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

2nd Amendment

January 31, 2013

Dear editor: 2nd Amendment rights refer to the word “arms” which in 1700’s included flintlock rifles and cannon....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-01-13 12:57 PM

I'm not going to get into a cut and paste war with you Colorado. I'm confident of my statistics and I've never watched Pier Morgan except on the talent show once or twice but I bet I know which channel your eyes are glued upon. I agree though, the facts are all there. Bottom line as I said previously your side has lost this issue, maybe not today, but soon. You just don't know it yet. Like I said, don't say you weren't told.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 8:06 PM

The problem with this is that mental disability pronounced by a bureaucrat at the VA is much different than a judge adjudicating someone as such. They are reported different. A vet can get a mental disability for PTSD and be no threat to anyone as well.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 7:52 PM

colorado, in regards to your Jan-31-13 12:43 PM post, I could take you to the home of a Warren man who is on 100% disability due to mental illnes. His home is full of guns, and he goes hunting every year. I don't know if the background checks failed, or he is faking his disability, or both. You can't turn mental illnes off and on to suit your whims.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 7:43 PM

25or624, in regards to your Jan-31-13 11:24 AM post, please make sure to pay attention to the "THIS SIDE TOWARD ENEMY" markings on your Claymore. We certainly wouldn't want to lose you. What a boring place this would be. Have a good day.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 7:01 PM

I should have said lower murder rate. They have always had a higher rate of violence than us and still do.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 6:42 PM

Brazil--the answer is quite simple as you probably well know. Australia. G Britain Scotland, etc always had a much lower rate of violence than the U.S. so your comparing apples to oranges. The important statistic is that their gun bans did nothing to reduce their rate of violence. In some cases it has increased since the gun bans. All that information is available on the net including their version of the FBI data, etc. The fact is our rate of violence has been on a steady DECLINE even as the number of guns increases. That's just some more of that factual data available for those willing to spend a bit of time looking it up rather than listening to Piers Morgan. BTW, the violence in his country is so bad that without the guns to blame outlawed knives and now have the police doing random body search's on the street and anyone with a knife in their possession can get up to five years in prison. Oh yes, gun bans will keep us safe. LOL

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 6:09 PM

"We have a lot of Rambo wannabes on this message board." (A.)Brazil, you are mistaken and are yet again worrying about the wrong people. (B.) You are throwing around silly accusations which will prevent you from ever being taken seriously.

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 5:55 PM

Also Colorado I have noticed you continually refuse to answer the question of why the rest of the Western world has no where near the rates of gun deaths as we do. Oh that's right its the video games, no it's the movies, no its that they have mental health care and we don't, no it's it's it's nothing to do with 300 million guns in the USA.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 5:52 PM

Mr. Gustafson, We have a lot of Rambo wannabes on this message board. They have visions of dictatorships, black helicopters landing in their yards, etc. These things have happened countless times in our history so the evidence is there that we need to be viligent. In addition, they have dreams of pulling out their assault weapon and killing the mass murderer and becoming a hero.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 5:46 PM

Colorado - I won't get into it with you about data. Yours is flawed. You might want to check what the U.S. government is not allowed to report or track due to legislation pushed over the years by the NRA. Then you can go back to reading your FBI files. And Colorado...As long as you want to look at data, you might want to look at the national polls on these current questions. It's not the evil liberals, Colorado, it's the majority and a growing majority. You remind me a lot of the chess player in Searching for Bobby Fischer who is offered a draw by Josh Waitzkin. The kid refuses because he thinks he's winning and Josh replies "You've lost, you just don't know it". Ho hum, another school shooting today in Atlanta.... It may be this year, it may be next year, it may be 5 years from now but much stricter gun control measures are coming. Don't say I didn't tell you.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 5:35 PM

Brazil quote:Hillary/Biden/Cuomo for 8 more years in 2016 and you were worried about the Black Helicopters...LOL Brazil---- That post is the first time you have got it correct-----In the end the whole issue has nothing to with gun safety at all. It is just one more example of the difference in the way the liberals view the world vs the way conservatives see it. You only have to see the politicians view on gun rights to know if he/she is a liberal democrat or from a liberal district. The same is true for the other side. The democrats from conservative districts may kill the proposals before the repubs even get a chance to vote on it. It's pure politics.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 5:30 PM

Thanks for your service, man. Only you and vets like you really know what the consequences can be if these weapons are in the hands of mass murderers.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 4:58 PM

Actually Brazil, I read the FBI data, which I suggested you do a week ago but apparently you would rather make up your own. For Example: in 2009 "THE FBI" reported 71,000 people lied on their background check which is a FELONY. Of that 71,000 the Justice Dept prosecuted 77. The NRA gets their information from Law Enforcement, not liberal anti-gun zealots. I get most of my information from the FBI data. I tend to believe it is more accurate than CNN. And when the Politicians (as just happened in NY) pass these laws they most certainly do claim they will protect us from everything evil. Did you watch the NY governors newscast when he signed theirs.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 4:24 PM

"How is my suggestion about universal background checks, lost and stolen laws, or even registration a ban?" It's not a ban, 25or624. But it's also NOT a solution. Who cares about tracing a stolen weapon AFTER it is used in a killing? I have been asking why no one wants to truly deal with the real problem, but everyone keeps skirting the issue. I began to write my ideas on offering REAL solutions last week, and do you know what happened? Every single one of my posts disappeared because certain thin-skinned people cannot handle REAL solutions. They are too busy playing politics and silencing the opposition.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 4:06 PM

Colorado --- We were never assured those laws would keep us safe. They were passed because that was all that was able to be done politically whether it be on a local, state or national level. Your comment on that is much like your comment on 70,000 laws not being enforced. A blanket statement that means nothing and has no credibility. Have you personally evaluated everyone of those laws and the enforcement that has occured. If you just decided to read from this month's issue of the NRA newsletter you are doing a fabulous job.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 4:01 PM

Frugal Taxpayer - No, the argument isn't that everyone would be safe, it is that is one part of making everyone a bit safer. Try to make your point without mis-characterizing the vast majority of those looking for an across the board approach that utilizes multiple solutions. Writer 10 - A well worn out argument. Only a national policy will work. Of course Chicago's policy has holes in it (pardon the pun)when there is ready access ten miles away. Colorado - As Joe Scarborough said today, The Republicans are on the losing side of this issue. The only question is will it be too late by the time they realize it. It was too late for them to realize it on gay marriage and immigration so it resulted in a weak Democratic candidate winning re-election by a substantial majority. Personally I'm hoping they stick to the Gun Manufacturer's position like you espouse. Hillary/Biden/Cuomo for 8 more years in 2016 and you were worried about the Black Helicopters...LOL

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 2:33 PM

25, you seem to think straw purchases are legal or atleast there are loopholes. Straw purchase are illegal and in PA if convicted, it is an automatic 5 year sentence. Govenor Corbett signed this into law and it is called the Brad Fox law after a police officer who was shot and killed. Its a law that makes sense rather than a ban which only affects law abiding gun owners.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 2:07 PM

The problem is the definition of reasonable and I have seen the liberal definition of reasonable and am not impressed. Every nation that has a total gun ban started with gun registration. Every one of the 300 federal and 20,000 total current gun laws were supposed to keep us safe. Enforce them before adding more. You may not need more. How many of the 70,000 that broke the current law and were not prosecuted went on to commit a crime. AGAIN-FOR THE LAST TIME---The guns Obama wants to ban accounted for LESS THAN 45 of the 13,000 homicides each year since 2004. This is pure politics, not safety.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 1:47 PM

Nope, just curious of your POV. I've got the Constitution, and both Federalist and Anti on my phone for that purpose, but I've concluded that on a forum such as this, the odds of changing someone's mind here, is well....not likely to happen. That's fine, sometimes just interesting to see/hear other worldviews...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 1:31 PM

Do what it takes to enforce the existing laws or get rid of them. We don't need more laws until we see if enforcing the existing ones will solve the problem. REMEMBER, at the time these EXISTING laws were being debated we were ASSURED they were going to keep us safe.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 12:43 PM

25or624----The only thing wrong with our current system of background checks is that law enforcement doesn't enforce them. There were over 70,000 felons, mentally ill, etc that were caught illegally trying to purchase firearms that should have been prosecuted . Less than 70 were even charged. Why--we are told the feds are too busy. And you claim adding even more background checks will solve the problem. Get real.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 12:31 PM

And what purpose do the states have in your view?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 12:02 PM

25, There are almost 300 federal laws, not counting other ATF regulations and rulings. While you are not affected by all state laws, you are affected by the many state laws and local laws of which you live. You are also affected by other state and local laws if you move or travel. The point being is that we have laws, some enforced and some not. You mentioned driving issues and drugs. Neither are constitutional rights BUT look how good drug laws work. We keep banning them but people keep getting their hands on them.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 11:54 AM

25or624, s l o w d o w n, your arguments are not thought out or well-prepared. St0newa11's building permit argument was based upon HIS property, structure and land. Your speeding and traffic response occurs on state or local highways, not private land. But the bottom line is, none of you have successfully argued how to keep guns out of the hands of people who obtained them through illegal means to begin with! You are so concerned with arguing with responsible people that you have lost focus on the issue. Have any of you heard about junkies who cannot find drugs? What makes you think guns will ever become unobtainable for those who wish to do ill?

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-31-13 11:51 AM

25, do you believe in any restraints on the powers of the Federal government?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 37 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web