Comment history

Letter: Gun fears unfounded

The 'Kansas farmer' isn't operating a public office where all citizens have legitimate business.

I absolutely respect the rights of property owners; those public facilities are owned by the people.

June 6, 2013 at 12:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun fears unfounded

Must be nice to be superman.
What say you to the women who choose to arm themselves?

June 6, 2013 at 12:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun fears unfounded

Yes, guns are worthless. Let's disarm the police too.

June 6, 2013 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Gun fears unfounded

In Aurora, men with guns arrested the suspect. Columbine is what prompted law enforcement to bring guns in to those situations quicker. Sandy Hook ended when men with guns arrived prompting the shooter to self-terminate.

That's 2 for guns helping, and 1 where lack of guns didn't help.

June 6, 2013 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

NRA-backed Kansas law raises tough free-speech issues

I don't want public funds to be used for any sort of propaganda, whether gun related, religious, environmental, or other.

Government is supposed to represent society, not shape opinion.

How is it free speech when my wages are forcibly confiscated to pay for messages I disagree with?

June 6, 2013 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Inane measure

Why is it that prohibitionists think firearms that never leave the state are part of interstate commerce?

March 1, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Carry concerns

I've been in Arizona for the last 10 months. I've seen a couple people openly carrying. It's interesting the first couple of times, but hardly eventful.

All these dire predictions are the same we've been hearing for decades as states adopt more and more liberal carry laws. At what point do we concede that the evidence does not indicate any real trouble resulting from armed citizens?

October 1, 2012 at 7:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Weapons provision surprises leaders

The difference between a bar and a restaurant is the percentage of sales of alcohol. The minimum standard of food sales is 30% for a restaurant (KSA 41-2601). The issue with the bars is definitely keeping in spirit with the intent of the bill. There is no practical way for me to establish the legal classification of a business without actually going in and asking (which under the old system, would have been a crime). What this really does is eliminate the criminal repercussions of those who make honest mistakes with no ill intent. It's not about carrying a firearm into a bar, it's about marking those bars so people know not to carry there. How are people going to know they're speeding if there are no speed limit signs posted? Do you think any judge would hold up a ticket from a zone that's not marked?

June 18, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

crazyks, perhaps I can explain.

There are 2 safe places for a firearm:
1. Unloaded and locked securely. A built in vault is best, then a heavy (500 lbs or so) safe, then a bolted down locker, then individual locks. If sufficient storage is not available, it is acceptable to remove key components and secure those components as you would the firearm.
2. Under the immediate control of a responsible adult.

This is precisely the way the military secures their arms; it is highly effective. I question the expertise of anyone who claims option 2 is inadequate.

The ban on "assault weapons" was unreasonable for a great many reasons. It dealt with weapons that are not dramatically different (except in appearance) from any other firearm. The legislation was passed by deliberately misleading the public and elected officials. The stated intent was to reduce crime; prior to the act these weapons were used in only a small percentage of crimes, during and following the expiration no reduction in crime could be attributed to the ban.

The average American does not 'need' any firearm, whether revolver, musket or machine gun. The "assault weapons" are however useful for purposes such as hunting, target shooting sports, defense, and are valued by collectors. A bayonet mount is not especially useful (even to the military), but it makes for more accurate reproductions of military arms for collectors, and is less of a danger to society then pointy sticks.

Repeating arms, including what would be defined by todays standards as a machine gun, have been in existence for over 200 years. Chemical and biological warfare were in use hundreds of years before that. The only real difference between the modern and historical arms is the ease of use. This is a benefit to those peaceable citizens who choose to be armed because they can be on a more equal footing with those who have made a career out of criminal violence.

The reason US soldiers aren't killed in the hundreds by enemies with AK-47s, is due in no small part to the fact that they are equipped with similar weapons. The reason the North Hollywood police had such trouble during that bank robbery is because they weren't adequately equipped.

July 5, 2007 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )