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

So be it

January 18, 2013

If the N.R.A, will not use common sense in dealing with gun control and the president signs an executive order that leads to confiscation of their guns’ then "so-be-it"....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(34)

CHayes

Jan-20-13 7:08 AM

"I believe the second amendment does not confer the right to bear arms, rather, it affirms a natural right that we have a humans to protect ourselves from not only a criminal element, but from a government run amok."

That is simply false. The Second Amendment was written at a time the US had no standing army. It was written to protect the militias that were the de facto army of the US at the time.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

IOW, the amendment was added to protect the same freely and fairly elected govt, that right wingers so desperately want to violently overthrow with their guns.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-19-13 12:16 AM

"BUT if someone exercises their consitutional right to bear arms they should he heavily taxed yearly."

Pay your bills and don't be a deadbeat. When I smoked, I didn't whine about high cigarette taxes, because people who smoke eventually cost tons of tax dollars when they're on Medicare, and are sick from smoking.

But, if you are so paranoid, or terroristic that you need to have an arsenal of military style assault weapons, and the police then have to buy more weapons, and spend more money on training, and more expensive vests, then you get a free ride? Really why?

Pay YOUR bills.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-18-13 6:36 PM

Howie, nobody is going to confiscate guns. I believe the second amendment does not confer the right to bear arms, rather, it affirms a natural right that we have a humans to protect ourselves from not only a criminal element, but from a government run amok. By affirming this right it prevents the government from removing it.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cheyenne

Jan-18-13 6:29 PM

If Howard will not use any sense when typing an E-mail to the newspaper then, so-be-it, his computer should be confiscated.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Jan-18-13 4:57 PM

apparently I like to type the word 'less'

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Jan-18-13 4:56 PM

Obtaining an ID is a burden on someone trying to exercise their right to vote and if it is not a free ID the it is a "poll tax", therefore illegal; BUT if someone exercises their consitutional right to bear arms they should he heavily taxed yearly. Huh? Perhaps there should be a backround check and mental health eval before being allowed to exercise one's first amendment rights. We should at least limit the number of times one comments daily. You can certainly make your point in less than 10 comments or less, nobody has a right to more than that.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 12:46 PM

Oh and for all you conspiracy theorists out there..NO I DID NOT JUST SAY I WAS GOING TO ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT. First of all, I don't own a gun, second of all and really this is the more important one, I don't have that kind of mind or heart.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 12:44 PM

Allow me to pose another theory and sort of a question..but before I do..everyone take your fingers away from the keyboard and prepare to put a little thought into your response before typing it out.

If this Executive Order 'information' was true, which I don't believe it is.. Do you believe that it would increase the chances of a Presidential Assassination?

What I'm asking is, hypothetically speaking..if the world caught wind of the fact that the President indeed intended to sign an Executive Order that would call for the banning of any amount of firearms, and/or the confiscation of any amount of fire arms..

DO you think that he would live long enough to sign it? Honestly..think about that.

I don't.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 11:49 AM

Let me ask you this Enigma...if someone breaks into my house.. do you think I give a crap what their laws are? I don't own a gun, but I own a few other items I can beat someone to death with. My advice? Don't break into my house, because I'm not a lawmaker and I don't give a crap what a criminals rights are. They shouldn't have any when they break the law. Now, I'm all for a criminal doing their time, paying for their actions, and CHANGING, that's different. But when it comes to killing people...the moment you kill a person, you just gave up your rights.

Again..another excuse. These conversations remind me why our country is the way it is.. because no one is willing to change for the better. It's all about "we gotta stay the same, even though most of these amendments were created before our great grandfathers great grandfather was born".

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-18-13 11:21 AM

wwhickok," Use all forces necessary, military, police whatever it takes."

It is illegal to use the military to enforce civilian law. The Posse Comitatus Act has been law for over 130 years and no Congress since then has passed an act authorizing use of Federal forces to enforce these laws. Also, a person does not forfeit all rights just because they are dirtbags. You can't just raid homes and businesses of people that can't own guns to see if they have them. How many Constitutional Amendments are you willing to burn to achieve your goals? Biden admitted during the meetings on gun control that they are not even trying to enforce the laws we have now, but people like you just blindly demand more. These laws only affect people who weren't going to kill people anyway. Criminals will still have whatever guns they want.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 11:13 AM

What say you Mike, Via gra or "Guns and Ammo"

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 11:11 AM

" that way nobody would have to read or hear your STUPID comment"

You mean my "stupid" comment that the President doesn't have the legal authority to sign an Executive Order calling for a mass confiscation of weapons? Did that comment interfere in some way with your weirdo paranoid fantasies?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

michaelpaternostro

Jan-18-13 10:18 AM

Because of your lack of regard for the second amendment and probably the constitution in genearl i think the government should do away with the right to free speech, that way nobody would have to read or hear your STUPID comment!You would be some other nationality right now if not for guns so before you start trashing peoples rights you should think about what you say.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinecr

Jan-18-13 10:02 AM

No need for any further gun control, just enforce the laws we already have. And why isn't anyone pointing the finger at the President for giving guns to Mexico so they could be used to kill our border patrol people? He is ruining this country and I cannot believe there were enough people that actually voted him back into office, but then again, there are enough welfare people and hispanics that he caters to, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 9:49 AM

" I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I'm not commenting on anything I heard on the news, in a chain email, etc. I'm commenting on the letter."

And where do you suppose the letter writer came up with the nutty allegation that the President would sign an Executive Order that says all guns be confiscated? That certainly didn't come from any legitimate news outlet.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-18-13 9:34 AM

Replace N.R.A. with A.C.L.U. and Gun Control with Free Speech Restrictions and see if you still agree.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 9:08 AM

Well in all seriousness Hayes, I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I'm not commenting on anything I heard on the news, in a chain email, etc. I'm commenting on the letter.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 8:48 AM

" If confiscating law abiding American citizens firearms"

There has not been a SINGLE propasal to confiscate ANY firearms. It would be just as accurate to talk about proposals that law enforcement go into people's homes and shoot them dead with their own weapons.

Why do people on the right seem to have such a difficult time comprehending reality? Could it be their reliance on chain email as a source of information, or could it be their seeming susceptibility to wacko conspiracy theories?

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 8:42 AM

I should add that any tax requirement for restricted weapons, should be waived for members of the military, National Guard, and law enforcement. Smokers have to pay a tax becaus of additional pressure their habit puts on our medical system. I'm not really seeing the difference.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jan-18-13 8:28 AM

How about you just all read "Heller". This is the controlling opinion. No, weapons can not be banned. Yes the President has the authority to limit certain types. Just read the Opinion before you comment. Scalia wrote it. That should satisfy even the most conservative.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 8:03 AM

No matter how you slice it, any legislation that occurs is going to attack the people who did nothing wrong.

If you want to address the problem, make an executive order to raid every known drug dealer, previous drug dealer, previous firearm convicted fellon, cartel, etc. Use all forces necessary, military, police whatever it takes. And at the end of the day, if some of these criminals wind up in body bags because of raids to attempt to confiscate THOSE weapons...I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 8:00 AM

I suppose I should state my opinion on this matter, as I'm sure some of the 'disagrees' to my previous comments are because I haven't stated where exactly I stand on the issue.

Do I agree with an executive order on control? No. One person should not be able to take control of a country especially when it is 'supposed' to be run by the people via respresentation.

Do I believe guns would be confiscated as an aftermath of an executive order? No, honestly I do not, I believe it would be just to keep further guns from hitting the streets (not that it'd be successful necessarily).

Do I think if it was ordered to have all guns confiscated, criminals and gangs would line up to surrender their weapons? Seriously? We all know the answer to that.

Do I think if a citizen refused to allow their weapon to be confiscated, they would be at risk of being shot dead? As much as I hate to say this...this is what we call martial law..I do think this could happen.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Jan-18-13 7:27 AM

Mr. Hayes, your post of 6:58 must have been the result of constipation.

May I suggest next time before posting you take a double dose of laxitive so as to fully flush out that headgear.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 7:02 AM

"On the flip side of this, what stops the President from issuing executive orders on other issues that he can't get anyone to compromise on"

The court system and legal precedent. Again, the President doesn't have the authority to sign an Executive Order to ban these weapons, but he does have authority certainly to beef up background checks through the agencies he has authority over.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 6:58 AM

There's no need for Congress to pass a law to have weapons confiscated. They really should put a tax on certain weapons, that owners have to pay every year. The fact that certain weapons are in the streets puts our police at risk, and requires police forces across the country to spend additional funds on equipment and training. The people purchasing these weapons should be willing to pony up to pay that money. Once the sale of these weapons is prohibited, they should be stuck with these tax payments for life, unless they want to turn the weapon in. Seems fair to me.

1 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 34 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