Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: Gun perspective

December 21, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

Now it seems that, if you are an employee of a state university, you must relinquish the right of free speech. At least agree not to state any opinion that might be construed as being critical of the National Rifle Association and the far right wing of the Republican Party as they seek to put a concealed gun in all our pockets.

Does this seem sensible? Even during the time Kansas was the destination of the Texas trail herds, Dodge City and Abilene had city ordinances that required you to relinquish your guns when you were in town. Look it up!

Comments

Bob Smith 1 year ago

"….as they seek to put a concealed gun in all our pockets…" Where's that coming from? Nobody is trying to force you to legally carry a concealed firearm, Everett.

Scott Burkhart 1 year ago

Freudian slip, perhaps? Would you like us to put one in your pocket?

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Oh how the conversation would change if Guth had hoped for the death of the children of the NAACP or GLADD.

I am certain that KU Profs can criticize NRA policies and positions. It is inappropriate to bring in to the discussion the children of someone with whom you disagree especially wishing them death. And deny that he did that but the tweet speaks for itself.

Richard Heckler 1 year ago

Gun activity at Brother's Bar and Grill Friday night. Don't need more guns downtown.

Brother's Bar and Grill is home to rowdy customers ...... too frequently.

Guns and peace don't seem to be anonymous. Nam,war for oil,Hitler,etc etc etc etc are perfect examples.

Can anyone prove that concealed weapons will prevent violence? Can anyone prove that guns don't kill people?

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Richard concealed weapons are not intended to prevent violence. They are intended to prevent being killed by a criminal, to give the good guy a fighting chance when attacked or even an advantage when a criminal tries to make them a victim.

Bob Smith 1 year ago

In case you've forgotten, here's the tweet that started all this whoop-de-do: “#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA, Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.” Keep it classy, bub.

Mike Ford 1 year ago

what's been lost in the Guth comment from the getgo is that the NRA seems impervious to the suffering of the victims of gun violence whether it's Gabbi Giffords, Virginia Tech, Newtown or any of the other victims of unnecessary gun violence. Mr. Guth made his comment to try and penetrate the "It's not our fault" callous answer from the NRA on any gun violence. Instead of saying "wow" we didn't realize how callous we are attitude and having some empathy and sensitivity the NRA and the non thinkers succeeded in reversing Mr. Guth's comment against him and maintaining their modus operandi of denial and blame reversal. The NRA basically says "We may be in denial" but look what the thinking person said. How pathetic. I've been a gun owner and hunter since I was nine and I'm forty three. I've never been a blind patriotic chest thumping gun owner because it's not part of my identity as it is others. One would think that others wouldn't want to be so shallow but oh well. Sensible gun owners and collectors like myself are tired of the blind fervor of some gun proponents. You don't speak for us. Start thinking and stop being catished by conspiracy theories. Non thinking people are perfect recruits for Wayne LaPierre and Rush Limbaugh. How pathetic.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

So you speak for Guth?

You use juvenile techniques to try and make your point - yes, it is juvenile to suggest that only thinking people agree with you. Simply not true and adds nothing to the discussion to suggest that because I disagree with you and Guth or that because I am a NRA member I am a non-thinking person.

Simply not true.

Mike Ford 1 year ago

no I was smart enough to see the point he was making. it is the juvenile actions of NRA defenders to not reach out to the victims of gun violence and be understanding and empathetic. instead some of them have a subconscious guilty complex and a host gun rally in a park in Johnson County, Kansas last fall afraid of the blowback from what they represent publically and incapable of being empathetic and instead do the flag waving and chest thumping to redirect any culpability they have in gun violence. I myself help collect World War one weapons and black powder weapons and have done so for thirty years. I don't need the NRA because I'm stronger and smarter than that, You just tried to slur me as your bretheren have with Mr. Guth. He had a fine line to walk as a paid academic. He let his anger get the better of him. However..... what does it take to make an NRA member realize there are boundaries both publically and legally to adhere to? There should be rational gun ownership. I don't personally see the need for a 20 or 30 round clip on any AR-15, HK 91, Galil 308 AK copy or any other civilian copy of a military issued weapon (assault rifle). I've gotten by with shotguns and bolt action rifles for a couple of decades. I know a person who hunts deer and turkey with Hawkins and Kentucky percussion reproduction rifles. They don't need any assault rifle to hunt with. What's the real reason the NRA has for creating illogical conspiracy theories concerning firearms? We're tired of the bloodshed and the denial. Do you understand this yet?

Bob Smith 1 year ago

The 03 Springfield was the "assault weapon" of its day. And the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting.

Mike Ford 1 year ago

it's telling that you ignored the points I made about the NRA's lack of empathy in my comment. Did you not have something intelligent to say or is what I'm stating a point you can't refute with NRA talking points? There isn't a need to ban bolt action rifles. None of them had more than a 5 or 6 round capacity except maybe an SMLE. You completely ignored the point I made much as Lynn Jenkins staffers do when they're wrong also. Address an empirical point or stop speaking as much nonsense as the GOP does on TV.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Mike, mike, mike, really? Telling people they must agree with you? You are the only one that gets it, we are all wrong because we have a different opinion?

You talk about legal boundaries - sure there are legal boundaries. Care to share where NRA members have violated the law? If they have they are criminals and should be prosecuted.

You said you don't "personally see the need for a 20-30 round clip on any AR 15...." First, you showed your ignorance of firearms. None are equipped with a clip. They use magazines. Second, as you said, that is your personal preference. Others may, and have the Constitutional right to have a 20 round magazine for their rifle.

You want the "empirical point" addressed - what is it? State it clearly and I will address it.

You said the NRA is creating illogical conspiracy theories - name one. Name a specific conspiracy theory the NRA created with proof and I will address it too. If it is indeed illogical I will agree with you.

So Mike, there you have it - back up what you said with specifics instead of vague accusations. Oh, and BTW, try using paragraphs. Making reading your comments a lot easier.

David Reber 1 year ago

I find the "nobody needs...." argument a bit puzzling. I've read the Constitution through and through, but can't find this "Bill of Stuff You Can Have, But Only if You Need It" anywhere.

Betty Bartholomew 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I've read the second amendment several times and don't see where it says the right to bear arms is to be totally unregulated. It is against the law to have bombs and other explosives, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and a host of lesser weapons depending on where you live (the definition of arms being "a means [as a weapon] of offense or defense", which is rather broad categorization, though since militiamen in the 1700s would not all have been equipped with guns, I think it's fair to include other categories).

And aside from the discussion on what one may possess, there are a host of laws regulating when, where, and how legal weapons may legally be used.

So that all said: Why should one have the right to high capacity, fast shooting weaponry that can devastate a mass of civilians as has happened time and again in recent history? What possible need can one have of such a thing? If one is so bad at hunting that one needs a high capacity weapon, one probably shouldn't be hunting.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

What we need is to look at the root cause of violence in our country and try figure why we have so much violence Focus on the cause and not just one of the many types of weapons used to commit violence.

Hate speech, like Guth's tweet, in my opinion, fuels anger. Anger fuels violence.

Of course anger is not the only cause, but it contributes to the problem. We are an angry country.

Poverty, not in the sense of being poor, but in the sense of being poor with no hope of climbing out of poverty, no future, contributes to violence.

Drugs contribute to it.

Let's focus on the causes and not feel good solutions that will change nothing. Let's stop demonizing groups with whom we disagree. The NRA is just one voice. They don't pass any laws. They are not the problem, but I know it makes people feel good to demonize them. Might make them feel good, but it is counter-productive to finding real solutions.

What to get angry, want to demonize something? Direct your ire towards legislators that won't fund the national background check database to include people with mental illnesses that prohibit them from purchasing a gun.

Lane Signal 1 year ago

Guns are a big part of the cause of the violence in our country. Gun culture is part of the problem, not just a symptom.

The celebration and display of fire arms draws people to the weapons. Many weapons sold here are designed primarily to kill people. Call it "self defense" or "deterrence", but a large number of the guns sold are made and marketed as effective against people. This is designed to cultivate a culture that views guns as a solution to problems, a means to empowerment. The subtle message is "carry a gun and you will be tough", "carry a gun and you will be cool". In a culture where guns are everywhere, they become a handy tool. If you have a problem, consider a gun as a possible solution.

That leads to a really wonderful situation (for the gun manufacturers anyway). Now, so many people have a gun, and there is a significant amount of gun violence. Now it's not too hard to convince many people that they need a gun to be safe. They need to carry, or at least have in their home, a gun to defend themselves against all those crazy people who have guns already.

I'm not claiming guns are the only cause of violence in our country, just a significant component.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Show me one gun marketing campaign that promotes carry a gun and you will be tough. Now, I don't deny that the entertainment promotes this message and culture but it is not the gun makers.

You state that so many people have guns and there is a significant amount of gun violence but I ask who is committing the violence? Is it people who own guns legally or those who possess them illegally?

I believe we need to have long prison sentences for those who possess guns illegally. No excuse for doing it and they are most likely planning to use it illegally.

Bob Smith 1 year ago

The road to the infernal regions is paved with "We're doing it for the children!"

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Not talking about the 2nd amendment is like talking about free speech and not talking about the 1st amendment. You can't separate the two.

Let's clear up some of your errors. Semi automatic rifle and shotguns are good for hunting and many people do hunt with them including AR 15 style rifles. But the issue isn't hunting. Hunting has nothing to do with gun ownership.

You say semi automatic rifles are not good for home protection. That is just opinion not fact. I think they are especially when you have multiple intruders, which does occur, breaking into your home. 3 or four bullets is not enough when you have 3-4 people forcing their way in and I prefer the speed of a semi-auto to that of a bolt action in a situation where my life is in danger.

You wrote is my right worth the right of anyone's child? That is just like asking if I stopped beating my wife. Or, how about is being able to drive over 55 mph worth the the life of anyone's child or is being able to have even one drink at dinner worth the life of anyone's child. Lower the speed limit to 55 mph and ban drinking at bars or restaurants, lower the alcohol limit while driving to zero will save many lives. But the fact is we accept the risk of people dying as part of being a free society and for convenience.

So, it is BS to single out the 2 nod amendment for the argument, but if it saves just one child. The same can be said about the 1st amendment too

Think about this. We live in a society where a mass murdering terrorist may be in your back yard. If the police show up with automatic weapons to deal with them why is it unreasonable to be able to arm yourself with a semi automatic weapon?

Bob Smith 1 year ago

"… So my point is, if semi auto rifles were banned, you can still hunt and protect yourself with better choices…." Don't kid yourself that the civilian disarmament people will stop at banning semi-autos. Slippery slope….

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Richard if shotguns and handguns are better choices for protection then why doesn't the president's security force arm themselves with shotguns and handguns?

Professional hunters do not say that bolt action are better choices for hunting. Hunters are often banned from using semi- automatic rifles or magazine capacities are listed by the government. Why? Because they are more effective at killing than a bolt action.

Why does the military use automatic weapons instead of bolts? Again because they are more effective.

Is it ever a better choice to use a handgun than a semiAutomatic rifle? Yes, the righ tool for the right job.

Answer me this. Why if the police feel they would be under gunned if they used bolt action rifles against criminals and terrorist and we have to defend ourselves against these same people should we be forced to use only a bolt action rifle?

And for the car analogy are you suggesting it is only important to save children's lives in non-accident situations? If we reduced the speed limit we'd reduce the chance of accidents. The lower the speed limit the less chance of fatality accidents. Isn't rot worth saving even just one child? Which would save more lives annually - reducing the speed limit or banning semi automatic weapons?

Which would save more lives banning handguns or semi auto rifles? Why focus on semi auto rifles when far more deaths are a result of them than cars, or handguns or knives?

Joshua Cain 1 year ago

"Not in my opinion, a shotgun is a better choice then a semi auto for home protection unless an army has descended upon your house." - Keith,

Some semi auto rifles can be good for home protection. Semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 & AK-47 are used commonly across the world for personal and property protection. The AR-15 specifically is used by law enforcement today for raids on homes of suspects. Why law enforcement needs a team of 5 heavily armed men with multiple 30 round mags to apprehend one or a few suspects is beyond me. Who are they going to war with?

" Is banning semi auto rifles going to stop all murders, no but it just might save the life of an 8 year old child sitting at his or her school desk. So when you want to argue its your right to own a semi auto rifle, ask yourself if that right is worth the life of anyone's child."- Keith

By this logic we should ban semi-auto pistols too. The VA Tech shooter had a 9mm just like you and a .22 and killed the most people.

The LA riots in the early 90's was a perfect example of how someone would benefit from a semi-auto rifle. Store owners in particular. Shot gun lacks range and capacity. An AR or AK will give you range, fire power, and capacity.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

I asked Keith this, but anyone is free to answer. If a shotgun or handgun is better for self protection then why doesn't the WH Secret Service or police forces use them? Why do they opt for high power, high capacity rifles instead?

Leslie Swearingen 1 year ago

That would be because they are professionals and doing a job not just protecting themselves in their homes or on the street. Since those who would assasinate the president or commit an act of violence have the latest weapons, so do all members of law enforcement if they are to have a chance of stopping them.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Leslie, so you disagree with Keith and agree that these are a better weapon choice. Okay, you and I agree on this.

Now to the part we disagree about. Very few crimes are committed with semi auto rifles compared to other weapons so why ban the weapon that offers the law abiding citizen a better chance of protecting themselves.

The Boston marathon is a good example that citizens are at risk of encountering dangerous criminals and even terrorist. Focusing on the law abiding citizen, what difference does it make if someone gets paid to protect or if they are protecting their family? Is the president's life more important than yours?

What is the risk that exists if a woman who is not a professional has a semi auto .308 rifle instead of a .308 bolt action rifle in her home for protection?

John Middleton 1 year ago

The latest weapons... to assassinate the president... really? JFK was killed by an Italian WW2 surplus bolt action rifle. Robert Kennedy was killed by a .22 revolver. Martin Luther King was killed by a 30-06 bolt action rifle. Ronald Reagan was shot by Hinkley with a .22 revolver. Gerald Ford was shot at by Sara Moore using a .38 revolver. Mentally ill criminals and killers will use whatever they can get their hands on.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Keith so what is the difference if they bought a bolt action or the semi-auto?

They shouldn't possess either. And you do know that they do background checks at gun shows so if he bought it from a dealer they lied on the application which gets to my earlier point about entering people with mental illnesses into the background check database

But let's look at your point. What law will stop the mentally ill person from buying a semi auto rifle. How would you write the law to stop it without banning all semi auto weapons or stopping them from buying it illegally?

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

How does banning them stop criminals from using them?

They and other assault weapons were banned in CT but it didn't stop a deranged person from illegally obtaining one.

Need is in the eye of the person. Yes, I need an AR 15 because it provides me the reliability, firepower and capacity to defend my family in a situation that I hope never happens but may where my house is being attacked by multiple intruders intent on harming us.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Keith I notice you didn't defend your assertion that a shotgun or handgun I offers better protection than a semi auto rifle. Do you concede they're not?

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

I agree that in many cases the shotgun makes a better defense weapon for the reasons you stated, but not in all cases. I want to have choices to be able to pick the best weapon for the situation.

BTW - let me add, that our disagreement and discussion is not personal. I respect your opinion and welcome the discussion.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/09/21/4497926/charges-filed-in-kc-home-invasion.html

http://www.kansasfirstnews.com/news/kansas/topeka-man-shot-and-killed-during-early-morning-home-invasion

Keith, just a quick Google shows that I am not paranoid but hey thanks for suggesting I am. They are many more than the two I pasted. The first involved 4 home invaders and the second 3.

Where did the Boston bomber take refuge? In a boat in someone's back yard. Paranoid? I don't think so.

Where was the most recent terrorist living? Wichita Kansas. He wanted to blow up the airport. Terrorist live among us.

If the handgun is used by LEO because it is portable not because it is their weapon of choice. As I said, the right tool for the job. Look at the news and see how many police arrive at a crime scene with assault type weapons.

And when I am in a situation where I have to defend my family I want a weapon that is best for killing.

Much automobile travel is recreational. You could still use a car at slower speeds. Come on, lower the speed limit, children will be saved.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

I am not familiar with the Mac 10 so I had to google it.

Setting aside the 2nd amendment, argument there appears to be no difference between the Mac 10 and other high capacity semi auto rifles than appearance and size. It is compact which makes it better for self defense in close quarters.

There is nothing you can do with a Mac 10 that you can't do with other semi auto high capacity rifles so why single out the Mac 10?

Think about it in this way, the internet causes pain and suffering to many people. People are bullied, driven to suicide. Crimes of terrorism and murder occur because of the internet so why not ban it? There are other means of communication so it isn't needed. We existed centuries without it so let's ban it. Is this reasonable?

Freedom isn't free. People die in support of it and because of it. Banning the Mac 10 will not stop one murder. Not when there are alternatives out there. There is no way to stop gun violence. The only way to truly limit it is to ban all guns but that is unconstitutional and then only criminals and the government will have guns.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

I should add I don't want guns in the hands of the criminal public. We should require life sentences for any felon found in possession of a firearm who is prohibited from owning one.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

.ive got to run but it has been nice discussing this with you.

Mike Ford 1 year ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

Mike, I had a nice long discussion on this issue with a couple of posters who didn't agree with me. I was respectful, didn't question their patriotism or call them any names so you're out of line referring to me as people of my ilk and calling me a hypocrite.

You failed to answer any of the direct questions I posed or to back up anything you said. Instead you rehash old stories you've told here before and ramble on.

And why haven't they taken a lot of guns? Because legislation that would ban and confiscate guns have been defeated. They are taking guns in NY.

But, hey, congrats you said it all in one long paragraph. Really, what is the point of discussing anything with you - you're so blinded by rage it makes you incoherent.

Mike Ford 1 year ago

can one not bring up the other side of the coin here? Mr. Guth was called out for making inflammatory comments towards the NRA a couple of months ago. I can recall numerous times when I've heard outlandish stuff said in a racist and anti liberal manner at gun shops recently. If Mr. Guth is on trial then so are all of the crazy people I've heard speak in defense of unchecked gun ownership and the underlying reasons they go for the gun issue. Since when is it a removing issue when I recall an incident of speaking lunacy at a gun shop in Olathe? Mr. Masters wanted an example of a conspiracy theory and I gave it, At times it's as if 's okay to say crazy things amongst like minded people but if someone calls out this lunacy for what it is they're removed. You can remove my comment on guns and race but this stuff will still be spouted and some of them will applaud the silence one creates. The scale tips evenly correct? it doesn't look like it right now. I'm affected by this conceal and carry nonsense three times a week and I wish that the people who want an OK corral shootout would go to western Kansas and leave the reasonable people here. Maybe what the LTE reader stated above is happening right here.

Fred Mertz 1 year ago

We've had concealed carry in KS for at least 6 years now. When has there been an OK Corral style shootout like you worry about?

And why disparage Western Kansas? Do you think they are more violent than the rest of Kansas.

Where in the US has this occurred with concealed carry holders?

Mike, you don't have to fear CC holders. It is the unlicensed illegal holders of guns that you need to fear.

Bob Smith 1 year ago

Everything always comes down to the same old tune with Mike.

Bob Smith 1 year ago

I did and saw a happy and handsome man about town.

Mike Ford 12 months ago

if someone is a law officer as I think they are would they want to come to a crime scene in progress and have to figure who the good guy and the bad guy is or would they hope for the cc holder to the finish the job for them? We saw how that went in Florida less than a year ago. The city of Lawrence also settled a case in the early 1990's with the US Justice Department for $700,000 when someone was mistakenly killed in a case of whose the bad guy and whose the good guy. You want to take that chance again? I'd err on the side of safety and hope the law officer is the only person armed at a crime scene.

Bud Stagg 12 months ago

I'd rather be alive when the police officer arrives. You will find very few incidents of a licensed person committing a violent gun crime and more where that person saved lives or property. So what is the problem?

Beator 12 months ago

I think people that don't like firearms, shouldn't buy them.

Mike Ford 12 months ago

it depends on the makeup of the jury and slurring the victim right?

Mike Ford 12 months ago

no as a 30 year plus gun owner and collector I suggest magazine limits for civilian copies of military weapons. If someone needs a 20 or 30 round capacity they must be a really bad shot. Ten or fifteen round capacities would be fine. thanks for the often asked knee jerk reaction question that non thinking people on KMBZ always pose. Questions like this don't really allow for anything except putting someone in a corner. Also thanks for putting words in my mouth. Bill O'Reilly would be proud of you.

Joshua Cain 12 months ago

Mike,

SWAT teams use 20 & 30 round mags. Are they bad shots? Teams of 5+ storming one suspect resident? Not only do they have a single mag but sometimes they affix another mag upside down to the mag in the mag well for another 30 rounds. There's a lot of talk of how semi-auto rifles aren't suited for residential use but I think law enforcement that use these weapons in this environment will disagree.

Beator 12 months ago

I like 30 mags 'cuz I hate reloading. I got a 100 round mag that I like even more! People that don't like large capacity mags should carry their one bullet in their shirt pocket like Barney Fife did.

Bob Smith 12 months ago

The standard capacity magazine genie isn't going back in the bottle. Over the past couple of decades, the feds have released hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of surplus 20 and 30 round 5.56 mags. Those are in private hands now. Enjoy storming the castle!

Mike Ford 12 months ago

enjoy advocating for people who act like they're rebelling against common sense. that's surely something I'd like doing publically. it makes one look really smart doesn't it?

Bob Smith 12 months ago

Those on the people control side of the debate keep using the term "common sense". I do not think it means what they think it means. Using proper capitalization makes me look smarter than someone who ignores that convention.

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

It means having an empirical reason besides fear of the unknown to justify large capacity magazines. One wants to look publically as something other than crazy correct?

Beator 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Who are you to tell me how many bullets I can have?

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I never said anything against law enforcement having large capacity ammunition clips. They're the people that should have such weapons. Again....thanks for acting like Bill O'Reilly. and putting words in my mouth. Lots of FOXNEWS watching eh?

Joshua Cain 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"I never said anything against law enforcement having large capacity ammunition clips." - Mike Ford

"If someone needs a 20 or 30 round capacity they must be a really bad shot."- Mike Ford

Your comment implies that anyone needing 30 rounds shouldn't be operating that weapon. Well, Law Enforcement uses 30 round mags.

Under what circumstance does Law Enforcement need that much ammunition? Not only for one member but each member on the team.

Civilians and Law Enforcement can and do face the same threats. Why does one get the guns and the other, in your opinion shouldn't?

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

unless you have irrational fear based on people watching you in your television or black silenced helicopters or you have a tinfoil hat or fear of the illuminati or a president that doesn't look like you why do you need so much ammunition?

Beator 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Like I said. Who are you to tell me what to do?

Joshua Cain 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Mike,

There's this pervasive concept of free will and freedom that many Americans still want to protect. This concept can be viewed as antiquated or romanticized at times but it's important to be exercised or else it will be lost. It isn't so much about who's "watching you in your television". Or what war-grade geared law enforcement officer is going to bust down your door by mistake. It's more about the potential for power to be abused and the balance of power between government and the citizenry.

History, as well as the present, is not on the side of those that put operating high capacity firearms responsibly, solely in the hands of the government. Being on the wrong end of a gun held by someone enforcing bad law, poor judgement, or ill conceived policy without equal force to retaliate to protect their family, property, liberty or person is a terrible way to be ruled. Kent State, the Japanese Americans during WWII, the confiscation of firearms during natural disasters, indefinite detention, the patriot act should never happen. All of which were/are enforced by a government employee with a gun. No matter how unlikely the circumstance, the very option must exist to stand a chance against government oppression. An unarmed citizenry...an insufficient unarmed citizenry is a liability to living a free lifestyle we all have a right to live. The potential and history of our own government trampling rights by way of the gun is and has been very real.

Goldwater said it best, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

With this administration and past administrations the hypocrisy of who they allow to operate firearms responsibly is unconscionable. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-waives-child-soldier-ban-yemen-congo/story?id=14663930

Lock and load brother.

Bob Smith 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I buy my ammo legally and store it safely. It's none of your beeswax how much I have at any given time. You don't need to know that.

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

why did all of this become so important after the 2008 Election? no guns have been taken. I laugh out loud at many of you who buy this "They're going to take our guns" nonsense. Your useless and pointless paranoia has made many gun companies, ammunition companies, and the NRA very wealthy. They profit off of your irrational fear. If I told the truth about many of this audience's reason for arming themselves to the hilt my comment would be removed and the people who are guilty of thinking this way would reverse my comment on me because their denial wouldn't allow the truth to be spoken. You should be proud of your denial. Anyone who can look past children, congresswomen, and innocent people being needlessly gunned down should be commended for their public denial of culpability. All the while I still own no weapons with over a five shot capacity and don't see the need to buy anything beyond this because I considerable myself reasonable.

Bob Smith 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"…no guns have been taken…" Guess you've never heard of New York.

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

why don't you make this irrelevant point irrelevant with your paranoia. We're in Kansas not New York right? don't all you people believe in states rights. New York exercised there right to control wanton violence. A small minority here makes sure the wild west is still alive and well at the expense of rational and reasonable gun owners. you should be proud of yourselves

Bob Smith 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You said, "...no guns have been taken..." and did not specify Kansas. If you don't want to stand behind what you post, that's your business. BTW, if you really can't remember that opposition to the war on the Second Amendment existed before the 2008 election, you have some serious memory issues.

Bob Smith 11 months, 3 weeks ago

In other Second Amendment news: "Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday..."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038#ixzz2pM2D5gjG

Beator 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Quinnipiac Study....

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/quinnipiac-study-concealed-carry-results-fewer-murders

Clearly, Liberal bastions are dangerous.

Julius Nolan 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You will never convince a paranoid person that there's no reason for their paranoia, especially when there are sources constantly feeding their paranoia.

Beator 11 months, 3 weeks ago

What do you have against Quinnipiac?

Chris Golledge 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Fundamentally, I think we are divided between those that want to keep guns legal so that they can protect themselves from others wanting to do them harm, and those who want to make them illegal to make it harder for others who would use them against us. It is not clear to me that one side should dictate the behavior of the other. Guns are just tools. Making them less accessible might reduce the number of spontaneous homicides, but someone with serious intent will find another way if they can't get a gun.

Obviously, Guth went too far in implying harm to children, but the statement appears to have been made from an emotionally charged state of mind, and not many of us have never said anything we regretted later when we were worked up. So, it would have made more sense to accept the apology and move on. However, I suspect the university has financial responsibilities impacted by how they handle this matter, and I suspect they were afraid of appearing too indifferent about guns, violence, and harm to children if they did nothing.

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The NRA over the years has a Teflon wall of denial. Some people view their way of interpreting gun violence as insulting to a thinking society. It's simply political spin for them that has been politically utilized by the RIght since Ronald Reagan. Mr. Guff tried to penetrate that wall of denial with his own outrage towards their callousness. His comment reminded me of a comment made by a Topeka antique dealer who had a reputation for speaking brazenly. Someone I know collected World War One trench art. Soldiers in the trenches carved on 75 MM cannon shells. This person commented on the beauty of the artwork and the antique dealer stated, " I bet the soldiers who died of shellshock didn't think the artwork was beautiful as the shell rained down on them nor did the farmer who had a farm building and a herd of cattle blown to bits by this cannon shell". If the NRA didn't function and exist in a bubble of denial maybe people wouldn't have to go out of their way to bring the NRA's callousness to their attention. I read the NRA magazines as an eleven year old before the Right politicized the gun issue. I used to like the historical stuff and I tended as a young gun collector to ignore the chest beating and political bravado and research who used which weapons and what advancements were made. It's truly sad that the chest beaters have taken this joy away with their politicizing and bravado.

Bob Smith 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Guff merely let the inside voice that many liberals have get outside for a moment.

Mike Ford 11 months, 3 weeks ago

is the truth worth removing? I took no offensive points and simply stated the obvious I've observed for a while now. Let the obvious go on in public because it can't be talked about on here now.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.