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

Let’s get serious on gun violence

February 8, 2013

To the editor: Is everyone getting as tired as I am of the National Rifle Association lecturing us about gun rights and the Second Amendment? What is it about owning a gun that turns people into......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(13)

PastResident

Feb-09-13 8:52 AM

Mr Beito, What many of us are actually tired of is mostly uninformed people trying to further limits our Constitutional rights. And, in the case of the bills being proposed in the State of MN, actually trying to take away our guns and magazines. (Including handguns in common use as home defense pieces.) Some of us choose to educate ourselves on what our government is trying to do to us.

Those muzzle loaded guns that were in use at the time the authors penned the Second Amendment were the most modern weapons available at that point. And there were always people looking to make advancements on that tool that did everything from defending our nation to feeding our families. I, for one, don’t believe that those folks doubted that the style of arms in common use would change with the times. In fact the scary looking semi-automatics are some of the most popular firearms choices today. That may put them in the category of the modern day flintlocks.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Feb-09-13 8:53 AM

I know you don’t want to be challenged by us armchair law experts, but what do you make of the US vs. Miller case that was referenced in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case where the US argued that “3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.”? With that as a precedent, why are we trying to ban scary looking semi-automatics and not my little .22 plinker?

“…the proposals that have been put forth to get gun trafficking under control…” The only people that have been shown to be in the gun trafficking business lately is our Federal Government under the leadership of Eric Holder. And they have the stones to lecture us about trafficking and straw-purchasers?

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Feb-09-13 8:54 AM

I bought a gun over the internet once. First I had to go to my Sherriff’s office and apply for a permit to purchase it. I waited about 7 – 10 days for them to do a “thorough” background check. (It will never be a truly thorough check unless we relinquish our medical privacy rights.) I bought the gun from a licensed dealer. Who shipped it via FedEx to another licensed dealer near where I live. Where I then had to go through another “instant” background check to make sure nothing had changed in the past month since I had my original background check.

When we get serious about stopping gun violence will be when we get serious about concentrating not on the “how”, but on the “why”?

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Feb-09-13 1:47 PM

It's too bad these gun-control measures weren't in place in California to prevent the disgruntled ex-cop from going (and still going) on an intricately planned path of gun violence. If we just would have banned the semi-auto weapons, this never would have happened either...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-09-13 2:31 PM

There is only one way to fix this mess we've gotten ourselves into:

1. Eliminate the 2nd amendment in the Sane-49 states. 2. Ban all future gun manufacturing in the Sane-49. 3. Put strict limits and availability to ammo. Like, none. 4. Put into effect Draconian fines and prison sentences for gun offenders. Treat them like ess ee ex offenders. 5. Only allow the storage and firing of "recreational guns" at certified gun ranges and preserves. Would be best to let the NRA doofuses play "war" there with live ammunition. 6. Round up all the gun nuts who refuse to comply with The New Gun Order and send them and all their toys to Texas. 7. Demand that Texas revert back to the Republic of Texas, a separate country. 8. Build a gigantic wall around the US-Texas border and shoot anyone crossing it. (That was kind of a joke...heh, heh.)

There, Svensota brilliantly takes care of another very big problem.

You're welcome.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Feb-09-13 11:41 PM

Svensota-now tackle the obesity epidemic please....

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-10-13 12:15 AM

Well, since I'm on a roll here it is, Integrity:

Pass a constitutional amendment banning all sugar.

That really was too easy.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Feb-10-13 11:21 AM

But Svenny, (can I call you Svenny?) I have a sweet tooth and do not have an obiesety problem. Can there be a loophole for pipe like me that are physically active?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-10-13 2:56 PM

Concerned72 liked to call me Svenny. So, if you'd like to emulate him...

Now, back to your problem of being too buff, MCW.

In your case, you'd have to move to California and apply for medicinal sugar. Make sure you get to pure natural stuff and not the kind that's laced with"happy thoughts".

It might be a little inconvenient for you to move to LA or Frisco, but think of all the good that such an amendment would bring to our blubbery nation.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Feb-11-13 12:54 AM

Whoah, there is a lot of gray area between obese and buff. I fall well into the gray area.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Feb-11-13 9:52 PM

So, you would be?

1. Semi-buff

2. Slightly buff

3. Moderately unfat

4. Slightly not moderately unfat

5. Doing pretty darn well given age and lack of exercise and amount of beer available on cold days with big games on the TV...and lucky skinny genes from my father's side of the family.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BEVERLY

Feb-12-13 6:05 PM

Getting back on task.Here are some questions for those trying to dump the 2nd amendment. If read, the first 4 amendments to the constitution answer most of the questions being asked by gun-o-phobes 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishement of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or ofthe press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. #2. 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. #3 No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered an any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. #4 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Schnauser

Feb-13-13 12:04 AM

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 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