Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Gun control

January 22, 2013

Dear editor: I am writing this in response to Dale E. Buonocore’s letter to the editor about gun safety....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(46)

TheKeymaker

Jan-23-13 2:42 PM

Don't worry, we'll still be here. Not sleeping on a bed of AKs though. That wouldn't be prudent or safe. Responsible gun owners know better.....

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Jan-23-13 2:00 PM

This is my last post on the subject---Everything I have stated is true and can be easily confirmed by either accessing the FBI data base or many other sources on the internet. The FBI has literally thousands of pages of information going back to 1960 for anyone interested. There is also the complete history on Mexico's gun restrictions and the results several places on the internet one such place bring Wikipedia gives an overview.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Jan-23-13 1:31 PM

"2,000 weapons out millions MTOMTO, that's so weak for you, I expected better"

Then I should have clarified my point better, which is that the same people (government) that we rely upon to enforce the laws, violated the law. Where is the accountability? It was a violation of the Federal Laws of both Mexico and the US. There should have been charges filed and persued, but because it was our government....nothing? And these are the same people (entity) that is gong to pass more laws limiting the 2nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens when they not only do not enforce the existing ones, but break them?

Automatic weapon ban, yes, and already in place.

Mandatory background checks on all gun sales, yes.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Jan-23-13 1:09 PM

2,000 weapons out millions MTOMTO, that's so weak for you, I expected better, but if your goal is to continually quote Fox News then so be it. Colorado - Please read what I said. I said it has fluctuated over the years but it is currently at a rate no different then in the late 70's, early 80's. That's what the FBI reports and other sources show. So in other words what you are saying is that if it was 30,000 in 80, spiked to 40,000 in 1997 and now is 30,000 again we should celebrate. Also the same statistics show gun assaults rising over the past several years which means lots of people being shot are surviving with better trauma care. You left that part out. I'm going to take a short break from the discussion to re-load, pardon the pun but I figured that would give me a thumbs up from the 2nd amendment defenders. Meanwhile you folks can lay in your bed of AK-47's and the like and when the next mass killing occurs you can talk about banning cars because people are killed in them too.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Jan-23-13 12:06 PM

Brazil- I don't know who feeds you your information but you really should fire him. I am talking GUN MURDER RATE and once again I AM USING FBI STATISTICS sorry you don't like what they show. It has been dropping for years. As for where Mexico is getting a lot of their weapons, there is a international illegal gun smuggling trade that has been operating since the first countries started banning them. They have been feeding firearms into Australia, Mexico, and the European countries and those countries have been unable to stop them although they have made numerous arrests. It's like anything else that gets banned, it just drives the price up. Do your own research with an open mind don't just quote liberal talking points.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Jan-23-13 9:00 AM

"Just to be on your side we'll let military,police and you have assult rifles... It has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment."

Please read the 2nd amendment again. It has everything to do with it.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MTOMTO

Jan-23-13 8:57 AM

"I've addressed the Mexican law in the past. You need to research it a bit more. Most all guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the Wild Wild West otherwise known as the USA"

Can you say "Fast & Furious"?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-23-13 6:57 AM

By the way Brazil, I must correct my sections of my rebuttal. Reread section 4 where Scalia states "Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster. "

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-23-13 6:27 AM

The interesting thing Brazil, as someone who enjoys the Constitution, and the history surrounding it, as a personal preference, I don't necessarily oppose the regulation of weapons such as RPGs, or a SAW, or my ability to get an Apache or a tank. Those are for military use. My beef is with who has the authority to pass such a law. In my opinion, Scalia, like Roberts in the Obamacare case, will leave that decision to the legislature where it belongs. That isn't likely to accomplish much, and even if it did, a large number of states are already lining up to challenge it within their own states.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-23-13 6:17 AM

"Obviously, the [second] amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on FOX News Sunday." (Yes I recognize it came from Fox, but it is a direct quote.....)

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-23-13 6:08 AM

Funny, I didn't know who Larry Pratt even was until this morning. You could have at least finished reading as a courtesy, rather than giving me the 'ol ad hominem attack of laziness. I did read the Heller decision. Hence posting what I posted about the 10th amendment. Read section 3 of the decision again. Also, had you finished reading what I wrote, U.S. v Miller clearly states that people can't own automatic weapons. As far as, Scalia's comments since Aurora...."We'll see" doesn't point to some major victory for gun control advocates on the matter. Scalia also has been quoted as saying since the Aurora massacre, his interpretation is that people should be allowed to have weapons they can "Carry", which would of course exclude an M1A1 Abrams or an F-18 from their personal arsenal.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Jan-22-13 10:50 PM

Here you go Keymaker. I'll help you with a quote from one of your hero's. As I said, when you truly understand the Heller decision and what Scalia's opinion meant and how he has publicly interpreted it since then you can remember you heard it here first. Of course to do that you have to go a bit beyond the actual wikipedia article. It appears Mr. Pratt has done that.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Sunday, January 13, 2013 that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was wrong to assume that the government had the right to place limits on the Second Amendment. "He was not speaking from a constitutional perspective," Pratt said.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Jan-22-13 10:42 PM

Colorado - Murder rates are a separate subject. Gun murder rates are unchanged since the 70's. Fact is gun murder rates are tremendously higher in this Country then in all of the rest of the West. Fact is, to a lesser degree but still by significant margins are murder rate overall is much higher then the rest of the west. I notice on the Mexico question you expose your political bent by trotting out the 2000 guns from Fast & Furious which is really a significant number of the millions of weapons in Mexico. Needle in haystack anyone? I also notice you state I'm half correct with my answer but curiously you are unable to provide any other reason.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Brazil

Jan-22-13 10:37 PM

Keymaker why don't you just post War and Peace it would have been shorter. I quit reading when I read your complete misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Heller decision. Either that or you just plain lazy and read the headline and not the background nor Scalia's public remarks on his opinion should be interpreted with regard to gun rights and the second amendment. As I said someday you'll get it. Obviously not today.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 8:27 PM

I love how Diana Feinstein's bill, will if passed in the Senate (not likely to make it through the House), will be based on "Cosmetic" features. OOOOOOH it looks scary, so it must be an assault weapon...Wonder if they'll ban Airsoft next, since they "Look" like the real thing.....

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 7:14 PM

Lastly Archeo, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 7:09 PM

By the way Brazil, I think you've now seen the intended purpose of the 10th Amendment in action already. New York certainly went and did what their legislature thought necessary to curb gun violence. I personally don't agree it will work, but then again I don't live there.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 6:59 PM

Also, if I may, you failed to address the issue of the Enumerated Powers from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The issue at hand is that the 10th Amendment clearly states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

colorado

Jan-22-13 6:52 PM

Brazil---I said Murder rates are the lowest since 1981 and that's per FBI statistics. That is one reason there hasn't been any serious attempt to go after our guns in the last decade. Your only partly correct on where the guns come from that the cartels get. Of course 2500 of them did come courtesy of our own ATF. Regardless, it is a felony to smuggle either direction. I see those laws are really being enforced. Perhaps if we really started enforcing the existing laws we wouldn't need any more. I guess it makes more sense to leglislate a whole new class of criminals formerly known as lawful gun owners.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 6:48 PM

Also, Archeo and Brazil, last time I checked, the purchase of a SAW, or an M16 is still illegal, thanks of course to U.S. v. Miller......Both are automatic weapons. I asked you before Brazil if you could please describe what an "Assault weapon" was. You have failed to do so.....The weapons I listed above are in fact "assault weapons". The pistols used at Sandy Hook - Not Assault weapons. The AR15 found in the trunk of the car.....not an assault weapon......

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 6:44 PM

By the way Brazil, I believe you're looking for the Miller decision with regards to ban of "Machine Guns" (1939). Also: "The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at ho

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 6:36 PM

Yep, and I can still keep my hunting rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols and rifles Archeo...Gotta love the Constitution.....

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 6:35 PM

Brazil, you've never made it easier to prove my point.....

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TheKeymaker

Jan-22-13 6:34 PM

"In 2008, the Court considered a challenge to the gun laws in the District of Columbia. Scalia wrote the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which found an individual right to own a firearm under the Second Amendment. Scalia traced the word "militia", found in the Second Amendment, as it would have been understood at the time of its ratification, and stated that it then meant "the body of all citizens". The Court upheld Heller's claim to own a firearm in the District. Source: Wikipedia

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

archaeo1

Jan-22-13 6:09 PM

Keymaker, Everything is regulated !In the 70s did people shoot 2-12 shots into each victim?Just to be on your side we'll let military,police and you have assult rifles... It has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Amendment.I can still keep my rifles,pistols,cross bows and atlatles. Some things arent ment for everyone!

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 46 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web