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)

mikekerstetter

Jan-18-13 3:44 AM

I can't believe we have people who are OK with one man having the power to go around the US constitution to ban anything he wishes without approval of Congress. Dictatorships are never a good thing.

19 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idiottwo

Jan-18-13 5:46 AM

so be it? That kind of thinking is small. What will you say if his views (or another due to presidence) one day cross yours drastically, but are anothers? So be it, right?

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-18-13 5:47 AM

Howard, extending your logic........ if the president writes an executive order that says all your income and property is now owned by the government, well then so-be-it.

Is that really what you would advocate?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 6:02 AM

Believe me, an executive order is on its way. Mostly because there is 0 cooperation from the other sides. they're going to force his hand. I'm not saying I do and I'm not saying I don't agree with it. But when you (NRA/Republicans) refuse to meet at the table and use your head and look at the realistic side of things and work together to form solutions, you get taken out of the equation completely.

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? It's Pandora's Box. Once it's opened..it can never go shut.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

Jan-18-13 6:05 AM

If confiscating law abiding American citizens firearms due to the president ignoring the Constitution by using his dictator style executive order starts the second American Civil War, then so be it......How does that sound to the mostly unarmed gun control freaks out there? Because previous law makers felt their own Government could not be trusted with certain information, the tracking of individualgun purchases and gun ownership by the government was highly discouraged by law. Because of that attitude, thank the good Lord, it is hard to determine whether there are from 60 to 300 million legal firearms floating around out there in the citizenry's hands. I wouldn't want to be the cop that has to go around collecting them up!

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Jan-18-13 6:14 AM

"mostly unarmed gun control freaks out there?"

To be clear, I'm not one of them. I do not own a fire arm, but I also tend to stay out of the gun control conversations..well, until recently.

As far as not wanting to be the cop that goes around collecting the firearms. Let's be honest here. IF that were needed, it won't just be the police force. It'll be multiple branches of the Military full armed going door to door with a barrel in your face demanding the weapons back.

At that point. Ask yourself something, truthfully. "Do I feel free now"?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jan-18-13 6:15 AM

Hmm. I have to wonder if this letter is a false flag.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Jan-18-13 6:47 AM

And just how would the President go about collecting the guns? And do you think the drug gangs and garden variety criminals will just line up and hand them over?

What if I say no - I'm not handing over my Winchester 30-30 or my shotgun. What will the President do? Have me shot down dead in my own home? Sort of defeats the purpose of less gun violence, doesn't it.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 6:50 AM

The President doesn't have the authority to have guns "confiscated" through Executive Order.

6 Agrees | 0 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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

CHayes

Jan-18-13 11:13 AM

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

1 Agrees | 1 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 »

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