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

Changes on the horizon to state’s gun laws?

January 19, 2013

MARSHALL — While politics will surely play a role on the national level when it comes to debate on stricter, more widespread gun control, in Minnesota, Sen....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(40)

commonman

Jan-31-13 7:11 PM

Paranoid delusional propaganda spewed by gun activists only serve to enforce the fact that gun control legislation is needed now.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-26-13 10:02 PM

There may be some challenges to our rights on the horizon. Next year is an election year. Any party or politician supporting a ban might be committing political suicide. Any elected representative that is ignorant or dismissive of the historical support of the constitution should be replaced. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."~

Miranda vs. Arizona

There are those who'd like to see the guns taken, by force if necessary. If that happens, what's next? Your right to privacy? Let's just get your medical records out here for all to see.....Oh, I see your wifey had some problems when that kid did the crib death thing..."We have a search warrant based on what we found in your records about "survivor guilt" from being in the sand box....

This is everybody's fight.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-26-13 8:00 PM

Your attitude toward other people shows what you are really about prod. Actually I reeled you in... go back and look it up. You ignored me until I got under your skin enough. You defended a felon who stole a million from innocent people, and you have now basically defended someone who goes into a school and kills innocent children just so you can keep your "right" to obtain any firearm you want by blaming the mentally ill. Do your children have to suffer a similar fate for you to understand anything but your own personal greed? Feel free to quote the parts you wish to rebut, since that seems to be your MO.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-25-13 9:08 PM

Just spit out my hook common. I'm primarily a sport fisherman. Somebody'll be along that deals with rough fish.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-25-13 8:01 PM

Your self-centered concerns don't say much for yours, Son. Your arguments always devolve into condescending or insulting comments when you can't force your way. Tough life growing up? Insecure with your position in life? Maybe you should go back to the place you think was so great.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-25-13 6:16 PM

Concern of popularity over truth doesn't say much of your regard for integrity. Common.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-25-13 3:30 PM

My vote counts the same as yours, Prod, so what I think does matter. There are plenty of disagreements with your comments, so it isn't like you are the voice of the majority. I'm not happy that our society needs these measures, either... but, it's time.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-25-13 2:34 PM

"...and I don't think limiting weapons is over the top."~common

Fortunately, what you think doesn't mean much. What counts right now is what our legislators think. In the 7th district, that's DFL Congressman Collin Peterson. Backed by the NRA, Peterson is a staunch supporter of gun rights. And he's up for re-election next year. Stuart Smally [Franken] is pro self defense and is committed to fighting any gun control measures. U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, a Democrat from Minnesota's 1st District, NRA supported. Rep. Michele Bachmann, MN's 6th District, likes AR15's. U.S. Rep. John Kline say there's little evidence that a ban on assault weapons like the one that was in place between 1994 and 2004 would be effective.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-25-13 10:21 AM

Again with the inanimate object argument? A nuclear weapon will not fly itself and detonate itself, why is it a big deal to the US? How about a switchblade? It won't open itself and plunge itself into your chest. Cocaine won't crawl up your nose; I guess that should be legal too. Yes, we know some will disregard some laws, but we do set speed limits in this country for safety reasons and I don't think limiting weapons is over the top.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-24-13 10:34 AM

Let's try again.

1. Inanimate objects don't "do" anything unless they are propelled by an animate object. Inanimate objects lack the ability to form intent.

2. In light of ongoing carnage at our schools, malls and workplaces, why are we maintaining "gun free zones"? Please note, those inflicting the carnage are not complying. Why are we prohibiting those 115,000 + permitted and proven to be law abiding citizens from offering defense?

3.There is evil within our society. We can't regulate that. Is it not immoral to remove a viable means of defense against that evil with the knowledge the police are not obligated, or in most cases, not able, to protect you?

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-23-13 7:20 PM

Let's say the number one issue is mental illness, as some profess. How are you going to identify every person with mental illness or a future mental illness, while in the meantime they may possess an assault type weapon or know how to get their hands on an assault type weapon? The problem with certain rights is that people will abuse them for their own benefit. You cannot take the human element out of this, Prod. I think we have reached the tipping point where a "right" has become outdated or abused enough that we need to revisit the terms of that right.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-23-13 4:08 PM

"Maybe you could offer a better explanation for the lack of clear thought, logic and reason?"

Gee Prod, but I'm not the one suggesting that existing gun laws must be maintained so that attempts by law enforcement or military to place Americans in bondage may be thwarted. And you are questioning my "clear thought, logic and reason"? Why don't you get back to me when you come to your senses, then we can have an reasonable discussion.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-23-13 1:18 PM

"I agree with commonman, your argument is so weak that you must resort to accusing those who disagree with you of using drugs."~h75

I wouldn't want an allusion I made in jest to detract from an issue of importance. I'll retract it, and apologize for the reference.

Maybe you could offer a better explanation for the lack of clear thought, logic and reason?

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-23-13 12:52 PM

"Do you expect the greater percentage of Americans who don't own guns to sacrifice their rights for the few who mistakenly believe their should be no restrictions on guns, clips or ammo?" ~h75

Note something about our rights: When exercised, they never interfere with another's rights. Never.

The right to speak. Right to self defense. Right to privacy. Right to vote. None interfere with your rights in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

My possession of inanimate objects doesn't interfere with your rights.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-23-13 12:43 PM

"But how and who determines which individual presents the greatest threat?"~h75

Let's get the problem pinpointed before we demand solutions, m'k?

If you could identify a walking time bomb, there's little to nothing in place to deal with them. I do know that hiding things from a walking time bomb won't keep them from going off.

We've tried to control drug use and abuse by banning the sale and possession of illicit drugs.

How well has that worked? Wouldn't you agree most of the war on drugs has been misdirected, and that war has claimed more lives than the illegal drugs have?

We had the Brady Act and Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. It didn't do squat. I don't think we can afford pursuing proven failures in finding a solution.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-23-13 11:19 AM

No one has claimed mental illness is not an issue Prod. But how and who determines which individual presents the greatest threat? Do you expect the greater percentage of Americans who don't own guns to sacrifice their rights for the few who mistakenly believe their should be no restrictions on guns, clips or ammo? I agree with commonman, your argument is so weak that you must resort to accusing those who disagree with you of using drugs. Actually haven't presented an argument, just excuses.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 9:58 PM

"All they prove is that there is a problem but you still haven't provided any ideas for a solution except more of the same."~h75

I don't recall anyone saying "do nothing". OTOH, I'd prefer we use facts to make a determination of what we should do, rather than ill-informed emotionalism.

h75, rise above a tantrum and communicate why the fact that perpetrators of more than 60 school shooting incidents were on, or had been on, psychotropic drugs isn't a primary issue.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-22-13 7:02 PM

Prod found someone to agree with, so he is happy, yippee! Of course there was the reference to marijuana smoking to the person who didn't agree with him. I guess that's your argument when you miss the point of what SEL said?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 1:18 PM

Good point, orangesnail. You present a well thought out, respectable position. Much better than the school yard "nu-uh" offered so far.

In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in "common use”, which is a common standard in jurisprudence. A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use. There's over 4 million semi auto rifles in the US today.

The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago extended to states the decision in D. C. v. Heller, so that ground's been plowed.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

orangesnail

Jan-22-13 12:42 PM

Antonin Scalia in Heller stated - “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” In the majority opinion he also speaks of the need to limit dangerous and unusual weapons and to consider prohibitions on concealed weapons. Could that not speak directly to the conversation we are having now? Clips that hold 100 bullets could fall under unusual or dangerous weapons. I think Scalia is challenging the rights of the individual to carry concealed weapons in Heller.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 11:43 AM

[cont] In 2008, the US Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller 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.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home.

Today, some want to ban an entire class of firearm favored for defense and sport. Hasn't this been covered?

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 10:14 AM

"The simple fact is that the 2nd amend. is outdated, as our means of national defense has changed dramatically since it was passed."~SELyonCo

Don't toke before you type. The 2A isn't about national defense, never was, never has been. Its purpose was to ensure that American citizens could own weapons to prevent the overthrow by internal or external military threats of our freely elected democratic government. This places the power in the hands of the people, rather than the government with power over the people.

Get it?

The Bill of Rights aren't subject to government control, aren't subject to societal whims, and if you look, they aren't bonus privileges. They're derived from natural rights. The right to speak your mind. To self defense. To be free of unwarranted search and seizure. To vote for your representation.

Originally designed to limit the federal government, they've been extended to the states by way of the 14th amendment. [cont]

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

Jan-22-13 4:15 AM

And while the Coffee Mafia has another amature debate on the well defined meaning of the 2nd another nut case is finalizing a plan to exploit another protection free zone.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-22-13 12:38 AM

You cannot "outdate" rights that are inherent. The Bill of Rights led directly to abolition of slavery. Not by accident but by design. With the repeal of the BoR, what will end the slavery that will inevitably result?

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Jan-21-13 10:45 PM

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written there was a minuscule standing army, only 800 men. The federal government relied on the states to provide regiments, who were raised, when needed, from local militias, a practice that continued through the Civil War. These local troops often provided their own arms, which were basically their hunting muskets.

During the Civil War the practice of issuing standard military arms to new recruits became common, although it was still normally state or private funds that paid for the equipment. The Civil War saw the rapid development of new arms intended solely for military use.

The simple fact is that the 2nd amend. is outdated, as our means of national defense has changed dramatically since it was passed. There is also little evidence that the drafters of the bill of rights were concerned about arming the populace to fight the government, they were more concerned about war with France or a resumption of hostilities with England.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 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