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

Gun reality

February 14, 2013

This is a response to Grant Berry Jr.'s “Gun Solution.” Mr. Berry starts out by saying "He doesn't know much about the history of guns"....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

RogerMurdock

Feb-16-13 2:58 AM

chayes, considering the high cost of travel to hunt out of state, not only would I spend the money for plenty of extra ammo, but I would probably bring a spare rifle or two. They are cheap compared to the cost of travel and lodging. Same as when I fish out of state. Always lots of spare rods and lures. If you're out west shooting prairie dogs, plenty of ammo and follow-up shots are expected as they are quick little buggers. If you happen to be in Texas hunting feral pigs (wild boar) you likewise will want quick follow-up shots. It's not so much a marksmanship issue as a safety issue.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-15-13 12:28 PM

" Really? I guess the few dozen people who I know that travel to other states to hunt are figments of my imagination."

So you've never purchased a hunting lisence in PA? If you have, how do we know you aren't a criminal?

I have to ask Mike, considering the high cost of traveling to other states, wouldn't it be cheaper just to learn how to shoot straight, so you don't need several shots in quick succession to bring down your game?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-15-13 10:48 AM

Bobbie trying to be glib again and fails!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-15-13 8:22 AM

Not being immature Mr. Hickok. People say they are so disgusted with both parties they refuse to align with either yet will vote for one or the other. You call yourself anything you like you are no different or better than those who call themselves a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. So 'Whatever!' Mr. Hickok.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-15-13 7:26 AM

Me: "I guess if all conservatives think alike and all liberals think alike...

that makes me a liberative."

Reeder: "Whatever!"

Immature much? Or are you really just that simple minded that you didn't get it? It wasn't a joke. I consider myself one of those people who try to look at everyone's opinion and all the issues and find a common ground. I agree with liberals on some things, I agree with conseratives on some things. I don't really consider myself either, but more so a little bit of both. Hence the combination of the two words. It really shouldn't have been that difficult to understand but for now on, when communicating with you..I'll talk real s l o w and use small words.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Feb-15-13 3:38 AM

CHayes-"Don't know how to break it to you Mike, but it's illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic hunting rifle in PA, thus in our state, there is no such thing as a "semi-auto hunting rifle" in our state. Anyone that has such an item is a criminal."

Really? I guess the few dozen people who I know that travel to other states to hunt are figments of my imagination.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Feb-14-13 11:30 PM

"the only real difference between that AR-15 and a semi-auto hunting rifle is the looks"

Don't know how to break it to you Mike, but it's illegal to hunt with a semi-automatic hunting rifle in PA, thus in our state, there is no such thing as a "semi-auto hunting rifle" in our state. Anyone that has such an item is a criminal.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Bufftrev1

Feb-14-13 7:14 PM

Excellent comments, DavidBross, as usual.. delivered, also as usual, without resorting to rancor or pettiness far to common by others..

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Feb-14-13 6:44 PM

bryan48-"No. The statement is clear. You can have common sense in creating provisions for gun ownership, and those who qualify can own them."

Do you mean like 'background checks'? What a novel idea. I agree, we should have them.

Now that we agree on that, what are you going to do about people like Lonza who didn't own any weapons but got them anyway?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bryan48

Feb-14-13 5:27 PM

No. The statement is clear. You can have common sense in creating provisions for gun ownership, and those who qualify can own them.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

idiottwo

Feb-14-13 4:51 PM

Chicago has some of the strictest of gun laws and yet more of our people seem to be killed there than in theaters of war. The young girl that was killed near Obama's home too. Its not legal gun owners doing these things. Criminals.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Feb-14-13 3:41 PM

Chuck: "Enigma is losing it!"

Recognize the signs huh Chuck?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Feb-14-13 1:22 PM

"To those of you who think it is insanity to think that armed private citizens could stand up to a modern army, I present, Egypt, Libya and Syria." I think Syria would be the best example. Egypt didn't have any weaponry used in its overturning of Mubarak. Libya's actual army was more of a paper tiger compared to Syria. Syria, however, has a modern army with advanced weaponry and effective command and control systems. So Syria is a good example of armed citizens fighting a modern army. What I have doubts about is how that could be applied here. There shear size of our country and the significant political and cultural differences between the various regions makes it seem likely to me that we would disintegrate into region against region.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Feb-14-13 12:21 PM

bryan48-"Being anti AR is not being anti-gun. It is pro-common sense."

If common sense were present everyone would know the only real difference between that AR-15 and a semi-auto hunting rifle is the looks. And common sense tells us that banning how a weapon looks does nothing to accomplish the reason we want to ban the weapon in the first place.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-14-13 12:10 PM

Enigma is losing it!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-14-13 12:09 PM

"I guess if all conservatives think alike and all liberals think alike...

that makes me a liberative."

Whatever!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Feb-14-13 12:06 PM

"Come on Chuck, all conservatives think alike? If this is true, the same can be said for you liberals who are so tolerant of an opposite viewpoint. As Gavin would say, Drink!!"

First off SF conservatives state they know what the Founding Fathers would think about today and how they would act. Second members of the right are always saying that liberals think exactly alike. So it is the right who is drinking and a lot!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-14-13 10:22 AM

I'd venture to say that 75% of the people that voted for Barack Obama voted for him for one of three reasons. 1. He is Black 2. He is Democrat 3. He is going to make sure you get your welfare.

The 4th option if you want one is probably because he isn't Romney/Republican. That's about as deep as the thought process got for the majority of Democratic voters this time around imo..about as deep as it got the first time around. If you voted for the people trying to force through the gun bans, don't blame them. Blame yourself!

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-14-13 10:19 AM

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Citizens put themselves in this position, election after election they choose to vote for the guy they are 'affiliated with' instead of looking at the bigger pictures. They buy into everything and anything politicians say. The first rule of politics is that 90% of the crap that comes out of their mouth is what they want you to hear or know. The other 10% is everything that you can't do anything about anyway. Politicians are liars. Not some of them. ALL of them. It's about control and money and furthermore, control of money. If you've ever thought you were weren't being lied to, you're naive. As far as the gun rights goes, OF COURSE they want to disarm the people. Listen...a few weeks back I made a 'Panem' comment and I'm simply speaking figuratively but it's not far from the truth. Governments want to control the situation and if they lose control then you get Syria.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Feb-14-13 10:12 AM

To those of you who think it is insanity to think that armed private citizens could stand up to a modern army, I present, Egypt, Libya and Syria. None of these would have been possible had the citizens not had arms. That is the reason that our government wants to disarm us, and make no mistake, this is about banning all guns in the long run. Senator Feinstein has said so in the past. There is an interesting book titled,"How Do You Kill 11 Million People?" The short answer is, "You lie to them." You're being lied to.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-14-13 10:06 AM

I guess if all conservatives think alike and all liberals think alike...

that makes me a liberative.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Feb-14-13 9:58 AM

Come on Chuck, all conservatives think alike? If this is true, the same can be said for you liberals who are so tolerant of an opposite viewpoint. As Gavin would say, Drink!!

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wwhickok

Feb-14-13 9:51 AM

"The bottom line is that the govt is taking away our freedom. Why punish the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners."

While I agree with the basis of your statement, I disagree with the statistic you provided to support it. I do not believe that 99.9% of gun owners abide the law. I will gladly support a statistic that suggests perhaps that it is above 90% and likely above 95% but I do believe there is AT LEAST a full 1% of gun owners who have to some extent broken the law. So while your intent is to suggest it punishes abiding citizens, it also would (in theory) punish those who don't.

I don't actually think it DOES accomplish what the government thinks it will however. But the statistic I believe in inaccurate.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidBross

Feb-14-13 9:36 AM

".... our firearms could protect the population from enemies both foreign and domestic." Again, the use of pronouns here is interesting,"our firearms". The author seems very confident that there would be a unified, coordinated use of arms by civilians. I don't share his confidence. Also, by the time a foreign enemy actually landed on our soil, there would not be much left that is recognizable of the US.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mazmdm

Feb-14-13 9:32 AM

The bottom line is that the govt is taking away our freedom. Why punish the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 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