Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | School Lunch Menus | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The right to bear pressure cookers

April 23, 2013

To the editor: I dread thinking of when Obama will stand with family members of victims of the Boston Marathon disaster and, with a tear in his eye and a lump in his throat, demand Congress enact......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(78)

middleclassworker

Apr-23-13 1:07 AM

Are you nuts?

9 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yunosmart

Apr-23-13 2:04 AM

I think I lost some IQ points after I read this.

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-23-13 8:16 AM

OK, let's go there.

Pressure cooker sales skyrocket as the NPCA spokesman warns of the confiscation of your pressure cookers, as well as your frying pans and George Foreman grills. Send money to the NPCA! Registering your pressure cooker is an attempt to prevent you from feeding your family! Obama is coming for everything in your kitchen, so get out there and stock up on pots and pans! Obama wants your children to starve! Send money to the NPCA to protect your liberty. It does boggle the mind.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Apr-23-13 8:35 AM

Looking at it from one perspective, this is what the gun control debate comes down to. You can call it silly or an exaggeration, but generally speaking, in gun control - the different sides are talking about controlling the devices, not the people. That's what this person is writing about. Let's stop worrying so much about controlling a device of devastation and start to address the people behind the devastation.

13 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Apr-23-13 8:38 AM

And the reason the background check expansion didn't pass is because even though people are for it, the polls indicate that these same people believe it really won't make a difference in the level of violence. So, that's why it didn't pass even though it's a popular side with the people. And frankly, it won't make a difference in the level of violence.

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Apr-23-13 9:38 AM

Don't worry Rosemary, no one is coming to get your guns, with the help of record donations, the NRA has beat back any laws that would make it harder for you to load up on ammo or guns, laws that even The Journal agreed with. Members of the gun lobby, including you, now openly mock the parents of the school shooting victims, calling them pawns in a political war. If that is the case then you are no better, you are just on the other side. Would you change your mind if you were one of the parent or grandparents who had to bury your childs bullet riddled body? Feel free to collect all the guns you want and hide in your house, defending yourself from the Winthrop gangs, hunting to put food on your table for the winter. You have won again.

8 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

auslander

Apr-23-13 10:08 AM

Lady, your mind has been boggled for a long time

9 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Apr-23-13 10:10 AM

Its too bad, we have people who label people winners or losers. I always was under the impression, the more we talked, the more we discussed, the more we agreed, the less we demonized, the less we were derogatory to each other, the more we had win-win solutions. One must remember, photo-ops will always trump and annihilate good reasoning and agreeable solutions.

10 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-23-13 11:57 AM

And...I didn't think it was possible for someone to be more sarcastic than I am.

I'm a whipped pup.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-23-13 2:32 PM

How would have the failed background check legislation proposed in the Senate have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings ?

The answer to that question is the same as this letter writer's proposed registration of pressure cookers - Not one thing.

Our government really needs to focus on the killers and why they choose to kill and not on what they choose to use to commit their mass murders.

This letter hit that point home. Too bad so many people here didn't pick up on that.

Besides, doesn't the Second Amendment also include the right to bear cookware ?

13 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deanna1

Apr-23-13 9:48 PM

how can anyone think the newtown deaths or the marathon bombers something to be made fun of these people lost family get a life

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

survivor

Apr-23-13 10:15 PM

Dear Rosemary,

I'm not known to hang out in religious circles, and I don't have a habit of praying in any religion. But tonight I will pray for you. You are closer to the Boston bombers than you know. I will light candles and pray for you!

5 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Apr-23-13 11:55 PM

If it saves just one life...

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Apr-24-13 8:31 AM

Reason brings up a good point -if it just saves one life. Guns have saved a lot of innocent peoples lives. The thought that they only kill the innocent is a myth.How many people have been saved by having a gun in their home or somebody with a conceal and carry permit? The media doesn't sensationalize those stories. All the fighting we did in Iraq and Afghanistan we lost 4-5,000 troops (not 1000% sure on number )- look at Syria where we have done nothing , there is 80-90,000 people dead and climbing. Evil only succeeds when good people do nothing and turn their heads , I would have preferred to stay out of Iraq and do something in Syria where there is more innocent life at risk . ( I realize their is some political complications with other countries) Guns are also what freed us from British rule, be careful when you say you want to abolish the second amendmendt , that is what established our country.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Apr-24-13 8:41 AM

The reason we will probably never be invaded is the shear number of guns in private ownership , trying to do a house to house removal of weapons would be highly costly and dangerous.Hitler registered all guns in 1935 in the sake of setting an example for the world . He eventually removed all the guns from the Jewish people ,sometimes what one sets out to do for good reasons has unforseen consequences with a different leader years later. The people that don't own guns would be looking for the nearest one if their was a major catstrophy where their was chaos (political,war or environmental event). Be careful what you wish for on gun control , that is what created this nation and the ability to do as we please.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-24-13 8:54 AM

No one reading this page has said they want to abolish the second amendment. Nothing proposed will abolish the second amendment. Legislation in states has not abolished the second amendment. We can't do anything about gun violence in general as a nation because we are not even having the same argument.

The NRA uses the emotions of fear and hate of Obama. They have no high ground to complain about the emotion of grief on the other side of that argument.

5 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Apr-24-13 9:08 AM

Not to pick on the democratic side ,there is people in that party calling for repeal of the second amendment,( I think Sven has even mentioned ,don't know if he is serious). What would the registering of guns or backround checks have done in any of the recent cases of violence. I have yet to see a gun kill somebody with out a person controlling it.People will commit evil with anything available ( Timothy Mcveigh , Boston, knives ,hammers,poison,etc.)focus on the people with mental issues not the method. It is sad when violence like Conn. happens ,thinking it is all preventable is probably unrealistic.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Apr-24-13 9:10 AM

...and Obamacare won't increase the cost of your private insurance. And abortion will be legal, safe and RARE. Hasn't Lucy pulled the football away enough times, Charlie Brown?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-24-13 9:45 AM

Nobody is making fun of the victims. The president did use the family members as props to forward his political agenda. If one can manage to look past the purely emotional aspects of this tragedy and look at Obama's agenda it doesn't take long to realize his proposed gun restrictions would not do anything to prevent another Sandy Hook shooting.

Most everybody would be in favor of "saving just one life" but nobody can honestly say that this legislation would even do that. The President and Congress should focus their efforts on proposals that would save many lives from acts of violence.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Apr-24-13 10:55 AM

deerhunt, show me one credible, verifiable instance in the past 5yrs. in the New Ulm area where an armed citizen has saved either himself or his family from an armed intruder intent on killing someone. I don't mean scaring off some drunk who ran out of gas or some poor slob who had the misfortune of having car trouble or was lost and came to a house late at night. The notion that the media covers up these stories does not make sense, most local papers are begging for some real, hard news to publish. Show me an actual police report, not something you heard in the bar or the coffee shop.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Apr-24-13 11:24 AM

Correction: I'm one who reads this page and I strongly believe in the abolishment of the 2nd amendment.

We have a huge problem caused by a flood of guns and it's not going to go away with half measures and constant niggling by the NRA/gun-nuts. It's going to take a giant step to make a giant difference. That step is the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

Think about this o macho gun totters:

Only three nations in the world have constitutional rights to bear arms--Guatemala, Mexico and the United States.

Need I say more? Wow, what wonderful examples of over-the-top violent societies. Could there be a correlation? (Gosh. Duh. Dunnoh.)

The rest of the world thinks we're crazy.

But then again, half this country fought a war FOR slavery, and then spent the next 150 years trying to continue it. So, we have deeply imbedded genes in the national consciousness of violence, stupidity and duplicity.

But, hey, we're safer with our bang-bang toys, right?

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Apr-24-13 11:33 AM

The German gov confiscated firearms in 1919. They had to after losing WWI. By 1928 people were required to have a permit to carry a firearm or acquire one, which they could if they were “trustworthy” and could show need. All guns were registered, but officials and railway employees were exempt.

Hitler’s law kept all the restrictions already in place, but applied them only to handguns. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and Nazi party members were exempt. He completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns and lowered the age requirement. Only Jews were denied guns completely.

Germany was disarmed again after WWII and allowed no private gun ownership until 1956. After a number of school shootings they passed gun control measures.

Regulations, like guns, are not inherently bad. Both can be misused.

Regulations are not perfect, and every law gets broken. That does not mean we shouldn’t have them.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Apr-24-13 12:05 PM

Sven:

Show me where abolishing the 2nd Amendment will end or even curtail violence. It won't stop a religious zealot and his lackey little brother from planting bombs at a marathon.

The overwhelming majority of citizens who currently exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment do so legally. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. If we were to apply your rationale elsewhere we should then also ban all people from driving cars because a small minority of them choose to drive while intoxicated.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CommonSenseSupporter

Apr-24-13 12:40 PM

Great point Sven on vehicles, Except it contradicts your point. No one is trying to ban guns, just severely regulate them. You don't think vehicles are severely regulated. Must be 16 to drive, must take a course to get a license, must pass a test, be insured, may not drive intoxicated, must have headlights on at night, must have working turn signals, speed limits, stop signs,parking restrictions, height and weight restrictions, everyone with a car is registered with the state government with a drivers license, every car is registered with a license plate, VIN number and you must get tabs every year etc... etc... the list goes on.

This is the norm for driving and owning a vehicle and is widely accepted among the american people for the over-all safety of all citizens. Look to any industry and you will find far more strict regulations then the gun industry. GET OVER IT! Your guns will never be taken away.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CommonSenseSupporter

Apr-24-13 12:42 PM

And to the People making comparisons to guns and Pressure cookers. Wow...

I have one question I have asked myself, What if the Boston suspects had carried an assault riffle into that crowd with a 100 round clip each? I think a few more then 3 would have perished...

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 78 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