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

Fear among the gun extremists

March 7, 2013

To the editor: It is pretty scary that the right wing extremists believe, with all their hearts, that the government will “take their guns awa....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(82)

PastResident

Mar-08-13 12:45 AM

First: This is not a “right wing extremist” issue. If anything, it may be an urban vs. rural issue. Of the legislators I’ve contacted, the only responses I’ve received were from those in rural districts. The only ones who have bothered to contact me back are those that agree that our 2nd Amendment rights should not be infringed, and no additional gun / magazine limits should be enacted. Those legislators were from both sides of the isle.

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 12:46 AM

So exactly how is anyone showing ignorance and/or how is anyone sealing themselves off from reality? “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them…. Mr. and Mrs. American turn em all in. I would have done it.” - Diane Feinstein "Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." - U.S. Senator Joseph Biden "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Senator Howard Metzenbaum "My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns." - U.S. Representative Major Owens "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno Admittedly, these quotes are not that recent, but some of the players are the same, and it shows that attempts at confiscation have been considered.

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 12:49 AM

“These people” haven’t turned to a simple conclusion. “These people” would suggest first enforcing laws already on the books. Make the existing background checks actually mean something by making sure mental health records are available and included. Actually prosecute people who are breaking the law by lying on a background check. Actually bring weapons charges against people who are caught committing a crime with an illegal weapon. There are SO many things that can and should be looked at BEFORE the banning of inanimate objects. “…willing to allow the unhinged to tote weapons …”? NO. Again, make the current background checks actually mean something. I for one would like nothing more than the “unhinged” not to have access to guns. Whenever one of those nutballs goes off and shoots someone, it makes the hundreds of thousands of the rest of us who will never commit a violent crime shudder.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 12:50 AM

“…especially those weapons that kill many at one time.” By focusing on that group of guns, you’re completely ignoring the fact that they account for a very small fraction of gun deaths. It’s that line of thinking that, to me, says you’re more interested in making a grand gesture than actually trying to make a significant impact on gun deaths.

I know everyone loves analogies so here’s one:

If your neighbor drinks, drives, and kills someone, should we be ban the car he/she was driving? Or maybe that car should have a smaller gas tank. After all, he/she couldn’t run over as many people if they ran out of gas first.

Come on people. Until we focus on the “why” in these crimes instead of the “how”, nothing will change.

11 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

careaboutsnivelrights

Mar-08-13 8:04 AM

All you have to do is read the rhetoric of last fall, "Oh no, we dont want to legalize gay marriage, we only want to defeat this bad bill to change the constitution" fast forward to bills being discussed right now in Minnesota, Need I say more??

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Mar-08-13 8:50 AM

The guns themselves are a small part of the gun violence issue! That's a fact! I'm not going to get into it again, that's all I'm saying. Also realize that if it's ok to slowly take freedoms away, a little at a time, don't complain down the road when some of your own freedoms are restricted...the precedence was already set.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 9:57 AM

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Mar-08-13 10:12 AM

The only one perpetuating ignorance is this letter writer.

For starters, nobody is suggesting that the "unhinged" tote weapons. Seriously, where do you come up with that one ?

You are the only one who seems to have lost touch with reality. If we are to follow your logic we would need to ban baseball bats because they were used to kill more people that assault rifles.

One question that has yet to be answered: If greater restrictions are applied to law abiding citizens how will this in any way impede those who willingly and knowingly choose to break the law ? Do you for a second think that someone who chooses to use a gun to commit a crime will instead pick up a sharp stick because they might be violating a gun law ?

Just who has lost touch with reality here ?

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 10:29 AM

JR-you said " If greater restrictions are applied to law abiding citizens how will this in any way impede those who willingly and knowingly choose to break the law ?" SO does your logic apply to all laws? So then the laws against theft or murder are usless because those who would steal and kill would not follow them?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

honestasIcanbe

Mar-08-13 11:10 AM

I've always found it interesting who calls guns or firearms "weapons". Not one firearm owner that I know calls their firearm a weapon. I've learned in hunter safety training that weapons are only used to hurt others.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 2:39 PM

Honest-I know of no carpenter that calls his hammer a "weapon" but if he kills his neighbor with it ,it will be from then on and for all time known as the "murder weapon". A gun is and was made to be a destructive weapon. If you shoot something, something is destroyed. Targets animals, whatever.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 3:16 PM

MT-Then apply the same line of reasoning to the murder statute.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 5:21 PM

MT-you also need to learn to answer a question-you accuse others of not answering yours or refer to them as "lawyerly" or "evasive" answers, then you do the exact same thing. If you can show by reasoning and logic that the gun law is bad, then by the same reaoning and logic you should be able to show the murder laws as good or bad. If you cannot use the rationale on other laws then that rationale has no value.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Mar-08-13 5:28 PM

Why p ussyfoot around?

Let's make the NRA wackos' dreams come true and take their guns away.

Who needs a gun?

Really.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Mar-08-13 5:42 PM

The NRA, other gun rights groups and gun makers will never publicly admit it but the recent mass shooting have been great for business. Memberships are up, gun sales have gone thru the roof all because of the fear generated by certain groups. People have deluded themselves into thinking they are safer in their homes if they have a gun. People imagine themselves to be Dirty Harry or Rambo when more than likely what will happen is a member of the family will die by the very gun used to protect them. It is a sad situation when hundreds of thousands of people are holed up in their houses with loaded guns, if they ever do have a chance to use them against an intruder, more than likely there will be 20 holes in the walls and ceiling, Granny will be dead on the floor and the intruder will be gone.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Mar-08-13 6:11 PM

Zorro,

My logic only applies to gun restriction laws. Trying to broaden the argument on your part is apples & oranges at best.

If we are to apply your reasoning we should ban all bolt cutters because they are sometimes used by burglars.

The government's biggest failure is demonstrating that banning certain classes of firearms would have any desired affect on reducing violent crime.

There are limitations on our rights - nobody is arguing that. When the government wishes to further limit our rights they at the very least to put forth compelling reasons for doing so. In this regarding they have failed miserably. These proposed restrictions will not decrease violent crimes nor will they stop a crazed individual from shooting innocent children.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 8:08 PM

So when the logic used by those who write the laws only applies to gun laws the logic is flawed but when your logic only applies to gun laws it is valid? Must be nice to live in your little world.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 9:55 PM

"Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

That decision was based on if sawed off shotguns were protected under the 2nd Amendment.

That decision determined that sawed off shotguns did not have a legitimate military use. (Although that could be argued because they were in use as trench guns during WWII.)

So the "Miller" case's basis was on if the gun had a military use. Now we're complaining because scary looking black guns look too much like military guns?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 10:00 PM

"So then the laws against theft or murder are usless because those who would steal and kill would not follow them?"

Not at all. Because those laws are upheld against people who actually break those laws. They don’t restrict the rights of those who have no intention of breaking them.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Mar-08-13 10:11 PM

TURBO75: I wish I had written what you wrote. Well said.

Regardless, I'll still ask: Who needs a gun?

And, answer my own question: No one.

The only true purpose of a gun is to kill something or someone.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Mar-08-13 10:18 PM

PR-so your rights are restricted when you cannot have the kind of gun you want? So where does that logic end? Are you rights restricted when you cannot have a RPG? A M61 Vulcan? A tank? And really? you want to bring intent into the logical mix? How many are shot when that was not the intent when the gun was purchased?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 10:28 PM

Who "needs" a reason to practice the rights granted by our Constitution?

I've never killed (let alone shot) anyone.

The last time I killed anything was a very sick raccoon that took over my cat's winter residence. (A few years ago now.)

I have punished quite a few clay, paper, and steel targets recently though.

I have no intention on killing anything with my guns if I don't have to.

Some people just can't get past a stereotpe of gun owners.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 10:30 PM

"So where does that logic end?"

I don't know. Ask the supreme court. They're the ones who made the decision.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Mar-08-13 11:29 PM

" ... you want to bring intent into the logical mix?"

OK. Take the word "intend" out.

They don’t restrict the rights of those who will never break them.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Mar-09-13 12:44 AM

Basically, in 1791, there was a desire to allow "a well regulated militia" via "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". But, the 2nd amendment is a cobbled-together sentence. And, the meaning has been debated for 200+ years. Did the wise Founding Fathers mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be able to go out and buy deadly assault weapons?

Don't think so.

But, the Supreme Court, in two landmark decisions, in 2008 and 2010, sided with the gun nuts.

So...here's how to fix the problem.

1. Ever-vigilant President Obama replaces two conservative NRA-smooching Supreme Court justices...soon.

2. The Supreme Court then wisely reverses those two idiotic decisions, and reinterprets what the Founding Fathers wrote. That: The second amendment was aimed at providing an armed militia for mutual defense, not for allowing gun mayhem and stupidity to run rampant in the 21st century.

Forward!

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 82 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