Gun solution

We should also censor the Internet and mainstream television media. Surely that was their intent since there appears to be no evidence they conceived of such abilities...

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Maybe we should limit Grant's writing ability to a single sheet of pink construction paper and a green crayon!

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

I guess Grant also wants to go back to when women couldn't vote and people were enslaved based upon their skin color.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Or, since at the time of the writing of the second amendment the citizens were in possession of the most technologically advance weapons of the time, we should allow them to have everything; war planes, missiles, RPG's, etc.

Or maybe we could just all be realistic and keep things just as they are now for legal gun owners.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Grant,

I don't think I could have shot that 10 pt buck at 190 yards this year with my muzzle-loader; however, the Win 270 with the 4x12 Swarovski scope worked very well.

Now cannon, that might be an interesting idea. Do you know anywhere that I can purchase and own one legally? Let me know what your research reveals.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

And there was no income tax back in the olden days either.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Kind of seems like you are all saying everything can be adapted to the reality of the day, except guns. Strict construction on that one.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rel·a·tiv·i·ty

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Wow Grant you may have just won the 2013 idiot award. Just took a double take and read the wording in the second amendment and no where in it does it say what caliber or style of gun we may own so if you don't like it move to North Korea while I exercise my rights here in the good ole USA remember guns don't kill people ,people kill people and I must add you are somewhat correct in your letter the part about not knowing anything

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Honestly, I think everyone who came on here and ripped into Grant, are the idiots.

While, no, I don't really agree with what Grant is saying I see the logic behind it. So to sit here and just make sarcastic, snide remarks is a major waste of time. And spike, you made a very valid point.

I get that with the 'old guns' you couldn't necessarily shoot certain types of animals from certain distances, etc.. but honestly, I guess it'd mean you'd have to adapt and improve your skills. Maybe the people back then were better hunters than you.

Again I'm not saying we should limit or ban anything, but Grant offers logical thinking at the same time.

1 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok, The 2nd Amendment says nothing about hunting and none of the supporting documents do either. It's about defending yourself and your rights. Try that with a musket when the guy breaking down your door has an M16 and body armor. The odds are already stacked against the average citizen, why should we make it even more lop-sided?

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Letter writer needs to get educated on guns before he writes another uninformed letter There are very few differences between a wooden rifle and an AR. The AR just looks scary and people think it is some military killing machine. Smarten up

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Enigma, I don't disagree with you. Furthermore, I do disagree with Grant. But what he wrote about, I do believe is logical. I also think that logic is sorely outdated. But I think it's logical enough to simply disagree and give your own opinions, rather than bash Grant, which is what some of the people here did, in my opinion.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Bans won't solve anything, the issue isn't as simple as 'guns' it's Mental Health involved with Guns. I wrote a letter, that hopefully gets published and, well I think it's going to spark some interesting debate which I'm looking forward to.

I have the utmost respect for gun owners and their want of protecting their rights. But I don't have a problem with listening to people with alternative views, even if they're not my own.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Thanks Tedeaux, Good one.

I'm Still ROTF****

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bottom line is If they make a law banning guns, Who do you think WILL have them...CRIMINALS. Wake up people!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

"Maybe we should limit Grant's writing ability to a single sheet of pink construction paper and a green crayon! "

But if you draw a gun with that crayon we will prosecute you.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok, I didn't anyone who 'ripped' into Grant. I do see where some of us refuted his argument that we should only have flintlock rifles.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Liberals are always the ones talking about the constitution being a "living document". So why can't the evolution of guns be accepted the same way you Liberals always want other parts of the constitution to "evolve" into your values of today.

Because it's "evil" guns you are ignorantly talking about, you suddenly change into a strict constitutionalist.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Have to admit the letter made me laugh.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Perhaps we just have different definitions of that mike.

Anyway, I do believe that the 2nd Amendment was created based upon the 'time in which it was created', so 'updating it to its current time' I don't necessarily think is unreasonable.

HOWEVER!! I do believe that any 'update' to the 2nd Amendment should not come in the form of a reduction of rights. What I mean is, if you want to constitutionalize things like Mental Health Mandates, etc, have at it, I don't have a problem with something of that nature being added as a 'restrictive device' to the 2nd Amendment because Mental Health is after, the real issue. Ultimately do I think changes to the 2nd Amendment would come with more pro's than cons? Do you think a Straw house would outlast a Tsunami?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok Feb-04-13 11:37 AM****"Anyway, I do believe that the 2nd Amendment was created based upon the 'time in which it was created', so 'updating it to its current time' I don't necessarily think is unreasonable."

Updating the 2nd Amendment is unnecessary. Its content applies exactly today as it did when created. Its Relative. The founders wrote of peoples right to protect themselves and that of overreaching tyranny, and this is what they spoke about within the content of the 2nd amendment(refer to the supreme court). Sure the weaponry owned by the people of the day were black powder rifles, they were the same as those issued to the soldiers when the branches of the military were formed.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Background checks. Armed security in schools. Mental Health reforms. MAYBE limiting the size of magazines (but in my book it needs to be more than ten).

Whichever side of the issue you're on, the assault weapons ban isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future, and its a waste of time for both sides to keep arguing about it.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JosephOtto-"Whichever side of the issue you're on, the assault weapons ban isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future.."

I wish we could all start with the FACT that 'assault weapons' are ALREADY BANNED in the US.

From there we can work on the other stuff.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it - how you want to define everything. At any rate when I say "assault weapons ban" I mean the legislation being proposed by Diane Feinstein. Stick a fork in it, its done.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JosephOtto-"Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it - how you want to define everything."

It's not how I want to define it, it's how it is. The weapon in question LOOKS like a military automatic weapon. It functions very different. In fact, the weapon in question functions just like a semiautomatic hunting rifle. Mostly because it IS the same weapon with a different looking stock on it. So what it boils down to is that a bunch of people who know nothing about firearms want to ban q weapon because of how it looks. That doesn't make sense.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »