To the editor:
Since Friday, when 27 innocent children and educators were murdered, there have been hundreds of additional Americans killed with guns, at least 40 percent of them children. How do we justify this slaughter without taking personal responsibility for it? We (not in Lawrence) have elected local, state and federal representatives who vote for bills allowing more and more guns and ammunition to flow onto our streets.
It is becoming very old to hear senators and representatives say, as Lynn Jenkins did in a public forum last summer, “We don’t need more restrictive gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones already on the books.” Then with a wink and a nod to the gun lobby, they vote to block funding for any bill that would allow for enforcement of those laws. Law enforcement, in order to function, requires hiring personnel and developing structures with priorities supported by the public.
If you are a hunter, enjoy your sport. If you do not need a military assault weapon or 30-round clips for your intended targets, please communicate that to the NRA and to your elected state and congressional representatives. If you have second thoughts about going into any gathering of people because someone may be carrying a hidden weapon and may not like the color of your hair, please express your fear to your elected officials.
We need to let elected officials know that we will carefully monitor their statements and votes related to gun regulations, and will not vote for anyone who refuses to take action to stop this carnage.
Comments
Abdu Omar 11 months, 3 weeks ago
There are a million cliches about taking away guns so that only criminals will have them. I truly believe that any such law will do just that. Ban attack weapons whose clips take more than 10 rounds or so and they become a wanted commodity by every criminal in the country. It was a gun used to kill these unfortunate children, but it was mental deficiency that pulled the trigger and that is the problem at hand.
I, and many others, have owned guns for years, but being sane and of mental competence, you haven't read in the news where I have killed wantonly. I shoot paper mostly and enjoy the target sport. But my .22 pistol could kill someone if they stepped in the way unknowingly to me. If that happened it would be an accident.
Don't take away guns, take away the right to have guns to those whose mental condition requires it. Innocent people shouldn't be punished.
appleaday 11 months, 3 weeks ago
http://protectpolice.org/facts
grammaddy 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Why do the gun nuts always equate serious gun-control with banning all guns?You have to have a license and insurance to drive a car, why not the same rules for guns?
RoeDapple 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Sorry grammaddy, but the true "gun nuts" are the people who know very little about them but still want more restrictions placed on the weapon enthusiasts who are law abiding citizens and cause no harm to anyone.
oldvet 11 months, 3 weeks ago
"You have to have a license and insurance to drive a car, why not the same rules for guns?"
In America on average, nearly 12,000 people die every year in DUI-related accidents. 900,000 are arrested each year for DUI/DWI and a full 1/3 of those are repeat offenders. These people are criminals who often take the lives of very innocent people, yet we do not ban any type of car nor do we ban alcoholic beverages. Yet we can't stop these criminals and sick people from putting the two together. And if you think that you don't need a license to buy a gun, go down to Cabelas or Bass Pro and make a purchase and see how much paperwork and background check is required to purchase a gun. It is easier to buy a car or get a drivers license.
Liberty275 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Because millions and millions of people like their AR15s and don't want them changed, even superficially.
appleaday 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Maybe Mr. Kobach could propose a gun-owner ID law.
bd 11 months, 3 weeks ago
RED DAWN!
mom_of_three 11 months, 3 weeks ago
but also remember that when it was written over two hundred years ago, that the weapons fired maybe 1-2 shot per minute because it took that long to reload and were not that accurate. Quite a difference over what we have now.
Phoghorn 11 months, 3 weeks ago
(Begin Sarcasm) And that is exactly why the First Amendment should not be construed as to allow free speech on the internet! (End Sarcasm)
Liberty275 11 months, 2 weeks ago
It was written back around the time amendment one was written. Back when you could talk to a few hundred if you yelled, not hundreds of millions with a keystroke.
Want to regulate guns because the law is outdated? Fine, we will also regulate speech in a similar way because that law is outdated too.
You people don't really think things through.
weeslicket 11 months, 3 weeks ago
oldvet 11 months, 3 weeks ago
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
I want my bazooka! Why can't I have one?
weeslicket 11 months, 3 weeks ago
weeslicket 11 months, 3 weeks ago
i typed the number 4. don't know why it posted as a number 1. went to edit. it's a #4. still posts as a #1. weird.
voevoda 11 months, 3 weeks ago
"necessary to the security of a free state."
There is plenty of room in the Second Amendment, even in its current, grammatically awkward and vague version, to enact sensible limits on who can own firearms and what sorts of weapons they can possess. Until the 2008 Heller Supreme Court case, the weight of Constitutional law lay with the proposition that the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of "well regulated Militias," but not individual ownership. Even the Heller decision is more limited in scope than the NRA proposes. Future cases may overturn it entirely.
If gun owners don't want government regulation, then they need regulate each other--that's the "well regulated Militia," again--a whole lot more stringently than they have been. It has become your responsibility to keep those weapons out of the hands of people who might use them to undermine "the security of a free state," because we're not free if we live in fear that irresponsible individuals may open fire upon us upon the least provocation. If you gun owners, individually and collectively, aren't willing to take on that responsibility and make sure that only calm, sane, and responsible persons own weapons (as they do in Switzerland), then We the People through our democratically-elected institutions of government have every right to do so.
So if you don't want more gun regulations, disappointed_regressive and all you others who think like him, you need to step up now and prevent any further loss of life. Get those weapons out of the hands of irresponsible persons. If you can't or won't, then get out of the way of our government, which will.
Guardian 11 months, 3 weeks ago
voevoda,
If you think the Second Amendment is vague and grammatically awkward, maybe you need to resume your studies in the English language. You might also want to learn the definition of militia, in what year(s) the Constitution was ratified, and in what year the Militia Act was passed.
Do you want to know the biggest problem with "sensible limits" on gun ownership? Prior to 1968, there were few gun laws on the books. You could open a Sears and Roebuck or Montgomery Wards catalog, call the order center, and give a page number, an item number, and a charge card number to the operator and within days, the firearm you ordered would be delivered by truck to your home. In 1968, gun owners, in the spirit of compromise, acquiesced to the anti-gun crowd and offered little resistance to the Gun Control Act of 1968. And the gun-grabbers were happy...until 1969 when they wanted more gun control laws. The same thing happened in 1970, 71, 72, ...1980...1990...2000...2010, 2011, 2012. So the biggest obstacle to "sensible limits" is how your definition of "sensible limits" changes and gets more restrictive every year.
appleaday 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Well-regulated!
50YearResident 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Why are these killers all young people that are under 25 years old? Because they have been protected from being made accountable for their criminal activities under our Juvinile Protection Laws. We need to end the "free pass" for kids under 18 years old. This is like a training perion for criminals to hone their skills without fear of being punished when caught. End these protections and you will see crimes go down. Make kids accountable again. Identify juvinile offenders publicly when they commit a crime. Publish their name, photo and address in the papers. Let their friends and neighbors know who they are and they will change their ways. That is the solution, nip the problem kids in the bud, so to speak.
Larry Sturm 11 months, 3 weeks ago
The federal government needs to take a serious look at the gun laws and stastics in Australia, before making any federal laws.
voevoda 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Nobody is talking about "prohibition," Liberty_One. Government regulation of alcohol, coupled with social pressure about responsible drinking and mental health interventions, has reduced the incidences of alcohol-related crime. Laws do not need to be 100% effective in order to be worth enacting.
voevoda 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Just a couple of days ago, Liberty_One, you were whining about posters creating "strawmen." But as you just illustrated, twice, this is a form of argumentation you yourself adopt very frequently.
funkdog1 11 months, 3 weeks ago
The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to "bear arms." Why then, have we decided that "the people" shouldn't have access to nuclear bombs? The amendment says nothing about a right to "guns." It says "arms." So why isn't everything legal? Why can't private citizens own armed tanks, bazookas and attack drones? I mean, if you need to protect yourself from "the state" and all. I can't get a single "gun enthusiast" to give me a legitimate response to that question.
Peacemaker452 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Private citizens can own armed tanks, bazookas and attack drones (whatever that is) as long as they are properly registered under the National Firearms Act.
You see, after Prohibition ended the government had a bunch of G-men without any work to do. They couldn’t possibly send them off to find jobs in the private sector so they had to find a new boogieman. They decided to go after firearms that were in common use but had scary features and were occasionally used by criminals to do bad things. They started calling these common firearms “assault weapons”, oops- I mean calling them “Gangster Guns”. To make a long story short, along came the NFA that required these Gangster Guns, along with short barreled rifles and shotguns and things called “destructive devices” (grenades, tank rounds…) to be registered. You must now pay a $200 transfer tax and do a bunch of paperwork to own one.
So there you have it. The government used mass hysteria to create an unconstitutional law restricting the access to common firearms that still exists today because the courts don’t have the integrity to throw it out.
Sound familiar?
50YearResident 11 months, 3 weeks ago
You can answer your own question. Where would you get your nuclear bomb? How many drones can you afford to buy? How can you justify the use for a bazooka, what would you use it for unless you are a terrorist? A Tank? I will have to see you drive it around town. Don't confuse gun enthusiast, with "terriorsts", they are not the same people. And last, gun enthusiasts "do obey the laws of the United States. Some day one might even protect you from harm.
voevoda 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Statistically, it is more likely that an innocent person will be hurt by a privately-owned firearm than protected by one.
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
What would I use a bazooka for? Umm... protecting me and mine. What use do you have for that semi-automatic rifle with the 100 round magazine, or the glock handgun that holds 33 rounds?
Other than just waiting to see who shoots at other people, how are we to tell a gun enthusiast from a terrorist? That isn't as trivial a question as it first appears.
RoeDapple 11 months, 3 weeks ago
If I had a bazooka I would take it to the range and shoot it in a recreational manner . . . at old clunkers from the wrecking yard, Oil drums . . . Sounds fun! Let me know when you get yours, Bring plenty of ammo!
Phoghorn 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Sounds like a date! Roe and Beatrice sittin' in a tree...
jonas_opines 11 months, 3 weeks ago
The original assault rifle ban didn't stop Columbine from happening. It seems like, as we're looking for answers, we should examine our proposals to see if they've been proposed before, and if they were effective. At the very least, we could acknowledge the possibility.
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Drunk driving laws also don't stop all drunks from driving, but they help.
voevoda 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Police in schools also haven't prevented massacres (Columbine, Virginia Tech). So by that logic, the NRA's proposal today is a non-starter.
oldbaldguy 11 months, 3 weeks ago
there have been a few times i wish i had an atomic demolition device otherwise known as a suitcase nuke or the good old davey crockett whose bursting radius was greater than its range.
voevoda 11 months, 3 weeks ago
The government regulates automobiles and their drivers, sierraclub. People who lack the skill to drive safely or have medical conditions that impair their ability don't get licenses and can't own vehicles. Drivers of particularly complicated equipment must qualify for special licenses. Owners of vehicles must have insurance to compensate others for any damage done by those vehicles. Law enforcement authorities can arrest people for violating those laws even if they haven't actually hurt anybody yet. Overall, those laws are effective, resulting in a lot fewer injuries and deaths than there would be otherwise. So, sierraclub, perhaps you'll agree that we ought to enact similar laws for gun ownership.
KayCee 11 months, 3 weeks ago
"V" We do have similar laws already on the books. Just find the people who steal a gun, buy one from a 'contact', or use the family's hunting rifles. As for drivers, we still find them driving with no licence, DUI arrests, and underage with no experience causing wrecks. Laws alone don't stop DEATH.
rwwilly 11 months, 3 weeks ago
You are right about too many superflous laws. However, with16,000 homocides last year in the US and 12,000 as a result of firearms some form of further regulation might be in order. It seems the logic of your argument reads " We don 't want any more laws because the new laws might not work as planned." If next year 12,000 children died from exposure to some new substance hitherto unknown to be harmful (in spite of the plethora of current regulations on the books!) would no recommend NO ACTION - TOO MANY LAWS ALREADY.
Pal 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Murder is already banned so why do the anti-gun nuts want to cherry pick one method of progressing a murder?
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
We prefer anti-gun enthusiasts.
RoeDapple 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Now that there brought a smile . . .
RoeDapple 11 months, 3 weeks ago
That there gots a chuckle from me, . . . and a nod of the head from Mrs RoeD
Liberty275 11 months, 2 weeks ago
You have a groupie. That's pretty cool.
FlintlockRifle 11 months, 3 weeks ago
B.Palmer, when did you get your info. on the numbers you spoke of below? ""there have been hundreds of additional Americans killed with guns, at least 40 percent of them children."" Yes there are something like 20,000 GUN LAWS ON THE BOOKS, yes goggle it and see. I have to agree with NRA president on his speech this morning Hollywood does a lot to the public on shoot-em up and blow-em up, along with most of the vidio games kids set at and play several hours each day.
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
I agree that there should be fewer laws and they should be uniform from state to state. Band-aid, feel good laws that restrict gun sales in one town but not in the next town do no good.
And did you really expect the NRA to take any personal responsibility for constantly selling fear?
50YearResident 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Nobody has addressed my solution to end gun violence yet. So I will post again. Eliminate the free passes we give to all kids under 18. They can commit a crime, not get punished, not be identified and can never have their record known to the public. We are teaching them that they do not have to respect or obey the laws until they are mature enough to know right from wrong. Does that seem kind of odd to you people? It is like a criminal training period. Until we teach our kids respect for the laws of the country, this violence will continue. Have you taught your kids respect for the laws? Have your kids taught their kids respect for the laws? Who is realy responsible for today's violent crimes? Some of you gun control advocates need to look in the mirror.
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
The under 18 criminal record laws DO seem odd to me. Lots of things seem odd to me. I remember years ago talking to a young man -- maybe 13? -- while at a video rental store (remember those?), and it was one of the saddest encounters I've ever experienced. He was talking about how "cool" he thought the Faces of Death videos were, and that he had watched all of them -- with his parents' consent! I wanted to cry it was so sad.
So without question, it isn't just the guns. Parenting skills lack in many ways. I feel some of this is doing away with some basic things in our schools, things that teach about others, things like the arts. Also, home economics (doing away with this is a failure of the first generation of feminism) and basic money management. Most kids today think cooking is just heating things that come in a package and have no idea how to balance a check book.
So good points 50YR. We need to look at a lot of things in our society.
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
"Authorities say [Jared Loughner] used a Glock semiautomatic handgun with an extended clip that held 33 bullets in the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords." http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-7246737.html
One of his victims was 9 years old. Her name was Christina Green. She was born on Sept. 11, 2001. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/10green.html?_r=0
Care to make any more funny remarks?
beatrice 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh, how sweet. A training video for the next Jared Loughner.
beatrice 11 months, 2 weeks ago
No, we should celebrate training videos for the next Jared Loughner.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.