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

Guns change with the times

February 17, 2013

By MARJORY C. DIEHL Once upon a time in the 1770s a group of intelligent men decided to write a group of rules for a new country they would call The United States of America....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(91)

Regelski

Mar-20-13 8:40 AM

Mike:

Cite your source(s).

It must be embarrassing that that you have only your opinion to go on when the majority of others disagree. And you're left to shout the same ole platitudes ever more loudly.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-12-13 1:28 PM

"80% support preventing those with mental illness from buying guns" total agreement. Start profiling ones that show signs of mental instability in grade school, continue through high school and other organizations that deal with kids. Anyone with mental health issues gets put on a national data base to prevent them from buying guns. Drs. should have to add any patients that they have for mental health issues to that data base also. I believe that is a good start. PROFILE PROFILE PROFILE.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-12-13 1:05 PM

Tom, here's a fact for you. Every one of the mass shooters and maniacs were liberal and or democrat. Not one was associated with the conservative/republican/NRA political viewpoint. What does that tell you? It tells me we should just outlaw ALL guns for liberals and the problem is solved. Apparently conservatives are raised to respect life and guns. Oh, and not have to kill anyone if there happens to be a disagreement of opinions. Sorry that's the evidence...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-12-13 12:49 PM

American: I don't know who you think I am, but I don't have any students. Do you, or are they your brainwashed children? Here's some facts as reported by TIME (Feb. 18, p. 21 which didn't invent the polls): "On gun control, large majorities favor some commonsense controls: 85% of Americans support universal background checks; 80% support preventing those with mental illness from buying guns' 58% and 55%, respectively, would ban semiautomatic and assault style weapons." How does it feel to be un-American, an outsider? Make you want to rant and rave all the more against reasonable citizens who don't give their opinion in these forums but do in polls and voting. Why should we adcept that your "American" moniker represents the American way? It doesn't. I'm ready for the next round of insults. How about some facts, istead?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-11-13 3:15 PM

Okay, let's go over that "They aren't trying to ban all guns" statement again, shall we?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-11-13 3:14 PM

In another exchange, Schakowsky proposed allowances for states and municipalities to ban guns--though such laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court:

Mattera: We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.

Schakowsky: I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t. And there may be an allowance, once again, for communities--I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to view that as a sensible way to keep people safe--I don’t think it’s precluded.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Mar-11-13 3:12 PM

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the House of Representatives, suggested to Jason Mattera at a Feb. 13 women’s rights rally that plans for an assault weapons ban and private-sales background checks were only the beginning of a broader gun control agenda extending to handguns as well.

Schakowsky evidently did not recognize Mattera, a conservative video journalist and senior investigative reporter for Talk Radio Network, who infamously confronted Vice President Joe Biden in the Capitol. (Mattera introduced himself to Schakowsky by name but did not indicate that he was filming or that he is conservative.) She spoke to Mattera as if he were a fellow gun control enthusiast--and Mattera played along, eliciting answers about Schakowsky’s enthusiasm for gun control.

“We want everything on the table,” Schakowsky told Mattera. “This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it.”

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-11-13 12:35 AM

I would listen to facts anytime some posts them. And when you start then I will pay attention to them. Until then lol

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-11-13 12:34 AM

And this is the same 'Guy" whines about name calling by others. Your true colors are showing reg. I wondered how long before that would happen. Do you show that side to you students also? Bet you do if they don't agree with your drivel.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-05-13 11:33 AM

American: you're a joke. A social misfit. You find consolation in the echo chamber of your hatred for the American way. You ask me to read history? Gimme a break: that confiscation follows registration is a historical fact? Where, when? In this country. I can't even imagine how unhappy your life must be: you hate everything and everyone around you except those who agree with your sloganeering. You're not worth my time. No one is reading this string any longer who is open minded. So why waste my time: as I said earlier, try to reason with a fool and he calls you foolish! You have no facts, only emotions, that control your view. You don't even want to hear facts. They disturb your distorted world view.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-02-13 1:27 PM

I only hate those that want to change or remove our rights as American citizens. Banning any type of weapon will not curb illegal gun violence at all. Most of NYS police agencies are against this law so I would be led to believe that if anyone is for it then they are against the police who are against it. Read your history. In most cases registration has been followed at some point by confiscation. And that mine enemy is what Marxist liberals would like to see. If I believe you truly are an American then what rights are you willing to give up other then the 2nd Amendment rights?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-02-13 1:21 PM

Move back and work in America before you go on your liberal rants about those that believe different then you. Just like Obama you think anyone who doesn't believe the same as you is anti-American. I served so you could have the right to rant against what I believe in and rail against America as it should and could be. Take your socialist Marxist views and stay where you are at.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-02-13 12:55 PM

American: (I swallow hard when I write that in response to your rants). Reasonable support for gun regulation (not control or confiscation) is a right covered by the first Amendment. It is not, despite your anti-American hatred of our way of life, an attempt to overturn the American government--which, after all, is US, not some foreign entity as was the case in our early history. Your responses don't go beyond citing the usual slogans of your choir of anti-Americans. The first Amendment is supposed to protect free speech, but you take advantage of that without respecting opinions that disagree with yours, and so you resort to insults and the like. That's not how American democracy works. Your sloganeering amounts to demagoguery (look it up), except that it is aimed at the minority of people who hate their lives, their jobs, and yet benefit from the system they hate. Doesn't hating get tired? Wouldn't you like to silence me and others like me? How far will you go?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Mar-01-13 11:55 AM

Your right I am very antisocial to anyone who would advocate giving up part or all of our Bill of Rights and all amendments to the Constitution. Those that advocate that would have us back in serfdom or slavery. Is that what you would propose. What Constitutional rights would you be willing to give up along with the right to keep and bear arms? Which shall not be infringed on. Pray tell what you are willing other then the 2nd to live with out.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-01-13 11:40 AM

American: what a false representation in your moniker. You might be surprised to learn that "good Americans" work and live overseas, most in support of American business and the American way. Ordinarily, I live in Brocton (but don't mess with my tenants: they have guns). And you conclude that all Americans who live and work abroad don't support the Constitution? Gimme a break. You're desperate. Give me some reason to take you seriously. Your posts reveal an antisocial response to those who disagree with you, name calling, and other insults, and nothing that I would associate with "American." Where's the beef? of your position, other than you get emotional when contradicted and hate the American dream?

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Feb-28-13 6:03 PM

"I don't think " seems to fit you perfectly reggie.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Feb-28-13 6:02 PM

Read my comment to you about using my real name on the other site. I live and post from America, do you. Seems to me you are working and post from Finland and I can't find that as part of America anyplace. Maybe you can point out on a map of the U.S.A. just where that would be located. Oh you say you can't because it is a foreign country. Oh sorry to hear that you don't believe in all of our rights and freedoms as written in the Bill of Rights and all of the amendments to the Constitution. Without the 2nd we stand a chance of losing the rest. What one do you think liberals would be willing to give up part or all of. The 1st maybe.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-28-13 1:41 PM

American: (a title I don't think applies to you). The answer is that, like Mike David (bless his honesty), I use my real name, not an avatar's persona. I have given my email address in these forums, yet no one wants to discuss things if they can't impress their echo-chamber audience. Can't people have civil disagreements and discussions without the insults and other nonsense that hides behind pseudonyms? Why to YOU think you're the model of what it is to be an AMERICAN? How sad you must be in real life--I mean, sad about your life. Why do you need to exalt your ego with such a label? How silly! You identify as an American and mock American values? How about using your name? Gutless to do so? Or are you among those who imagine the storm troopers will descend upon you? That's another level of sadness, even pity and certainly paranoia. Getting personal? Use your name!~

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Feb-27-13 10:40 PM

Regelski how do we know your not "hiding behind a pseudonym". Just because you tell us you are not. And why would we believe you to be truthful on it?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-27-13 12:18 PM

Bad News: another hiding behind a pseudonym. Guns ARE a right bestowed by the Constitution, but with rights come responsibilities. Should those who own guns be responsible for their use, being stolen, left accessible to children and mentally disabled? I think so. And I hope that most gun owners accept this responsibility. As to enforcement, that puts the blame elsewhere. And, in any case, there are so many loopholes in the laws that much is unenforceable (not to mention the tactics of manufacturers who manage to design around laws). As to need, as implied by the second amendment: whether today we have the need to which it was addressed is sadly lacking. Government is the enemy? There is a preference of some for hunting and target shooting but this "need" on their part, as explained above, requires responsibility. Actually I think the majority of gun owners ARE responsible; the problem is for gun owners in general to 'police' their own kind to protect their own reputatio

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-27-13 12:02 PM

Mike: Who entrusted you to divine what the framers had in mind? It seems obvious that they had in mind the historical/political circumstances of the time. These are different. Great Britain is not attacking or taxing us. What laws have been passed without the following the laws "laid out by citizens) which I take to mean, national and state government laws. I oppose all kinds of laws issued on behalf of ideologies I don't believe in, but I object by voting! You're comfort with the Constitution overlooks a lot of things that were uncomfortable at the time, like slavery and national religion. Nonetheless, it is a remarkable document but not one that can be taken literally given our modern world. It requires thoughtful adaptation to current life. We don't need a "militia" to protect us? Arguing else-wise is to deny the very premises of the Constitution: of, for, by the people--Today!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-25-13 6:36 PM

tom, I concur with badnewsbears' answer. I don't like to hear of anyone being harmed or much worse, with any firearm. But one, albeit small, reason the framers did write the second was to keep the government of this country from becoming an "overlord", instead of what they had also written. "Of, for, and by the People". Infringe on that right, in any way, is a crack in the armor that some people see as the last thing between a representative government and a ruling class of politicians. When there are laws passed without even following the rules laid out by the citizens, that in itself should be a warning to all citizens. No matter what your point of view is on this issue. What will you say when "they" make a law you don't agree with in the dead of night? And tell you you will obey it without question? Does that sound like what the framers of the Constitution were afraid of while drafting the 2nd...or not?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

badnewsbear

Feb-25-13 10:46 AM

Reg, a couple of points. First off, flying a plane and driving a car are privileges. Owning a gun is a RIGHT, as laid out in the Bill of Rights. Secondly, there are plenty of laws already in place (>9000) that are supposed to limit gun ownership by those that should not have them (criminals/mentally defective). Laws aren't the issue, enforcement is. Political Correctness is. You can't call a crazy person crazy without being accused of something. Third, you mention need, which is one of the biggest fallacies of this anti-gun argument. The second amendment does not address need, it simply states that the right to keep and bear arms "shall NOT be infringed".

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-24-13 12:14 PM

(cont.) other anti-government, anti-social agendas. I have worked with hunters who were opposed to anti-sporting ethics. I subscribe to mothers against drunk driving. The question is: Why wouldn't a responsible person who owns a gun for whatever reason NOT be interested in controlling what happens in the name of gun ownership? Why the silence? Guns appear to be one of those button pushing issues that take us far afield into underlying issues that have little bearing on the original question: Most of the hyperbole against guns seems to me to be against Government. If that's the case, let's discuss that and be 'conservative' (if I can use that word in a positive sense) about who has access to guns. Personally, if protection is the aim, a shotgun is the best bet (if you're excited and can't aim accurately). And you can't wipe out a theater or classroom with two shells. (I'm aware that other options exist, but don't know why they are needed).

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-24-13 12:10 PM

(cont.) other anti-government, anti-social agendas. I have worked with hunters who were opposed to anti-sporting ethics. I subscribe to mothers against drunk driving. The question is: Why wouldn't a responsible person who owns a gun for whatever reason NOT be interested in controlling what happens in the name of gun ownership? Why the silence? Guns appear to be one of those button pushing issues that take us far afield into underlying issues that have little bearing on the original question: Most of the hyperbole against guns seems to me to be against Government. If that's the case, let's discuss that and be 'conservative' (if I can use that word in a positive sense) about who has access to guns. Personally, if protection is the aim, a shotgun is the best bet (if you're excited and can't aim accurately). And you can't wipe out a theater or classroom with two shells. (I'm aware that other options exist, but don't know why they are needed).

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 91 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