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

Gun Violence

Searching for answers to end the madness

January 17, 2013

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama unveiled his proposals for curbing gun violence in America....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

WhatsNext

Jan-28-13 12:21 PM

Let's see, I can have one clip that holds 20 rounds and that's bad OR I can have 4 clips that hold 5 rounds each and that's okay. That makes sense.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-26-13 1:33 PM

I'm curious Faith, have you read the Constitution? Or any of the supporting documents to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? I wonder if you're familiar with Federalist 46? How about Article V of the Constitution? Are you familiar with that?

You say you're a gun owner? What kind? Does it shoot more than one shot? If so, it's a semi-automatic weapon and us on the list to be banned?

Last question. You say no one needs a gun...I'm curious, who should decide what citizens need?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

FaithS

Jan-25-13 2:02 PM

The 2nd amendment was written when our country was fighting for independence, the founding fathers idea of "right to bear arms" was a musket! They could never fathom the automatic weapons we have today.. there is NOONE (other than military) that needs a gun that shoots 100 rounds a minute! Seriously! I am not anti gun... and I own a gun.. but I am not PROUD that I do.. so many people are sooo proud to have a gun.. Get a life!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-23-13 8:43 PM

The Constitution means many different things to many different people. For instance, liberals have publically stated that it is mostly "Bull$***" but that's all neither here nor there. US laws must be in compliance with the Constitution. The body responsible for ensuring that happens is the United States Supreme Court's 9 Justices. You may not agree with the majority decisions but they do become the law of the land.

Anything else?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-23-13 7:55 PM

So AaronS, does the Constitution mean whatever the Supreme Court says it means?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-23-13 7:21 PM

Sorry whatyamacallit but the Supreme Court has ruled that convicted prisoners only have a few basic rights, the right to bear arms not being one of them.

Nice try though.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-23-13 10:04 AM

The 2nd Amendment won't have to be re-written in order to ban a category of weapons, b/c the 2nd Amendment has NEVER been interpreted literally. It says our right to keep & bear arms "... shall not be infringed", period, end of sentence, end of Amendment. Which seems to allow no exceptions whatsoever. (It's much plainer, much stronger language, than the protection of our religious freedom in the 1st amendment, which merely says "Congress shall make no law ..." Yet I know of no prisoner in any U.S. jail or penitentiary who is allowed to keep a handgun or knife, & the weapons they make in prison are routinely taken away. You say, "Well OF COURSE it doesn't mean that!" No, it doesn't. But this shows that the meaning of the Amendment is not to be found, has never been found, only in an exact reading of the words.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Jan-23-13 1:14 AM

Cont: Ya'all really think anyone other than a law abiding citizen is actually going to do that?

Passing new, more restrictivr laws only law abiding people will follow will NOT solve any problem!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stickhauler

Jan-23-13 1:12 AM

You do realize one of the Executive Orders he signed mandated the BATFE to issue "instructions" to gun shops on the proper way to do background checks? And the letter has already been issued. However, the content of that letter had nothing to do with instructing gun dealers on the proper way to do a background check.

It detailed how to do background checks on "private transfers." You know, the dreaded "gun show loophole" the anti-gun crowd constantly talks about!

It instructs the dealer to transfer a private sale firearm into their possession from the seller, then have the buyer fill out a Form 4473, and then call in the background check to transfer the firearm to the buyer. In effect, charging the buyer for the transfer of the gun to them, then charge the buyer for a transfer to them. The typical transfer fee I see is around $25.00, so that would add $50.00 to any private sale.

Ya'all really think anyone other than a law abiding citizen is going to ju

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-22-13 8:58 PM

If your minds set that the answer to 2+2 is 5 Tassie, no amount of ration or reason will change your biased opinion.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tassie

Jan-22-13 7:23 PM

Thank you AaronS for provig my point, Theres nothing in President Obama background to make anybody think he would use (executive orders) to limit or ban private ownership of certain types of firearms! Just more right wing propaganda thats all it is.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-22-13 6:00 PM

From ABC News Denver....

Green's group and other liberal Democrats have openly expressed disappointment in Obama since 2009, saying his agenda has fallen short. Many have cited his failure to advance an assault-weapons ban, as promised, enact climate change legislation or overhaul the nation's immigration system.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-22-13 8:08 AM

We're close to agreement? So then you believe as I do that no weapons ban can be enacted without first addressing the 2nd Amendment which guarantees citizens the fundamental right to 'bear arms' and that those spouting the tripe of an assault weapons ban really don't know what they are talking about as they can't even define what an assault weapon is.

Good to know you abhor the ignorance as much as I do.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-22-13 7:23 AM

AaronS, we're close to agreement but how do we do so so disagreeably? We agree that a clear, reasonable definition of what weapons to ban is needed. I haven't submitted such a definition myself because, (even though I'm a gun owner & have shot a few varmints, & was on a Navy ship's pistol team), I know people who are familiar w/ far more firearms than I am. So I leave the writing to them. (& the work -- I admit that such writing is work. If you think it's easy, try it yourself.)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jan-22-13 5:16 AM

"AaronS" like the writer of this article did when he or she wrote "No one aware of President Barack Obama's rhetoric and his background should doubt that if he thought he could get away with it, he would use executive orders to limit or ban private ownership of certain types of firearms." What weapon was he or she describing?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-21-13 8:46 PM

My refusal to address what issue whatsyamacallit?

Personally, I think that if you wanted to ban a weapon, you should be able to describe exactly what it is you wish to ban.

Can you?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-21-13 6:38 PM

The previous definition of an "assault" weapon was poorly written, & I have not defended it. (I have posted that the higher capacity of the weapon used at Sandy Hook is pointless for hunting.)

What is needed is not a re-enactment of the old ban, but a ban based on a better-laid-out definition. My point was that a line has to be drawn. If you don't draw any line, you have no way to distinguish between the WVU Mountaineer's muzzle-loader & a Stinger missle.

Someone w/ a more thorough knowledge of guns that the average member or staffer of Congress needs to write the new law. AaronS, you could contribute an appropriate definition, if you would. Your refusal to address the issue doesn't mean it won't be written -- but the fewer knowledgeable people get behind a better definition, the more likely some half-assed definition will be used again.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-21-13 5:03 PM

I've told you denver but you refuse to see the truth, instead defending the President with a true Scotsman argument.

You make about as much sense as neowhatsyamacallit74 whose naive enough to believe that a cosmetic addition to a traditional hunting rifle somehow makes it more dangerous than it was prior to the addition. His comment that some weapons MUST be available but others must be restricted or banned is makes absolutely no sense as the determination is something as trivial as a shroud or a pistol grip. Seriously, how injudicious must one be to think that putting a pistol grip or folding stock makes a weapon more dangerous?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-21-13 9:54 AM

Now I have to come to the defense of the editorial. Which does say, "... he would use executive orders to limit or ban private ownership of certain types of firearms." (Presumably "assault" weapons.) But the editorial sums up, "However, if these initiatives ... can help even a little ..., they are a good first step." Taking the editorial as a whole, it is two-handed (on the one hand ... on the other hand ...). I can hardly call it "just more right wing propaganda trying to make people believe Obama and the Democrats are going to take your guns ..."

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-21-13 9:53 AM

AaronS equates "ban guns" w/ "reinstate the assault weapons ban". An all-or-nothing reading of the 2nd Amendment doesn't stand up. (If it did, we could all buy Stinger missles & RPG's.

On the other hand, an overly literal reading of the Amendment might conclude that we can "keep and bear" any arms if you have them, but nothing in the Amendment prevents the Government banning the manufacture, importation, purchase, or sale of all weapons.

Most reasonable people will agree that some weapons must be available to most citizens, but other weapons must be closely restricted or banned. Some reasonable people will draw the line on one side of "Bushmaster"-style semi-automatic rifles; other reasonable people will draw the line on the other side. No one seeing that, should attribute more than is said; that is, do not generalize that to banning all weapons or banning no weapons, w/o further evidence.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neocurmudgeon74

Jan-21-13 9:51 AM

I notice that some people posting here tend to shoot high, over the target. If you do the same w/ your guns, you won't hit much; at the least, you'll give your target time to take some action.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tassie

Jan-21-13 8:07 AM

To answer your question denver, there is nothing in his background to make anybody think he would use executive orders to limit or ban private ownership of certain types of firearms. All this editorial is, just more right wing propaganda trying to make people believe Obama and the Democrats are going to take your guns, one way or the other. That's all it is! And it most be working, because look how many are on here trying to defend a lie.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jan-21-13 7:16 AM

Now back to my original Question, I would like to know, whats in President Obama's background to make you think he would use "executive orders to limit or ban private ownership of certain types of firearms?"

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jan-21-13 7:01 AM

Google this, {Obama campaign promise: “I Am Not Going To Take Your Guns Away”}

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jan-21-13 5:29 AM

None of what you say changes the fact that the President has openly campaigned to reinstate the failed assault weapons ban policy that was in effect from 1994 thru 2004 or that he stated numerous times after the CT tragedy that he would look “any means available through executive order” in extending that ban. Those are facts that are easily verifiable to anyone not already biased on the issue willing to do the research Denver and nothing you say changes those facts.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

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