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

Gun law rush ‘appropriate’

February 3, 2013

Editor, OBSERVER: According to the article “Goodell, Young feel sweeping gun law rushed in anger” (Jan....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-03-13 7:33 AM

I support some sort of gun control, and probably a lot more draconian version than what New York passed. But no law should ever skirt the edges of legality as this one did, nor be shoved through in such a way as to stifle legitemate debate. As for foster homes, knowing some people that were raised in them, some are good, some are horrible. Social Services in general does a horrible job of checking on those placed in the homes, and that was before cuts were made. I can't imagine what things will be like now.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 8:28 AM

I agree with the new gun law and think that the rush to pass it was more than justified. Since the mass killings in Sandy Hook, more than 1,000 people have been killed by gun violence in our country. We have to address the killings and violence.

I am waiting to hear more from those who disagree with national background checks, disagree with limitations on SOME kinds of weapons and ammo, or disagree with sharing of information between law enforcement...just what do YOU suggest to reduce the gun violence that is in our country?

What steps to you propose if you do not agree with ANY limitations on any kinds of weapons or ammo? I would love to hear your suggestions.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 8:30 AM

I have been a foster parent in the past in both Pa and NH. In NH I became an educational surrogate parent, meaning I could legally advocate and sign IEPs. etc. for a disabled child assigned to me. It was court ordered and I had to be trained.

Advocates such as this are needed to ensure the safety and care of every child.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 9:15 AM

What changes should be made?How about giving Law Enforcement access to the data bases they need to see which homes have convicted felons(who are not even supposed to be in a dwelling with a firearm inside)and those with emotional problems(as you are so fond of saying "it takes a village to raise a child")and those "crazies" who are responsible for these terrible shootings certainly look a little wild-eyed to me.I'm pretty sure the "village" had some idea there were problems there.Under the law Adam Lanza wasn't old enough to own the weapon he used in the shootings.I believe the Firefighters killed by a convicted felon who under law shouldn't have had access to it.As for the woman who was the straw-buyer for the weapon used I'd charge her with murder.As for us law abiding citizens who have rifles and pistols which Prince Andy and his Jesters have banned...We Are Not The Problem.Politics involved in ushing the laws..I'm Shocked,Shocked anyone would even say

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 9:17 AM

hysterical anti-gunners to furter the Princes view-point...just shameful,and all too easy it seems.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 10:07 AM

This gun law is about safety about as much as Barney Fife is a Green Beret. Cuomo cares .000001% about anyone's actual safety, and more about what 2016 will bring, come to think of it, Barney could have come up with a better solution than this.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 10:19 AM


4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 10:19 AM

Well stated 1Laona. The anti gun crowd has gotten so bad that a little girl was said to have made terrorists threats against another kid with her bubble blowing "gun" and a five year old was threatened with suspension from preschool because he made one out of LEGOs. Where is this nation heading under liberal law. Have they not learned anything from bushes patriot act and obamas extension of it. And now the prince has made the first move (illegally in my mind) in the let's get them all over time law. I hope to God this one get's shot down by the court systems because yje one thing I have learned in 60+ years is that any time you give those in power anyplace an inch they will take a very long mile. These people that really believe that this is a good law should read the sheriff's letter to prince Cuomo and see how much they really disagree with a major portion of it. It is our constitution rights they are messing with people. First the patriot act, then large drinks and now th

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 10:20 AM

1Laona- I don't understand a lot of what Cuomo banned as I live out of state, but I'm wondering if you could let me know what guns you have that Cuomo is banning. My father, cousins, friends are big hunters back in Fredonia, and I'm wondering which, if any, of their guns are on that list. Just realized you might not feel comfortable about that, so perhaps you could let me know which guns he's banned or a link to find out that info. I've googled it, but the answers are sketchy. Thanks :)

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 11:01 AM

Smalltowm here is a link to the Sheriff's response to it if it helps. ht tp://w om/pdf/news/616933_1.pdf as always just remove the spaces. "Classifying firearms as assault weapons because of one arbitrary feature effectively deprives people the right to possess firearms which have never before been designated as assault weapons. We are convinced that only law abiding gun owners will be affected by these new provisions, while criminals will still have and use whatever weapons they want." "The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer." Two excerpts from the response.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 12:59 PM

Greg said "well, when 20 first-graders and six school staff in the neighboring state of Connecticut are gunned down by a law abiding citizen, I think a gun law rushed in anger is appropriate." No sir, they weren't gunned down by a law abiding citizen. By definition, a murderer is any thing but a law abiding citizen. The shooter tried to get his own guns and the system worked, he was turned away. Then the mentally unbalanced individual somehow gained possesion of his mothers legally owned guns. We all know the result of that. The legislation that was rammed through the various state and federal legislatures does nothing to address the weapons used in that massacre. The so called assault weapon was in the car, there were four hand guns found in the school. A feel good band-aid that did nothing to make anyone safer. All this rush did was prove passing legislation without first calming down is a waste at best, and anti-Constitutional at worst.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 1:00 PM

Smalltownsmallmind, The 53 pages of the so called "NY SAFE ACT" can be found at: Basically, any semiautomatic "anything", having a detachable magazine with a capacity of more than seven rounds, or which is capable of accepting a magazine of more than seven rounds (which is a high %) is involved to one degree or another. People are paying attention mostly to those guns specifically named in the law, but there are MANY more covered under the "definition" sections of the law. Semiauto's are so widely owned, especially 22 rifles and pistols, that I have yet to run into a gun owner who is not impacted in some fashion, even if it's only the realization that he'll now be arrested if he now puts eight or more rounds in his ten round magazine. Even something like the M-1 carbines, sold to us by the U.S. Government 50 years ago, are now "assault rifles".

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 1:02 PM

If you read the first sentence in Mr. Catalano's letter, which in part says "when 20 first-graders and six school staff in the neighboring state of Connecticut are gunned down by a law abiding citizen"... LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?! What kind of an idiot would write something like that? Law abiding citizens obey the laws - they don't kill ANYONE! Typical liberal who bases opinion on emotion, instead of FACTS! What could have stopped the EVIL person at Sandy Hook with the gun would have been a GOOD person with a gun. And when you defend Cuomo's bill, which in part limits magazine size to seven rounds, keep this in mind. That limits a GOOD person, say a homeowner who's house is being broken into, from having enough ammunition to fight off the attackers. Who's hands is his/her blood on? I SAY CUOMO'S!!!

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 1:04 PM

I guess that I was typing while MikeDavis was already posting. Same point.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 1:15 PM

Many shotguns along with what kcw mentioned will be affected and made illegal by cuomos sneak move of passing this bill like a thief in the night. An honest man would have had it done in daytime so all could see what was going on.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 2:17 PM

law abiding citizen, I believe this law creates felons out of law abiding citizens. everybody knows what happened in sandy hook taking my thumb hole away isn't going to stop the next crazy person. I'd say until you stop letting murders out of prison and have a data base for crazy people that can be used in background checks nothing is going to change

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 2:58 PM

I would like to make a correction to my earlier post. I wrote that "law abiding citizens obey the laws - they don't kill ANYONE!" That should have read "they don't murder ANYONE!" Sometimes law abiding citizens end up in the unfortunate situation of self defense, where they do take someone else's life. However, it was not the law abiding citizen's bad choices that lead to that unfortunate situation.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 3:14 PM

How appropriate would the gun control advocates find the speed of this legislation if instead it reversed Roe vs. Wade? Or put creationism/God into schools? Or cut the income taxes of the top twenty five percent? Or made it a crime to be in this country illegally? Would that speed of passage sit as well? I'm trying to get across the feeling of being railroaded into a law that doesn't do anything to solve the problem but makes thousands of law abiding citizens "instant" criminals. Another fine example that as long as you agree with their point of view, you aren't ignorant, stupid, or a racist to the all inclusive, uniting the citizenry, democrats.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 4:03 PM

Every day over 3000 children are killed in this country thru abortion. Where is the outrage for this travesty?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 4:48 PM

My lord Fred and Mike how dare you bring up subjects that are "rights" that the left holds dear to their hearts when all we want is that dirty nasty 2nd amendment right not to be infringed on. How dare anyone question their right to choose while taking away ours. There is a word for what they are doing but it escapes me at the moment.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 4:56 PM

My biggest concern is that gun registration will lead to gun confiscation. Do we really want to live in a country where only the government has weapons? Do we have that much trust in our government?

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 8:28 AM

FredoniaFred..not ONE CHILD is killed through abortion. Only cells that could potentially grow into a child.

By the way, I do hope all who so regularly oppose abortions in all cases advocate just a vigorously for more funding for programs that help a pregnant women during her pregnancy (such as WIC), help with the care and education of the child after birth (such as Head Start) and stop complaining about welfare.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 8:32 AM


Not to get into an abortion debate, but I to find it interesting that to the left abortion, which isn't not discussed in the Constitution, is a right which we can't put any restrictions on, but private gun ownership, which has it's own amendment isn't a right and can be restricted.


Also the anti-gun nuts still refuse to acknowledge the fact that the FBI reports that the AR-15 the shooter in Connecticut had was in his car and never was taken into the school and that the shooting was done with 4 handguns, but then again we can't let the facts get in the way of an agenda now can we?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 8:32 AM

1Laona..make some good points of other things we could do to reduce the violence.

This is what we need..some good discussion on what we can do..and stop just complaining.

By the way it is only Some type of weapons and Some types of ammo that are being restricted. Do you seriously think we made a mistake when machine guns were banned from civilian use?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 8:35 AM

SmallTownSmallMind...let me answer..


Not one that MOST hunters would ever consider using. None...

Hope that clarifies it.

1 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 143 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