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

Gun rationale

February 17, 2013

At the age of 18, I enlisted in the Army. I completed basic training and attended the U.S. Army Military Police School....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(47)

sideliner

Feb-17-13 6:38 AM

Are you expecting 30 criminals to break into your home?

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 6:56 AM

"There are also many people in government saying that there is no reason for anyone to have a "military style weapon""

And that's true, other than people in law enforcement or the military.

"but last year the Department of Homeland Security submitted a request for proposal for 7000 personal defense weapons"

Considering that DHS is a blanket organization of, wait for it, law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies.

You know, it isn't liberals saying that SWAT teams should be armed with hammers, forks, and baseball bats. The letter writer seems to be implying that someone has proposed banning military style weapons from use by the military and law enforcement. That simply isn't true.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-17-13 7:03 AM

Another stupid comment. Sideliner wants only one shot fired per intruder. I mean the intruder has every right to harm my family and take my possesions so we have to make it fair.

15 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-17-13 7:15 AM

CHayes, What is it you don't get about 'personal defense'? The Supreme Court has stated that the people have a right to self defense and the DHS specified that these were to be 'personal defense weapons'. You might not no this, but law enforcement has no more right to defend themselves than you, so they have no more right to weapons than you. When the government reserves rights for itself that it denies to the people, then the people are no longer free. Wellcome to the police state Chris.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-17-13 7:15 AM

Better yet if they have a knife I'll toss my 9mm and grab my own knife. Of course I will have to pause and make sure it isn't longer or sharper that the intruders weapon.

After all the homeowner can not have the advantage.

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Feb-17-13 7:34 AM

"Another stupid comment."

Excuse me... ok, when is it that the writer expects a hoard of 15, or even 10 (not 30) thugs to come into his house giving him multiple rounds per said thug? When is the last time any of you heard of anything even remotely close to this happening in your neighborhoods? Really? Big gangs of roaming criminals just waiting to break into your house? Come up with a better rationale in the personal protection area for high volume clips. This one doesn't wash...

2 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

righttobarearms

Feb-17-13 7:53 AM

sideliner... since you brought up the number 30...when was the last time 30 "thugs" attacked one police officer? I should be able to defend my home and family any way I want...the sign says "NO TRESPASSING"...watch out for the trip wires!

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-17-13 8:01 AM

Sideliner, you need to stop while your behind.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-17-13 8:19 AM

Letter written by someone who never left the military behind.

He does not keep a secret very well either.

Apparently the criminal element in this country is trained ex-military and have formed and invasive force to enter our homes.

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-17-13 8:24 AM

Sideliner, Since when do I have to justify a need for anything I want to own? Do you need everthing you have? Should the government come in and take anything you have that I don't think you need? When you phrase the argument in terms of need, you put all of your rights in peril. I could make an argument that you don't need anything you own or any right you have. Couldn't you survive in one small room? Why do you need a separate bedroom? It's not about need, it's about rights. Will you give them up just because someone else thinks you don't need them?

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-17-13 8:31 AM

Chuck, All of your statements are baseless. If he did not keep the secret, then what was it? I must have missed that part. What do you base you statement that he never left the military behind or that he is a criminal? This is a man who spent several years defending your rights and you return the favor by slandering him, but I guess that's just the kind of person you are.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Feb-17-13 8:31 AM

You will read multiple liberals trying to tell someone else what they "need".

But that is the foundation of liberalism....that a select few are so superior to the rest that they can tell the masses what they "need".

Liberalism is founded on taking away everything you do not "need"....certain firearms, drinks, cigarettes, and, of course, income.

If you have too much income, it is "obscene", "grotesque" and "excessive". Liberals will tell you how much income you will be allowed to keep, just as they will tell you how many rounds of ammunition you may have.

Liberal arrogance on display.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Feb-17-13 8:57 AM

Reeder:"Apparently the criminal element in this country is trained ex-military and have formed and invasive force to enter our homes."

This is why they make Antipsychotic medications.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-17-13 9:09 AM

Enigma has come unhinged!

He went on a mission, heavily armed to NY but he can't talk about it because it is a secret. Not much of a secret now, I did not know there was such a mission.

So the organized criminals coming together to invade your home is our government.

Both my parents served in the military all of my uncles served in the military cousins and my brother served in the military. Not one of them spoke like this man did. They did not bring their military weapons home with them or felt a deep need to replace them. They left their military life behind. They intergrated back into the real world.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-17-13 9:10 AM

"This is why they make Antipsychotic medications."

It would help if the writer of the letter took his.

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 9:11 AM

" CHayes, What is it you don't get about 'personal defense'?"

Gee I don't know. What is it you don't get about sensibly balancing the rights of individuals with the need for public safety? "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Quick, which word comes first.

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 9:28 AM

" When you phrase the argument in terms of need, you put all of your rights in peril. I could make an argument that you don't need anything you own or any right you have"

First of all, this debate isn't about "need", its about public safety. But I have to say its funny to hear people that supported President Bush's warrantless wiretap program, claiming LIBERALS want to take things away.

President Bush took away everyone in the country's ability to simply have a private phone conversation, or email exchange with someone. That touches virtually every person in our country,and when President Bush took that, the same people here crying about "liberals" taking things away from them, applauded. They sent letters of support to the paper almost daily, and some even put signs in their yard declaring "thank you Mr. President."

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 9:34 AM

And at the end of the day, all anybody wants to "take away" is the ability of people to manufactuer, import, or sell a very narrow class of weapons except for military or law enforcement, and a ban on high capacity magazines. People actually get to keep the weapons they have now.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-17-13 9:39 AM

CHayes, If the government said to you, we want to take away your right to freedom of speech, but only some speech, and we will not arrest you for things you said before we passed the law, would you be OK with that? It's the same thing, and if allowed to get away with this, that won't be far behind. Once you establish that the government has the authority to limit rights solely on the basis of what they think is best for society, all rights will be in jeopardy.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-17-13 9:42 AM

CHayes, Weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are not a threat to public safety, so it is not a question of individual rights vs public safety.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 9:51 AM

" Weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are not a threat to public safety"

OK let's play a game. Since so many people here have demanded that it be demonstrated that a renewed assault weapons ban will 100% stop every violent crime in the US immediately from passage, I think you should tell me how to 100% stop these weapons from falling into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill while they are as easy to obtain as a bottle of diet Coke. See the problem there?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 9:57 AM

" CHayes, If the government said to you, we want to take away your right to freedom of speech, but only some speech"

They already do. If I were to call you up, and threaten to kill you, I would rightfully be thrown in prison. If I walked into a bank, and said "give me all your money, or I'll start shooting people with the AK that's in the trunk of my car" again, I'd rightfully be thrown in jail.

But unfortunately, apparently if I'm a right wing gun nut that makes a video saying that if gun controls go "one inch farther, I'm going to start killing people", gen post in on YouTube, all that will happen is I'll lose my weapons permit.

See how that works?

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 10:00 AM

I should add, that if I called you up and threatened to kill you, the police would probably also seize my shotgun, and handgun before sending me to jail, and that works for me.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sideliner

Feb-17-13 10:36 AM

"Should the government come in and take anything you have that I don't think you need?"

I think I need some ******, a liquor still, oh and wait... I need some plutonium and plastic explosives while I'm at it. Maybe a surface to air missile and a grenade launcher against those roving criminals getting ready to rob me. And wait, I have to be prepared for that Big Gov'ment coming in to take all my fire power.

Jeez...

That argument makes no sense.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-17-13 10:40 AM

How about some more limits on free speech:

-What if I call 911, and say theres a fire at my house knowing there isn't?

-What if I tell you I'm going to sell you a rare doodad for $5000, but I take your money without having it, or any intent to get it for you?

-What if I have a high level security clearance, and give classified information to reporter?

-What if I knowingly make false statements about your business with the intent of damaging it?

All rights have limits. That's how many states have a death penalty, and why a police officer can enter your home without a warrant if they feel someone is about to be harmed.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 47 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