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

Stop the madness!

September 25, 2013

Yet another gun-related tragedy brings about the death of 13 Americans....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(56)

USABorn

Sep-26-13 3:24 PM

MrShaman - 8:42 AM

"I'm "sure" you have references to verify that."

According to a Washington Times editorial written days after the Nov. 5, 2009 attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”

Clinton’s actions birthed Army regulations “forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.”

In other words, thanks to Clinton, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home.

BING SEARCH 232,000 results

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-25-13 9:21 PM

They are not taking care of thing.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-25-13 8:45 PM

The militia is secret?

Why do you choose to have a secret militia instead of a public militia?

Why are there no public militia?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Sep-25-13 8:24 PM

Jerry, there is. We just haven't let you in on our little secret yet.

Now go back to sleep and we'll take care of everything that scares you.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-25-13 7:34 PM

The point of whether the militia should be regulated to the historical or modern definition of the word regulated is mute if there is no militia.

Why is there no local militia?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Sep-25-13 6:32 PM

The term "well-regulated" is also misunderstood.

It means regular.

Since citizens were expected to be able to be mobilized quickly, the idea of well-regulated is important.

You couldn't have one guy show up with a blunderbust, another with a Kentucky long rifle and another with a bow and arrow.

A well=regulated militia means having the same type of arms they would face and being trained in those arms.

In today's terms, an M4 select-fire rifle or equivalent.

That is the true historical context.

It had nothing to do with controlled, but more to do with consistency.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-25-13 6:09 PM

Jerry, the reason I brought up the Supreme Court ruling was because we often hear many in the anti-gun crowd insist that the second amendment is being improperly interpreted and that a well regulated militia does not give individuals the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court cleared that up for everyone, but that seems to fall on deaf ears for many.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-25-13 5:14 PM

Hey Cap, How are you?

Yes, I do understand that the 2nd amendment protects the individuals right to bear arms.

It also protects your right to a well regulated militia and I don't see that that right is really exercised in any useful way.

So I'm asking why?

(Thanks for taking my question seriously Cap.)

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Sep-25-13 5:04 PM

"What is stopping a well regulated militia from patrolling Williamsport's streets to end the city's out of control crime problem?" -- JerryfromRI

Because that would be illegal unless sanctioned by the Sheriff. It would then be a posse, without that sanction it would be a vigilante mob. The militia is not for law enforcement but for the defense of the Constitution and the rights of the people. A militia is a military organization and therefore to be used in war and the war on drugs is not a war in any real sense of the word.

I know that even though you stated that this was a serious question, that you were mocking, so I gave you a serious answer to mock your ignorance.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-25-13 5:02 PM

Jerry, it's obvious that you are zeroing in on the term "well regulated militia" that is included in the 2nd Amendment. However, on June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.

Does that clear things up for you?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-25-13 4:19 PM

What is stopping a well regulated militia from patrolling Williamsport's streets to end the city's out of control crime problem?

I'm asking this in a serious way. It's your right to form a militia, why aren't you doing something useful with it?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

pinecr

Sep-25-13 4:04 PM

Ok, I will speak up and run right out and buy another gun...it is our American right to bear arms...if you don't like it, move!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-25-13 2:22 PM

Google 'Clinton gun free' and you will find that Clinton declared in 1993 that only security people on base can be armed. -Vince

Vince, there has been a lot of misinformation reported following the Fort Hood and D.C. Navy Yard shootings regarding when military bases were made gun free zones. Google Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5210.56. This is actually the directive you are speaking of. It outlines DoD Policy to limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel on military establishments. It was signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. It was reviewed and reissued in April 2011 by by Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III, under President Obama.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Sep-25-13 2:14 PM

Thanks, Shaman, for proving my point.

The gov't cannot protect itself, and it will not protect you with background checks, enhanced searches or any other nonsense.

We have TSA agents with criminal backgrounds and who are on the no-fly listl

We have gov't employees of all types with access to your tax and medical information who have been convicted of identity fraud.

Then, liberals want to tell us we need enhanced background checks, waiting periods and other NONSENSE that is meaningless drivel and will not stop any other liberal mental case from conducting a mass shooting.

Since we clearly see all the failures with the Navy Yard shooting, does anyone think one person will be fired?

No, gov't employees just get shuffled around.

It reminds me of the Catholic Church moving pedophile priests from one parish to another.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-25-13 2:12 PM

See:

Exclusive: Hundreds of U.S. security clearances seen falsified -Shaman

Shaman, ok I guess we agree then. You confused me when you posted that statement from the OPM.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Sep-25-13 1:52 PM

"Alexis’s security clearance background check was performed by USIS, a Falls Church government contractor, on behalf of the federal Office of Personnel Management. Last week, OPM said in a statement that the check was performed properly, "in compliance with all investigative standards."

Shaman, you don't actually think that OPM would acknowledge that they dropped the ball, do you?" - Capricorn1

*

THE "ball"??

*

See:

Exclusive: Hundreds of U.S. security clearances seen falsified

*

"Reuters calculated the total by reviewing court documents and press releases from prosecutors for 21 cases resulting in convictions that involved the making of false statements from December 2004 to March 2012."

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Sep-25-13 1:39 PM

enigma, we should all work together on this problem, we may not agree with the way it is done but if it fixes it, all the better.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Sep-25-13 1:27 PM

MrShaman-"You're wrong....as usual...."I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.""

You missed some of the quote....

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don't need an AR-15 — it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-25-13 1:27 PM

"Alexis’s security clearance background check was performed by USIS, a Falls Church government contractor, on behalf of the federal Office of Personnel Management. Last week, OPM said in a statement that the check was performed properly, "in compliance with all investigative standards."

Shaman, you don't actually think that OPM would acknowledge that they dropped the ball, do you?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-25-13 12:40 PM

We get typical conservative tripe from Eric.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Sep-25-13 12:31 PM

I must say I was really surprised that personnel on a military base like this can't carry their sidearms. My workplace has a "no weapons" policy, but I work in an office for a private company. You would think the military would allow their staff to be armed so they could protect themselves against things like this.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Sep-25-13 12:22 PM

Typical liberal tripe:

The system failed to do its job..so, let's make the system bigger and more intrusive!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Sep-25-13 12:10 PM

I'm "sure" you have references to verify that.

Google 'Clinton gun free' and you will find that Clinton declared in 1993 that only security people on base can be armed. Even your own favorite tax-exempt blog 'Media Matters' has a story that attempts to disprove that claim. But it instead confirms it. Read it yourself. It's so incoherent that even you, Shammy, will understand it.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Sep-25-13 10:54 AM

Rick424, You are as wrong as you can be. These facilities were closed long before anyone cared about reducing budgets. They were closed entirely because certain people, whose political affiliation I will not mention, thought that crazy people should be allowed to roam free. Never mind that most of them cannot survive on their own, they need to be free. Now, I'm all for freedom, but only for people who can take the responsibility for that freedom. People with certain mental illnesses can't. That is why they kill large numbers of people just to kill them.

I am glad to see that you don't disagree with the main idea of my post, that the problem is not guns, but mental illness. Does this mean we can work together to find a solution for that?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Sep-25-13 10:54 AM

MrShaman Sep-25-13 6:15 AM***"You're wrong....as usual."

“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun,”

“You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. ***Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.***”

Are you Google Impaired? Literally all I had to type was "Biden" and it autofilled.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 56 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