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

No one will ‘take your guns away’

January 30, 2013

To the editor: In Valerie Downing’s letter to the editor, she goes to great length comparing the issue of drunk driving to gun violence in this country and then states: “[Drunk-driving] Offenders of......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-16-13 7:39 PM

Get a life, prod.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 1:50 PM

Considering the recent events out west, police that mistake 2 Filipino women for a 6'-0" 270 LB black man prove to be more of a threat to public safety than a citizen's guns. Maybe we do need to look at not giving guns to just anybody.

The bullet count in the newspaper delivery women's truck is at 120. Other rounds have been found in neighborhood houses that have children's bedrooms.

I'd benefit from an explanation on how the guns were responsible for this.

1 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 1:10 PM

FBI says that in 2011, rifles were used in 323 murders. 356 murders with shotguns.

2011, 496 murders were committed with hammers and clubs.

With that made known, it's only common sense when I say there's just no place in our world for a 20 oz Estwing or those heinous Titleist golf clubs. It's no accident how dead blow hammers go their names.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-15-13 11:36 AM

Yes Paul and the government set up social security for all Americans. And I am sure the politicians will be exempt from all of these laws too, like the so called improvements in Health Care. And if they are so convinced that gun control will solve everything then really there will be no need for the secret service to have weapons or for security to have guns in our governemnt buildings. They will only need a couple cans of mace. Give and inch and they will take a mile is the reality of it all.

1 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 7:37 PM

At the time there were bigger concerns than just hunting and sport shooting. Women and blacks weren't allowed to vote either, if that helps to understand the mindset. I understand your argument, wharog, but times have changed drastically since 2a was drafted.

14 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 1:20 PM

There is nothing in 2a that says everyone can have firearms, but only if they are used for hunting, or for sporting clays, or maybe target practice, or only for self defense but you need to keep it in your home and locked up so that it can't actually be used. Now restrictions against felons I'm fine with, because when you are a convicted felon you loose many of your rights, including the right to vote and possess firearms.

Can any of you who are for more gun restrictions find a source where one of the founding fathers stated that the 2nd amendment should be only for hunting or sporting purposes? Can you cite ANY reference from an original founding father that states that the 2nd amendment was construed in any way other than as a right to defense against threats to one's self, one's family, one's property, whether that be by an assailant, a criminal, a foreign attacker, or one's own government?

I've studied this quite a bit and could find nothing contrary to this notion.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 1:15 PM

(cont) As to whether any civilian truly NEEDs a large capacity magazine right now in today's environment, probably not. I'd also argue that the police don't need them either, and whatever lawful citizens have for arms should not be automatically trumped by what law enforcement has. As I said, I don't personally have a use for an AR-15 or large capacity magazines. I don't even have a use for handguns. However, there is absolutely no reason why any law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to have them whether it's for personal defense, defense from their own government, or just plain because. And to be honest I've been tempted by semi-automatic firearms before because i'm left handed. Firearms manufacturers simply do not make many options in left handed bolt actions and a semi-auto that you don't need to cycle by hand after each shot seems much more convenient than completely changing my grip in order to cycle a shell in when working on 10shot groups at the range.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-13 1:09 PM

It is my belief, which is supported by the writings of our founders, that they included the 2a because of their very recent experience with a tyrannical government (aka Great Britain), that they had just won independence from. Yes, times were dangerous during the early days of US independence, and conflicts with natives, wild animals, hunting, and self defense all were very valid concerns. However, I don't think for a minute that the founders of this nation had any delusions as to whether government would become over complicated, overarching, and tyrannical again despite their best efforts to curtail it in the ways the government was originally developed. Also there have been several foreign military leaders who have been quoted as saying that a mainland ground offensive in the USA would be pointless because there is a rifle in nearly every home.


10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 8:16 PM

And how are my hunting, military, etc background being called into question? Captain crunch, al, pirate, prod? Seems to me you all have mental health issues with your paranoya over the government knocking at your door...

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 7:19 PM

Pirate, really? If so, you are defending a bunch of horrible shots who would shoot at "sounds" or "movements" like the guy who shot his son while turkey hunting. A true marksman knows the difference. Maybe your taint is larger than your audience.

13 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 12:15 AM

common- "Anybody who thinks they need a gun designed to fire more than 5 bullets/shells before reloading is thinking about killing humans"

T'ain't true. But you did manage to wrongly accuse a pretty large percentage of gun owners.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 6:54 PM

What was the main concern at the time that ammendment was adopted, wharog? Indians? Redcoats? Any other country sending ground troops to overtake our country? They did not know our own worst enemy would come from within and did not know the advances in shooting arms that would come. You're fighting for those weapons to become available to citizens who have no use for those weapons other than a bizarre notion that dozens of rounds will be needed to subdue...what? The Soviets? All the gangs from Chicago? A hoard of zombies? A classroom full of children?

15 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 2:22 PM

The 2nd amendment has little to do with hunting, and in fact it doesn't mention hunting being a right at all. The 2nd amendment is about the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property from threats, whether they be foreign, or more likely domestic. In that category of domestic threats you can find burglars, violent criminals, rapists, murderers, nuisance animals, and tyrannical government. The only thing that being a "true hunter" has to do with the 2nd Amendment or the debate over gun control is that more hunters use firearms than they do bows, blowguns, crossbows, throwing spears, etc.

And even though I don't own a single firearm that would meet a single criteria in all of these ridiculous gun control measures on the table right now, I will fight for the right of everyone who does wish to own an AR, a military relic, or a large capacity firearm.

16 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-08-13 6:14 PM

Pirate, is that really what I said? You should read my comment again, because I don't recall suggesting certain people are binge killers, just that they are not true hunters. I stand by that and do expect to be taken seriously. What could you possibly be hunting that you need that many shots?

18 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 3:55 PM

hartman - are you really saying you don't expect LEOs to be held to at the least the same level of scrutiny as general public? People who are able to threaten with firearms and use deadly force get a pass? Not a chance. Alcoholism, domestic abuse, many different psychological conditions, certain prescription drugs and any others the public are held to will need to be considered. If anything it should be a higher bar for them.

4 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 11:44 AM

h75, is the goal to limit certain firearms or remove them all?

2 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 11:42 AM

H75, you've offered your interpretation, not a citation.

Inalienable rights are creator given and can never be "taken". Your felon example, for instance, will bite you.

A felon with suspended rights to firearms, can only have their rights suspended following DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. Nobody can preemptively or arbitrarily suspend their rights. And that's exactly what you are proposing...recognize a criminal's right to due process and arbitrarily suspend the rights of the law abiding.

4 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 11:12 AM

"The ability to own a firearm is not an inalienable right."~h75

"I'd appreciate a cite for this claim." ~Prod

Are felons allowed to own guns? No. Therefore the right to own a gun is NOT inalienable. Look up the definition of the work "inalienable" Prod! From what I can tell, the NRA is already putting guns into the hands of jack-booted thugs. What makes you think an armed to the hilt citizenry is any less dangerous than our National Guard? You sure have some whacky conspiracy notions!

"Thinking about the Dayton thing..." And YOU expect to be taken seriously Pirate? Yes, lets waste lots of time thinking about THAT dilemma!

18 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 9:16 AM

Thinking about the Dayton thing, it would be interesting to see what percentage of LEOs would forfeit their right to posess a weapon.

2 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 9:12 AM

Well common , at least someone finally said it. If you insist on having a magazine with capacity exceeding 5 rounds you are a danger of being a binge killer. Get a PSA put together stealing the plot from Reefer Madness.

And you expect to be taken seriously?

2 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-07-13 8:40 AM


Is the end goal to ban and control certain guns, or all guns?

4 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-06-13 11:34 PM

Gov. Dayton, who faces re-election next year, has said he won't sign any gun law package unless it's supported by the state's rural lawmakers. I hope he sticks to that, as it will be less partisan.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, owes his start in politics to an NRA endorsement.

Rep. David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, adamant guns rights supporter.

Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, who often carries a .40-caliber Glock with a high-capacity magazine while at the Capitol, predicts that "not much will pass" this year.

Rep. Tom Anzelc DFL-Itasca Co is "A" rated by the NRA.

The majority of House Republicans have rural constituencies.

5 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-06-13 10:59 PM

I went over your list of demands again h75. Something comes to mind.

Governor Mark Dayton is commander-in-chief of Minnesota's National Guard, including infantry and artillery. He is in control of thousands of weapons at any given moment.

Gov. Dayton has a documented history of chronic alcoholism and depression. Under your proposals, would he be prohibited from controlling the weapons associated with the National Guard? How about hunting? Will jack booted thugs be kicking in his door to confirm his firearms are stored in compliance, based on his mental health history?

5 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-06-13 7:26 PM

The debate is much more meaningful without several legal pages being quoted... Pirate, yes, there are plenty of ARs and AKs in the public's hands already. I agree wholeheartedly, yet I think it's time to say enough. We let a certain right get the best of us, as there is a natural tendency for some to take a mile when given an inch. We are no longer worried about ground troops from another country taking over. Anybody who thinks they need a gun designed to fire more than 5 bullets/shells before reloading is thinking about killing humans, not game animals.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-06-13 5:43 PM

"What should be Mr. Hager's punishment? Is he mentally fit to own a firearm? Not in my opinion."~h75

The situation would have been made better had he been limited to a .44 magnum 6 round revolver? Or an 870 Remington Shotgun?

4 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 193 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web