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

Comments

(193)

Pirate

Jan-30-13 5:23 AM

Might have something to do with a president who looks down his nose at those of us out here in the cornfields who "cling to guns or religion" and believes All Power emanates from his office. Might have something to do with his surrogates attacking the gun industry financially. Might be that none of his ideas directly offer a solution to the problems while obstructing constitutional rights of law abiding citizens.

Imagine that. A quote from a very open active socialist.

10 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WBL947

Jan-30-13 8:08 AM

The 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. Most of the amendments have been adjusted and tested by the supreme court. Times are much different now, and 'arms' are much different now. It is not safe or practical for people to own some of the military arms that are suitable for war. A line must be drawn. There is no amendment in our constitution that permits us to drive cars. Could that be because we are living in a different time? We need to do what is best for society, there needs to be some limits on the arms available for public purchase and use. A literal interpretation of the 2nd could refer only to the muskets available at that time...that is another extreme view. The political rhetoric on the topic is necessary and good.

26 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blasphemer

Jan-30-13 9:56 AM

Thanks Paul. You nailed it.

19 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-30-13 10:15 AM

Paul writes an excellent rebuttal to Valerie Downing's commentary. IMO, enhanced gun laws would include greater emphasis on background checks, no private sales and every gun must be registered and every owner licensed.

"Might be that none of his (Obama's) ideas directly offer a solution to the problems while obstructing constitutional rights of law abiding citizens."

Could it be you have an example Pirate? Might be that the gun lobby should be attacked for not taking the issue of background checks more seriously. Might be that citizens are fed up with the callous attitude displayed by the gun industry concerning gun violence.

Is referring to Sinclair Lewis as a socialist supposed to mean that his quote lacked some truth? Oh that’s right, you hate the concept of socialism but reap the benefits.

“Many people consider the things which government does for them to be social progress, but they consider the things government does for others as socialism” -Earl Warren

23 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PaulAB

Jan-30-13 10:30 AM

(Having spent my entire life "out here in the corn fields" I have always been amused by how accurate [though politically incorrect] that statemant was.) I am the author of the letter under discussion. I will monitor comments on it. To those of you who agree with me, thank you for the support. For those of you who disagree, thank you for reading it. I am willing to respond to comments provided that they meet two simple criteria: You identify yourself by name (as I have done--if your opinions are not worth owning they are not worth anything) and they must be of substance. (Those rules apply to those who agree with me as well as those who don't.) "Pirate", your comment (as presented) fails on both counts. Please offer substantive evidence of your assertions (and own them by identifying yourself). Paul Bridgland

23 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rona45

Jan-30-13 11:02 AM

It might be that we are getting tired of being lied to by this government who lies, conceals,and covers up little things like Fast and Furious which involved guns, Lybia which resulted in 4 Americans deaths, selective law enforcement and I could go on and on. What did these killers have in common? Did they have mental problems and were taking medication? What was the side effects of the medication? We seem to ignore the root of the problem.

4 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 1:38 PM

The new "rules of participation" are an example of the problems you're going to have achieving a gun restricted Utopia. The Independent has established the terms of use on this commentary. So far, users don't get to jump in with their really neat ideas and change how the rest participate. Kind of like with this gun thing....there's some pre-existing terms you don't really have power to "renegotiate". Those terms are called the Bill of Rights.

Attempting this without dialog and negotiation will make the incline to Utopia steeper.

just sayin'.

5 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 1:51 PM

"There is nothing in the proposed legislation about the confiscation of firearms."~PaulAB

This may seem petty because the key word in the following Bill is "surrender", and not "confiscate"....

Introduced in House (01/13/2013)

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]

[H.R. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 226

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

"Surrendering to authorities". Maybe just a bad choice of words?

5 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Jan-30-13 2:14 PM

"protect the manufacturers of weapons designed specifically to kill large numbers of people in a brief amount of time." -- Really? You wouldn't be trying to scare people into agreeing with you now would you?

8 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-30-13 3:24 PM

The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is no more negotiable than Rosa Parks' right to sit at the front of the bus. The fiendish Feinstein bill demanding registration of existing guns and disallowing families to keep existing guns after the purchaser's death and the outright banning of over 150 different makes/models of guns is, indeed, prelude to outright confiscation. That pattern has repeated in police states across Europe and on other continents. The time to prevent it happening here is before it is too late.***Sinclair Lewis was wrong about so many things!

8 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-30-13 3:32 PM

"Times are much different now, and 'arms' are much different now."*** The courts have found time and again that rights enumerated in the Constitution extend to modernization unforseen by the founders. The modern firearm's advance over the muzzle-loader is no more grounds for it's denial than P*i*s*s C*h*r*i*s*t"s remove from the town crier was.

5 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-30-13 3:40 PM

Perhaps the gentleman has heard of a commentator named Silence Dogood who was popular around the time of the nation's founding? Perhaps he has some inflated opinion of himself which allows him to demand what law and custom do not? Perhaps (though I suspect otherwise) he is unaware of the violent attacks upon the persons and the vandalism of the property of Constitutionalists who have been identified and targeted by some in league with the current administration? *** In any case, THIS--->"You identify yourself by name (as I have done--if your opinions are not worth owning they are not worth anything) and they must be of substance. (Those rules apply to those who agree with me as well as those who don't.)<--is elitist crap

7 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PaulAB

Jan-30-13 4:14 PM

Regarding the so called "rules of participation". I merely said that I would only respond to posts that identified the writer by name and offered substantive evidence to back the writer's assertions. In other words, the "rules" only outlined what I intend to do, you are all free to do as you please.

And now I'm about to break my own "rule" regarding "Prodigal Son"'s post about H.R. 226 (he did offer something substantive). I haven't checked, but will accept the the sake of argument, that he has accurately quoted the bill. The sited wording is pretty clear: VOLUNTARILY surrender the weapon and receive a tax credit. In effect, you are selling the gun to the federal government. It is not being confiscated. To confiscate is to take property against the will of the owner and without due compensation.

20 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PaulAB

Jan-30-13 4:21 PM

(I really need to get better at proof-reading what I write). My last post should read "Accept for the sake of argument" and "cited" not "sited". My apologies.

18 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 4:35 PM

Cut and paste from govtrackdotus:

H.R. 226: Support Assault Firearms Elimination and Reduction for our Streets Act Introduced: Jan 14, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015) Sponsor: Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D-CT3] Status: Referred to Committee

The bill’s title was written by the bill’s sponsor. H.R. stands for House of Representatives bill.

5 cosponsors (5D) (show) Grijalva, Raúl [D-AZ3] Bishop, Timothy [D-NY1] (joined Jan 21, 2013)

Cummings, Elijah [D-MD7] (joined Jan 21, 2013)

Ellison, Keith [D-MN5] (joined Jan 21, 2013)

Lee, Barbara [D-CA13] (joined Jan 23, 2013)

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit against tax for surrendering to authorities certain assault weapons.

Verbatim. The word "Voluntary" does not appear.

6 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 4:46 PM

sur·ren·der (s-rndr) v. sur·ren·dered, sur·ren·der·ing, sur·ren·ders v.tr. 1. To relinquish possession or control of to another because of demand or compulsion. ****

con·fis·cate (knf-skt) tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates 1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury. 2. To seize by or as if by authority.

****

vol·un·tar·y (vln-tr) adj. 1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job. 2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward

Maybe it's the equivalent of a gun buy back by the feds, regardless, there is contradiction from the git go.

6 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

blasphemer

Jan-30-13 4:54 PM

Prodigal, It would HAVE to be voluntary. How else would you get tax credit? Try thinking a little bit.

19 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-30-13 5:04 PM

The obfuscation over how the action is named is reminiscent of the cackling that went on when we were speaking about death panels. Of course, the death panel finally settled on the name IPAB. It still has as it's function the rationing of medical care. A gun grab is a gun grab, niceties of terms notwithstandding.

5 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-30-13 5:26 PM

"protect the manufacturers of weapons designed specifically to kill large numbers of people in a brief amount of time."

Ok Merritt, how about we substitute “targets” for “people”, is that less scary? Guns ARE designed for killing, are they not?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson thought of the Constitution. Many other contributors expressed the same opinion. You can find this at: www dot famguardian dot org. "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

Synonyms of surrender: yield, give in, submit, give up, capitulate, cede, accept. Seems Prod is reading more into one word than Merriam-Webster.

No reasonable individual could logically assume that requiring gun owners to register and license their weapon is a “prelude to outright confiscation”. This kind of ridiculous accusation is typical of the NRA and gun extremists who have little regard rational d

21 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 5:30 PM

"Prodigal, It would HAVE to be voluntary. How else would you get tax credit? Try thinking a little bit." ~ blasphemer

Sorry fan boy. This is a Bill in committee of the US House of Representatives. Semantics are everything.

When the IRS "suggests" you surrender your guns to ze authority", it's a long stretch to tie the word "voluntary" into the decision.

7 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-30-13 5:33 PM

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a LAW. (more obfuscation) The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right. It was the right of the people before the US of A was established and it was preserved in the founding document. The "ridiculous accusation" comment was just another example of hit and run by Hart Man. And "gun extremist" was just more name calling.

6 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-30-13 5:49 PM

"The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right."

If WW07 and Prod want to be specific about wording and intent, the phrase in the Constitution ONLY mentions arming a militia, NOT individuals. So unless you belong to a militia, according to the Constitution you DON'T have the right to bear arms!

None of what I have read in these posts or in what the President or Congress is considering would even come close to eliminating an individuals right to bear arms. So why do you and Prod continue to rant and prattle on about something that is not even up for consideration? Lets discuss the facts and solutions, not fanciful tales about government overreach as though what was happening in the 1780's is happening today.

22 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-30-13 5:59 PM

Will the OBFUSCATION NEVER STOP? By definition, a militia arms itself. A militia is not a military force. It is citizens defending themselves against whatever threat arises whether it be individually against an intruder on one's property or in concert against a would-be tyrant. It is the duty of a citizen to be armed and trained in the use of firearms. If you choose to depend upon your more responsible neighbors that is one thing. But denying your neighbors' rights is not allowed. It is unconstitutional even if you manage to scare up a majority vote with drive-by falsehoods and name calling. What is called for in this counry is self control on the part of those who think the gov't has powers not enumerated in the Constitution. Self control, not gun control.

6 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 6:02 PM

"Synonyms of surrender: yield, give in, submit, give up, capitulate, cede, accept. Seems Prod is reading more into one word than Merriam-Webster."~h75

Context is everything h75. In this case, we're talking about a constitutional right affecting over 80 million gun owners, few it if any seeing this ban as "voluntary surrender" of their rights.

7 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-30-13 6:07 PM

"Here is what Thomas Jefferson thought of the Constitution."~h75

Have you recently experienced a traumatic head injury?

My rights are not contingent on another's opinion, or worse, another's opinion contorted and offered as "compelling evidence" my rights have expired.

7 Agrees | 19 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:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web