Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Common sense, not anti-gun

January 22, 2013

To the editor: In a recent Journal editorial you stated that the NRA has clout like that is something to be proud of....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(59)

EaglesFan

Jan-22-13 7:18 AM

Great letter. Notogop, you're absolutely right.

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 8:19 AM

David Nelson,

And if that were the only gun restriction planned, you'd probably find a lot of agreement.

Unfortunately it's not. The plan is to take rights away from EVERY gun owner even before implementing ANYTHING that would address the PEOPLE who are committing these crimes.

It's been shown that the shooter at Sandy Hook already broke some 41 laws during his crime. Would he care about one more?

7 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 8:50 AM

Past Resident, "The plan is to take rights away from EVERY gun owner even before implementing ANYTHING that would address the PEOPLE who are committing these crimes." Please tell me other than a proposed assault weapons ban, which I personally think is unnecessary if they limit magazine capacity, what rights exactly will be taken away. There has been no mention of other types of weapons so certainly you do not think someone not only needs an AR-15 but also needs a high capacity magazine as well. As someone he served in the military most of my adult life I know that high capacity magazines are designed to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time and have no home defense or hunting application so again I ask what rights are being taken away?

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 8:54 AM

Michael T, As to your last sentence of your statement I would suggest you go back and again read the third paragraph of my letter: Let us not forget that the second amendment's purpose is clearly stated within the text, and it mentions nothing about tyranny or a tyrannical Government. "A well-regulated militia" means what it says. The founders knew how costly standing armies could be, so instead of saddling their new country with crushing debt, they elected to have a volunteer force of common workers, homeowners, farmers, and family men ready to defend their homes and lives at a moment's notice. This is why we have a right to keep our weapons, to be ready to join the call FROM our nation, not AGAINST her.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 11:30 AM

Michael T you are totally incorrect. The Colonist did take up arms against the British but they in no way intended the citizens of the newly formed United Sates to take up arms against their own Government nor is there any way you can interpret from the Second Amendment that that was their intent. Here is the entire text of the Second Amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now you tell me where in there you get that it says the intention was so citizens "would not be helpless in the face of a tyrannical government." It just does not say that and you are 100% incorrect.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 1:16 PM

"Please tell me other than a proposed assault weapons ban, which I personally think is unnecessary if they limit magazine capacity, what rights exactly will be taken away."

You just listed two rights that current gun owners have that may be taken away.

That's my point. How 'bout we start with the implementation of universal background checks (which I mostly agree with) and additional information sharing required for those background checks BEFORE we start chipping away at our Constitutional rights?

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 1:21 PM

If we want something that would have an effect immediately, how 'bout we bump up the requirements a bit to get a "carry" permit, then get rid of "gun free" zones for anyone who has the legal ability to carry.

I really don't understand the purpose of a "gun free" zone. How many people intent on shooting up a place will be deterred by a sign? The only people who are affected by "gun free" zones are those who could otherwise defend themselves.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 1:56 PM

Past Resident please tell me where in that Second Amendment it states that you have the "right" to have a magazine of unlimited capacity? I must have missed that somehow? Also how do you justify needing one?

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jan-22-13 2:44 PM

PR-if you read history we have tried the more guns plan, it didn't work. In the American west towns from Deadwood, to Dodge City to Tombstone enacted laws that prohibited the carrying of handguns. If more guns were safer, why would they pass these laws? Kind of hard to believe that these cities were populated with liberals.....

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-22-13 5:37 PM

Being limited to 55 mph does not mean you are not allowed to drive or own a car.

The first amendment has limits on free speech, including to protect against libel and slander; but freedom of speech still exists.

Owning assault weapons and unlimited magazine capacity are not separate rights. They are regulations of the right to bear arms; which is not being taken away.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-22-13 5:44 PM

"Attribute sinister motives to your opposition and act as though you know the REAL reason they are for or against something" are tactics of the Left? Well, there are 2 Left shoes in MT's size that are almost worn out!

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Jan-22-13 6:24 PM

What nobody has been able to provide is proof that banning assault weapons and limiting the size of clips will in any way reduce violence against children in schools. It is at best wishful thinking to speculate that the shootings at Sandy Hook would have ended any differently had these current proposals been made into law.

I'm all for laws that work even if they limit some rights. But these proposals won't change anything. Children will continue to die in school shootings. If we are going to pass laws that limit the rights of law abiding citizens at least make them effective.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Schnauser

Jan-22-13 6:42 PM

The Supreme Court has already ruled on a citizen's right to have personal firearms weapons to defend themselves and their homes and to hunt with. It was a clarification ruling on the second amendment. It also ruled at the same time that the Government has the right to regulate firearms. That was all done by your "Conservative" selected Supreme Court. So what's the point with the slippery slope argument that the Government is coming to get us and our guns. I swear some people need to learn to read and pay attention. I'm a gun owner and I don't need more than 5 shotgun shells to kill a few birds and 2 rifle shells to kill a deer or a varmint. Close the gun show loophole and do real backround checks on sales. Guess who is in the pocket of the guns and ammo manufactures who are making a (no pun intended) killing on sales. Follow the money and the scared politicians with no backbone. The rational people of this country will stand up on this one I guarentee it.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 6:46 PM

Michael T the New York law is a State Law and one of the HUGE talking points of the Republican Party has always been State's rights and having them not infringed upon by Federal Laws. If New York passes laws more stringent than Federal regulations do you expect the Federal Government to step in and tell them they cannot enacting their own laws? You cannot have it both ways.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 6:49 PM

JReader please explain to me how the text of the Second Amendment gives anyone the right to a 100 round magazine. I am also still waiting for anyone to explain to me why the need a 30 round or 100 round magazine for hunting or home defense.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 7:38 PM

"Past Resident please tell me where in that Second Amendment it states that you have the "right" to have a magazine of unlimited capacity?"

That's not what I said.

It is currently my right to buy a scary looking semi-automatic rifle. It's also currently my right to buy a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

Both of those rights are being threatened.

Maybe you'd prefer I use the term "privilege". I chose to use the term "right".

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 7:48 PM

"I am also still waiting for anyone to explain to me why the need a 30 round or 100 round magazine for hunting or home defense."

Hunting was never considered in the 2nd Amendment, so that really doesn't matter.

Target practice isn't in the 2nd amendment either, but when I go out to practice my hobby, I prefer to actually use my time actually shooting. Not reloading.

Home defense? What happens when the criminal busting into my home has a handgun with a 20 round magazine? I'd prefer to have a 30 round magazine.

Banning the sale of magazines with capacities over 10 rounds will not automatically make the larger capacity magazines disappear.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 7:52 PM

Past Resident you are using the why you "want" a large capacity magazine not why you "need" one. Your argument does not pass the BS test.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 7:52 PM

"Also how do you justify needing one?"

The same way I justify having a vehicle that goes faster than 70 miles per hour.

The same way I justify having more than one hammer in my tool kit.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 7:57 PM

Past resident last time I checked a hammer cannot kill twenty plus people in a matter of minutes......your arguments are getting more idiotic with each post.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 8:00 PM

I go back to my previous statement.

"How 'bout we start with the implementation of universal background checks (which I mostly agree with) and additional information sharing required for those background checks BEFORE we start chipping away at our Constitutional rights?"

BEFORE we ban scary looking semi-automatics, which infringes on our rights, we should try implementing other measures FIRST.

Scary-looking semi-automatic rifles are THE MOST POPULAR WEAPON today. These are the modern day muskets.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 8:05 PM

A scary-looking rifle can't kill 20 people plus people in a matter of minutes either, unless in the hands of an idiot.

Guns don't go off by themselves.

Focus on the shooter, not the tool.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 8:05 PM

Please go back and re-examine Schnauser's post as you obviously are not comprehending what is being said here.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-22-13 8:11 PM

"A scary-looking rifle can't kill 20 people plus people in a matter of minutes either, unless in the hands of an idiot." That is the problem is idiot's use them to slaughter children which is why universal no exceptions background checks are needed.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 8:22 PM

You may be right. I don't comprehend why Schnauser's post has anything to do with what I'm saying. Other than, maybe, that there are limits on the 2nd amendment. Yes, there are limits. It is, for the most part, not permitted to have any fully automatic weapons. It is not permitted to have anything that can not be carried by hand.

Again. The scary semi-automatic rifle is the most popular weapon today. The writers of the 2nd amendment did not exempt the most popular or even the most lethal weapon (which scary looking semi-automatic rifles are NOT)available at that time.

Why can't we try the implementation of universal background checks and the additional sharing of information FIRST?

1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 59 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web