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

Outlaws and guns

February 1, 2013

In response to Mr. Ebner’s comment in the Jan. 18 issue, the confiscation of firearms from the American public will never transpire....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(52)

wwhickok

Feb-01-13 6:15 AM

The reality of this letter is, while I get its point, that if guns were outlawed, there would be a lot of people killed..with guns...to support their right to have guns..

Can you scream hypocricy any louder?

I'm not advocating that guns should be banned because I don't believe that, it wouldn't fix anything and the 2nd Amendment should be supported.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-01-13 6:30 AM

"American firearms owners will stand firm and support the Second Amendment and Bill of Rights with our lives just as our forefathers did."

I have NEVER been someone that was in favor of an all out gun ban, but I have to say all these people alluding to the fact they want guns so they can use them to murder Americans, are starting to make me rethink my position.

And incidentally, our forefathers passed the Second Amendment, so the people with guns could PROTECT the country, not attack it.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-01-13 6:42 AM

Mister Stuckey, are you prepared to give up your life to defend any of the other Amendments to the Constitution?

Why can't Mormons legally take a second wife? Why do I need a permit to assemble? How come some people can't get on an airplane without due process?

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 9:12 AM

JerryfromRI,"Why can't Mormons legally take a second wife? Why do I need a permit to assemble? How come some people can't get on an airplane without due process?"

Which amendment is it that guarantees the right to have more than one wife?

Now with the other two you have a point. The government has been eroding all of our rights for years and under both parties. It's called Progressivism and it permiates our government at all levels. If we don't stop it we will find ourselves with no rights. I have been saying this for years and liberals make fun of me for it, but now Jerry is finally waking up. Anybody else want to join in? The right that's under attack right now is the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever argument they use to take that one will be used to take others later on. Once we stop this one we can work on reversing the ones that have already been infringed.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Feb-01-13 9:33 AM

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to tell anyone they can’t have more than one wife? The right to pursue happiness, I would say, gives them the right to have a polygamous marriage if all members are in agreement.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Feb-01-13 9:49 AM

I think it would be helpful to define "guns". The Supreme Court has used such terms as "unusual and dangerous" to describe weapons not protected by the 2nd Amendment. They gave "sawed-off shotguns" as an example. That is a start of a definition, but it (the definition) does need to be more fully developed to be useful.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 10:02 AM

David, We don't need to define guns because the second amendment doesn't use that word. It uses the word arms, which is a term that refers to all weapons of warfare, a fact that 'gun grabbers' would like us to forget. It's not about hunting, it is about defending the rights of the people from whoever might try to take them. With this in mind, shouldn't any law abiding citizen be permitted to have the most modern and powerful weapons available?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Feb-01-13 10:37 AM

Did anyone complain every time the 4th Amendment was redefined? This is not and never was about gun confiscation. I doubt if anyone who posts even owns a weapon that would fall under any legislation that MAY pass. Too many people are overreacting. All the crazy commentary about whoever versus "the government" borders on insanity. An internal "civil war" with an undefined, vague enemy would result in nothing but a disorganized country that is no longer a world force. Congrats to the terrorists and those who want the US to be less powerful. Pit us against each other, create internal turmoil and their work becomes very easy.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Feb-01-13 10:41 AM

OK, let's use the word "arms" then. My post still stands. And to answer your question, The Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to own the most powerful and modern weapons available. In fact, it specifically said weapons such as, but limited to, "sawed-off shotguns are to be prohibited.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Feb-01-13 10:42 AM

"All the crazy commentary about whoever versus "the government" borders on insanity. An internal "civil war" with an undefined, vague enemy would result in nothing but a disorganized country that is no longer a world force." Spike, I so agree with that!

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-01-13 11:24 AM

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

It's in the First Amendment people. Surely you've heard of it.

You think I just woke up? Every heard of the A.C.L.U.?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Fredzz

Feb-01-13 11:47 AM

David,

That's the Supreme Court's view, and not necessarily the intended meaning of the Constitution and /or Bill of rights...!

Replace a few Supreme Court Judges over the years and the meaning will likely change, while

The written words of the Constitution and Bill of Rights will remain the same.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 11:50 AM

Jerry, Are you saying that marriage is a religious expression? Then shouldn't the church have a say in whether gay marriage is legal? You can't have it both ways.

Yes, I've heard of the ACLU. I didn't realize that was you. Why don't you support all the amendments, like the second, and the tenth?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-01-13 11:58 AM

Good post spike. Like what you are saying David.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 12:00 PM

Spike2,"I doubt if anyone who posts even owns a weapon that would fall under any legislation that MAY pass."

I doubt that you are correct. Many people own or would like to own guns that would be banned under the proposed law. Even more people own handguns for self defense that use a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. Most full size handguns sold today and many compact handguns have magazines with greater than a ten round capacity. But all that is beside the point. Should I only stand up for the rights that I want to use myself, or should I stand up for the rights of everyone? I do not own any weapons that would be banned under this law, but I believe that people have the right to own them and that the second amendment codifies that right. The argument is not with the NRA, but with the U.S. Constitution.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-01-13 12:06 PM

Good ole enigma twist and shout!

Marriage is ceremonial for religion. Government legitimized it. To deny one denies all.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-01-13 12:07 PM

Then enigma the NRA is not the Second Amendment.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-01-13 12:26 PM

It seems enigma that all you care about is the Seconad and Tenth.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Feb-01-13 12:28 PM

Enigma - you may not. I do. My ability to defend myself is in no way hampered and neither is anyone else who knows how to use a gun. I still fail to understand the abject horror of limiting certain weapons under the 2nd.How long do you think it takes to change a clip? If your home is being invaded by multiple individuals with handguns, I hope you have a grenade because this Rambo mentality will only end with your death. Again, where was your horror while the 4th was continuously amended to abridge "rights".

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-01-13 1:23 PM

Spike, didn't you know that the right feel tough because you carry a firearm is the only right people care about nowadays?

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 2:48 PM

Francine,"they can have my AR-15 if it will help prevent the loss of little baby's lives in a classroom somewhere."

But it won't! Even the Vice-President has admitted that nothing they are doing will make a difference, when it comes to mass killings. What they are asking is that you give up your AR15 and get nothing in return. Once they get you to accept that the next step will be to take some other class of weapon because we still have people being killed. Eventually they will have banned them all. The idea that an "assault weapons" ban will make things better for anyone but an out of control government is a lie and those telling it know it.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-01-13 3:10 PM

Spike2, What the &@%#$ are you talking about. If you know so much about guns, why are you talking about changing a clip? I've had more weapons training than most people and I do know that the average person could easily be killed in the few seconds it takes them to change a magazine. Yes there are shooters who can change one in a fraction of a second, but they are professional shooters not the average homeowner. If you are so destressed by the errosion of the fourth amendment, then why are you OK with the same being done with the second? As I said before, I don't like what the courts have done with any of our rights and I am just as vocal when they are violated. You have just admitted that you are not.

While I may look like Rambo, I do not think like him. Your statement about the grenade shows you don't know much about them either.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bryan48

Feb-01-13 3:17 PM

Mr. Stuckey, Let's go back to those days as you suggest. If your wife is home alone and someone breaks in what would she do? Oh wait, women were not allowed to own guns....

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bryan48

Feb-01-13 3:25 PM

Bottom line. The NRA has not read the Constitution.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Feb-01-13 3:36 PM

@enigma

"Jerry, Are you saying that marriage is a religious expression? Then shouldn't the church have a say in whether gay marriage is legal? You can't have it both ways."

That doesn't even make any sense.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 52 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