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

Shameful political ploy

April 11, 2013

President Obama should be ashamed of himself for using the families of the children killed by a mentally ill individual obsessed with causing death in order to further his hidden agenda of......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(51)

rmiller

Apr-13-13 9:50 AM

"@USABorn

If you want to only hear your own opinion everyday you need only talk to yourself in the mirror."

That's a wonderful application that should be replicated by the leftist progressive voice of narcisstic thinking!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-12-13 8:28 AM

Hi jerry.. great comment!

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-12-13 6:30 AM

@USABorn

If you want to only hear your own opinion everyday you need only talk to yourself in the mirror.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-12-13 6:27 AM

@valves

I stand corrected, Senator Pat Toomey is a Washington insider.

Thanks for the correction.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WKnapp

Apr-12-13 6:13 AM

rick424

Apr-11-13 8:09 AM

I know Gavin, scares the heck out of me, but this is the 2nd thing he has done that sorta, kinda, made sense.

A senseless act of shameful political pandering makes sense? I guess, but only in the shameful world of political pandering that is leftism. The parents of Newtown should be ashamed of themselves for allowing their dead childrens' memories be used in the process of this political pandemic and the placebo of the foolish feelgood proposed legislation. How will background checks stop criminals from stealing guns? Background checks merely give the feds a database of who has guns, making it easier to confiscate them when politically expedient.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Apr-12-13 4:57 AM

My comment from the previous lte stands. Start at the beginning and really read the comments from the liberals on this lte. Nothing but drivel from start to finish. And they actually think they are intelligent?????? They contribute NOTHING of value to any conversation.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Apr-11-13 11:34 PM

"President Obama should be ashamed of himself"

That's the first problem we have - no shame.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

valves

Apr-11-13 10:14 PM

It's amazing! Toomey does something incredibly STUPID, and the idiot left claims to be developing respect for him! Also, he spent six years as a Representative from the Fifteenth Congressional District plus several years as president of the Club for Growth (a fiscally conservative lobbying group), and the dummies think his less than a term in the Senate is all the time he's spent in Washington!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-11-13 7:34 PM

Been in Washington too long?

He hasn't even served one full term as Senator.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Apr-11-13 7:28 PM

Buff, I believe that the Constitution is written in black and white and as soon as you look at it any other way, it is meaningless.

Jerry, I believe that Toomey is being used to take away our rights. I am very disappointed that he cannot see that. Maybe he's been in Washington too long and has adopted the idea that government has all the answers, and that compromise is always good.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-11-13 7:01 PM

@enigma

So you are saying that Senator Pat Toomey is trying to take away your rights?

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Apr-11-13 6:47 PM

Pry a crowbar in your wallet, enigma, and buy a color TV..

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Apr-11-13 6:30 PM

Jerry, Does that mean that you are now supportive of voter ID laws? The problem with background checks is not the background check itself, it is that they enable the government to track gun ownership, which amounts to registration which has always been a problem. This is what they are now trying to do. Current law prohibits this and a new law needs to be passed to legally track sales. This is the goal. If it were not then there would be no point because the 'new' background check law does not add any new background check requirements. All gun show and internet sales already require a background check. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. If you don't believe it, just go online and try to buy a gun. The story you are reading in the news is not the whole truth. Do you really think that they will come out and say they are trying to take away your rights. No, they will say anything but that, but taking away rights is the goal.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-11-13 6:29 PM

Seems a reasonable comparison, David, so long has the states make the laws for their own states. Consider that many gun-control laws at the state and city level are already stronger than a similar federal law. For example, New York's recently enacted gun laws require mental health checks for some. If a bill coming out of Washington was less specific, which law would be enforced?

Anyhow, if we have "universal" background checks for the right to bear arms, makes sense to have universal voter ID to vote.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-11-13 6:28 PM

Epic fail Enigma, EPIC.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Apr-11-13 6:20 PM

David, Your feigned intellectualism is nauseating. When addressing a problem it is only sensible to look at the cause of the problem, and not what you would like to change as a matter of blind ideology. Guns do not cause violence, so limiting guns will not end violence. If legal guns were the only way to kill people, then gun laws might help, but there are nearly unlimited ways to kill people. You don't like guns. We get that. I don't like stupid liberal ideas, but I'm not trying to ban them, and yes they do kill people, thousands of them. Stop trying to sound cerebral and start actually thinking.

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-11-13 5:27 PM

Is there a fundamental difference between asking someone to provide proof of eligibility to vote before doing so and asking someone about to buy a firearm to demonstrate that they have not forfeited that right under due process of law?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Apr-11-13 5:22 PM

Rick,"I am beginning to have a wee bit of respect for Toomey."

Um, no.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Apr-11-13 5:02 PM

Erik, my point is that how we describe an event, either by what we include or exclude in our description says something about how we see the event. For someone who feels the availability of guns should be limited, they would have highlighted the weapon used, not the mental health issue. The author supports the right to own guns and wants to see other aspects of the event focused on. Both views have merit to those who support them. But, each on its own is an incomplete view of the event.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Apr-11-13 4:10 PM

David:

The firearm did not cause the crime.

The murderer could have driven a car into a schoolyard full of children and caused the same number of deaths.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Apr-11-13 4:00 PM

Josh84, we certainly do know the issues at hand. But, the author did choose which of the issues to highlight and which to not mention. That is telling. One could easily have assumed that anyone who did all that killing was a mentally ill individual. Any yet the author chose to mention it. How we choose to describe an event can be very revealing about what we think that event means.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Apr-11-13 12:34 PM

Regardless of whether one is for or against this legislation, it would be nice if citizens were given time to review it and voice their opinions. What part of "Representative Republic" don't they get?

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Apr-11-13 10:59 AM

"Political shame belongs to the Second Amendment advocates. Their guns are more valuable than life." - CMReeder

My guns aren't, but my rights are and many a good men have given their life to protect them.

13 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Apr-11-13 10:01 AM

Rick,"I am beginning to have a wee bit of respect for Toomey."

What other outright disregard for the Constitution do you have respect for? Did you know that this new law accomplishes nothing, or does it? Internet and gun show sales are already required to have background checks, so what else is contained in this law that they are not telling us? Could it be a gun registry? Those have always led to confiscation. I'm sure Toomey means well, but if he believes that he can trust the Obama administration, he has lost his mind.

14 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WaitingForReason

Apr-11-13 9:44 AM

This feel good legislation is just another placebo for the riled up masses. Of the 15,000 felons and/or fugitives that failed background checks to get weapons, only 44 were prosecuted. Why bother? You think they didn't get the guns elsewhere? And these are the criminals stupid enough to fill out the forms, the smarter ones won't be so easy to catch.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 51 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