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

What other rights are next?

January 20, 2013

By SANDI LANDRICH There is a reason for the resistance of gun owners to allow the government to restrict the types of weapons and magazines they can own....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(61)

Regelski

Mar-01-13 12:27 PM

Sandi (not that you're probably following this string): What evidence can you cite in recent years of where homeowners in WNY have protected themselves against intruders? I read this newspaper and don't remember any such defense of the home. Secondly, I love it when babies are brought into the discussion: I would guess that you're pro-life but clearly the uncontrolled ownership and use of guns is a threat to children and other citizens. Every thing else except the obvious is blamed for gun violence: guns are too accessible, too powerful, too uncontrolled, and too plentiful. I'm sure that 99% of gun owners are responsible citizens, but how responsible are they with the guns they own and use? How interested are they in protecting their own good reputations by being proactive against those who, for example, delight in shooting road signs--oblivious to the eventual destination of the bullet? Guns are dangerous in the extreme, and they need extreme measures to control their use.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-24-13 2:00 PM

AND, as to home protection, as an article in TIME recently demonstrated, even the police are not trained to deal with the emotional context of an assault. As statistics demonstrate, the average home owner is at a disadvantage against the gun-savvy of an intruder. Unless you want to take months of training (with the gun and dealing with circumstances) the old fashioned shotgun is your best protection. And you can't kill a room full of children or film-goers with 2 shots.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-24-13 1:56 PM

Totally fanciful. Does the writer suffer from delusions of persecution or paranoia?. Why this constant recourse of NRA talking points and slogans that first portray gun owners as under assault by "the government (Us). These are reasonable proposals to our children and society. It does no good to blame "operators" since the accessibility of guns (e.g., in gun shows) is an invitation to misuse and abuse. No reasonable owner of a gun (me) should object to controls that protect our good names. I'm appalled the many gun hobbyists, whose motives and uses of gun are reasonable, are not similarly supporting laws that don't inconvenience them greatly (unless target shooting with a 10 vs. 30 magazine is a bother) and that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. What's the objection to "straw" purchases; or registration without loopholes? What burden on the local gun owners? I vote with those who don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-26-13 11:23 PM

Judeye, in your posts here, your own numbers even counter themselves.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-24-13 11:43 AM

The problem with scholars is that many of them believe they’re superior to the subject they’re scholars in. You need to go back to the writings of the men who drafted the Constitution to find out what the purpose of the Second Amendment is. These men had a fear of a strong central government trampling on the rights of the States and People. States rights were paramount to these men as each colony (state) was still a sovereign entity and many feared uniting with the others would mean loosing their sovereignty. That’s why it says “security of a free state”...”right of the people”...”shall not be infringed”. No other Amendment in the Bill of Rights or Constitution spells out a peoples right as plainly as the Second Amendment. It’s written right there in simple plain English. The problem is; do you choose to believe it or do you believe yourself superior?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-24-13 9:01 AM

Judeye, I don't believe for one minute that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, nor any of the other founding fathers would take any kind of weapon available today from a private citizens possession. What they would do is wonder what had happened to society as a whole that created the sheer number of crazies that do these horrific acts. The disconnect from reality for so many is what it would be nice to be able to understand and fix. Hiding, barring, or stopping production of any weapon won't stop this stuff. it would be nice if it did. Someone bent on murder and mayhem will find a way. It's the unfortunate truth. Taking anything away from law abiding citizens, that did no wrong, is not the answer. That is my opinion and although I know it isn't yours, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-24-13 8:47 AM

Judeye...do you have some ketchup? This crow is extremely dry. Obviously I was misinformed, thank you for the correct information.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-24-13 8:47 AM

The second amendment has the justification for the amendment as part of it..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The courts have been deciding, is it an individual right of each citizen, or a State right, collective, to have Militias? No this is NOT my opinion, this is what the scholars of our Constitution discuss and debate and that the Court eventually will determine.

We restrict "guns" all the time. No one can have machine guns and even legal guns are restricted in some areas (try taking one into an airport).

All anyone is talking about is coming together and discussing limitations on some kinds of weapons and some kinds of ammo as just one (of many) things we can and should do to reduce gun violence in our country, and especially against our children.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-24-13 8:37 AM

George Bush sr 166

that was sr...the exact number I cited...

so what is your point?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-24-13 8:34 AM

localresident

Ronald Reagan 381 12287 - 12667 George Bush 166 12668 - 12833 William J. Clinton 364 12834 - 13197 George W. Bush 291 13198 - 13488 Barack Obama 144 13489 - 13632...

The numbers way off? Got this directly from wiki...and hmm looks like they are saying the exact same numbers as snopes..which then I confirmed with the national archives...

Check your sources.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-24-13 8:27 AM

MikeDavis...did not know that about Snopes. Will have to look that up to see if that is true. Huge disappointment if thought they based fact checking with politics.

However on this issue they are correct. National Archives, federal registry....archives dot gov...they have a listing of every executive order so you can even read each order. There numbers are almost exactly what Snopes listed...ie

Obama 143; Bush jr 290; Clinton 363; Bush sr 165, Reagan 380.

Looks like Obama has some catching up to do...

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-23-13 11:53 PM

North Korea: cross into their borders and get 8 years hard labor. Iran: cross their border and get prison and labor. U.S. cross their border illegally and get a driver's license, welfare, housing, etc....

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-23-13 11:35 PM

Judeye, I am asking again, next time you're going to refute a statement (and really everyon, if you're going to quote a stat, please do cite source, Ffs), please do give your source.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-23-13 11:32 PM

Uhh, Judeye, George W Bush signed 166 executive orders In 8 years, not to mention your numbers for Bush 1 are way off too, among many others:

en . wikipedia . org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-23-13 7:16 PM

The might of the American military has been stymied by Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan in the last few decades. Not by armies, but by regular citizens with small arms. By small I mean AK-47's and other assault weapons in private hands. So, take those away from private citizens and I can then agree with you, it would be impossible for the citizens to defend themselves against a government gone wrong. Why do you think so many of the people with these particular weapons are loath to give them up? Judeye, I don't agree with you at all when you say that the 2nd wasn't written to protect citizens from their government. It wasn't the only reason, but it was one of them.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Jan-23-13 6:16 PM

Probably Marcia or bobby.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-23-13 5:16 PM

I am really curious now. How can anyone disagree with a statement that gives BOTH sides of the opinion spectrum? I have to laugh, because I'm thinking it's a liberal that did it just out of habit after seeing my name. That shows the amount of compromise they are ready to offer to any argument. How telling...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Jan-23-13 3:47 PM

Sorry that Marcia blames you for what I said Mike. Even though there is a couple of books that say it. "WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.”

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-23-13 11:02 AM

Judeye, I know how much you are going to love this but it is the truth sorry. The owner of the Snopes site has been in Obama's corner since the guy first showed up to give the keynote speech at the democratic convention. He's contributed a lot of money to his campaigns and been a vocal supporter of the democratic tickets. Sorry but I don't take that sites word about anything political.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-23-13 10:56 AM

Marcia, I didn't say that. But thanks for allowing me to see how well you read something before commenting on it. I've gotten a little over zealous in some replies also, so I understand the erroneous response. All I can say is good luck to us all. Folks with your point of view think they will be safer and folks with mine think the government is about to stomp the Constitution into history. Do some reading as to the claims of Jim Garrow concerning the military of the US and the litmus test question being asked by this administration. Then get back to me...

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

Jan-23-13 9:19 AM

Really Mike? Liberalism is a mental disorder because I think we should solve our issues by voting instead of armed insurrection!!! Really??? You would prefer an Afghanistan-like state where people are running around killing each other when they disagree to our civilized society where we write comments on a newspaper's site? And you say I have a mental disorder?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-23-13 8:40 AM

It was written and put in the Constitution to keep the government from being ABLE to become tyrannical.

That is also untrue. Look it up. There were many reasons to include the second amendment into the Constitution. To protect us from our own government was not one of them.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-23-13 8:38 AM

MikeDavis."This president has issued more executive orders than any two presidents combined."

I had to check that one out. Went to SNOPES.

Please note the number of executive orders by President:

Ronald Reagan...381; George Bush sr 166; Clinton 364; Bush jr 291; Obama 138.

Wow..looks like President Obama has some catching up to do to come even close to one of the previous presidents let alone combining two.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-22-13 12:26 PM

Marcia, I am not misinformed. This president has issued more executive orders than any two presidents combined. Why? To circumvent the checks and balances the Constitution puts in place. And I don't think a conservative will be elected again. That isn't the party that gives out freebies and the "freebie" population is growing at a much faster rate than the working class is. Almost 9 million people are now on the permanently disabled and getting a government check for life. They aren't going to vote for candidate espousing personal responsibility. The illegal's are now allowed to stay as part of "dream" act. More voters that will never vote for a candidate saying play by the rules, immigrate through the proper channels. And now back to the 2nd. It was written and put in the Constitution to keep the government from being ABLE to become tyrannical.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

Jan-22-13 12:17 PM

Marcia is living proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 61 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