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

Local reaction mixed on Obama gun proposals

January 17, 2013

PARKERSBURG — Local gun retailers are looking through the points President Barack Obama introduced Wednesday as part of his initiative to try to curb gun violence to see how they may impact busines....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-17-13 5:57 AM

Right now, Obama is a criminals best friend. His idea of leaving Americans defenseless, since criminals don't care about gun laws anyway, will definitely garner him and his democratic party support in prison yards and gang hangouts nationwide.

15 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:27 AM

Hindsight101, you are an idiot for saying to burn the foundation this country is built on. Im guessing you are a tree hugging hippy throwback that has never done anything other than complain and stir crap. I have 24 years in the Army and am a combat vet of Iraq. I own several rifles that take extended mags. Wanna ask me if I know how to use them? The Military has died down through the years for that piece of paper you want to burn. So the next time you want to run your cake hole go down to the VA, VFW, or Legion and explain your plans to them and see what they say. I think you will find you are in the minority in this very patriotic area. The only reason the 2nd amendment is there is to insure the people have the ability to overthrow the Government, its not there for self defense or hunting. Its our ability to revolt just as Washington and his bunch did during a little something called the American Revolution.

13 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:31 AM

Goldandblue, you need to check the statistics. England has a much lower gun violence per 100,00 than the US but violent crime there is almost double what it is here. Im so tired of everyone using GUN VIOLENCE stats when its skewed. Look for violent crime...

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:37 AM

"I am STILL waiting for a reason someone needs an assault weapon with a thirty round clip."

To kill people. People who would choose to violate your rights. That's one of the reasons our founders insisted there be a right to bear arms. If you have five intruders (or a tyrannical government) all with folks who don't have to follow the laws because they ignore them or are above them, you may very well need a 30 round clip.

The problem is that some folks don't know their history, don't possess the facts they need to understand the matter, and just react because they have irrational fear of the very things that will keep them safe.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:40 AM

"Exactly the reason the Constitution is OUTDATED and should be burnt."

Move somewhere more to your liking. Our founders looked everywhere else, saw huge flaws, and developed a government "of the people" that for the most part works when we don't have tyrants who wish to rule by fiat (Obama looks to be going that route). We left Europe to get away from an imperial government. Go back there if that's what you like.

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:44 AM

hindsight101 You said once you was in the Army 2 years,better start writing your record down.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:02 AM

@stupendous....thats called murder and you go to PRISON with all the other TRASH."

Killing people who are posing a real threat to you isn't "murder" by any definition. Killing? Yes. Murder, no.

Our founding fathers killed lots of people to avoid a government like you seem to prefer. You can either learn from history, or keep yourself ignorant, ignore it, and suffer the same tyranny that those in the past wouldn't tolerate.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:06 AM

Hindsight: The fact is that the majority of those who founded our nation had experience with leaders who bypassed the representatives of the people, and decided that they needed to ensure that they could arm themselves in order to kill those who seek to remove the freedoms God bestowed upon us.

Not just so we could hunt. Not just so we could practice target shooting. But so we could kill those who would harm us. This is true not because I am a criminal, but because this is what the founders wanted and how they set it up in the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution you can fight to see it amended. Good luck with that.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:06 AM

does a rifle's appearance make it an "assault" weapon? I have no desire to own one of these modern rifles. I prefer blued steel and walnut. If you want to know about "assault" weapons ask the secret service, fully automatic pistols (Uzi) protecting Obama and his daughters.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:55 AM

Where to start? First things first, for those of you who think more laws will stop violence, you are kidding yourselves. Guns are here and criminals do not obey the law so more laws will solve absolutely nothing. Secondly, what I own is my business and noone elses. Just because some idiot decides to shoot someone with a pistol doesn't mean mine will shoot someone to. Just because they shoot someone with an AR-15 doesn't mean mine will point itself at someone and the trigger squeeze either. If you really believe enacting more laws will satisfy an issue when the current laws we have are being ignored, you need to reevaluate your priorities. Face it, guns are on the street and nothing you will do will eliminate that fact. Impose actual punishment to those who commit these heinous crimes and then you will garner some attention. If a person pulls the trigger and is witnessed in doing so, endorse a punishment so severe, the next person will think twice before trying something cont.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:55 AM

also, are you guys against background checks for all gun sales? this is where you might lose moderate Americans... just sayin, people!

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:04 AM

of the same nature. America has a bad habit of knee-jerk reactions to calm the masses which do not actually solve anything.

Remember, why I own my guns is noone elses business but mine. Our government allows the ability to purchase them period. If you think some idiotic argument between political parties will solve something, you are dilusional.

Remember, guns don't kill people, the idiot who pulls the trigger does. We have thousands of children starving inside our own borders, we have thousands of elderly who need medical attention and you want our so-called leaders to waste valuable time wondering if I should be able to shoot a specific type of weapon. Don't you think they would have time better spent working on real issues like actually coming up with a national budget.

Lastly, your rights only go so far as to when they start impeding on mine. How am I today, Disturbed Again.

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:25 AM

All of the comments are for and against, but only congress will make it a law. Little chance of that. They couldn't make up their minds when to go to lunch.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:36 AM

i swear the real underlying cause for some of the logic spewed by far-right gun owners is that they honestly want some sort of dystopian, anarchy-filled world just so they can be sheriff of their own front porch answering to no authority.

there are responsible gun owners and there are crazy gun owners. guys spouting out a new revolution is coming really are not helping your defense. you sound absolutely nuts to middle America.

5 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:42 AM

So sick of hearing about guns,guns,and guns...had to purge facebook

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:48 AM

When the Second Amendment was written, normal citizens had free access to the very same type of weaponry that was available to be used against them. They also had an abundance of violence. The difference between then and now; to me, boils down to two issues. Then they hanged people for their crime against society and now we put them up in living conditions better than many who work hard and obey the law. The second is people would rather blame the weapon instead of the lack of responsible adult behavior with the same instilled in our youth. The 2nd Amendment is fine as written. The consequences need to be severe and taken more seriously instead of being ignored. With that said; (cont’d)

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:48 AM

The President, Vice-President and everyone in congress has sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, when they took their oath of office. In participating in any manner to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights according to the U.S. Constitution, they are breaking their oath and should be immediately removed from the office they hold. If the media fame and easy prison life were not part of the result of such bad behavior as performed in these incidents that are transpiring at a higher rate than ever before; and people were put to death for such behavior, this problem would stop occurring at the rate it has lately. Bring back the death penalty on a federal level for these murderous crimes and watch it rectify itself.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:49 AM

Hey stupendousman, or should it be ignoramousman? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about "needing" something. I will use my old example: who needs a Corvette? They go fast and can kill people if in the wrong hands. Ergo, let's ban Corvettes! See how ridiculous your argument is. When people realize it's not the guns, but the people using them, then maybe we can make some sensible progress in this debate.

High capacity magazine bans are also industrial strength stupid. I dare you to break into my house. If I empty the seven shots in my first pistol, and need more, I'll empty the ten in the next pistol. If that isn't enough I'll empty the eight in my other pistol. If by then your butt isn't too full of lead to move, and you still want to come at me, I'll unload seven shots from each of my shotguns. See how stupid your argument is. All I have to say is "don't try it," and wake up and see the intrusion of the federal government in your life.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:02 AM

An "assault weapon" ban is a joke and nothing more. The only thing military about an "assault weapon" is the way it looks. It is not a machine gun. I use qutation marks around the word because it is nothing more than a made up word used as a propoganda tool to get people to think a certain way about something that they do not understand.

13 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:19 AM

"If laws do not explicitly state something, then it is open for interpretation."

Given that the founders where clear that we had the right in order to defend from tyranny, it would be reasonable to assume that we be allowed whatever weapons might be required to fend off a small-scale military assault against us.

I mean, if the founder's intent means anything.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:19 AM

Matt4685 Your spew is typical of far right wingers who are just looking for reasons to hate Barack Obama. As for your insensitive comments regarding the Sandy Hook incident, I bet your reaction would be a bit different if you lost a child. Hopefully, with your attitude, you don't have children.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:27 AM

I'd have no problems regarding any kind of "background check" if the law required the government to purge the request after the check cleared. There's no need for the government to have a record of who has firearms and who doesn't unless at some point they wish to confiscate the weapons.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:30 AM

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security"

Benjamin Franklin

..and many of the laws and regulations. currently being propose will actually make the populace less secure.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:33 AM


The point is that it's almost impossible for a regular joe to get a fully automatic weapon. Criminals aren't likely ever going to be able to legally possess them. First you have the cost factor (cost of the stamp, plus the extreme high cost of the weapon), then you have the paperwork that will ensure that no one with any kind of criminal background would get approved.

So, technically there are ways to get fully auto weapons, but practically they aren't an issue.

That's why "assault weapon" bans are the rallying cry for the ignorant and irrationally scared.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:42 AM

Existing Gun Laws:

Who Can Buy A Gun Legally? If your not prohibited by by federal, state, or local laws, the basic rules for buying a gun including the following; 1)Fugitives from justice. 2)You have to be 21 or older to purchase a handgun. 3)You have to be 21 or older to purces a handgun. 3)You must buy your gun from a federal licensed dealer in your state. You must submit to a background check that the dealer will arrange, using an FBI database.

Who Can Not Buy A Gun According to Federal Control Act of 1986? 1)Fugitives from justice. 2)Illegal aliens. 3)Unlawful users of certain drugs. 4)Those commited to mental institution. 5)Those convicted of crimes punished by imprisonment for more than one year. 6)Those convited of crimes of domestic violence.

The agree the resent mass murders are unacceptable in any society. If the existing laws were enforced most of the single and/or multiple killings with guns be greatly reduced.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 121 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web