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

To ban or not to ban

January 12, 2013

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(77)

CMReeder

Jan-13-13 9:08 AM

Sheets did you shut off your e-mail account to the conservatives. Conservatives want to have the state pick Senators not have them elected. There are others that have voiced many times.

Where was your outrage when previous republicans presidents did end runs around deadlock Congress. Where is the constituional backing for filibusters? Obama is not taking actions any different from previous presidents. The difference is you object to it more.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-13-13 9:00 AM

Enigma I did not say to repeal 2A. I said you don't understnd what it means, your focus is on one small phrase and that is it. It is more obvious you do not understand what jefferson was saying.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-13-13 7:22 AM

CHayes-"So if you walked into a McDonalds with a musket, what are the chances you're going to massacre 20 or 30 people with it?"

I guess it depends on whether you have it loaded with a ball or pellets like a shotgun. If it's the latter and their huddled together at close range, my chances are probably pretty good.

I see you still have no rebuttal to the fact that the weapon in question is not an 'assault weapon'. But nice try at the diversion.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-13-13 6:42 AM

"No, what we re saying is that the Government didn't ban the musket, the most technologically advance rifle of it's time, from the people. "

So if you walked into a McDonalds with a musket, what are the chances you're going to massacre 20 or 30 people with it?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Jan-13-13 6:39 AM

Don't imagine what you want the Constitution to say or pretend it says something it does not. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other founding documents are very clear and very easy to understand if you desire to understand. Neither the Constitution nor the Government can grant any rights to the people, they already have them.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Jan-13-13 6:35 AM

"there is a faction who wants the rights granted in our constitution upheld." This is an absurd statement. Events today have clearly magnified the average American's grasp of the content and purpose of the U.S. Constitution is deplorably inadequate and inaccurate. The Constitution does not grant or permit, it does not allow and it does not dispense rights, it only grants limited powers to the various branches of government and then provides the checks and balances for the people so that no branch becomes stronger than any other.

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, either. Those amendments limit the power of government to encroach on the rights that naturally belong to all of us.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jan-13-13 5:36 AM

nobud74-"Many, many more blacks and Latinos are killed every day by handguns and nary a word."

nobud, I said that many months ago. They want to ignore that.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-12-13 7:48 PM

Of course what it means when judges make such weird judgements is that they couldn't get a majority to agree on anything sensible so they make up some B.S. I'm sure Scalia was not especially proud of that one.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-12-13 7:46 PM

DavidBross, It's one of those tricks that judges play. If you make your ruling vague enough, you can be sure that you'll get to revisit it latter. It's a game that political figures at all levels like to play, but judges should be above it. I think they should all be impeached and let's start over with judges that will do the job.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-12-13 6:09 PM

So, let's ban the "assault weapons" that are used by white kids to kill kids, but let's not get the handguns off the streets that are killing other kids. Such total BS by the media and all the hand wringers.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-12-13 6:07 PM

Oh, and while we're at it. Let's address the fact that the shooting in CT is getting lots of press because it was a bunch of mostly white middle and upper middle class kids. Many, many more blacks and Latinos are killed every day by handguns and nary a word. It's like all the missing kid stories--always the pretty white girl. Think about it and go back and look. Now, what about that?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-12-13 6:03 PM

You know, we on this forum and in many forums, living rooms, around many water coolers and other places where folks discuss current events have pretty much determined that there is a faction that wants something done--they have only said they want to ban/control scary weapons, and there is a faction who wants the rights granted in our constitution upheld. In all the chatter there has not been one (that I have seen) argument with details and proof of effectiveness of bans working. Nobody has come forward with a detailed plan or even a slightly detailed plan with demonstrable results. And, so we want to turn over the formation of policy to a lecherous incompetent boob, Joe “You think, I’m joking, they’re almost all gymnasts, the stuff they do on hard wood, it blows my mind.” Biden. Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-12-13 5:57 PM

In addition to dangerous and unusual, Scalia also added not typically owned by citizens. Now, how one defines "typically" could have a significant impact one what weapons are banned. For example, if "typically" is seen as synonymous with "majority of citizens", then I imagine that many guns would be subject to bans.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jan-12-13 5:44 PM

@msgjsheets

"liberals... prefer to label their opponents as extremists and dismiss the Constitution as out of touch.

Threatening armed insurrection is not extreme? Biden hasn't even made any recommendations yet.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-12-13 5:36 PM

"In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Scalia, representing the majority, said that "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be banned."

All weapons are dangerous or they wouldn't be weapons, but there is nothing unusual about a semi-automatic rifle or a high capacity magazine, but they could go after my bidirectional, helical mag-lev bolo gun under that ruling.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jan-12-13 5:06 PM

Rick probably thought he was being sarcastic and posted the most accurate post he has ever written. Congratulations Rick!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Jan-12-13 5:05 PM

In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Scalia, representing the majority, said that "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be banned. Now, what constitutes "dangerous and unusual" wasn't clearly defined by Scalia. But, you know, someone could say, "If dangerous and unusual, weapons are outlawed, than only outlaws will have dangerous and unusual weapons." Has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jan-12-13 5:02 PM

So Chuck do you liberals plan on following the Constitution to change it my proposing and passing Amendments or are you just going to continue to have the President disregard it at will? I already know the answer, liberals never want to defend their positions of convince others that they are right, they prefer to label their opponents as extremists and dismiss the Constitution as out of touch.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jan-12-13 4:58 PM

Chuck, which Amendments are you talking about that conservatives want to forget? You are always full of it but this one is at least interesting. I have not heard any conservatives want to disregard the Constitution. Please try and explain this one to me.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-12-13 2:12 PM

Chuck, Have you noticed that the Constitution is still in force? It has not been rewritten, and since it hasn't we still have to live by it. That include the Second Amendment. Now if you can push through an amendment to repeal it then you can outlaw any gun you want, but it's not permissible now. Would you think it OK to pass a law that Charles M. Reeder cannot write letters to the editor because a lot of people don't like them. Wouldn't you argue that you have a Constitutional right to free speech. So would I. Why then do you argue that I shouldn't be allowed to have my rights under the Second Amendment? Are you a hypocrit? Try to repeal the 2nd Amendment or leave guns alone. That's the right way to do it.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-12-13 2:04 PM

Rick424,"Is there really anything that said he will take your guns away? The only thing I can find is on right wing web sites."

That's because left wing web sites want your rights taken away. If you watch the news even the left leaning ones will mention things like the U.N. Treaty on Small Arms or just about any other U.N. treaty. Many of them turn over U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. and this is done to circumvent the Constitution. That's the Constitutional amendment we need. One to make it so that a treaty that violates any provision of the Constitution will be invalid. Could any of you on the left get behind that? To get back to your question, have you heard anything that Obama has said in the last two weeks, or read the details of Sen. Feinstein's proposed "assault weapons ban"? Her proposal conficates weapons and it's just a start by her own admission.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-12-13 1:48 PM

Jefferson did not expect the Constitution to last that it would be completely rewritten with a new form of government he also thought it would happen in his lifetime. The conservatives want to revert back to the original document and erase the amendments that were added. You are the one who is not getting it enigma. That is not why we have the 2A.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Jan-12-13 1:45 PM

Is there really anything that said he will take your guns away? The only thing I can find is on right wing web sites. Inquiring minds need to know.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-12-13 1:40 PM

Chuck,"Jefferson also believed that the Constitution would be greatly changed or completely changed by now, that ever so often the people needed to rebell against government."

You're starting to get it. We have 27 amendments to the Constituion. That's a lot of change. And how do you think Jefferson thought the people should rebel? That is why we have the Second Amendment. It's the one that gives the others meaning. You can rebel with a spoon if you want, but you won't get far. If they come for your free speech rights, try waving your gay marriage certificate at them or some other fake right the left has made up; it won't work. The only defense there has ever been against out of control government has been arms. Obama knows this, that's why he sent weapons to Libya and why he's sending them to Syria, and why he wants to take them from us.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Jan-12-13 1:14 PM

According to leftists the Constitution guarantees the right to abortion, same sex marriage, welfare and free healthcare, automatic citizenship for illegals, etc., but does not guarantee the right of an individual to own handguns or semi-automatics with large clips.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 77 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