Archive for Friday, November 17, 2017

Letter to the editor: Guns among us

November 17, 2017


To the editor:

One cannot help but wonder at the news three persons are killed the night of Oct. 1 at 10th and Massachusetts in Lawrence. What explains the presence or need of guns for a night on the town? Or in a classroom? Or in a church? Or on an airplane?

Many cite mental illness or a criminal record or family problems. These are possible explanations. So proposals come to create disqualifications for such persons. Would that have changed the shootings downtown?

I still wonder if the Second Amendment really meant anything more than having arms to protect one from an alien invasion. Of course, hunting and sport are hobbies, but availability of arms for protection/settling disputes is dangerous (remember Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr?). Two rifles confronting each other gives the advantage, regardless of the Second Amendment, to the first trigger finger. Are there equal rights? The man with a rifle in the Texas church parking lot only scared the shooter and didn’t save any of the two dozen killed.

Something may be legal, but abuse questions the right or privilege relating to guns.


Bob Smith 3 weeks, 4 days ago

Don, every day tens of millions of law-abiding Americans manage to use firearms safely and legally. BTW, the most important shot in a gunfight is the first accurate shot, not necessarily the first shot.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Every day millions of people operate cars safely and legally, but there are still laws about wearing seat belts, and you have to pass a test or take driver's ed to get a license.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Every election, millions of idiots like you vote and yet there are still laws preventing you having to pass a test or take a class to cast a ballot. I guess that's because some people know the difference between a right and a privilege. Too bad you don't...

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 2 days ago

I guess that's an easy way for you to ignore the message so you don't have to accept the truth in what I said. You just keep pretending there is no difference between a right and a privilege and focus on the fact that I nailed your intelligence level...

Bob Summers 3 weeks, 4 days ago

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

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 4 days ago

“The man with a rifle in the Texas church parking lot only scared the shooter and didn’t save any of the two dozen killed.”

First he just didn’t scare him, he shot him.

Second, it is true that like law enforcement usually does he arrived after the fact, but he risked his life to protect others. One can’t say with certainty if the shooter would have escaped arrest or killed anyone else if he wasn’t shot and pursued by the civilians, but one can say with certainty that they made sure he didn’t have the opportunity.

The LTE asks why there is a need for a gun in a classroom, church or plane. Simple, because evil people target these places to carry out their evil. Schools and churches have begun to use armed security to protect its people. Air Marshals are armed because there are terrorists that still want to crash planes.

Figure out how to keep evil people from trying to rape, maim and kill or to crash planes and there may not be a need for guns, but until that day comes or until the 2nd amendment is repealed the people will have the right to bear arms.

Scott Burkhart 3 weeks, 4 days ago

Our founding fathers were also aware that a despot led government, operating outside of citizen control, could enslave it populace like they had been subjected to prior to the Declaration of Independence. The right to bear arms and a "well regulated militia" was a check on the Federal Government.

The problem isn't guns or gun laws, it is enforcement. Over 80,000 gun applications during the Obama administration that were falsified and led to illegal purchases. These are federal crimes. 44 prosecutions. 44 prosecutions. It makes no darn sense to have gun laws if Joe Biden's excuse is, "We just don't have the time to pursue all of these violators." You, remember him, right, creepy Uncle Joe, the little girl fondler on the photo shoots at the White House?

Bob Smith 3 weeks, 4 days ago

And of course that administration also allowed illegally sold firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 4 days ago

Here we have most of the usual suspects parading out most of the NRA line about how we should love our guns and oh, by the way, guns don't kill, people do. It's pretty simple: firearms are designed for one and only one reason: to kill. All other reasons advanced by gun supporters are just window dressing covering up the real purpose of any firearm. The ease with which anybody can obtain a firearm only makes our tendencies to violence in the US more apparent.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 4 days ago

Not one person said anything about loving guns. It is a fact that guns are intended to be used to kill. No one has tried to advance any other reason for the purpose of a gun. What other purpose could there be? Use it as a hammer? Don’t think so.

I want a tool that will stop someone trying to harm me or my family and choose a gun, not a marshmallow because the gun will kill them and the marshmallow won’t.

Bob Smith 3 weeks, 4 days ago

"....It's pretty simple: firearms are designed for one and only one reason: to kill..." You've never heard of the sport of target shooting? There are shooting events in the Olympics.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 2 days ago

So, what percentage of the gun owning population owns guns so they can target shoot or enter the Olympics. I bet its less than one tenth of one percent.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Go to any gun range on any day and especially the weekend and you will see the lanes full of people target practicing. Also google shooting events and you will see hundreds of different shooting competitions each week.

Here is just one I picked at random.

P Allen Macfarlane 2 weeks, 5 days ago

Great! So they can hit a stationary target when they are not under pressure or stressed out. I wonder how they would do under pressure or stress when there is another individual trying to shoot them first.

Jim Phillips 2 weeks, 5 days ago

So, what percentage of the gun owning population own guns so they can commit violent crimes? Sources, please!

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

"firearms are designed for one and only one reason: to kill."

While that is true from a very narrow and specific point of view, it is a woefully ignorant statement. You are confusing 'means' and 'ends'. From your statements it is clear that you believe that killing is the ends, rather than the means, when it comes to firearms. While this is true from that very narrow and specific point of view that I acknowledged earlier, it is false for the other 99.9% of reality. The end results from using a firearm are varied, but I'll address a few.

Probably the most important one is self defense. From your point of view, the ends is to kill the attacker. However, that is a mistake on your part. The desired end is simply to survive while suffering as few consequences as possible. Sometimes that means shooting the attacker, sometime it means simply brandishing the weapon, and sometimes it means leaving the weapon hidden in its holster. It's a common misconception and most likely why people like Dorothy and Louis keep predicting 'Wild West' style shootouts and then get confused when they don't happen.

Another ends is sustenance. In this case, the means is always to kill, but the ends is meat in the freezer.

At the other end of the pendulum swing is target practice. The means is not to kill at all, but to improve your skill.

Sadly, there is that narrow and specific point of view that I mentioned above. There are certain people out there where killing is the ends rather than just the means. Unfortunately, those are also the people who ignore gun laws just like they ignore the laws against rape, murder, etc. As has been demonstrated with things like rental trucks and pressure cookers, you can't stop these people by banning guns.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 2 days ago

There are lots of ways to self-defend that don't involve killing. When you choose a firearm, you are implicitly choosing the possibility of killing.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

About about an example or two of how you’d rather defend without a firearm when 2 people armed with knives break into your home in the middle of the night. Please tell me what would be a better choice than. Gun to,defend your spouse and children.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 2 days ago

So? Why do you want only the criminal element to have that option? Why do you wish to sacrifice innocent lives to protect the criminal?

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Come on P. Step up and tell us what is. Better way to defend yourself. Maybe sweet talk the perp?

Mike Riner 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Tell ya what P Allen.....if someone kicks open your front door in the middle of the night because the drug dealer they want to rob lives in a house that looks like yours, you toddle yourself into the kitchen and grab a pancake turner and a big spoon. Defend away!

Louis Kannen 3 weeks, 4 days ago

As a Combat-hardened Veteran, more well aware than most, of the deadly consequences of firearms, it is insanely preposterous to, in the same breathe, require Legal Licensure in order to operate a motor vehicle, and yet nothing, NOTHING other than the 'all mighty $$' in order to possess and use a firearm and ammunition in your State. Absolutely, unequivocally preposterous...

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 4 days ago

What other rights do you want to license? It was tried with voting before in the form of a poll tax and that was declared unconstitutional- as it was clearly an effort to limit voting.

Please take time to study the Constitution and to learn the differences between rights and privileges. Furthering the flawed analogy between the right to own a gun and the privilege to drive a car distracts from finding real solutions to violence.

Daniel Kennamore 3 weeks, 4 days ago

You're exactly correct that the right to vote is also constitutionally protected, but I don't see a lot of conservatives having issues with voter ID laws.

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 3 days ago

You beat me to the punch Daniel. Last time I recalled you DO need to have a "license" to vote, which not only is required to exercise your right at the ballot box; you can also lose it if you are shown not to be over 17, not a citizen of the US, are a convicted felon (at least in most states) and can lose your vote and maybe even be fined if you do it in more than one place or even the wrong place.

Furthermore, your right to peaceful assembly at our state capitol just got more expensive, and you bet your booty you have to register to do that as well as have a political rally/protest permit in most cities.

We have the right to free speech, but access by journalists to political and other leaders typically requires pretty strict regulation where the news institution needs to register, and has a time and place for interviews specifically controlled.

While there is freedom of religion in our country, religious institutions must pass muster and register as a religious institution and follow the rules set up by the government in order to qualify for tax breaks and other religious privileges and can lose those privileges if they don't adhere to those guidelines. One of those rules includes not giving public funds to religious institutions which are used to promote or suppress those religious beliefs.

The leaders of our country, while creating rights out of a certain set of privileges, were not naive about the need to regulate those rights so that folks who wrapped themselves in those rights but took unwarranted actions that are not protected under those rights do not demean that right for others to exercise. The right to regulate arms comes from this same concern and deserves the same protections from inappropriate abuse of that right. The right to protect yourself against intruders and a hostile out of control government does not give you the right to kill an innocent stranger, your neighbor, ex spouse or yourself for that matter.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 3 days ago

No you do not need a license to vote. I realize you put it in quotes, so you do realize saying you need a license to vote is not true.

I am sure you are aware of the protest against voter ID because of the cost to get an ID and the impact on the poor. Those against requiring an ID to vote point out it is an attempt to suppress people’s right to vote. Well if that is true, then isn’t it true that requiring an ID, a background check, fingerprinting and paying hundreds of dollars suppresses a persons right to bear arms?

I get your point about the Capitol but it isn’t exactly the same because the cost is for supplying tables, microphones and cleaning up. I don’t think taxpayers should have to pay for these things, but I also don’t believe there should be a charge for assembling to protest in the Capitol

No one created rights out of privileges. Read your history and you will see that our founders believed theses were natural rights not privileges.

No one currently has the right to kill an innocent stranger - it is a crime so I don’t understand your point.

I have said that I support reasonable regulation of firearms. In fact, on another thread I posted about bipartisan legislation to improve background checks.

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Brock, to address your points:

In a state where you not only must register to be on the list of individuals living in a designated precinct, you must also present an approved identification card issued by the state at the voting site, I would say that this is a functional "license." Particularly since you must present additional documentation of your personhood that shows the correct parameters (above a certain age, living in a certain location and being a citizen of the United States) in order to be added to the registration list. This set of requirements rises to Merriam-Webster's definition of license: "a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful."

The current Secretary of State has not only set a higher bar than the federal government has set for legitimizing an individual's qualifications to vote. Furthermore, he has not spent the resources required to assist registrants in completing their incomplete applications, resulting in 10s of thousands of registrants being held "in suspense" for the past several election cycles. The fact that these individuals are disproportionately young, minorities and the elderly makes this voter suppression when combined with questionable voter machines and precinct locations/hours that result in long waits in heavily urban voting locations.

Now if you can prove that requiring a background check, ID, fingerprinting and paying for a gun license disproportionately affects law abiding citizens from acquiring a gun over those with psychological illnesses, domestic violence and other criminal activities, then we can have that conversation. I am not aware of any such discrepancy, although I am aware that such a well functioning system would indeed reduce the number of homicides due to suicide, domestic violence and perhaps even make some inroads against those with a criminal history from getting guns.

The fact that other states don't have such a steep cost for rallies at their state capitols makes me question our state's tactics, so I agree with you that the cost should be minimal/free. But the point here is that these actions are licensed activities even though they are a protected right.

(continued below)

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 2 days ago

(continued from above)

The Constitution took what were previously considered privileges and declared them to be rights. As the most successful primate on the planet, we Homo sapiens surround ourselves with cultures assembled out of acquired technologies and processes that we are not born with. Just as we created shelters, clothing, agriculture, villages, cities, etc. from our surroundings, we created rules for interacting with each other. To say there is a difference between a privilege and a "natural right" in this context is purely a historical artifact. A newborn acquires the right to freedom of expression, to bear arms, to assemble with her/his peers, etc. due to very cultural processes that are learned and culture-specific. We agree not to kill each other because we agree to abide by some kind of social contract where we agree to forego such behavior in exchange for the many benefits of living, working and taking care of each other in a group setting. I happen to agree with you that these rights are a very good set of rights to abide by and think the social contract we live with here in the US has provided one of the most inclusive opportunities for a large number of people to receive the benefits accorded by the contract. But there always has been room for improvement and there always will be.

I completely agree with your set of reasonable regulations for possession of firearms and have tried to even promote it. I will continue to do so, am preparing letters for my senators and representative and will ask for support from any candidates who are running for those offices.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Ken, what I like about you is you put forth a reasoned argument for your position. It provides me an opportunity to step across from where I am to where you are so that I can view the issue from your perspective.

Your points on privilege and rights and the license issue for voting. are well thought out. I hadn’t thought about a license to vote in the terms you laid out but you’re right.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

I have no problem with presenting ID to a cop in order to show that I am legally carrying a firearm just like I have no problem with presenting ID to a poll worker in order to show that I'm legally voting. Likewise, just as the votes I cast on that ballot are private and not linked to me in a government database, the guns I keep and bear should not be linked to me in any government database either.

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 2 days ago

You are correct in saying that an appropriate ID with your name on it allows you to have access to the voting booth, but that name must be found on the list of registered voters in the precinct that covers the area where you live. This list is public so that anyone can check to see whether they themselves as well as others in their community are registered to vote. This does not allow them to see HOW you voted, only that you are eligible to vote and in most if not all states, whether you voted in the past elections.

In Kansas, there is no permit required to purchase most guns. There is no registration needed for possessing a firearm. The only license that I'm aware of is for the optional license that you can request in order to carry a concealed handgun in other states who have a reciprocal relationship with Kansas. It is not needed any more for Kansans to have a concealed handgun in their possession, and if you want the permit, you can get it without any training for $132.50 to the county sheriff who reviews and issues it, and that license lasts for 5 years with renewals costing $25. There is no permit required for open carrying of firearms in our state. If a machine gun or short barrelled shotgun or any other firearm/accessory restricted by the National Firearms Act is marked "made in Kansas" and used solely in Kansas, it is legal.

In other words, your right to vote is way more heavily monitored and regulated than your gun.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Should I go ahead and point out the things you 'forgot' in order to make your lies believable, or should I wait until after you clarify that what you said wasn't what you meant? Normally I have to quote you first, but it's tiring to keep up with how often you change your story as I expose your deceit and/or ignorance...

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 2 days ago

I certainly wouldn't want you to get tired, Andrew. Unlike you, I'm always willing to admit my ignorance and/or incorrectness when I'm wrong. But when you accuse me of something I'm not guilty of because of your outright misunderstanding of what I said, I will not hesitate to clarify your misunderstanding despite your past history of framing such actions as deceit.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 1 day ago

If you have a problem with my opinion of you, I suggest you go find a mirror and have a long talk with the person responsible. Further lying to me is pointless, so I will kindly ask that you simply leave me alone.

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 1 day ago

I really have no interest in your opinion of me since you don't seem to use any criteria that I can respect. Since you can only see interacting with me as a process of lying and deceit, I will herewith not address you directly and only speak to other readers in any response to one of your statements.

So for other readers, I stand by my calling Andrew's conclusion misguided when he said that voting registration does not include revealing how one votes; therefore nobody should have to register their guns into a national database. I maintain that there is an apples-to-oranges quality to that statement, which I reserve the right to point out whenever such false comparisons are presented by Mr. Applegarth, or by anyone else, for that matter.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 1 day ago

Enough with the lies! Just because the truth is not a criteria that you can respect, do not expect me to stand idly by while you spew your lies at me. You disavowed a direct quote because it contradicted another of your spin attempts and I called you on it. Their is no other way for you to spin that. The number of times you have 'clarified' your position as being something completely unrelated to your previous 'clarification' is staggering.

Now, tell me where I can find the list of every vote (not ballot) you have cast. You just stated that I was misguided in claiming it doesn't exist, so tell me where it is.

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 1 day ago

You see every statement I say that is different from yours as a lie, so I see no reason to respect that. Others who I disagree with or disagree with me have a conversation where they ask clarifying questions and vice versa, typically involving a learning curve on both sides, resulting in a greater understanding of differences and even sometimes agreement and shared values that we didn't know existed, i.e. communication where a gulf of misunderstanding used to exist. That is always my intention, and it occurs pretty regularly with others. But you see my statements as lies from the start, and any and all clarification as deceitful manipulations and distortions. You seem to have absolutely no interest in finding common ground, so why should I bother? So be it.

And if you don't think that you can't find out how many times you've voted, then why did Trump's Election Integrity Commission pen a letter to all 50 states requesting their full voter-roll data, including the name, address, date of birth, party affiliation, last four Social Security number digits and voting history back to 2006 of potentially every voter in the state?

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 1 day ago

"And if you don't think that you can't find out how many times you've voted" - How convenient of you to move the goal posts when you are caught yet again telling a lie. Point me to the database that lists every specific vote I've cast (since you already told me I was mistaken for saying it doesn't exist) or admit that you lied. No matter what you say, those are the only two possible results. I won't hold my breath waiting, as I know that you will simply attack me again for daring to expect a truthful response.

Ken Lassman 3 weeks ago

Go to p I-17, under Voter History and read on, especially the part that says "maintains each person’s complete voter history in the central database."

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks ago

Let me quote the most relevant line from that page. "Voter history means keeping track of whether the voter cast a ballot at a given election."

Once again, it is not keeping track of who I voted for. It simply is keeping track of the fact that I voted. There is no database of my actual votes. I clearly stated "every vote (not ballot)". Going back to the earlier comment that led you to lie initially, I said " Likewise, just as the votes I cast on that ballot are private and not linked to me in a government database, the guns I keep and bear should not be linked to me in any government database either."

In both cases, it is quite clear that I was talking about who I cast my vote for, not that I cast a vote. I'm sorry that your lack of intellect and/or integrity prevented you from addressing what I actually said but, as so many times before, you took a route of deceit in your attempt to counter my statement. Deceit is all you brought and deceit is all that you appear stand for. As such, I again request that you simply LEAVE ME ALONE!

Ken Lassman 2 weeks, 6 days ago

I leave this very strange discussion exactly where I started, reminding you EXACTLY what I said to you at the very beginning, something you seem to have lost somewhere along the way. Others would have clarified their position without calling me deceitful and a liar. I have only repeated what I have said from the very start: that each time you vote, the voter database records this fact and is a matter of public record. I'm sorry you missed that and caused yourself such consternation. Be well, Andrew.

" This list is public so that anyone can check to see whether they themselves as well as others in their community are registered to vote. This does not allow them to see HOW you voted, only that you are eligible to vote and in most if not all states, whether you voted in the past elections."

Andrew Applegarth 2 weeks, 6 days ago

Calling you a liar was clarifying YOUR position for everybody else. I didn't need to clarify my position. I simply repeated what I had said previously to clearly show others how you had twisted what I had said in an attempt to deceive them into believing you had actually countered what I said.

Once again, I suggest that if you are really bothered by my pointing out your lies and pattern of deceit you should find a mirror and talk to the person truly responsible. Attacking me is just a juvenile attempt at deflection.

Ken Lassman 2 weeks, 6 days ago


You really still don't see that when you made YOUR statement: " the votes I cast on that ballot are private and not linked to me in a government database" that MY reply: "This does not allow them to see HOW you voted, only that you are eligible to vote and in most if not all states, whether you voted in the past elections" did not clear up what I was talking about? I never "moved the goalposts" from that initial statement, later linking you to the very database that I was referring to in that initial statement. The fact that it doesn't record WHO you voted for is something that I never claimed, so who is moving the goalposts?

I looked back at my initial comment to your post and there was nothing in my post that was an attack on you, Andrew. My subsequent comments, while occasionally sarcastic responses to YOUR accusations characterizing my intent negatively, were mostly attempts to point out the lack of a discussion that would lead to understanding, and since I've repeated this point over and over, there is nothing more to say. I have no interest in a conversation based on the premise that we disagree to agree.

Andrew Applegarth 2 weeks, 5 days ago

I never said it was an attack on me. Thanks for displaying yet again that you are too dishonest to address what I actually said and find it necessary to distort it instead. I simply asked if I should go ahead and point out the bits you skipped over to make your reply sound like a true rebuttal or if I should wait until you "clarified" your position. I used quotes because what you call clarifying has always been saying something completely different when you get called out for a previous comment. Don't pretend this is something new, as you have demonstrated this behavior in pretty much every discussion we've ever engaged in and I have called you on it multiple times. To act like it was a new surprise is just another instance of you being deceitful, so I guess I should expect no less from you...

I tire of your continued lack of integrity and say again, take your forked tongue elsewhere and LEAVE ME ALONE!

Ken Lassman 2 weeks, 5 days ago

You're right, Andrew. It has consistently been an attack on me, not you, which has lasted through the entire thread including your last post. Thanks for fixing that lie of mine. Be well, Andrew, and have a great Thanksgiving. We all have plenty to be thankful for and it's good that we have a holiday to help us remember those blessings.

Andrew Applegarth 2 weeks, 5 days ago

Pointing out the truth is not an attack. I'm sorry that you are such a corrupt individual that the light of truth burns you.

The contempt I have for you has been well-earned and unique to you despite all of the people I have argued and disagreed with. I suggest again that you go find a mirror and have a talk with the person who earned such contempt rather than continuing to bother me. LEAVE ME ALONE!

Ron Holzwarth 1 week, 6 days ago

Personal arguments should be taken somewhere else!

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

You are correct that the permit is optional but to get the permit you still have to have training. You must show ID and pay a fee for a background check when you buy a gun from a dealer. Private sales are exempt, but many choose dealers to get the gun they want when they want it.

As for the made in Kansas, yeah, in theory but a couple of guys just got busted for having suppressors

Ken Lassman 3 weeks, 1 day ago

Oops, you're right and I'm wrong about that training part if you want to get a conceal-carry for handgun permit from the state--I should have checked with the Attorney General's FAQ page: Of course you can still do concealed carry in our fair state without a permit, hence without training, and you can purchase that handgun from a private seller without them doing a background check on you.

Regarding the prosecution by the Feds on the Kansas manufacturer and seller of suppressors, it appears that Feds can still override state law, but I wouldn't be surprised if the current administration stops pursuing these kinds of cases.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 3 days ago

We don't often agree on issues, but I am with you totally on this one. It's insane the way we Kansans feel about firearms and who should be able to possess one.

Jim Phillips 2 weeks, 4 days ago

Well, Louis! First, thank you for your service. Second, one would think that "[a]s a Combat-hardened Veteran, more well aware than most...", you would know of the unspeakable atrocities people do to each other, all in the name of whatever it is they put their idealism in. One would also think that someone who has survived the horrors of combat would understand that innocent people have a right to protect themselves with the proper tools and, yes, I will go there, the proper training, from becoming victims of those who would attempt to inflict atrocities upon them. The right of self defense if and/or when bad things happen to good people is the driving factor in not licensing firearms, and not the " 'all mighty $$' ". I know you, or someone, will post that people can still defend themselves with governmentally licensed firearms. Yes, that is true...until the government decides to "revoke" that right. All one has to do is look throughout history to see that firearm licensing/registration is the first step toward total confiscation, thus resulting in the loss of effective and efficient tools of defense.

John Lee 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Jim, more than a couple years back now, I was licensed to possess and grow or allot a caregiver to grow my medical marijuana in Colorado. Look at those bastards go now!! Based on that, I'd have to disagree with the sentiment that licensing begets confiscation.

I was also federally licensed as an employee of the Medical Marijuana Enforcement Division. Now, licenses are issued in 26 (?) states I believe.

Richard Aronoff 3 weeks, 4 days ago

I think it would be helpful if everyone took the time to read Federalist 46. Warning: it's more than 140 characters.

Carol Bowen 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Yes, this was a great read. If I read it correctly, Federalist 46 described the federal and state military systems, including police, as organizations that protect citizens rights. The states represent citizens better than the federal government. Military members are appointed at all levels. There is no mention of individual rights other than representation.

Now, I am a neophyte in U.S. history. Federalist 46 was interesting to read. How do the Federalist Papers fit into our history and governance?

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Here is a link to an analysis.

My take was the paper was addressing the concern of a too powerful federal government and how that fear was unfounded because the number of citizens would outnumber the federal goverment’s Army.

As the link says, people often point to the National Guard as the militia but the NG is under federal control so it can’t carry out one of the reasons for a militia - do defend the states from the federal government.

Carol Bowen 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Yes, the paper was very distrusting of the federal government. Thanks for the link. I will read it.

Jim Phillips 3 weeks, 4 days ago

Don, if you were to check your facts, you would find that people who have been adjudicated as mentally ill, people who have been convicted of domestic violence, and felons are already prohibited from owning firearms. So these "proposals to create disqualifications" you mentioned already exist, therefore, a meaningful discussion about them is moot. I would also like to know what law you would like to have passed that would have stopped the shootings. Last I knew, there were laws against murder, laws against assault, laws against shooting from vehicles, laws against discharging firearms within the city limits, etc, DId these laws help stop anything? I think it is very naive to believe that any new law will stop anyone who is intent upon breaking the law.

Richard Heckler 3 weeks, 3 days ago

== National Rifle Assn: Summary | OpenSecrets

== The money powering the NRA -

Oct 15, 2015 - Since 2005, the NRA Political Victory Fund has received nearly $85 million in ... After the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, donations to this political action committee surged as gun owners ... As a result, gun sales soared, and so did donations. ... "I hope the money will be used to help conservative or libertarian ...

== NRA may have systemically broken political spending law – report ... › US News › NRA

Apr 21, 2015 - Gun rights organization allegedly 'mixing' corporate funds with Pac funds and ... An NRA spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about the ... Law requires the Pac to say a donation will be used to influence a federal ... and where the donor can find NRA financial documents in every state.

=== US gun control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful? -




Jan 8, 2016 - In 1977 it formed its own Political Action Committee (PAC)..... why?

Richard Heckler 3 weeks, 3 days ago

According to the New Yorker "N.R.A.’s C.E.O. sent a series of e-mails to his members warning them that anti-gun forces were going to use it to “ban your guns” and “destroy the Second Amendment.” = LIE LIE = MISLEADING = MISINFORMATION


Bob Smith 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Your caps lock is sticking again, Richard. Also, you're not making much sense.

Louis Kannen 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Semantics completely aside, unless any of the responders to my post have ever sadly been actively involved in the taking of other human beings' lives, you can ramble all you want about the 'true meaning' of the 2nd Ammendment, the utter grossness of today's real-world facts remain. The countless and senseless innocent lives lost in our country almost daily, without even an attempt to mandate any kind of logical and sensible National Firearms Licensure & Training is appalling and totally disgusting. Is it really any wonder the rest of the World is completely baffled and dismayed by our 'Gunfight at the OK Corral' mental morbidity...I think not.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

You do realize that the Gunfight at the OK Corral was the direct result of gun control laws and law enforcement abusing their positions to protect their own personal enterprises?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Every time this issue comes up, the NRA fans whine about banning guns. They refuse to talk about any sensible solutions, like training and licensing. They just think we are out to get their guns. It's a weird delusion fed to them by a group to whom they actually give money. And then they go out and buy even more guns and ammo, which makes those same people even more money. The NRA wants to thank you.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

And every time this issue comes up, Dorothy Hoyt-Reed whines about those who are opposing the push to ban and confiscate guns and pretends that the quotes from people pushing this very agenda don't actually exist...

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 weeks, 3 days ago

And again. There it is. Banning and licensing are two different things. Look it up.

Jim Phillips 3 weeks, 3 days ago

Actually Dorothy, licensing has been the first step to banning throughout history. Look it up!

John Lee 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Jim, see my response above. I don't know what other references you're thinking, but I literally took part in the historic MMJ licensing in CO, which inevitably led to the flood gates opening rather than all us licensed, responsible, law-abiding medical marijuana patients being rounded up in paddy wagons how everyone thought would happen.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

There what is, Dorothy? All I see is your usual lack of reading comprehension and an ignorant rant that has nothing to do with my comment.

Andrew Applegarth 3 weeks, 3 days ago

While we're off the subject anyway, rights and privileges are two different things. Look it up!

Mike Riner 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Licensing results in gun registration. Look at history (and please spare me the "that won't happen here BS") If there is gun registration, later, when the government decides to simply confiscate all guns, now they know where those guns are! It has happened several times in the past. It will happen again. That is but one reason some folks are against "licensing." I'm completely in favor of training, but many folks piss and moan that training costs money and poor folks would be discriminated against since they may not be able to afford the training.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 3 days ago

How many times have I put forth solutions? Many times here in this forum so don’t generalize. People on this forum have come out and said they are for banning firearms if they could. Of course you just spout off the anti-gun talking points because you as usual are shooting blanks.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 weeks, 3 days ago

I think we could sit down and talk about guns, Brock, but I'm not sure about the other posters on here, including Andrew.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 3 days ago

I’m sure we could and if we did, I’m sure it’d be civil and we’d find common ground.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 2 days ago

I might look more favorably on someone exercising their right to a firearm, if we had a more stringent system of making sure that individual was properly trained in its use and if they had gone through the kind of simulator police cadets have to undergo to make sure they can handle the tactics needed to successfully defend themselves, if that is his/her purpose in having a weapon. We don't hand over the keys to drivers who have not undergone some training and have not been judged by an examiner to have past some standards. Why do we do that with weapons in this state? Are we assuming that all Kansans inherently know how to handle themselves in a situation with another individual who has a gun drawn? It seems to me that is a recipe for disaster.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Why do you insist on making the analogy between a right and a privilege? Don’t you understand there is a different standard for rights and privileges? Heck, people scream bloody murder over requiring an ID to vote because it might cost $25 but you’re okay with requiring a person to pay hundreds of dollars to exercise their 2nd amendment right?

Furthermore, the vast majority of murders are committed by people intend to kill someone, not from someone who accidentally shot someone so what problem would your mandated training solve. And, 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide so again what problem would your mandated training solve?

Look forward to your response.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 3 weeks, 2 days ago

They already pay a lot of money to buy guns and ammo. A really poor person can't afford a gun anyway, unless they live in rural parts and use the gun to hunt for food.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 1 day ago

Well gee! Let's see voting doesn't kill; guns have a habit of killing or injuring, if you've been keeping up with some of the local news news recently. Just ask the kid that shot himself in the leg the other day.

Bob Smith 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Reality intrudes into Dorothy-land once again. "....The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach. Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen? And what would a mass seizure look like?..." ://

Dave Lee 3 weeks, 3 days ago

ok. gun lovers. better stock up on 80% lowers, and bump stocks..

No other developed nation comes close to the rate of gun violence in America. Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every adult. Data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive reveals a shocking human toll: there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – every nine out of 10 days on average.

Bob Smith 3 weeks, 3 days ago

"...Data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive..." They've got to keep their base whipped into a frenzy. They're succeeding with you beyond their wildest dreams.

P Allen Macfarlane 3 weeks, 2 days ago

More snarkiness. If you don't like his data or his source, then find another source of data to back up your position. You seem to have trouble with civil discussion that might make you write more than sentence or two.

Brock Masters 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Ostensibly those advocating more gun control are doing so because they want to save lives and they often cite requirements to drive a car as a model for gun control. What I don’t understand is if that if saving lives and not banning guns is the end goal why don’t they work to take steps that will actually save lives? The leading cause of children up to be 13 are car deaths.

Since it is a privilege and not a right to drive a car there are lots of things that could be done with a new law or regulation that would save lives. For example, we could require crash helmets for passengers under 18 - its required for motorcycles so why not require the same for cars? It would save lives.

The technology is available to prohibit car from driving faster than the posted speed limit so why not require it - speed kills.

You get my point - people don’t really care about saving lives. It is about politics and controlling people.

Gary Stussie 3 weeks, 2 days ago

There are roughly 32,000 deaths a year from firearms. 60% are suicides. That’s 19,200. 3% are accidental. That’s 820. 4% are justified. That’s 1,280. 33% are homicides. That’s 10,560 … 80% of those homicides are gang-related. That’s 8,448.

So accidental and non-gang related killings are 1,712 out of 312 million people.

In 2015 alone, there were 35,092 motor vehicle deaths (highest level in 50 years). Of these 3,477 people were killed, and 391,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers … the primary distraction? … sending texts while driving.

Appears that if you don’t intend suicide, hang out in the hood, or are not planning a crime, your odds of being killed by a texting driver are greater than being killed by a firearm.

Guns are power … and we are seeing the lengths that the “ruling class” will go to acquire and maintain power. The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason!

Doug Larson 3 weeks, 2 days ago

so, if your are going to throw out suicide by guns you should also throw out suicide by car. You know, compare Apples to apples.

Gary Stussie 2 weeks, 6 days ago

Feel free to do so ... does not change the point.

Bob Summers 3 weeks, 2 days ago

Why are Liberals not turning in their firearms?

Why are Liberals not setting an example for the children by turning in their firearms?

Pete Rowland 2 weeks, 5 days ago

If I recall, this exchange of comments was triggered (pun intended) by the mass shootings in Las Vegas, which were made possible by bump stocks on multiple semi-automatic weapons. Regulating access to bump stocks and making them illegal would be a sensible, pragmatic response that would have reduced -- not eliminated -- the carnage. Such a regulation would be, like the existing prohibition against sawed-off shotguns, perfectly consistent with Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. As anyone who has taken the time to read Heller knows, Scalia was careful to point out at length that gun ownership, like all bill-of-rights protections, is subject to common-sense regulation by democratically elected officials. In fact, he specifically offered support for the "longstanding prohibition against the carrying of dangerous or unusual weapons." Bump stocks would qualify as both, yet they are mentioned once in the 90ish comments above. Why?

P Allen Macfarlane 2 weeks, 5 days ago

That's easy: too much repeated NRA-supported propaganda, including the notion that owning a firearm makes you safe.

Andrew Applegarth 2 weeks, 5 days ago

Enough with the anti-NRA propaganda. There is no notion that owning a firearm makes you safe. To be honest, there really is no such thing as being safe (except maybe in baseball). However, there is a fact that having a firearm can give you more options and make you safer.

If you believe the notion that nobody legally owning a firearm will make you safe (or even safer), I have some ocean front property on the edge of town I would love to sell you...

Andrew Applegarth 2 weeks, 5 days ago

Because bump stocks are not actually the issue. Banning them is just a low hanging fruit that gun control advocates think they can achieve.

Despite your recollection, it was not bump stocks that made the shooting possible and there is credible evidence that the carnage could have been much greater with a focus on aiming instead of rapid fire.

Gary Stussie 2 weeks, 4 days ago

"Every time this issue comes up, the NRA fans whine about banning guns. They refuse to talk about any sensible solutions, like training and licensing. They just think we are out to get their guns. It's a weird delusion fed to them by a group to whom they actually give money. And then they go out and buy even more guns and ammo, which makes those same people even more money. The NRA wants to thank you."

Dorothy, let's change "NRA" to "Planned Parenthood" and "guns" to "Abortion" ... ready to talk sensible solutions?

Sign in to comment