.

troy prouty

posted "specific right to ownership of them...................................."

We consider automobiles a privledge not a right. Similar I might add to Japan and "guns".

posted "Perhaps the "majority rules" thingy gets in the way every once in a while. Now, talk about an outdated idea!"

We ddon't use it enough. I think we should have a vote among the people on the gun issue.

We don't use the popular vote to win elections, we don't use it to get peopleto be elected (we use capital for that. Those two things in ,my opinion aren't working, despite warnings from early on (I guess we decided that was the past, so those didn't matter, yet how dare you tell me I can't have a Semi.....

Ideas from Adams, Kant and Rawls all seem to have been replaced by a new wave of ideas. Soon things that seemed to have worked was called a problem for the few (with money) so change was made.

Glass Steegal Act (Mortgage crisis) Or gutting Monopoly rules, changing tax laws, etc..etc.. I would argue all those things have more to do with the future of possible failure than restricting certain weapons would, and yet most Americans would rather bark about (ownig a gun) then care if they get bitten by something that could totally devaste America to come in all other consequences. Sad really.

Maybe America needs to question it's own beliefs and how they became.



Ownership of houses, real property, an automobile, are in fact rights. Obtaining a drivers license and driving an automobile upon a public roadway is a privilege.

The rest I'll leave to the imagination.............................

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS