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

Support Bill of Rights

May 10, 2013

There have been a couple letters printed here about why the latest gun ban bill failed in the senat....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(69)

VinceKnauff

May-10-13 3:27 AM

To the point in the first paragraph - Senators care more about getting reelected than they care about the bill of rights. Few senators or congressmen are as altruistic as Mr. Frey implied here.

A great slogan that should be hung around the necks of all those on the Left - "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away."

13 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-10-13 5:32 AM

"And in response to the letter concerning banning of ammo magazines, have you ever had intruders in your home at 3 a.m.?" - Jay Frey

Nope, never not once, and I am willing to bet 99.9% of the people in this country haven't either. You can justify and make the case for your rights without the "reductio ad absurdum".

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

May-10-13 7:08 AM

Going to be a nice day today, temperatures in the 70s, thunder showers possible. Sun is already out, beautiful.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keith2002lhu

May-10-13 7:54 AM

You end your letter by stating: "Support your Bill of Rights, and vote against any politician who violates them....any of them.", yet you only talk about the Second Ammendment. Why is that?

Also, you bring up no mention of the NRA's support for The Mulford Act. Why might that be?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

May-10-13 8:16 AM

"Going to be a nice day today, temperatures in the 70s, thunder showers possible. Sun is already out, beautiful."

I see the long range forecast is a drop in temperature to the mid 30s by Sunday at night, guess I will be covering garden beds and bringing in container plants.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

May-10-13 8:18 AM

Amazing how all those who 'support' the 2nd amend are constitutional experts...

Always blaming/claiming this other group dont. I bet just as many of this group died on the beaches, fields, air and jungles over the years as his 'group'.

The supreme court has the say as to what is constitutional, and they have said what that other wants is constitution.

Supporting the constitution means supporting that postion. You may not like what that 'group' want, but to continue to called it unconstitutional or not supporting the constitution is bogus and factual wrong.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

May-10-13 8:39 AM

I opposed the Assault Weapons Ban and it was already dead-on-arrival in any case. But what is it about background checks that violates the Second Amendment?

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

May-10-13 8:57 AM

Keith- The Mulford Act did not allow citizens to carry loaded firearms. Why would you carry an unloaded firearm? Besides, it's California, the gang and illegal alien capital of the U.S. Why wouldn't the NRA not support it?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

May-10-13 9:25 AM

All of this fighting/ arguing over gun laws/bans is so counterproductive and a huge waste of time & money. Criminals don't abide by laws or get thier guns/ ammo/ clips legally.They can't or won't enforce the laws they have now. Spend the money on enforcement of whats already in place and find a way to identify the mentally ill who might be capable of doing harm.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-10-13 11:11 AM

The "latest gun ban bill" that did not pass the Senate was expanded back ground checks.

PA's own conservative Republican Senator Pat Toomey co-sponsored the bill.

How anyone can be against background checks is beyond me.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

May-10-13 11:22 AM

Background checks are great for people who are buying guns legally. Most criminals buy them in the alley out of someone's trunk.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KMoney

May-10-13 12:26 PM

I get a background check and it could prevent me from owning a gun and coaching ayso, but I could still teach at Columbia..

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

May-10-13 12:43 PM

You know not all violent criminal acts are committed with illegal guns. The acts are illegal not what was used to do it. Those who commit the acts are criminal. They don't start as criminals.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

May-10-13 12:58 PM

So why is there no great outcry to do away with ALL background checks if they're so ineffective? Aren't they, right now, just as much of an assault on the Second Amendment as universal checks would be?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

May-10-13 1:02 PM

I tell you what Mr. Reeder, take a survey and let us know the figures. That's quite a stretch.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

May-10-13 1:08 PM

AmericanCitizen, i don't think anyone is saying do away with background checks , at least not most legal gun owners, no matter what party they are. I just don't understand how they could be used at Gun Shows, etc. when most shows only last 1 or 2 days. Doesn't it take longer than that for the check? ( I really don't know, not a gun owner)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

May-10-13 1:15 PM

The background check took about 10 minutes when I bought my .380 about 6 weeks ago. Even if it took longer, is it really some kind of oppressive inconvenience?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tgrammiex4

May-10-13 1:26 PM

AmericanCitizen, I didn't realize it was that quick. Are all gun shows set up to do it that quickly?( getting an education here)

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

May-10-13 2:14 PM

@Jerry, we already are subjected to a background check, what would the proposed bill have done, in your opinion?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AmericanCitizen

May-10-13 2:36 PM

Tgrammiex4 - I've never attended a gun show so I couldn't tell you. Isn't that part of the whole discussion, that checks aren't done at some of these shows?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keith2002lhu

May-10-13 2:48 PM

"Support your Bill of Rights, and vote against any politician who violates them....any of them." Why is this letter about ONLY ONE of them, the 2nd Admendment?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

keith2002lhu

May-10-13 2:49 PM

I meant, why does the author end the letter with this qoute, when the 1st, 3rd-10th Admendments were not mentioned? Is the second Admendment more important than the othera?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-10-13 3:13 PM

Why is this letter about ONLY ONE of them, the 2nd Admendment?

Hey Keith - it's because the second amendment is the one currently under the most assault (pun intended) by this administration. And it was letters on gun rights that this writer was addressing. Any other questions?

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-10-13 3:17 PM

In most states, there exists an instant background check system. It is similar to a credit check.

The seller calls a division of the PA State Police. They enter your SS and DL numbers. The system is connected to the FBI as well. The seller receives an authorization number that they write on the form.

The NRA and gun owners supported and helped fund this system.

The key is having gov't do it's job of keeping the databases updated.

The check includes those prohibited from owning a firearm due to mental problems.

The VA Tech shooter would have been stopped if the federal gov't had updated it's database regarding his mental problems.

There is no need for expanded background checks. The system is there and works.....as long as the gov't does it's job.

But, like so many things, the gov't fails and then politicians try to punish the law-abiding.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

May-10-13 3:49 PM

There is no need for expanded background checks. The system is there and works.....as long as the gov't does it's job.

But, like so many things, the gov't fails and then politicians try to punish the law-abiding.

Two possible reasons the government fails at doing what it is supposed to do.

1 - Bureaucracy always fails at being timely and accurate.

2 - They are doing it on purpose because if this system worked as intended it would take away the political issue.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 69 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