Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Letter: Disarming

December 28, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp is dead-on when he says “Fundamentally the problem here is not guns, it’s people,” referring to efforts to enact new gun control measures following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The guns will not disarm themselves. We, the people, must disarm them. The problem is that people like Huelskamp and National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre, in their unbending allegiance to fear, don’t have the guts to do what’s right.

Comments

grammaddy 1 year, 11 months ago

Guns don't kill people,people kill people.Monkeys can too, if they have guns.

skinny 1 year, 11 months ago

They should pass some sort of a law or something that would make it illegal to murder someone. That would fix the problems right there.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

No way. Murders will happen anyway, so what is the point of placing limits on murders? Might as well keep murder legal, because you never know when you might have to murder someone before they have a chance to murder you. Murder is a great form of self protection, and don't I have the right to protect myself?

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Under the constitution, protecting one's self is not explicitly protected that I know of. The right to bear arms is.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

The right to bear arms is based partly on the right of self defense, as well as the need for militias and the "security of a free state" or some such.

It's an old concept from English common law, I believe.

And, it's important because if that's the reason for the right to bear arms, then some of the other reasons people use to justify certain weapons may not be as valid. For example, I'm not at all sure people have the right to "shoot cans" with advanced weapons.

If you look it up, you'll find some analysis of why the right to bear arms may be considered separate from the need for militias, and what that's based on.

So, unless we go to the extreme and allow any/all weapons, it seems to me the question is where we draw the line, and why, which is why I'd ask what people reasonably need for self defense (and I'm sure that may differ from place to place).

KayCee 1 year, 11 months ago

Tim understands the issue far better than Dave. He will leave my guns alone, but those like Dave want to take them from the law abiding citizen.

08Champs 1 year, 11 months ago

There is a gun safe in my house, and my children took the thunter safety education class when they were very young so that they might have the respect for weapons and the basic knowledge needed. HOWEVER - I believe in restrictions on weapons. I don't believe you should be able to go to a gun show and buy without a thorough background check; I don't believe that assault weapons should be available to just anyone; I don't believe that a 30 round clip should be sold to the public. I think if you need to have a learner's permit and take a written and road test to get a driver's license, then there should be some additional criteria for owning a weapon. Will restrictions or these changes solve everything? No, but it will make it better. Just like parents considering a restriction on violent movies and games for young children, and just like mental health care improvements would help too. If you're a hunter and you need a 30 round clip to drop a deer, then you aren't a very good hunter? I'm frustrated by the notion of some of my fellow gun owners that someone is trying to take away their guns (KayCee). Most people aren't interested in that, it's just paranoia replacing the benefit of discussion. I don't think anyone truly believes that there is a movement to ban all guns, period. If you really think that there is a credible movement to ban gunds, then you might be delusional and are perhaps not mentally fit enough to own a weapon.

Shelley Bock 1 year, 11 months ago

I don't agree with you your possession of guns, but I do agree with your statement of measures for a compromise. Too bad the NRA isn't so aligned. It was a moment that could have been seized and reasonable measures enacted. Instead, the NRA took the "No" position. If the NRA's logic was correct, Japan, which has it share of crazies, full access to violent movies and many violent video games, would have a gun violence rate similar to the US, but doesn't.

I hope 08Champs isn't alone as a gun owner who recognizes reasonable restrictions.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

08Champs, thank you. Please continue to speak out to your fellow gun enthusiasts on this matter.

I am opposed to gun ownership for me and mine, but do not want to take that right away from you and yours. Reasonable restrictions, however, are exactly that -- reasonable. I appreciate your speaking out on the topic.

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

If I remember correctly, most of those who engaged in the mass shootings were law abiding citizens up till they did their deed.

tomatogrower 1 year, 11 months ago

Yet there were people who knew that they had mental problems. If I remember right, one gun seller didn't sell to the guy in Colorado. The guy in Connecticut had a stupid gun owner mom. She should never had guns in her house, or taught him how to use them. But did her ex do anything? No. Did the people at the gun range say anything? No. If they had, would the police have had the right to confiscate her guns? No. People need to speak up when they know someone a little off who has guns. The police need to have the right to confiscate those guns, until they go through psychological evaluations.

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 11 months ago

The ""GOOD-OL-DAYS"" of common sense are almost gone, my old flintlock is maybe 125 years old passed done from dad and his dad, I will have to turn it in and have it cut and melted into a car frame, don't think so

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Melted into a car frame? Is that why some cars backfire?

I'm sure you won't be happy until all gradeschoolers are sent to school while armed.

See how silly a silly argument sounds?

fiddleback 1 year, 11 months ago

Yeeeep, guvmint's uh gonna come after yer flintlock...I hope you're trolling because that's a perfect parody of a redneck...

08Champs 1 year, 11 months ago

Who says you have to turn in the gun? Making something up to forward a point isn't acceptable. NO ONE is asking you to turn in your grandpa's flintlock, or my grandfather's favorite rifle. Discuss the facts -

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Read Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation. No more passing down guns of certain types. Plus high fees to keep some of the guns currently owned.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

We the people, should not allow such terrible legislation to pass.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

fred, is that certain type a flintlock rifle?

The other thing is, we can say no to the Feinstein legislation if it has too many restrictions. When it fails, it won't be the only legislation on this topic.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

Bea has a good point about other legislation coming up. Perhaps the people should insure that unconstitutional legislation does not occur. A Grand Jury could be convened to investigate for possible corruption or treason, legislators that knowingly produce legislation that violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, which would include the 2nd amendment.

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

In_God, Gandalf, I suppose that you plan to "investigate for possible corruption or treason" and remove from office Justice Antonin Scalia. This is what he wrote:

"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."

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Why is that ok?

Felons or the mentally ill are still US citizens, and as such are part of the "people" that the 2nd amendment refers to - on what grounds is it ok with you to deny them that right?

Whether or not it would be "smart", what grounds do you use for not allowing people to buy grenades?

I imagine that whatever grounds you use for those determinations is very similar to the grounds used by those who want to ban certain kinds of weapons, ammunition, etc. so why do you oppose that, and on what grounds?

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

Apparently not, although I prefer to think of it as debating :-)

What gives the judicial branch the authority to prohibit constitutional rights? I thought those were sacrosanct and applied to all US citizens.

Do you think that committing people against their will is ok?

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

"U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp is dead-on when he says “Fundamentally the problem here is not guns, it’s people,”..."

"The guns will not disarm themselves. We, the people, must disarm them. "

The writer completely misses the point with that last statement. What a twist of logic from the writer. Since people without self control and right thinking and judgment are the problem (not guns), then you need to change how people without proper self control behave, with proper training and up-bringing. It is not proper or right, to steal the tools and abilities and violate our Constitution and self defense abilities from the entire population. To try to force the entire population to play keep away, or forced take away from the population, for a few unbalanced people without self control and sound thinking, is unbalanced and unsound thinking in itself. (You can teach a child to not do something by using good judgment, or you can take the circumstance completely away from the child, and then the child learns nothing, until they find themselves in the same situation in the future.

That strange unbalanced type of logic in the letter, is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It gets rid of the water, but the damage is much, much greater to that which you seek to preserve.

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

So, In_God_we_trust, by your logic we should allow any and everyone to own guns and use them, until such time as they commit murder with it--with the hope that they will learn from their "mistake" and not murder people in the future?

Why not do as 08Champs recommends, and require that persons who wish to use and/or own firearms demonstrate that they have "self control, right thinking and judgment" (to use your phrase) before we allow them to use or own firearms?

If you balk at the idea of "We the People" through our duly elected government should be the ones to set this requirement, then it is up to all the private citizen gun owners to ascertain that none of their number allow "people without self control and right thinking and judgment" to get hold of weapons. If gun owners police themselves, then there won't be a problem any more, and there won't be any need for further government regulation.

So here is the charge to you, In_God_we_trust, and everyone else who thinks as you do: you, personally, have the obligation to keep guns out of the hands of "people without self control and right thinking and judgment." If you cannot do so, or refuse even to try, then it is time for "We the People" to do it for you.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

@voevoda, More twisted logic from those who can't support their argument or their country, but clearly have an evil agenda. You need to re-read what was written. People like you are the ones that have the obligation to make sure your thinking is straightened out, so you can think with common sense and with a sense of protection of others, (like the 2nd amendment in the Constitution) instead of violence, before you allow yourself to arm yourself or try to take others property away illegally, as you have proposed. On the contrary, gun owners have done a very good job of policing themselves. It is the kooks that steal them or want to steal them and criminals that would abuse a car or firearms. Not the general population that lawfully and daily defend themselves and handle firearms for a lifetime without incident. You should take a class and learn about how you are supposed to support the Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, to be a proper citizen of the United States of America.

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

Your sense of threat, even from someone as patriotic and law-abiding as I am, suggests that you are not sufficiently in touch with reality to carry a weapon. For your own safety, as well as the safety of everyone around you, I hope that you will voluntarily give your firearms into the safekeeping of a stable and honest relative.

hedshrinker 1 year, 11 months ago

OMG, now to be a proper citizen of the US of A I have to be ARMED?!? Like voting and supporting myself and volunteering and being actively engaged in the community aren't what being a good citizen is about? I don't swear allegiance to the NRA or gun manufacturers ...guns have NOTHING to do with patriotism or good citizenship.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

LOL, Feinstein...

"The measure would not only outlaw the manufacture and sale of new semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns with large ammunition feeds, but also mandate federal registration and background checks on the owners of millions of rapid-fire weapons that were sold legally after the old ban expired.."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/opinion/a-tougher-assault-weapons-ban.html?_r=0

This will be shut down by the house.

Bob Forer 1 year, 11 months ago

A waste of good fruit, if you ask me. Why not just shoot an old can.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Where's the video of him shooting his wife?

Jim Phillips 1 year, 11 months ago

Every time you anti-gunners bash the NRA, you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you know little of what you speak. You actually might try something novel and research what the NRA stands for as a whole and not pick and choose which (out of context) statements you respond to and regurgitate the Regime's talking points. But tt violates the two most basic tenets of Liberals: 1. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story and 2. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

So what do you think of the law passed in Indiana that allows a citizen to open fire on any public servant for unlawful intrusion? Backed completely by the NRA, of course.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-05/nra-backed-law-spells-out-when-indianans-may-open-fire-on-police.html

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Are the police special? What part of "UNLAWFUL INTRUSION" do you not understand?

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Tange is correct. "Unlawful intrusion" is very vague in this law and it is based on the perception of the citizen much in the same vein as the stand your ground laws in FL. . Additionally, public servant applies to more than just law enforcement. It could be a social worker. It could be a health inspector. It could be a fireman.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Know your rights (all three of them).

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”

“An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” (Housh v. People, 75 111. 491)

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” (Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80)

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” (Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I)

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260)

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100)

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910)

"If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions." That was the "ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.” (an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.)

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

no. 1 -- you have the right not to be killed.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Murder is a CRIME! Unless it was done by a policeman...or an aristocrat.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Not citing your sources is called plagiarism. Please be sure to cite your sources in the future. It also allows people to look at the source and make their own determination as to whether it is valid or not.

http://constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Do the letters 'bee, eff, dee' mean anything to you? Spank you very much!

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Welcome to the internets...Is the information valid, or not, what is your determination? Here's a hint: it's legit.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Plagiarizing is an unlawful intrusion on the original author of the material.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Are you seriously hounding me about this? I say again, Big Friggin' Deal! (BFD) Sue me! Thanks for playing.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Plagiarism is stealing and no amount of silly You Tube videos that you post changes that.

Since you have stolen the property of the original author, perhaps the original author should defend his intellectual property with an armed response.

Or does that defense only work when it is your property that is threatened?

Additionally, it is amusing to watch you do this in such a disorganized, combative and emotional manner. It really lends weight to your arguments about why gun rights should not be restricted.

You had such an easy out too. "Oh silly me! I forgot to copy/paste the link to where I was getting this from. My bad. Here is it."

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh silly me! The information is public, i.e. court rulings. Please feel free to continue wasting your precious time dilly-dallying about with me -- Señor Lummox.

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

You didn't compile them. Someone else did the work and you are attempting to take credit for their hard work.

By all means keep posting silly comebacks. It helps your case so much more.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Silly me, I forgot to check my Little Brown handbook... Oh dear, shall i use MLA, Chicago, or APA style? Ya know, on second thought, I'll be sure to have you edit my next ljworld thesis. Don't worry, it will be 1000 words or less. Thanks for all the help! Cha Ching...

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

And I always have an easy out, "call me crazy!".

Katara 1 year, 11 months ago

Then we don't have to worry about you owning or having access to any guns then given your mental state. Thanks for pointing that out!

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Is this a public service announcement? With guitar?

Also, "give em enough rope" was a superior album.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

And here I thought the year would end without us ever agreeing on anything.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

We would probably agree on abortion if you didn't want it limited so severely.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. 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 by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (from a source, spank you very much)

Jim Phillips 1 year, 11 months ago

Did you read the article or just the headline? Never mind! I think I already know the answer to that.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Did you know the NRA has gotten into supporting Republican politics by opposing judges who never made rulings on firearms? They now score Supreme Court judge votes.

In case you weren't aware of what your friendly, neighborhood arms lobbysist was up to, you might find this of interest: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/the-n-r-a-at-the-bench/

KayCee 1 year, 11 months ago

First, I see the NYTs as holding a bias for the liberal views wich I do not accept. Linda Greenhouse wants to make the judicial appointments all about the NRA influencing the Republicans. Maybe they did oppose the nominations, but I remember that those nominations had far more other reasons that were opposed by the conservatives in this country. I remember believing that those were NOT GOOD choices, and heard little to nothing about the NRA and GUNS.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

The NRA chose to score a vote for supreme court justices who had never passed legislation on firearms. That is taking a part side, not just caring about guns. NRA members -- many of whom are indeed Democrats and Independents -- should know this.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

KayCee, That's precisely the point of the piece: the NRA had no evidence either way on these nominations regarding their position on guns. They flexed their lobbying muscles against these candidates precisely because of Republican misgivings in order to maintain their lockstep control over the Republican party: you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. By aligning their support on issues they have little interest in, they can then count on being supported by those folks on the issues that matter to the NRA.

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 11 months ago

Lets just drive guns to the black market. Heck making drugs illegal has been a huge success, and I am not at all for the legalization of drugs. I am saying you gun control types are going to open up a huge amount of commerce in the underground if you get your way.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

The Washington Post continues to have one of the more useful collections of relevant facts surrounding gun laws and their affect on gun violence and personal freedom. I recommend anyone interested in listening to more than themselves echoing their preconceived notions on the issue to check it out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

The first comment below the article has more truth in it than the article and all the pretty graphs. The Washington Post has presented a very anti-gun report, while pretending to present the truth. This article is clearly presented in order to try to support gun control.

Mike Ford 1 year, 11 months ago

actually guardian I am a Democrat, a gun owner for 34 years, and educated enough to know that the underlying current of the nra is based on race. I walked into a gun shop on the southeast side of Tulsa looking for a old gun or collector gun shop like the ones my father took me to as a child and like the old Topeka Pawn and Gun supply company on Kansas Avenue in Topeka. I saw the poster with the "Best Gun Salesman Ever" banner on it. The best gun salesman ever according to the NRA is President Obama. This was while there was no re introduction of the assault weapons ban or anything else at that time (2 years ago). The NRA and gun shop people were using race as a reason to buy a bunch of guns. Many of the gunshop or gunsmith owners I've encountered in eastern and central Kansas make no secret of their racism. They seem to revel in it. They think they're talking to a like minded person and then I spill their beans on here. You can talk bull all you want I've been around more racist gunshop operators than I can shake a stick at and this whole false arguement about the media bias and all of the liberal bashing is just that. If gun sellers didn't have to play the race/fear card to sell weapons just like the GOP uses the fear/race card to fool rural voters would the fear tactics work anymore?

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

You, tuschahouma, have posted some of the most blatantly racist comments in this forum, all the while denouncing racism. Surely there must be a word for such behavior. Begins with hypo, ends with crite.

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 months ago

I've said the same thing about Bill Clinton. Does that make me a racist? Take a look in the mirror, tuschky . . . When you're a hammer everything looks like a nail.

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

Damn Indians, you'd think that we left enough of them around to make up a whole 2% of the population they'd keep their mouths shut. When studying the history of Kansas it is truly is amazing the extend of the abuse of the Native Americans including proud Kansas rednecks gunning down Pawnee scouts for the US cavalry for no reason except they were Indians. Perhaps some of you thin skinned whites should examine the reasons someone like Tuschahouma, one of the few Native Americans to ever comment on here, does. Like the proud rednecks say, they lost so I don't think you have to live in fear of anything except exposing of the embarrassing history of white relations with the Native Americans.

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 months ago

Yea, right. Let's see now, how many Pawnee scouts have I gunned down? OH! That's right, ZERO!!! For your info KG, when I operated a business before retirement, my best 2 employees were Native American. One was my highest paid employee and the other refused a similar wage because she preferred to see it go back into the business. Both drew better pay than myself and both have said they would work for me again if I started up another business. I still consider them part of my family and would go to their aid in a heartbeat if they needed it. You just keep spinning in your hatred though. At the very best you provide an amusing (bad) example

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

As long as they keep their mouths shut all is well. We don't want to hear someone's personal experience dealing with racism because they just need to get over it aye.

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

Spinning, you mean like what you do all day long, all week, every week?

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

He was writing about history, those things really did happen. It wasn't about you at all. I am curious as to why you want to deny what children have to learn in history books.

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 11 months ago

Roe, he was writing about history and the cruelty to Natives that really did happen. Sorry, but in this context your reply doesn't make sense. What happened in this country to the Natives was unforgivable and terrible beyond belief.

You usually make such good comments, I am unable to understand why you made this one.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"you'd think that we left enough of them around to make up a whole 2% of the population they'd keep their mouths shut."

I've seen nobody tell anybody here to "shut up". Does lying make you feel like you are winning an argument?

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm late to the party on this and this probably won't get seen but there's a new petition up at whitehouse.gov.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/enforce-keep-second-amendment/fQlgL3fd

Enforce the KEEP in the Second Amendment.
The Charlton Heston level of gun possession. You can bear any arm but you must KEEP that arm. The gun must be in your hand or

  • Felony to fail to secure your deadly weapons.

  • An accessory charge if your weapon was used in a crime.

  • Possession of a gun w/o a serial # - intent to murder.

And if your weapon was used in a crime and you died trying to KEEP it, your estate would be liable for all damages your weapon caused while not in your possession.

Gun control responsibility back to the gun owners, where it belongs.

You must physically prove continuity of possession every 5 years. If you cannot physically present the actual gun for continuity of possession, you are charged with felony-failure to secure a deadly weapon.

I personally happen to think it's brilliant.

RoeDapple 1 year, 11 months ago

You probably would. Another attempt to criminalize law abiding gun owners while the true criminals ignore your stupid laws.

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

How does that "criminalize" gun ownership? You can keep your guns. You just have to be responsible for them. You have a right to own a gun. I have a right not to be murdered by one.
If you're so concerned about illegal gun ownership, perhaps you won't be averse to out lawing gun shows. They've overwhelmingly replaced the back alley for illegal gun transfers.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

cait then you're okay with a poll tax that in effect makes it impossible or nearly impossible for some people to vote while not actually taking away their right to vote?

Why should we outlaw gun shows? Anyone buying a gun there from a dealer must submit to the same background check as if they were buying it at licensed gun store. What you want to do is ban private party sales. Get your bans straight.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

And why should private party sales be exempt? If I buy a car from someone privately, that transfer of title has to be registered through the state, and for guns, when registration of a private weapon occurs through the state a background check should be part of the transaction--why not? If you leave a loophole big enough for a truck to drive through, don't you think that nullifies the intent of the background check? Furthermore, gun owners should finance the background check system through a user's fee, same as a deer or duck license, which in no way resembles a poll tax.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Gun owners already finance the background check. A fee is charged for it each time a gun is purchased.

You're required to register the car, but a private sale can be made without involving the government.

Truth is I don't object to the private sale background check.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Sounds like we agree on this one--probably even for the same reason. Maybe by including background checks for private sales the fee wouldn't even have to go up by much as it would hopefully generate enough new funds to finance the scaling up of the computerized background check system.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

Kansas does not have a gun registration, because they don't plan on coming after your firearms. Kansas respects the 2nd amendment and has no interest in a record of gun owners and their firearms. It is private information if you want to own a gun or if you don't. Gun registrations are used by governments that want to confiscate firearms and violate your 2nd amendment rights. If the registry information were to become public, like in NY, it would endanger people who don't have a firearm, as they become an easy target by criminals. That is why Kansas does not register guns, since they have no interest in coming after your firearms or showing you are defenseless. Kansas is a good government and has remained faithful to it's citizens in this respect.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"that transfer of title has to be registered through the state"

That isn't true. You can buy a car and never register it with the state. The only caveat is that you cannot drive it on public roads.

" If you leave a loophole big enough for a truck to drive through"

You mean like a farm truck that is never driven on the street and is never registered?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Guess we shouldn't have any laws at all then. After all, it is always the criminals who are the ones who break the laws. Always.

50YearResident 1 year, 11 months ago

Don't get the cart in front of the horse. If someone takes your gun from you and you die trying to keep it......That is a felony commited by the guy that killed you. Arrest him first before he has time to commit other crimes with a stolen weapon. He is the criminal, not the original owner.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

cait, so you're in support of putting restrictions that in effect make exercising a right impossible?

How about the same provisions for owning a car? If it is stolen and used in a crime you are liable?

How about your name? If your identity is stolen and used in a crime or to vote you're liable?

And, let's keep abortion legal, but impose such restrictions on it that no one can actually get an abortion - you good with restrictions on abortions too?

Remember, when you set the precedent for infringing upon one right, you open the door to doing the same for all rights.

Why don't you just take the honest and legal approach and amend the 2nd amendment?

Carol Bowen 1 year, 11 months ago

The views of the NRA do not necessarily represent the membership. The NRA represents the gun manufacturers and has for decades. The NRA contributes to campaigns and influences the candidate. If a candidate opposes the NRA, the NRA funds the opponent. The NRA is feared in D.C. and state level politics.

Too bad. This could be a great opportunity for the NRA to propose a mental health initiative. Even better if the NRA donated to the effort or set up a foundation.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

The NRA has publicly supported efforts to keep the mentally ill from getting guns. The NRA just re-stated this position.

I am the NRA and I support them.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

The NRA also fought against background checks when they were initially introduced and assured that enough loopholes were in the original assault weapons "ban" that guaranteed plenty would remain available.

As you are the lobbyist organization that sells fear, you are thus to be ignored by rational people.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

When it comes to legislation and people who claim to be the NRA, yes, I will ignore them and will encourage legislators to ignore them as well.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

This is the NRA's fear-based claims about President Obama's supposed 10 point plan to change the 2nd amendment. (When looking at this list, please keep in mind that the only gun law Obama has signed was to EXPAND gun rights by allowing people to carry in national parks.)

  1. Ban use of firearms for home defense.
  2. Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.
  3. Ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns.
  4. Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.
  5. Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
  6. Ban and confiscate rifles and shotguns commonly used for skeet, trap and hunting.
  7. Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent.
  8. Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.
  9. Expand the semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.
  10. Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.

And as a bonus: 11. Appoint judges to the U.S Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2008/barack-obama's-10-point-plan-to-change.aspx

Consider their words. They are as radical in their lies as are the "birthers' claims of Obama being born in Kenya. Banning the use of firearms for home defense? How are they expected to be taken seriously when saying such radical lies? And how do their so-called rational members allow them to get away with such fear-mongering lies?

The NRA is nothing by a lobbyist group that sells fear through out and out lies. The NRA needs to be ignored and ridiculed.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Source? You might be correct, but I'd like to where the NRA has put together what you attribute to them.

Feinstein's legislation which she plans to introduce next session would go a long way to making those ten points become reality.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

For some reason, the link I provided is all there, but you needed to cut and paste. Try this one: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

So you are arguing now that the Feinstein legislation would "go a long way" to ban handguns from home protection? That it would ban the manufacture and sale of guns? Close 90% of all gun shops? Ban hunting ammunition?

As I said, that is buying into fear that is extreme and ridiculous. It is akin to buying into the birther arguments. Seriously. And you say you buy into this nonsense? Wow.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Thanks, Beatrice, for using the NRA's own materials to help expose how brittle and unreasonable their extremism is.

Mike Ford 1 year, 11 months ago

I guess the guilties like hawkins can't stand the truth so they take the coward route and blame those people who know they're full of it for their actions. no spine hawkins right?

jhawkinsf 1 year, 11 months ago

Pointing out someone else's racism does not erase your own, tushie. That is the truth. Until you see that, you'll always be the same as those you condemn.

Feel free to look through my previous posts and find examples that would justify your accusation of "guilties".

Armstrong 1 year, 11 months ago

Anyone familiar with the old saying "Don't blame the tool for the carpenters mistake"

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

I've been very focused on responding to people that want to infringe upon my rights. Because of that, I've been reactive and not proactive. We all agree we want to stop violence and we must all look for solutions.

The focus must be multi-faceted and not onerous to law abiding citizens. Let's target the bad guys as the main prong.

Why not increase the penalty for possessing a stolen gun to a mandatory 25 years in prison with no parole. Commit a violent crime with a gun - 50 years in prison, no parole. Knowlingly and illegally sell a gun - 10 years, no parole. Knowlingly and illegally buy a gun - 10 years, no parole.

Free up room in prison by doing away with jail time for non-violent drug and prostitution crimes.

Prohibit people taking medication for mental illness from being allowed to own guns.

Relax privacy laws so health care providers can report mentally ill patients and have their names put into the background check database to prevent them from buying guns.

Don't think my ideas are perfect? Well, don't shoot them apart, tweak them to improve them and maybe we can find a solution.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

I agree That part needs careful consideration mental illness isn't a crime.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Fred, I agree we need to do these things, plus tweak the existing laws on guns. I'm all for harsh punishments for illegal use of guns AND the limits on magazine sizes. Hunters don't need extended magazines and you don't need them for self protection. We should have national laws on guns, not piecemeal laws that are different county to county, state to state. There should be national laws on what it takes to conceal and carry, and those who go through the steps should be able to carry in Kansas as well as California. Fewer laws, obvious limits spelled out without loopholes, and much harsher mandatory punishments.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Beatrice, Please consider the consequences of national laws a little bit more. Consider the possibility that in order to make gun control in Chicago to work, you'd have to place unreasonable limitations on folks with guns in rural Kansas, for instance. I have no problem with limitations on magazine size, a more comprehensive registration and background system, and even tightening up the laws surrounding private sales, but trying to do this on a national scale is just asking for the final product to be unsatisfactory for pretty much everyone as far as I can see.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Nobody is taking away your guns nor including anything of the sort in current legislation. geez

uncleandyt 1 year, 11 months ago

A huge part of our problems, and solutions for those problems, are controlled by the weapons makers and dealers. A gross majority of our politicians work for their funders. Guns is big business. Big business runs our government. (There used to be a term for that?) While we bicker into our computers over what Rush says the Left is thinking, containers full of crates of guns are shipped to both corners of our world. Joe Sixshooter gets worked into a lather as to whether his "side" is winning or losing, never realizing that he is not on the team. As a percentage of the population, the rosters are tiny. Most of us will never play for the Globetrotters or the Generals. We're supposed to buy the tickets and enjoy the show. The show is killing us. Have some nachos.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Question anyone who believes we need less art in our world.

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

Damn unsavvy artist. I dun hert dat most dem don't work either.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

crickets chirping -- and where were you for two weeks following the election and what happened to your Romney avatar? hahaha

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Why would I have outrage that an OFF DUTY OFFICER used a gun in the fashion in which they have been trained? That is just silly.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

For the most part, I don't oppose C&C laws. I approve training and registration. You can check my history on that.

I read about the story, so I think this "liberal media" conspiracy is bs.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

I dunno, Laus, I googled "san antonio theater shooting" and got 19,400,000 hits. What's your definition of "media quiet?"

Even Snopes got into the act and said that if there was any under-reporting, it's because the media doesn't get as much attention when they report about a building that didn't burn vs. one that did.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

You completely missed the point: the incident in San Antonio was not kept out of the media. Furthermore, you mis-attributed the Snopes comment to me in your little comment--try to read more closely next time, please. Thanks.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Snopes is the one who said the event was comparable to a building that didn't burn, not me--get it? Snopes is the source of the human-as-inanimate-object analogy. Sometimes this medium is downright obtuse.....

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

The democrat party and the President's push for gun control, UN firearms treaty, lavish spending etc. has served to only destabilize the United States and saddle our kids with future debt. You would think that a sitting President that cares about the country, would not pursue such extreme anti-constitutional policies. But it appears that President Obama's agenda is more important to him, than the health and well being of the country.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

I agree but I fear Obama will try to do something by executive order.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Um ... what fear have I announced that is silly? Do I fear that someone with an extended magazine in their gun will walk into a school and start shooting children? Seeing as how that has happened, it hardly seems silly to fear it happening again.

If there is silly fear in this discussion, it is that limiting magazine sizes will somehow ban handguns for self protection. The NRA is the one peddling fear, and you are the one buying into it. The are supporting Republican candidates because of this fear, and you are supporting the NRA. Sad.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

I am far from a trained officer, wouldn't you agree? You really believe someone untrained in firearms should start shooting with the intent of stopping another shooter in a crowded mall? I strongly disagree.

If someone needs a ride to a hospital, should someone who has never driven before get behind the wheel and take off?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

That would never be the only alternative and you know it. If there is a shooter between me and an untrained shooter, I do not want the untrained shooter firing in my general direction. Neither would you.

If the person were against a wall, on the other hand, then fire away. However, returning fire in a mall (indicating many other people about) by an untrained shooter would be irresponsible gun use.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

WTF? I am pretty sure there is no special training to teach someone how to shove another out of the way of an oncoming vehicle. Shoving someone out of the way of a bus has nothing in common at all with the scenario of an untrained person returning fire against a shooter in a mall.

The story of the 9 people injured (thankfully not killed) by the NYPD in returning fire against a shooter is a better comparison of what might happen in a mall situation.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Seriously G, how is it an irrational fear that an untrained person might hit innocent people in a shopping mall? You have zero proof that returning fire in such a situation wouldn't do more harm than good. Zero.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Look at the NYPD who shot innocents by returning fire at a shooter ... and they were trained police! Untrained shooters would be a terrible idea.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Doesn't the NRA promote training? Guess they should pack up and close shop then.

Your mall scenario is ludicrious.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

If even trained officers make mistakes, isn't it much more likely that untrained individuals will do so?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

"I fear" ... never have you been more honest. Your entire argument is fear based. You clearly are the NRA after all.

Mike Ford 1 year, 11 months ago

tell the GOP at the state and federal levels to stop closing mental hospitals and pushing people to the streets, jails, and for profit entities they can't afford. Guess what's going away to pay for these Art Laugher/ Brownback tax cuts all the archie bunkers want? mental health care. I guess some of you want the ill walking homeless and armed to hunt the people these people have perceived to wrong them to the point of committing violent outbursts. Maybe they should run into the selfish people advocating for the cuts to their services....

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Pay attention, class. Watch until the end and notice how magazine capacity does not really matter much at all.

(from a source, spank you very much)

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

CL, please tell the people who lost loved ones in Tucson that magazine size doesn't matter. Jared Loughner was stopped only after he ran through his 33 round clip and attempted to reload. There would be fewer dead if his clip had only 10 rounds. Period.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

Life is a sexually transmitted terminal illness...enjoy it while you can.

December 30, 2012
Addressee
Whitehouse,senate,house, etc
address
city,state,zip

Re: Do Not Support Disarmament of U.S. Citizens

addressee:

As a law abiding gun owner and citizen of this country, I ask that no more gun control be passed. The purpose of laws is to affect the law abiding and grant protection only within a system of people who fear repercussions of their actions. Those who murder in mass, who steal, and assault are not people who can be stopped by laws. Gun control only affects me –a law abiding citizen of this country. I'm not writing to you as a Republican, not as a Democrat, and not as an NRA member. I am writing to you as a U.S. Citizen, a voter, and a gun owner.

Studies from the CDC, DOJ, Harvard, National Academy of Sciences, and others have found no correlation between increased gun control and a reduction of crime. Those studies have also found that assault weapon bans do not reduce violent crime. Magazine capacity limits reduce my ability to effectively counter criminals who intend to kill me and my family.

Despite over twenty years of declining violent crime rates, tragedy still strikes the country. Mass murders are anomalies. As said by Barack Obama:”No single law –no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” One might add that a knee jerk reaction against everyone but the perpetrator is not an appropriate response. No one is to be blamed for mass murders except those who perpetrate them.

Gun control isn’t the answer. Putting cops in every school isn’t the answer, arming all teachers is not the answer –to love others while we can, and be vigilant in defending them, those are the answers. Stop glorifying people who murder through constant media attention and stop harassing families who have lost loved ones for ratings in return.

Support my rights by not supporting their violation.

Sincerely, YOURNAMEHERE

(the formatting of this form letter has been mangled)

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

They are not stopped by laws, they are stopped by lack of availability.

BAN extended magazines now. Sincerely, Name of rational person here

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

If you could ask any of the dead if they'd like to have had a semi-auto firearm, with extended magazine, to protect themselves from the killer, what do you think they'd say?

bliddel 1 year, 11 months ago

Like firearms, automobiles are inanimate objects. Some people exercise a total lack of good judgment with their motor vehicles and, unfortunately, some people are killed – indeed, some are even murdered.

Should we now adopt waiting periods, background checks, insanely higher fuel taxes, automobile-free zones, bans on automobiles with more than four cylinders, bans ion high-capacity fuel tanks, bans on wider doors that permit faster loading of passengers, bans on red motor vehicles, bans on busses with high-capacity seating, bans on semi-automatic transmissions, bans on batwings, bans on fuel injection, etc. because some people do not always exercise good judgment with their inanimate objects (motor vehicles)?

Should we ban ownership of motor vehicles altogether because such is not constitutionally protected? If not, why not?

If you say that we should not ban motor vehicles because it is the irresponsible use of motor vehicles that is the problem, and not the mere possession of motor vehicles, then you simply need to apply the same rational thinking to firearms.

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

While personally I'm all for banning motor vehicles until people are fully educated in how to drive and understand they are responsible behind the wheel so nonsense in Lawrence where people are ran down by someone flying by a bus because they don't need to drive carefully now days, I don't see the logic in comparing a car which is actually used to get people around and serves a purpose other than destroying things and that is all an assault rifle is used for, blowin sheet up.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"While personally I'm all for banning motor vehicles until people are fully educated in how to drive and understand they are responsible behind the wheel"

OK. I am fully educated in the use of an M2 .50 cal machine gun. I also understand it will rain down belt-fed death at 850 rounds per minute 3 miles away. I will only use it to cut down trees to use as firewood.

Where can I get one?

KiferGhost 1 year, 11 months ago

Also the only constitutionally protected part in regards to firearms is for there to be a well regulated militia since back when that was written we didn't believe in standing armies which is no longer a concern since we have long accept having standing armies and have them all around the world.

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

All those who buy automobiles have to demonstrate competence in driving on a test, and knowledge of the appropriate laws.

I'd be glad to apply that to gun purchases - how about you?

In addition, people lose their driver's licenses if they are too irresponsible with their driving - also ok for gun owners, right?

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND “HIGH CAPACITY” MAGAZINES

By Massad Ayoob

If you’re reading this, you’ve probably had a conversation with someone in the last few days who asked, “Why do ordinary law-abiding people need those semiautomatic firearms with magazines that can hold more than ten cartridges?” There are lots of sound answers. . .

. . .The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families.

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/

Massad F. Ayoob (born 20 July 1948) is an internationally-known firearms and self-defense instructor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974. He was the director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI) in Concord, New Hampshire from 1981 to 2009, and now directs the Massad Ayoob Group (MAG). Ayoob has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.

(From a source, spank you very much)

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh, so that's why virtually every law enforcement organization has supported a ban on most semi-automatic/assault guns.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

Every law enforcement officer that I have spoken with personally, has expressed a thankfulness that there are gun owners out there with level heads and are a help to law enforcement in the area of self defense. I have not found that law enforcement wants any ban. They use semi-auto guns themselves. They believe the public should be able to defend themselves, with semi-auto guns, because they can not be everywhere at the same time. Besides, there are no assault rifles (which are fully auto) out there since the 80's. There are no assault rifles that are semi-auto.

Ken Lassman 1 year, 11 months ago

The term "assault" is confusing and I apologize for using it. When used with "rifle," it refers mostly to fully automatic weapons. When used with "weapon" it can refer to semi-automatic rifles. Probably the best policy is to just use the term semi-automatic and leave assault out of the picture in order to avoid the confusion.

Frankly, the law enforcement community is divided, just as the rest of the country is divided. But to say that law enforcement does not want any ban is just plain wrong. I offer you the following study that polled 600 police chiefs from communities larger than 25,000 people as evidence: http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(05)00517-9/abstract

Also, interestingly, NRA members strongly support stricter gun regulation, including mandatory background checks: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

And now it's becoming a free-for-all of stupidity... Who cares what the police think? This isn't about them at all! The person who wrote the article IS a police officer for Krom sake!

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

I'm of the opinion that the police should be allowed to possess any weapon available for sale to the general public.

Mike Ford 1 year, 11 months ago

In god we trust where do I start. The Armalite company and Stoner companies made automatic weapons in the 1960's beginning with the M-16 and it's civilian equivilent AR-15/M4/Bushmaster 223 cal. . Norinco (Chinese) Valmet (Finnish) and Galil (Israeli) are semi automatic weapons based on the Kalishnakov AK-47 that is used as a weapon through most of Africa and Asia. (Mozambique has the AK 47 on it's flag) The Ruger Mini 14 is based on the Garand M1/M14 from WW II, Korea. and Vietnam. HK's are based on CEMTE designs from the early 1960's and Fabrique Nationale (Belgium) made FN FAL's. These semi automatic weapons are based on full auto weapons and with 20 and 30 round magazines and are assault weapons as such. I work amongst law enforcement in Douglas county and mostly they want to be the only people at the scene with a weapon. You're talking nonsense.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

Some comments just aren't worthy of a response.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has announced that she will be introducing legislation to reenact the ban on so-called assault weapons that she authored in 1994. The evidence is in on the effect of her previous assault weapons ban: zero, zilch, nada, as the saying goes. The ban made no perceptible difference in the gun violence statistics when it went into effect, and no perceptible difference when it was allowed to expire 10 years later, in 2003. . .

. . .These policies would constitute a complete and effective program to prevent the next Sandy Hook Elementary atrocity. But they are based on evidence and reason, not mindless emotion, so don’t expect any “liberal” support.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

She knows The House will tell her to go pound sand. She is grandstanding just like the kansas congressmen that voted against giving money to the NE because they knew their voices were irrelevant and they saw an opportunity to pander to the loons without consequence.

As for obama mumbling something about an executive order further restricting firearms, he should do what he feels is right. He will be winning the next presidential election for the republican candidate even as he does it.

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 11 months ago

There are a lot of commentators on this sight that I agree with until it comes to the gun control issue. It becomes obvious that they have an exaggerated horror regarding any type of gun.

So I see two major hurdles with achieving reasonable goals in the management and enforcement of gun laws.

We have gun haters pretending to be reasonable and we have gun enthusiasts that I would classify as extreme who don't believe in any gun laws who want to live in a John Wayne movie.

I think most Americans simply cannot trust either group to be sensible about this issue.

Still, I think we must crack down and tighten up our gun laws because the country has run out of patience on this and many other issues. I want reasonable controls made by people who appreciate guns the way I do, and not a bunch of gun haters.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

"I want reasonable controls made by people who appreciate guns the way I do, and not a bunch of gun haters."

Could you be specific? What controls do you propose?

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 11 months ago

Personally, and I am a fan of Cory Booker and I believe he has the right approach to this issue.

Uncle_Jerry 1 year, 11 months ago

I don’t see where the government has any credibility in using weapons designed to kill. The federal government knowingly kills children and has in fact targeted a child and killed him with a drone strike. For the federal government and Obama to lecture the citizens on responsible use of weapons is beyond hypocrisy.

Many on the gun control side ask why would I need an AR-15 for self defense and I think it’s a fair question. My response is why does the DHS need 1 Billion plus hollow point rounds? If you want to talk about designed to kill, a hollow point is an effective round. That round is not designed to just kill it is designed to kill and leave gaping holes from the exit wound. http://www.examiner.com/article/department-of-homeland-security-buys-even-more-hollow-point-rounds

Why is the government allowed to prepare for civil unrest but wants to deny that right to the citizens

Commenting has been disabled for this item.