Archive for Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Gunmen in killings had permits

April 8, 2009

Advertisement

They had more in common than unleashing carnage — nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren’t getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, “it hasn’t sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it’s going the other way,” said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts “to pass any similar law.”

Gun control issues would only produce “a long and divisive fight,” they said, at a time when Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.

A few states are trying to loosen gun restrictions. In the Texas Capitol — where legislators can carry guns — bills easily passed the Senate in recent weeks that would allow employees to bring weapons to work as long as they leave them locked in their cars, and let those packing heat off the legal hook if they walked into a bar that didn’t have signs saying guns weren’t allowed inside.

The state also is considering allowing students licensed to carry a concealed weapon — there are about 300,000 such adults in Texas — to bring guns on campus.

Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right.

The National Rifle Association, the country’s most powerful gun lobbying group, declined to comment this week on gun control laws.

Groups such as Vogel’s, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak — just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts — whether they have a gun permit or not. And studies conflict on whether stricter gun laws lessen gun violence.

On Friday, a depressed and angry Jiverly Wong used a 9 mm and .45-caliber handgun to kill 13 immigrants and service center employees in Binghamton, N.Y., police said.

Questions have been raised over the upstate New York gun permit issued to Wong in 1997. Two years later, he was reported to state police by an informer who claimed Wong was planning a bank heist to feed a crack-cocaine habit. Unlike other areas of the state, including New York City, Wong’s Broome County permit did not have to be renewed.

Local authorities, however, have broad discretion in reviewing and revoking such permits, according to legal experts. Especially when it comes to drug use, criminal behavior and violence.

Binghamton police chief Joseph Zikuski said Tuesday that no robbery occurred and there was no merit to review Wong’s gun permit.

Comments

Moderateguy 6 years ago

Whoa, I didn't know they were "legally entitled" to fire at people. There should be some laws making murder and attempted murder illegal.... Oh, wait a minute... What a load of garbage. More gun laws arent going to do anything but disarm law abiding citizens. By this persons viewpoints, Chicago and Washington D.C. should be a nirvana of safety. THEY AREN'T. Vermont (where it is legal for almost everyone to carry concealed) should be a scene from "Platoon." IT ISN'T.

Jersey_Girl 6 years ago

Perhaps instead of a "cooling off" period before a gun can be purchased, a psych eval should be performed.

50YearResident 6 years ago

Marion writes: Tell us to which firearms you refer and then we might have something to chat about.

I think it is quite clear what type weapons he is talking about Marion, AK47's types where the magazine holds 30 to 50 bullets and can fire them all in less than 1 minute.

Jersey_Girl 6 years ago

How about a compromise? Anyone can have any gun he or she desires, but ammunition is restricted. That way, gun collectors can have their guns, but the nuts can't shoot everybody.

50YearResident 6 years ago

The capacity of the magazine makes all the difference. How many bullets can be fired from each gun in one minute with an unlimited supply of loaded mags? The 7400 counting reloading time as fast as you can reload maybe 20 rounds. The AK47 probably 200 to 300. You tell me!

50YearResident 6 years ago

OK Marion, Just so you know, I am a hunter and believe in firearms for self defense, but why would anyone need an AK47 for home defense unless they thought 50 people were going to be breaking and entering at the same time?

Ceallach 6 years ago

followed by Seven Spanish Angels?

jcook 6 years ago

50YearResident says… OK Marion, Just so you know, I am a hunter and believe in firearms for self defense, but why would anyone need an AK47 for home defense unless they thought 50 people were going to be breaking and entering at the same time?


Being a hunter, you should know the real issue should be detachable magazines, not cosmetics. A semi-automatic AK-47 is no more dangerous than any of the other "reasonable" guns Marion has previously mentioned. Any firearm with a detachable magazine theoretically has an infinite capacity, and many popular hunting-type riles can be had with 50+ capacity drums/magazines. That leads to the conclusion that you believe an AK-47 is more dangerous either (1) because is looks menacing (after all, isn't it the gun all those Commies and terrorists use?); or (2) the name "AK-47" somehow causes the gun to be more deadly. All firearms are designed to fire a projectile from the barrel, the AK is no different. Arbitrary distinctions based on either (1) or (2) make no sense.

50YearResident 6 years ago

Gee, Marion, maybe it is the pistol grip that gives the impression it can be fired like a machine gun or the military look of the firearm that makes you think you are in a combat zone of something like that. I am not near the arms expert that you are claiming to be.

staff04 6 years ago

Marion, I think you're slipping...why aren't you bashing the first poster on this story for wild speculation?

jcook 6 years ago

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

I have to admit that I think there should be some law regarding Jeff Gordon and handguns…


But Jeff is wearing a National Guard suit and is therefore a member of the "militia." Therefore, the 2nd Amendment permits him to ... Oh that right, it's an individual right.

HW 6 years ago

50 year -

The rifle that you keep referring to is already ILLEGAL to own. That is, without a special permit from the ATF. I base this off of you saying 200-300 rounds per minute. The only way that is really possible is to have a fully automatic rifle (which requires a special permit) or to "bump fire" your rifle. As Marion pointed out, you can get a high capacity magazine for just about any semi-automatic rifle. You can also "bump fire" just about any semi-automatic rifle, which is also a very inaccurate way to shoot.

gogoplata 6 years ago

Why? Can anyone give me a single solitary reason why private citizens need or should be allowed to own weapons that are specifically designed to kill other humans in mass quantities?

I have 2 reasons. The Preservation of Liberty and Self Defense.

maxcrabb 6 years ago

Humans will be humans will be humans...

gogoplata 6 years ago

How about a compromise? Anyone can have any gun he or she desires, but ammunition is restricted. That way, gun collectors can have their guns, but the nuts can't shoot everybody.

Criminals would still be able to buy illegal ammunition on the black market. This would only limit the ammunition supply of law abiding citizens. Almost all gun laws don't work because the bad guys don't care about the law.

beatrice 6 years ago

Marion is right -- there are many guns that are capable of mass killings, and so laws shouldn't look at just banning AK-47s. Obviously, there are many worthy of such honor. (That was the point you were making, wasn't it?)

LO, "Not one story in the article about a person using a firearm to defend themselves or their family."

Why should there be? This is a story about guns being used to commit mass murder. In a story about a car accident, must they include stories about people driving responsibly just to balance out the story? Give me a break.

The question I see is this, are 57 innocent lives in such a short period worth the price to allow others to own guns? Moderateguy, looking at cities within the country with strict gun laws isn't reasonable, because there is too easy access from outside of the city. I agree, as does the Supreme Court recently, that such laws don't work and aren't Constitutional. No, if you want to make a comparison on whether or not gun laws work to prevent murders, look at entire countries with strict gun laws. How many gun murders were there in Australia last year? See, effective gun laws do actually work to prevent murders by guns.

Politicians find it difficult to openly support rational limitations on guns because of the money that flows from the massive lobbyist firm called the NRA that thrives on scare tactics and fear mongering. (Yes, remarkably I just received one of their mailings this week asking me to join, in which they claim to be fighting against "freedom-hating Hollywood elites." What a bunch of garbage. Like anyone is listening to whether or not Alec Baldwin wants to take away somebodies Colt 45.) Thus too many politicians are cowards to stand up for what they believe, because they want to be elected or re-elected.

That said, however, I do think we shouldn't even be looking at further limitations on guns in an attempt to slow the mass killings in our country at this time. There are simply much bigger fish to fry right now.

gogoplata 6 years ago

An AK-47 is a good choice for a home defense weapon. A great choice if you live in the country It is rugged, reliable and accurate enough to get the job done. Most people don't have the time to be able to achieve 1 shot 1 kill accuracy so the extra ammo in the magazine allows you a few misses.

Lets not forget that the reason for the 2nd ammendment was protection against a tyrannical government. Last I checked the government boys have lots of weapons that exceed the firepower of the AK-47.

50YearResident 6 years ago

Marion writes: "You are the one who made calls for banning firearms".
I say: I have never made calls about banning firearms, show me where I made that claim. As I stated in a previous post I do believe in firearms for self defense. But, there is a limit to what type of firearms are needed and that is my point. Some types of firearms have no value as personal defense weapons and those are the "attack type" of weapons like the AK47 which is one of those.

jcook 6 years ago

50YearResident, can you define "attack type?" Functionally, how is an attack type firearm different than one that, in your opinion, does have a legitimate purpose?

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

Marion, Are you saying you helped develop the MAC-10? If we where to truly follow the 2nd then all civilians would have access to all of the weapons in the US Army inventory. Is that a good idea? Obviously not look what a couple of crazed gunmen can do with a handgun and a semi-auto medium powered rifle. I am a firm believer that the second amendment is the only thing that has prevented this country from being invaded by both foreign and domestic threats. The people who's lives have been affected by gun violence get my symphathy and respect. The people that capitalize on these tragedies to push their agenda get neither.

The sad thing is most people are unaware of how many times a day, week or year honest people use a firearm to defend their lives, a loved one or a complete stranger. But the media has figured out they can garner more attention from tragedies and so have sick people that believe they have nothing to live for. One thing that bothers me the most is when the media reports another shooting they say "eleven people killed in mass shooting" when they should be saying ten people killed and one loser coward took his own life. Maybe if we quit glamorizing these incidents, less people will copycat them.

kmat 6 years ago

What we need is to go back to owning the same kinds of guns they had when the 2nd ammendment was written.

You can have all the muskets you want. Fire once, reload - pack down that powder - then shoot again.

That would end so much of the gun violence.

Keep in mind that back then too, dueling guns were created so that they weren't very accurate. They didn't want to kill each other.

Can you imagine a drive by with a musket? Nope. Cuz it wouldn't happen.

When the 2nd ammendment was written, they had no idea what society and technology would turn these weapons into. Back then, it was simple weapons. We didn't have all the technology we have now, police patrols, the Natl Guard. You needed your simple gun to hunt, protect your land from the indians, etc....

Times have changed and our laws should change to. Our founding fathers stated that the constitution should be changed as times changed. It's you gun freaks that can't get over the idea that 200+ year old laws need to be updated.

gogoplata 6 years ago

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. -Thomas Jefferson

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. -George Washington

The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. -James Madison

It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government. -Thomas Paine

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

There are some good arguments for gun control. Who wouldn't want to ensure a safer society. But I don't trust my government. That doesn't make me paranoid, it makes me a patriot. I love the ideas of freedom that this country was founded upon. The men who founded this nation believed deeply in liberty and greatly feared the potential of the government to infringe on individual liberty. We should not be willing to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety. It is time to stop using the actions of madmen to go after the 2nd ammendment rights of the people. Guns in the hands of the public are essential to liberty.

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

Most people don't understand that the musket was the "assault wepon, with it's scary looking flintlock sticking out" of it's time.

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

Most people don't understand that the musket was the "assault weapon, with it's scary looking flintlock sticking out" of it's time.

gogoplata 6 years ago

When the 2nd ammendment was written, they had no idea what society and technology would turn these weapons into. Back then, it was simple weapons. We didn't have all the technology we have now, police patrols, the Natl Guard. You needed your simple gun to hunt, protect your land from the indians, etc….

Times have changed and our laws should change to. Our founding fathers stated that the constitution should be changed as times changed. It's you gun freaks that can't get over the idea that 200+ year old laws need to be updated.

When the 2nd ammendment was written a musket was the technology of the day. And again the 2nd ammendment is about guarding against government tyranny.

If you want to change the constitution that is fine. As long as it is ammended according to the rules of the constitution. You don't need to be a gun freak to have a healthy distrust of our government. In case you have not noticed it is more than a little corrupt.

jcook 6 years ago

kmat (Anonymous) says…

What we need is to go back to owning the same kinds of guns they had when the 2nd ammendment was written.


Sound good to me. While we're at it, your First Amendment right of free speech should only apply to the same mediums available at the time as well. After all, our Founding Fathers, in all their wisdom, could never have fathomed the internet, the power it holds, or the extent by which one person's voice could be amplified by it. The internet allows a single white supremacist to spread his hate all over the world. The internet must be stopped. - - - - - - - - KSGraphicsguy (Anonymous) says…

Marion, Are you saying you helped develop the MAC-10? If we where to truly follow the 2nd then all civilians would have access to all of the weapons in the US Army inventory. Is that a good idea?


I have no problems with restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, as long as they are based on sound principles and reason, and do so without overly burdening law-abiding owners. Restricting automatic firearms like an authentic AK-47, fine by me, although I'd still like to own one. Restricting a Norinco AK-47 because it looks like its military sibling, even though functionally different, is pointless.

jcook 6 years ago

logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…

Assault rifles are dangerous enough that they should be kept out of everyone's hands, intent pure or malevolent.


How do you define "assault rifle?" fully automatic vs. semi-automatic? Detachable magazine? Wood vs. synthetic stock? Muzzle brake vs. no muzzle brake? Caliber of barrel?

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

I thought the .45 M-10 would be hard to control in FA I can only imagine what the .50 would be like. What would the RPM be? Did you at least consider a burst function?

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

I will answer that for you jcook.

Despite what the media tells you. A "Assault rifle" must be select fire. Meaning you can shoot one round or more than one round with each pull of the trigger.

jcook 6 years ago

Come on now KSGraphicsguy, I know the difference, but most, especially the media, do not. I was trying to find out want how the average "assault weapons are bad" person defines them.

Jim Phillips 6 years ago

The 1994 Federal Crime Bill defines an assault weapon: "A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. "

I really don't know anyone who has an AK-47. Possession of fully automatic weapons without the proper federal government permits is a federal felony. By definition, it truly is an assault weapon. As far as the semiautomatic variants are concerned ( by definition are not assault weapons), you gun-grabbers don't want me to have a 30 round magazine, but I can have three 10 rounders? Or six 5 rounders? And switching magazines can be done in less than a second. You all have been blindly led into the Brady propaganda.

I wish I could say it really amazes me that many of you scream about how the Patriot Act is a violation of the rights you cherish, yet you are so willing to compromise on the rights you don't care for. What other rights are you willing to give away?

beawolf 6 years ago

"It is time to stop using the actions of madmen to go after the 2nd ammendment rights of the people."...

As Kmat so succinctly put it, if want to own a gun it must be a muzzle loader. That adheres to the principle and interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

By the way the leading weapons used in murders in the US are not firearms and the percentage of semi-auto rifles used in murders is not even a drop in bucket. Handguns are the most frequently used firearm in all crimes.

gogoplata 6 years ago

--Well, then we may as well abolish all laws. After all, the bad guys don't care about the law, right?

Laws against murder, theft, or rape do not put the law abiding segment of the population at a disadvantage against the non law abiding segment. As for many other laws on the books I think you may be on to something.

-- First—where are those misses going? In the country, probably harmlessly into the surrounding countryside, but in a more densely populated area? Spray shooting can produce collateral damage.

You are responsible for pulling the trigger. You shoot, miss, and hurt or kill someone else. You get charged with the crime. I am not talking about spray shooting. I am talking about aiming at the target, knowing what the target is and what is behind it, shooting and missing. That is not spray shooting. Didn't you ever take hunters safety?

--Second—there are firearms that can fire more than once without reloading that don't need to have semi-auto, 50-shell capability. So to pretend like we have to choose between assault rifles and single-shot muskets is misleading.

I am not pretending anything. I am just saying it is reasonable for citizens to have access to AK-47s.

--By that logic, private citizens should be permitted to own tanks, mortars, etc.—anything the government has. Obviously, that is absurd.

No one is talking about citizens owning tanks, fighter jets, battleships, or nuclear warheads. Although I don't know if the citizens of this country could do much more damage with those toys than our government has done. The federal government has proven to be a piss poor steward of that kind of power.

gogoplata 6 years ago

As Kmat so succinctly put it, if want to own a gun it must be a muzzle loader. That adheres to the principle and interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

No it doesn't.

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

okay but you have to make all of the criminals promise to only use muzzle loaders. Good luck with that just because they are coming to rob, murder or rape you or me doesn't mean they are not honest law abiding people.

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

musbhiorlo (Anonymous) says…

as long as everyone is worried about the gun and not the reason these people kill, there will never be a solution to the problem.

You nailed it on the head!

KSGraphicsguy 6 years ago

Most of the gun owners in the US are not violent criminals. You think it is lawless now I can only imagine what it would be like if criminals knew you could not defend yourself with a firearm. Why do you think so many of these mass killing attacks happen in "Gun free zone" How many gun shows, police stations or shooting ranges can you think of that have been attacked?

I have owned many of AKs with scary 30-100 round magazines since I was 18. I have been fired from my job, had my butt kicked, experienced racism, had my heart broken and caught my girlfriend in bed with another guy! I have never thought shooting anyone would help or solve my problems.

I target shoot as often as I can, it makes me happy, it is something I enjoy! I am not out committing crimes with my firearms. If you don't agree with me that is fine, you have the right not to agree with me. But I also have the right to bear arms and I will continue to excercise that right.

Marion, was not using a bait and switch, he is pointing out a fact. The feel good legislation that was passed in the 1994 AWB is nothing compared to the new legislation they would like to pass now. They would like to ban any rifle that can fire more than one round before reloading that includes double barrel and pump shotguns, bolt action hunting rifles that have a internal magazine. All of you responsible firearm owners out there that didn't care about 1994 ban because "I don't own one of those type's of rifles so it doesn't effect me" better wake up!

beatrice 6 years ago

LO: "I'll add on that Japanese Americans, as a group, have lower rates of gun violence than in Japan."

Got proof on that one Liberty? The laws against gun ownership are so stringent in Japan and there are so few handguns there that instances of handgun violence in the entire country will be less than 200 instances a year -- for the entire country.

gogoplata 6 years ago

--We already draw lines defining what kinds of weapons a private citizen can own, due in large part to the inherent danger or potential damage that the weapon can cause in the wrong hands. If you don't like the term “Assault Weapon” because I'm not a gun expert, fine. Let me just say that I see no Constitutional issues with bans on semi-auto or automatic weapons. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees your right to have any specific type of firearm that pleases you.

That is exactly what the 2nd ammendment says. The right to bear arms. There are no exceptions listed.

--Lastly, can we please stop with this tired “but the criminals don't obey the laws, so why harm the rights of a law-abiding citizen” reasoning?

No. This is an important issue. It is important for the protection of individual liberty. There are a host of things that in the wrong hands can be lethal. It is immoral to legislate against the potential for danger or criminal malice. It is like saying that we should pass a law to govern the speed of a car at 70mph. When law abiding citizens obey gun laws they are at a disadvantage defending themselves against better armed criminals or a tyrannical government.

beatrice 6 years ago

But we do pass laws about speeding in a car, so I'm afraid I'm not getting your point. The idea that all citizens should be allowed to out-arm the criminals is not wise, unless home bazooka kits are okay with you.

mom_of_three 6 years ago

Kmat, you have a good point about when the constitution was written. There wasn't much variety with weapons, so the guy shooting at you would have the same type of weapon you had, so it would seem to be a fair fight. Now, people think they need assault rifles to protect their homes.
You had France, England and Spain in the colonies, fighting over land. There were natives who were mad at colonists for encroaching on their space. Totally different things going on back on, compared to now.

RoeDapple 6 years ago

LO: “I'll add on that Japanese Americans, as a group, have lower rates of gun violence than in Japan.”

"Got proof on that one Liberty? The laws against gun ownership are so stringent in Japan and there are so few handguns there that instances of handgun violence in the entire country will be less than 200 instances a year — for the entire country."

To me that is an extremely high number if the ownership is so limited. How about publishing statistics on actual legally owned handguns compared to handgun violence instances in Japan as opposed to the US. My guess is Japans rate is much higher. Any takers?

Jim Phillips 6 years ago

"beatrice (Anonymous) says…

But we do pass laws about speeding in a car, so I'm afraid I'm not getting your point. The idea that all citizens should be allowed to out-arm the criminals is not wise, unless home bazooka kits are okay with you"

A little over-the-top dramatically. Bazookas cause too much collateral damage and are a bit unwieldy for concealed carry and reloading is a pain.

Very good point, otherwise! Why should a Corvette have a speedometer that reaches 140 plus? The national maximum speed limit is 70. Let's put restrictions on how fast cars can go. No one needs to drive over 70. Think of all the lives that would be saved from slower speeds!

Since we are destroying the Earth anyway and since we can't seem to be capable of feeding the world, let's limit the amount of children per family to two. Automatic forced sterilization after two kids. No one needs more than two anyway.

Anything else you want to give away?

RoeDapple 6 years ago

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/japan_gun.html This link states handgun ownership in Japan limited to 50

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html This link states 17.34 deaths per million (approx.2150) in Japan in 1993. Obviously the lawbreakers can still get guns, as 50 legally owned guns could not be responsible for over 2000 deaths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_viol... This link states there are 70 million handguns in the US

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html This link states that in 2001 there were approx. 29,500 handgun deaths in the US

29,500 deaths per 70 million handguns in US

2150 deaths per 50 handguns in Japan

In excess of 69,970,000 handguns in the US each year that are NOT responsible for anyones death

50 handguns in Japan that are legally owned, not responsible for any deaths, yet over 2100 handgun deaths per year. How can this be? Shouldn't the number be close to zero?

This would indicate to me that only law abiding gun owners are affected by bans, law breakers will still get them.

My merrill moment is past....................

beatrice 6 years ago

Guardian, you can't be serious and think that citizens should all be allowed to have weapons at home that are always bigger, stronger, faster, than anything criminals might own. That would be a never-ending game of one-up-manship that gets everyone killed -- in the name of safety, of course.

Speaking of one-up-manship, I can out-do your exaggerations on limitations: Given your examples on cars and children, I guess you are okay with rocket cars on our highways that can go 600 mph since you must also believe in no speed limits, you must love the Octomom and you likely think incestous relationships that create children are just great. Why have limits, right? Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater must also be considered your idea of practicing freedom of speech, right?

Anything else you want to rid of limitations?

Sorry, but limitations to what we can do are a necessity to keep a society safe and sound, be it the speed we can drive or the size of the machine gun you can own. Military arsenal might doesn't belong in the hands of the citizenship, even if a criminal might own such.

Since we have had this basic conversation in the past, my stance remains that gun ownership is protected under the Constitution, yet training should be necessary to own guns. Make everyone go through conceal and carry type procedures, and then I wouldn't have a problem where people carried their concealed weapons (except maybe airplanes). And if someone is caught with a gun and they haven't gone through the training and aren't licensed to carry, then they automatically go to jail for a minimum 5 years on the first offense. The law abiding folk get to keep their guns and their right to own, and all criminals with guns get put in jail. Heck, we don't even have to register the guns, just make sure those who might own are capable of owning. Kind of like a motorcycle license. You don't have to own a motorcycle to get one, but you need the permit or license to ride one.

Many here have said that the conceal and carry folks aren't the ones we need to worry about. I quite agree, so my idea seems like like a reasonable enough limitation to me. I'd even support government subsidizing the training, since the payoff in lower crime would greatly outset the expense.

So, what are the holes in my argument? At first glance, I'm not seeing them.

beatrice 6 years ago

Oh, and you must renew your license every five years.

RoeDapple 6 years ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says… "Oh, and you must renew your license every five years."

So if the elderly couple down the street had to choose paying the gas bill or paying for the license you would infringe on their rights?

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

TopJayhawk 6 years ago

Marion. While I agree with you, it is actually .223 Rem. not Wichester. Beatrice. I was beginning to think you were no longer with us. I have really missed your inane take on things.

TopJayhawk 6 years ago

You don't need stricter laws, just enforce the ones you have now. How hard is that to understand Aunt Bea?

TopJayhawk 6 years ago

Marion is right. And people are buying guns and ammo like at no other time in the history of this country. there's some bad mojo just over the horizon. Just not sure what it is yet. All should get prepared.

gogoplata 6 years ago

Kmat, you have a good point about when the constitution was written. There wasn't much variety with weapons, so the guy shooting at you would have the same type of weapon you had, so it would seem to be a fair fight. Now, people think they need assault rifles to protect their homes.

No that is not a good point. Criminals who choose not to follow the gun laws can get their hands on full auto assault rifles. Our military has full auto assault rifles. So to defend yourself you are going to need more than a musket.

gogoplata 6 years ago

--The government has every right to restrict what KIND of gun you can own and the Constitution doesn't say otherwise.

That works out pretty well for the government. I don't trust the federal government. And if the Constitution doesn't say otherwise it is an issue to be left to the states.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -10th Amendment

--Plus, you failed to address my point—by your logic, private citizens should be allowed to own things like Miniguns, mortars, bazookas, rocket launchers, etc… It's obviously not Unconstitutional to regulate and restrict certain types of weapons, so the “there are no exceptions” argument is just plain incorrect.

My point is that if you want to regulate it has to be done at the state level. If you read the constitution it is unconstitutional to regulate at the Federal level.

beatrice 6 years ago

nephew topjay, been busy with work, but glad you missed my posts, even if you have varying opinions on issues.

While I agree that the gun laws we have should be enforced and that there are many that simply don't work and should be scrapped, I still haven't seen a valid response to why making all who own be required to train and be licensed, and all who have guns and don't have a license get tossed in jail. (Claiming that the burden of payment would be so great that some poor family would have to choose between their gun license and paying their heating bill is just silly. I guess, given that scenario, we should do away with all government licenses and payments because somebody can't pay their heating bill somewhere.)

Once licensed, owners should then be allowed to carry and conceal just about anywhere they want (except into the offices of politicians who strongly support 2nd amendment rights yet require all who visit to pass through metal detectors first). I just think such a common sense approach would help get the guns out of the wrong hands, that is all.

Marion mentions how people die when crashing motorcycles so maybe we should outlaw motorcycles, but the point he is obviously ignoring is that motorcyles serve a useful purpose -- transportation. Only when used improperly do people die on motorcycles. With guns, when used as intended, people die. See the difference? And besides, there are plenty of regulations on motorcycle usage, from helmet laws to special licenses to operate them. I'm not saying ban guns, just add common sense regulations, even if that means dumping the regulations already in place that don't work. Simplify the laws, not make them more difficult.

I'll say this again just so my words aren't taken out of context -- while I despise the massive lobbyist firm known as the NRA, I actually support the 2nd ammendment. I just feel there should be reasonable limitations on that right, just as there are reasonable limitations on other rights.

kmat 6 years ago

beatrice is the only one here making any sense.

And everyone that keeps going on about criminals having guns - where do you think they get those guns? You keep one in your home not in a gun safe, you get robbed, more guns in the hands of criminals. Adding more guns to your collection doesn't make you any safer. It just means the possibility of more guns getting into the hands of criminals.

And the comments about needing to have guns to protect yourself from the govt. Do you really think if the govt wanted to take you out that you could stop it? Give me a break. I don't trust the govt either, but with all the technology today, a person can be "vanished" really easily. My father was actually trained in the special forces to make people vanish.

gogoplata 6 years ago

--And the comments about needing to have guns to protect yourself from the govt. Do you really think if the govt wanted to take you out that you could stop it? Give me a break. I don't trust the govt either, but with all the technology today, a person can be “vanished” really easily. My father was actually trained in the special forces to make people vanish.

Maybe 1 or a few people could be "vanished" not millions. Our government proved they can't do a very good job of dealing with a catastrophe in one major US city so I'm sorry if I don't share in your awe of our "omnipotent" government. You should reread the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here is a piece of the Declaration.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

gogoplata 6 years ago

Right. That means that if it is not for carrying into execution the foregoing powers or not powers vested by this constitution it is to be left to the states. Again re-read the 10th amendment.

beatrice 6 years ago

Okay, you have to tell me, is it just my computer, or is there now an advertisement now placed at the end of my 11:45 post? I've never seen that before. Seriously.

If ads are going to be added to my posts, then I want a cut of the profits.

Jonathan Kealing 6 years ago

Beatrice- Ads are now placed every eighth comment. We'll be experimenting with putting different kinds of ads in those spaces.

Jonathan Kealing Online editor

beatrice 6 years ago

Okay Jonathan, while I can appreciate the need for newspapers to bring in revenue where they can, it is a bit cheeky -- although I still want my cut. ; )

RoeDapple 6 years ago

“Reasonable gun control measures can be instituted, without infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens."

No. What is "reasonable" to logic may not be the same as what is "reasonable" to bea, which may not be "reasonable" to Arumer and or 50year. In order to meet "reasonable control" that satisfies everyone who asks for it, gun ownership would be non-existent. This is why enforcement of existing laws will not be pursued. Laws on top of laws that are not enforced only conceal the true agenda of those who fear what they do not understand.The more that gets taken away, the more that will be asked. As the present and or previous owner of muzzle loaders, pumps, single shot, bolt action, revolver, lever action and semi-auto firearms I defend my right to own, hunt, target shoot and defend family, property or myself if necessary with whichever I so choose, or have nearby when the occasion warrants. It is a rare occasion that I am armed, but if I am no one knows but me. I am zero threat to anyone, I would attempt to leave or talk my way out of an altercation, hand over any valuables I had to end it. But. I will not lay down and allow my head to be kicked in, be stabbed or shot, over someone getting angry that I only had $12 and a Timex watch for them. I will not allow someone to break into my home and endanger a family member or myself. If passivity works for you, then you can be the one kicked in the head or worse. Stay in your world, mine is just fine.

Thank you and have a nice evening..................

Jim Phillips 6 years ago

Actually Bea, here's the real point of my post. I argue the Second Amendment is a right. Given that it is a right, it is my responsibility not to abuse that right. If I do, then there should be punishments for my bevavior. Neither you nor anyone else should be punished for what I did. We long ago began punishing the masses for the acts of a few. It's easier to restrict the masses with sweeping new laws than admit criminals are crimainals and deal with them accordingly.

Which leads me to my second point. Some believe in "reasonable" gun control issues. Did you know that prior to 1968 there were relatively few gun laws. Before the Gun Control Act of 1968 people could by firearms out of Sears & Roebuck or Montgomery Wards catalogs and have them delivered to their homes via the mail? The anti-gunners cried about needing reasonable gun laws based on the assasinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. We waivered and gave in. That wasn't enough. The anti-gunners came back wanting more. Again we caved in and appeased the vocal minority. This has repeated itself throughout the last 41 years until we now have thousands of "reasonable" gun laws on the books. So, just what is a "reasonable" gun law? No matter what you come up with today, it won't be reasonable tomorrow. The anti-gunners will still want more "reasonable" gun laws until "reasonable" gun laws make all firearms illegal. Those, Bea, are the holes in your logic you failed to see.

Jim Phillips 6 years ago

Juat as long as it's not the same one.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.