Archive for Saturday, April 20, 2013

Letter: Shame on us

April 20, 2013


To the editor:

Shame on Sens. Roberts and Moran and their cowardly comrades. These elected officials have caved in once again to the disingenuous positions of the National Rifle and Gun Owners associations.

Why would we continue to permit persons with criminal records or a history of mental instability to purchase weapons of destruction without background checks? Why would we continue to allow the purchase of magazine clips with 30 bullets? No hunter would use 30 shells to bring down game.

This has nothing to do with taking away a person’s Second Amendment rights. It is simply common sense.

Have we learned nothing from the slaughters in Newtown, Aurora, Columbine and too many other places to mention?

Shame on us for allowing such senselessness to continue.


skinny 5 years, 2 months ago

Why? Because this is a free country!!

Thank god for the NRA!! I am sending them more money as we speak!

esteshawk 5 years, 2 months ago

What part of "well regulated" is causing you problems?

Armstrong 5 years, 2 months ago

Here's something to ponder.

Bombs go off at the Boston Marathon = blame the bombers

School shooting in Newtown = blame the gun.

Terry Sexton 5 years, 2 months ago

Except no one is blaming the gun. We can, however, find blame with a system that won't consider taking even the most basic steps towards public safety.

Armstrong 5 years, 2 months ago

Excellent, I would expect soon there will be background checks on people buying nails and scrap metal ( shrapnel used in bombs ) also pressure cookers and pipes. Those must be the bomb version of 30 round clips. You can't govern crazy.

skull 5 years, 1 month ago

As soon as you can figure out a way to build a house and cook dinner with a gun, your comparison will be valid.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

Since the lte didn't "blame the gun", it blamed the folks who get guns who shouldn't, your comment seems a bit off topic.

chootspa 5 years, 1 month ago

The Boston bombers also killed a police officer and shot at others with guns they obtained illegally.

chootspa 5 years, 1 month ago

Let's just unlock all our doors and stop with all property law. You can't prevent all thefts, so why even try?

akt2 5 years, 2 months ago

How does a background check deter a mentally unstable person from buying a gun? They don't have to go to a gun store to buy it. Depending on how deviant they are they will find a way to bypass any law. You don't have to own a gun to have access to one. What about people that have no known mental health history but are mentally ill? Think how many of them there are in today's society. I'm more concerned about those people. They probably already own guns or have access to them.

esteshawk 5 years, 2 months ago

Generally speaking, right wingers tend to be supportive of adhering to the Constitution and tend to be the ones against gun regulation. Do they not see the hypocrisy? The second amendment includes gun regulation. Its in the text: "well regulated.". Really. Its there. You can look it up. This is one amendment in which they write in a purpose statement explaining why they included it, and we ignore it.

Armstrong 5 years, 1 month ago

Generally speaking, left wingers tend to be against the first amendment or pro abortion and tend to be anti second amendment or for gun control. Do they not see the hypocrisy ?

voevoda 5 years, 1 month ago

Abortion is not discussed in the Constitution, Armstrong. You must be confusing the ultra-ring-wing agenda with the fundamental laws of our country.

esteshawk 5 years, 1 month ago

Against the first amendment? I assume you refer to the 'no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free practice thereof" clause? "free practice" does not mean you are discriminated against because you are not allowed to impose your religious beliefs on others. Someone else getting an abortion or gays getting married does not affect your own religious beliefs or your right to have an abortion or not or get married or not, to whom you see fit.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

The term is "well regulated militia"; militia are people, not guns. It says nothing about well regulated guns. In contrast, it does say, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed".

We've already breached the constitution by banning militias; what is another breach about infringing the right to bear arms?

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

When is Kansas going to vote these lifer politicians out of office and vote in people with say more ethical credentials?

Stuart Sweeney 5 years, 1 month ago

We don't allow criminals and those with mental instability to purchase guns now. We have laws to prohibit those purchases. What is proposed now imposes restrictiion on those of us who do follow the law. As far as the second admendment it has to do with the abilty of the people the keep the government in check and does not have anything to do with hunting.

jayhawklawrence 5 years, 1 month ago

I would be in favor of improving gun safety if that was what all of this was about.

All of this political drama was as much about improving gun safety as Benghazi was about protecting our diplomats.

It does emphasize just how encapable Obama is in working with the Republicans in Congress and how far he is from understanding how to change the situation in Washington. The failed gun political strategy should be a teaching moment in how not to work with Republicans, not an opportunity to attack gun owners and the NRA as baby killers.

ignatzks 5 years, 1 month ago

I believe in a person's right to own a gun. But face it. Anyone who needs an automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine to hit a target probably shouldn't own one for his own safety. And anyone who is afraid of a background check probably has something to hide. And don't give me that old excuse that the information can be used by the government to "get to you." If you have a Social Security number and file a tax return they have more than enough information to do that.

JayCat_67 5 years, 1 month ago

Especially, since, with an automatic weapon you probably won't even hit anywhere near your target after the first round. Even Stallone and Schwarzenegger couldn't do that in the real world.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"Anyone who needs an automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine to hit a target"

You should try a belt-fed M60 or .50 cal. You'll forget about 30 round magazines in automatic weapons pretty quickly once you shoot the real thing. Get a box with tracers for extra excitement.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

IDK. I agree a 30-round clip in fully auto mode is probably useless, but a 30-round in semi-auto is probably worth more than a 6-round clip.

In any case, while not having access to large clips might have slowed the shooters down, I don't think it would have stopped them, and that presumes that making them illegal actually has the effect of making them inaccessible.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Maybe there is more than one target approaching.

FlintlockRifle 5 years, 1 month ago

I have bought a few gun in the past 60 plus years, and since they passed the back ground check from dealers any where you buy a firearm I also have not problem with this, but please tell me how this is going to stop all the evil people from stealing a firearm or knife and go around killing someone just to have something to do, no I don't have any left today except my grandfathers ole flintlock, and it lives at one of my son's home in Colorado.

voevoda 5 years, 1 month ago

Most of the firearms used in crimes were not stolen, FlintlockRifle. They were purchased. Sometimes legally, but often illegally.

Think of it this way: registering cars does not keep car thieves from taking them, but it certainly does make it easier to recover them when they are stolen. Registering cars may not keep irresponsible persons, both licensed and non-licensed, from operating them in an illegal fashion, but we still register them, so that the person who owns the car can be required to pay for any damage done by that car. That's why responsible people do a background check--making sure that the driver is licensed--before loaning him/her a car or selling him/her a car.

In fact, recognizing that in the hands of someone unskilled a car can be dangerous, we require a test of basic skill in order for a person to receive a license to drive a car. Yes, unlicensed drivers still drive sometimes, but that is a criminal offense, and having a system of licenses permits their arrest and prosecution, even if they haven't (yet) hurt someone.

How are cars different from guns? If your only answer is "the right to bear arms is in the Constitution and the right to drive is not," that is not a convincing justification. That's an appeal to sacred authority, not an argument based in logic.

Kate Rogge 5 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, and I'll bet Hitler said no to drunk driving laws because drunks don't care if they drive while drunk. Let's base all American laws upon our fears of what Hitler would or wouldn't do, okay? If we now require government ID to exercise our Constitutional right to vote, why can we not require background checks before exercising our Constitutional right to purchase a gun?

voevoda 5 years, 1 month ago

Actually, Hitler's firearm laws were looser than those of the Weimar Republic. He was happy to let German citizens own firearms. But he narrowed the definition of citizenship to exclude "racial" minorities and "criminals"--that is, people whom he did not want to share in his "perfect" Germany. So Germans didn't fail to overthrow Hitler because they didn't have guns. They failed to overthrow Hitler because they didn't see anything wrong with his policies.

Of course, Hitler came to power because he was voted into office. He convinced a plurality of Germans that they should be very suspicious of their government (Weimar Republic). He accused that government of treason, of incompetence, of immorality, and incompetence, and promised that he would bring prosperity and pride back to Germany. As long as he delivered on those promises, most Germans didn't care that he trampled all over the rights and freedoms of the minorities, and they did not lift their weapons to defend their neighbors.

Purell 5 years, 1 month ago

More people die each year from germs than from guns, but still people don't wash their hands. Where's the outrage?

skull 5 years, 1 month ago

More people die each year from accidental shootings than mass shootings, but still we need more guns. Where's the outrage?

FloridaSunshine 5 years, 1 month ago

My cousin does her gardening with a loaded, ready-to-shoot gun in her pocket. I told her that one of these days her husband or one of her sons...or any relative or friend just stopping by for a visit...will walk up behind her, scare the living daylights out of her, and she'll shoot them. Possibly shoot them dead. Or her gun will go off (remember, it's loaded and ready-to-shoot) and shoot her in the leg (or elsewhere) while digging in the dirt or other gardening activities. She laughed at me. If I were her, I wouldn't be laughing. One of her sons, who is 42 and doesn't have a brain in his head, carries one, also...loaded, ready-to-shoot. These people (relatives!) scare me more than any would-be robbers or mass murderers who will probably never come my way. The chances of being shot (accidentally) by a relative (or friend) is much more likely than by a robber or mass murderer...and that makes me freaking angry!! I entertain a VAST amount of disgust for foolish people such as my cousin and her son.

pinecreek 5 years, 1 month ago

While both sides hurl insults at each other, the reality is this--it just doesn't matter. There are 300 million guns in circulation in the US today. Anyone that really wants to get a gun of whatever nature or capability can do so without adhering to 'rules'. The Newtown shooter used guns belonging to his mother--he would not have come up on the radar even with new or different rules. This debate has been neutralized long ago by the very number of weapons openly available. America's destiny is to continue to absorb senseless mass shootings. The pro-gun rights crowd should be ashamed for what they've 'accomplished', the pro-gun control crowd should be ashamed for what they could not prevent. No victories here, only losses.

Kate Rogge 5 years, 1 month ago

I'm pro-gun control, and I think I should only be ashamed for what I COULD control but chose NOT to control. I don't think Senator Reid's decision to continue this obscenity of minority rule - requiring a bar of 60 votes instead of a majority vote - rises to the level of what I choose not to control. Gun control legislation would have passed had a majority vote been sufficient.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

The house would have slapped them down faster than you can say "30 round clip".

kawrivercrow 5 years, 1 month ago

"The Newtown shooter used guns belonging to his mother"

Glad you brought that up. She found cartoons he had drawn showing him shooting up crowds of people and a collection of mass shooting pictures and news clippings. She was alarmed but did not act on her fears.

Criminal negligence...pure, plain and simple. I have no qualms stating directly to her surviving family that she deserved to get shot in the face for such despicable omissions of common sense and responsibility.

FloridaSunshine 5 years, 1 month ago

pinecreek...300 million guns in circulation in the U.S.? Truly? That thought blows me away!! (Pun intended.)

hedshrinker 5 years, 1 month ago

where to begin? if you paid attention to today's news, you probably noticed that the remaining alleged Boston bomber will be tried in civilian, not military court as he is a (naturalized) US citizen and therefor CANNOT be tried as an enemy combatant. I won't bother to even respond to the rest of yr conspiracy must be really difficult living yr entire life hiding fr perceived enemies. If the only tool you possess is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"No hunter would use 30 shells to bring down game.

This has nothing to do with taking away a person’s Second Amendment rights."

How about we restrict your letters-to-the-editor to 10 words.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

Ah, well, senselessness will continue regardless of any laws we pass. The largest killing of school children was done with a bomb, or bombs, in the 1930s or thereabouts.

People talk about passing more laws, but frequently balk at paying for the enforcement of them. How many of the failed background checks were actually pursued by police?

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

"Why would we continue to allow the purchase of magazine clips with 30 bullets?"

Because some people consider the right to defend themselves more important than the risk imposed by a few lunatics.

Would I buy a 30-round clip? No, I don't feel the need, but I also don't see that it is my right to restrict someone who might feel the need.

FloridaSunshine 5 years, 1 month ago

I can't even BEGIN to imagine what that "need" may be. To defend themselves with a 30-round clip? Really? 30?? What a miserable life of fear some people live. Truly amazes me.

Chris Golledge 5 years, 1 month ago

"No hunter would use 30 shells to bring down game."

Yeah, so. What has that got to do with anything? The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

You should tell some of the avid gun folks that - they often use it as an example of why they should be able to have guns.

redneck 5 years, 1 month ago

Here is my 2 cents. Yes, you can purchase a firearm off the Internet, but they will only ship it to somebody who has a Federal Firearms License. The person with the Federal Firearms License will run a background check on you, and you will pay them a small fee for their service. You can also purchase a firearm at a gun show without any kind of background check. This is allowed so gun owners can sell their weapons privately to other gun owners without having to go through a Federal Firearms License dealer. If a convicted felon purchases a firearm from another person privately, they are breaking a federal law and could go back to prison for doing so. Please tell me of one instance, where somebody committed one of these mass murders, and they purchased their weapons at a gun show or privately from another person. Name me just one instance. I don't believe there are any instances, but please let me know if I'm wrong. They either stole them or purchased them from a dealer who ran a background check on them, and they passed the background check. It's not the weapon that needs to be controlled; it's the loose nut behind the trigger who needs to be controlled. The nut job that is responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary incident broke more than one law. He murdered his mother and stole her guns. What other silly law would have prevented him for doing what he did? It seams to me that he didn't care about any laws, or he wouldn't have broken them. Maybe we need to include mental records, when a background check is performed. The problem is that the bill that was presented to the US Senate contained all these other silly agendas, which are included to slowly eat away at our rights to own firearms. These agendas include limiting the magazine capacities or outlawing anything that could be considered an assault weapon. I have a 22-caliber rifle that may be included in an assault weapons ban, just because I can purchase a 50 round magazine for it. It's a peashooter for Christ sake! Lets end the madness and pass laws that make sense or stop letting criminals out of prison because of overcrowding or commit those who are a danger to our society.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.