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.


redneck 12 months 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.


Chris Golledge 1 year 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.


Chris Golledge 1 year 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.


Chris Golledge 1 year 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?


Liberty275 1 year 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.


fmrl 1 year ago

I agree with the "shame on you." By "you" I mean people who have allowed themselves to be hypnotized by the Ministry of Propaganda, aka mainstream media. By hypnotize I mean this definition: To bypass the critical faculty and establish selective thinking. By reading this you have access to legitimate, e.g. non-mainstream media, information. You should know that DHS has bought up two billion rounds of ammo. Why? Some members of Congress want to know but they refuse to tell. You should know that the US military has been authorized to treat US citizens as enemy combatants. You should know that Presidents have signed Executive Orders providing for the suspension of Constitutional government when they declare an "emergency." There are news blackouts by the mainstream media on possible "false flag" events including the most recent, in which legitimate questions have arisen. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who keep themselves armed to fight against the tyranny which is coming.


pinecreek 1 year 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.


Purell 1 year ago

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


FlintlockRifle 1 year 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.


ignatzks 1 year 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.


jayhawklawrence 1 year 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.


hitme 1 year ago

As a gun owner, I'm OK with background checks that go as deep as they feel the need to go; I have nothing to hide. On the limited mag. size, I like having several 30-rd mags available. But, I can't argue that it actually adds to my rights by having the extra capacity.

On the other hand, nothing in this bill would have prevented Aurora or Newtown.

It is legislation that will eventually pass; the only reason it didn't pass is legislators are afraid to lose the NRA funding.


Stuart Sweeney 1 year 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.


Richard Heckler 1 year ago

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


esteshawk 1 year 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.


akt2 1 year 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.


Steven Gaudreau 1 year ago

Armstrong's last sentence sums it up, " You can't govern crazy.". It baffles me that some people think a crazed murderer is going to follow laws. Getting a black mkt gun will be as easy as buying pot is today. I could care less if more laws are passed but it is pointless.


Armstrong 1 year ago

Here's something to ponder.

Bombs go off at the Boston Marathon = blame the bombers

School shooting in Newtown = blame the gun.


skinny 1 year ago

Why? Because this is a free country!!

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


Commenting has been disabled for this item.