Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Common sense, not anti-gun

January 22, 2013

To the editor: In a recent Journal editorial you stated that the NRA has clout like that is something to be proud of....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(65)

svensota

Jan-25-13 12:20 AM

Somehow putting Surrealism and The Journal together seemed like a good idea. But...

Time to go ice fishing. Or, work on the scrapbooks.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-24-13 10:42 PM

Yes, but if two Integrities were typing in a forest and one had the clap would you really want to know?

Or, would you just look in the mirror?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Jan-24-13 7:56 PM

Zorro: I agree, that's the side I'm on-it's a small measure to help curb some of the violence. My Point: if & when the weapons are banned, large clips are banned, etc., most people(especially our legislatures) will move on and not discuss this any further until the (heaven forbid) next incident. Again, this is the grandstanding of politics (both sides) that drives me nuts. If we want to really minimize these incidents, it requires an on-going, in-depth, fight at all causes - even the one's that no one wants to tackle or discuss in here because it's not an easy fix. Sorry for not getting into an argument about gun-control....

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BackFromTheDead

Jan-24-13 5:07 PM

A nation that glorifies each and every soldier and puts them up on a pedestal labeling them as a indisputable "hero" should never be surprised when senseless, gun-based violence occurs within it's own borders. A nation embroiled in endless and unprovoked warfare deserves nothing less.

If change is what's desired, it's time to look in the mirror.

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-24-13 10:55 AM

But my question still remains, when Integrity asks a question and no one answers, is he alone in the forest clapping with one hand or typing with two?

I really want to know.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jan-24-13 10:51 AM

Integrity asks "But my question still remains, when the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban was in place, did it solve the gun violence issues??" No they did not, any more than the 10 commandments ended sin, or the laws against murder ending killing. But resonable laws do make a difference. Changes to the DWI laws have helped reduce alcohol related deaths by a substancial percentage. No law is 100% effective, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-24-13 8:44 AM

Integrity the Brady Bill never expired just the assault weapons ban, I was only pointing out that people should do research prior to posting. By this point my views are obviously well known as well as you have pointed out yours and we will have to agree to disagree. For one I never said in any of my posts I thought we needed an assault weapons ban but I do feel better and universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity (although I would go for 15 and not 10) are prudent and easy steps which could be taken which would in no way infringe on anyone right to keep and bear arms. Any argument against any limitation is in fact saying that anyone should be able to have a fully automatic weapon or worse. There has to be some common sense and common ground reached in this debate.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Jan-24-13 8:25 AM

But my question still remains, when the Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban was in place, did it solve the gun violence issues??

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Jan-24-13 8:20 AM

Japan: I agree with everything you say. My point in all this debate is: this isn't going to fully solve ANYTHING. People have taken this debate on fiercly because it's an easy piece of legislation. The other issues with gun violence aren't solvable by banning this/restricting that. Ban them, I don't care, just realize that this won't be the end-all to violence in this country. There's far greater issues at play that people don't want to address because it makes them lose sleep at night....

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jan-23-13 9:20 PM

The NRA opposes everything proposed as gun control, including background checks; which it says treats law-abiding citizens as criminals. The NRA wants armed "citizen patriots" to patrol schools. Well, prepare for a background check to work in a school. Daycare providers (even in TX), nurses, public employees - and 73% of employers require background checks for at least some jobs prior to employment. What is the big deal about background checks to own guns?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-23-13 12:24 PM

Integrity, just for clarification The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was an Act of the United States Congress that instituted federal background checks on firearm purchasers (which I am assuming no one has a problem with) in the United States and was separate from The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). Additionally from a historical perspective so readers do not think only Democrats or liberals favor some form of gun legislation I offer the following: In 1991, Ronald Reagan said at a ceremony at George Washington University: “I want to tell all of you here today something that I’m not sure you know. You do know that I’m a member of the NRA. My position on right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else. And I’m going to say it in clear unmistakable language. I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it.” In 2004, President George W. Bush said, “I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban."

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-23-13 11:32 AM

Whoa-ho! Zorromcgee, slow down a little. Don't go trying to make any sense out of any of this. These are gun nuts. Take tiny steps.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jan-23-13 10:40 AM

MT Says-"The more tyrranical our government becomes, the more firmly we will insist on the right to be adequately armed." Do you mean a government that tells you who you can and cannot marry and tells a woman what she can and cannot do with her body? Is that the tyranny of which you speak?

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Zorromcgee

Jan-23-13 9:25 AM

PR Says-"So many people involved in these discussions are NOT gun owners. Many have never shot a gun in their lives. Guns are just another one of those things that, if taken away, or at least severely restricted, wouldn't affect them whatsoever" He makes a strong case for men to stay out of the abortion debate.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Jan-23-13 9:15 AM

I think it's funny how everyone seems to have forgotten that this gun-control WAS ALREADY DONE! BRADY BILL. It obviously solved all the violence problems....oh wait. Check out the statistics ANYWHERE on the effectiveness of the Brady Bill to reduce violent crime. That's black & white - not opinion.

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

japanviking

Jan-23-13 9:04 AM

Michael T "The more tyrannical our government becomes, the more firmly we will insist on the right to be adequately armed." So you are telling me you want a high capacity magazine for your semi-automatic rifle so you can open fire on those "tyrannical" Federal Law Enforcement agents if and when in your delusional world they come to your home to take your guns away? Good luck with that.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-23-13 8:25 AM

More guns! More ammo! Oh, baby, baby. Oh...oh. Yes! Yes!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jan-23-13 7:59 AM

The more tyrranical our government becomes, the more firmly we will insist on the right to be adequately armed.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Jan-23-13 2:18 AM

I'm pretty sure the NRA or the Republican Party will have nothing to do with universal background checks. That would mean that they would have to compromise with our president, and we all know that will never happen.

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-23-13 12:59 AM

I can respect japanviking's comments and opinions here. He is a gun owner and has a clue what he's discussing. I may not agree with his position on a couple things, but the world would be a mighty strange place if we all agreed on everything.

So many people involved in these discussions are NOT gun owners. Many have never shot a gun in their lives. Guns are just another one of those things that, if taken away, or at least severely restricted, wouldn't affect them whatsoever.

If they would like to offer up some sacrifice of their own that they think would make this world safer, I'd like to hear it.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-23-13 12:45 AM

sven, Got anything legitimate to add to the discussion?

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Jan-23-13 12:21 AM

PR: You are the poster boy for the truly clueless.

Bang-bang! Ka-BLAMO! Ratta-tat-tat! Ka-BLOOEY!

Oh, yes! Oh, yes! More! More! Give it to me...

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 11:55 PM

Schnauser

I'm not shooting up schools. I'm not killing my neighbors in the streets.

Why would you insist on limiting what I can have? Why not try first do something to target those who are actually committing these crimes? Try to understand what motivates them? Try to do something in response to what that motivation is instead of putting limits on everyone? Especially considering that the people who would most be affected by new gun laws are NOT the criminals who commit the majority of these crimes.

I don't feel that I'm more important than anyone else. I also don't feel my opinions and my hobby is any less important than anyone else's.

People crash golf carts. They're dangerous. Why do they feel they're so important that they need that golf cart anyway? It makes that hobby easier and more enjoyable.

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PastResident

Jan-22-13 11:38 PM

"...and I was not sure what (which I mostly agree with) meant exactly."

I was referring to my wife giving me a beautiful Henry Golden Boy .22 for Christmas.

If the "no question" universal background checks go through, would I have had to go through another background check before or after I opened the package?

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Schnauser

Jan-22-13 11:32 PM

Nice comment "I don't want to spend my time at the gun range re-loading". Has it really all come down to that? Your time is too precious to change 10 bullet clips? Really? Wow, you are important. What a bunch of bullenscheisen.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 65 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