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

Sacrificial lambs

January 13, 2013

Here we go again, the president, the liberals in Congress and the brain-dead Hollywood elite know what’s best for the rest of us. We need to ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(96)

WaitingForReason

Jan-15-13 9:24 AM

"This is NOT about taking your guns away." Not yet, but they are starting with those magazines that kill people. From the new NY state gun law: "Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge."

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-15-13 9:01 AM

"you WILL NOT admit that you cannot figure out how to keep CRIMINALS from attaining scary weapons so you will just do something, anything to make yourself feel better"

Sure I know how to keep criminals from attaining guns, they do it everyday in the UK and Japan. The reality is, you can't keep a sailor from attaining water, and if our country is FLOODED with weapons, or anything else for that matter, you can't really control who gets it. You can't control something that's ubiquitous.

Why can't people on the right start to think outside the box just a little, and see this isn't a giant conspiracy against responsible people, and see that the real problem is that there are ALWAYS incredibly irresponsible people in any society, and they tend to ruin it for everyone. Or are speed limits and DUI laws just an attempt to "control a population" for nefarious reasons?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-15-13 8:52 AM

Of course, another way we could do this may be to compare the intentional homicide rate in the US (4.8), to the rates in two countries where there are both strict gun regulations, and almost no guns, like the UK (1.2), and Japan (.4).

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 9:24 PM

" Don't just say it, prove it."

Ok, as you know the only way to prove it is to round up all the guns, and see how we do without them. How do you want to go about it? Do you want every person that isn't a member of law enforcment or the military to hand them over for storage, or are you talking about melting them down/launching them into space?

Personally I'd much prefer common sense restrictions, but if that's the route you want to take, just let me know where to drop mine off when you figure it out.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jan-14-13 8:53 PM

"many more poor and black and Latino youth are killed by handguns every single year and there is NO outcry to ban handguns."

Handguns were illegal in DC, until the Supreme Court ruler otherwise.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-14-13 7:39 PM

Ok, so you want to restrict certain types of weapons. Please demonstrate how that will make us all "safer." Don't just say it, prove it. The fact is that many, many more poor and black and Latino youth are killed by handguns every single year and there is NO outcry to ban handguns. (Nor should there be.) But, the reality is that hand guns are not as scary to you and other libs as an AR15, and the kids killed with the scary gun are white, middle and upper middle class. That is the fact and the truth is that neither you nor any other lib will acknowledge that fact. So, if this whole process isn't about controlling me and other law abiding citizens, then what is it? You WILL NOT accept the fact that the law abiding are not the problem and you WILL NOT admit that you cannot figure out how to keep CRIMINALS from attaining scary weapons so you will just do something, anything to make yourself feel better. As ineffective as it may be.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 2:35 PM

" So, stick to reality. Yet, back to your point, if we were engaged in such activities that required access to unlawful--note the unlawful part--weapons, we would surely be able to procure them in time to save our backsides."

I'm trying to stick to reality nobud. Restricting the sale of something makes it harder to obtain, and more expensive. Period. What this debate is about, is if restricting the sale of military style assault weapons and high capacity magazines would make our society safer. It isn't about the Second Amendment, because we have had restricted "arms" in our country for a hundred years or more. It also is NOT about banning the sales of all guns, or confiscating weapons.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Jan-14-13 2:06 PM

From Wikipedia:

"Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations; Switzerland thus has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world. In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations. A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control."

See! A "People's Militia," but, alas, no standing army. The USA has both, hence "Superpower."

USA! USA! USA!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KrazyK

Jan-14-13 1:01 PM

Mr. Rinker must be a terrible shot. He insinuates he may need 60 rounds to stop one home invader. I hope he doesn't have anyone living near him as he would end up ventilating not only his house but the entire neighborhood. He needs to take a firearms safety course.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BubbaZanetti

Jan-14-13 12:31 PM

The ATF has a book that explains what to do in order to purchase explosives such as hand grenades. There is the license, proper storage, proper location etc. There's no way it could be done by tonight sorry.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-14-13 12:24 PM

I couldn't because I don't have those sorts of connections, I don't think. I think your point is false in that since we are not engaged in enterprises that demand such access, we would die--but we probably would not be put in such Hollywood type scenes anyhow. So, stick to reality. Yet, back to your point, if we were engaged in such activities that required access to unlawful--note the unlawful part--weapons, we would surely be able to procure them in time to save our backsides.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 12:11 PM

To make my point nobud, please tell me if you could obtain a box of hand grenades by tonight, if your life depended on it?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 12:03 PM

There's something you're not getting here. Most people that have committed these massacres are NOT career criminals. They don't have any more access to restricted weapons than the average law abiding citizens.

Way too many people on the right seem to want some sort of 100%, ironclad guarantee that something like this will never happen again, ever, not out of concern for public safety, but rather out of concern for their deadly toys.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-14-13 11:03 AM

Second, I'm sure you can get anything you want with enough money and effort. Even nuclear or chemical weapons.--CH

So, since it is clear that illegal arms trade exists and that most anything you want can be found there for the right price, tell me again how another law will stop it, how infringing or reducing my rights will stop it.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 10:26 AM

The point being, they aren't ubiquitous, and easily obtained by anyone. In fact, if you put a gun to my head, and said you'd kill me if I couldn't get you a box of hand grenades by midnight, you'd have to pull the trigger. As many people as I know, in multiple states and walks of life, I couldn't get a box of hand grenades if my life depended on it.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 10:24 AM

" Chris, the problem with your comment at 645 is that grenades are explosives and are regulated. However, you can purchase them on the criminal market."

My point is two fold. First it was a direct response to someone that said the Second Amendment guarantees citizens "unfettered access to arms". In fact it does not. This isn't a debate at all about people being able to have guns as so.many here, and in the media have portrayed it. It is simply a debate about where the line should be drawn in the interests of public safety.

Also, hand grenades may not be guns, but they most certainly are "arms".

Second, I'm sure you can get anything you want with enough money and effort. Even nuclear or chemical weapons.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-14-13 8:52 AM

"I've said this on another letter...let's start with living by example. Obama, please tell the (double) amount of security detail on you and yours to disarm."

Maybe Relene you should stop threatening the President and others with your gun.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-14-13 7:45 AM

Chris, the problem with your comment at 645 is that grenades are explosives and are regulated. However, you can purchase them on the criminal market. The guns you want are available also on the criminal market. And, since they are fully automatic weapons, if you have the correct documentation you can own them if they are available (I don't know if they are or not.). The documentation for such weapons is very stringent, but it is possible.

As for robbers demanding money from folks on the streets, it happens all the time and is against current law. Why do we need another law?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idiottwo

Jan-14-13 6:59 AM

a number of folks are using the tragedies to enact gun control. The CT killed spent days in a dark room playing violent video games. He was likely off meds or in need of complete supervision due to his mental illness, but we're more focussed on assualt weapons than how to have caught and stopped this guy before he got started. He could have used any number of things to achieve his goals. I think you will see his games of choice involved gun. that helped set the stage.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 6:50 AM

"Prohibiting people from owning a particular weapon because it can be used to kill people is not a reasonable limitation. It would be like removing your vocal cords because they could be used to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. "

Where does the line start to buy hand grenades?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 6:48 AM

"Hayes proves how dangerous liberals can really be. He's not only ready to shred the Second Amendment but is will to do the same to the 1st Amendment if anybody disagrees with him and his cronies."

Because I think that terrorists that threaten to start murdering people should be put in jail? Holy cow, Msgj must think it's protected speech to walk up to someone in the street, and tell them you're going to kill them if they don't give you all their money.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-14-13 6:45 AM

"The 2nd is about unfettered access to arms."

OK enigma, I'd like to purchase a box of hand grenades, 3 M-4 carbines, and an M-60 to "defend my home". Where can I buy them legally in the US?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-14-13 6:05 AM

outside of the Secret Service, I don't know too many security personnel who are authorized to carry assault rifles.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaymanJim

Jan-14-13 12:53 AM

andy33 Jan-13-13 9:26 AM Agree | Disagree

CaymanJim Jan-13-13 8:30 AM Agree | Disagree

The last time I heard, only Congress, not the president, can pass a law. The president has the right to introduce a bill, sign it into law, or to veto one which has been passed by Congress.

*************************************!!!!!

Well then....please explain all the executive orders passed down by that Tyrant!

Apples and oranges. A bill which has the final approval of both houses of Congress and signed by the president, becomes the law of the land. The chief executive can implement an order, without Congressional approval, to initiate actions. That is his right, and duty. Obama a tyrant?? I don't think so. And, I don't even like the guy. Executive orders have been issued by just about every one of our presidents. F.D.Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Kennedy, Johnson Nixon to name just a few. Not tyrannical actions...just a device all presidents use to by-pass a constipated Congress.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Jan-13-13 10:56 PM

max4ever - 1:02 AM

"Very good letter, Paul. Also, did you know that Obama recently passed a new law giving all presidents secret service protection for the rest of their lives instead of the standard 10 years they had. I don't remember the exact year that the president would have been elected to be included in this new law, but I think it is early 1990's."

Attempted assassination on FORMER President Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

Clinton and Carter run all over the U.S. and the world.....yet no attempts on them.

Dumbama had four threats in 08 alone. He knows how badly he is hated and was not looking forward to paying for his own protection. He's used to taxpayers paying for everything.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 96 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