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

Stick with the framers’ intent

February 16, 2013

So I wasn’t exactly sure what I was going to write or how I was going to phrase it, but after contemplating it for some time I realized I shouldn’t have to “sell” the idea of gun ownership, I just......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(59)

1Laona

Mar-22-13 12:35 PM

Regulateski SE,the Framers intent was to have the means to fight off those who would take our Rights(that they passed down to us)away.You and your sorry band of weak-kneed sheep would give them away.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-12-13 1:09 PM

To get back to the issue: the "framers' intent" is not available to us, since they had no idea of the modern world, science, and atomic weapons, for example. They were concerned, as any history will show, that people should be able to defend themselves against tyranny--they had England in mind. Today's NRA supporters assume that we need to be defended against . . . us, our government! They have no historical evidence where this has even been close to happening. A second problem (among many of the original post) is the complaint that the recently enacted laws happened "behind closed doors." That's your typical conspiracy theory. If anything, it is just the opposite. We know (from the record) who said what and who voted for what. Gimme a break: this passed with bi-partisan support. Don't like it, work to vote for you supporters, but they are fewer and fewer as American homes have fewer and fewer guns (statistically). Homes with guns have more guns. Paranoia.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Mar-10-13 12:03 PM

Alas,my fear is that the children will have to grow up in a 3rd world America that's deep in debt.Here in NY from paying retirement to mind-altering professors who won't even spend all that money here in the states.Maybe their young minds won't know the difference,having not reached their full potential.Maybe if they'd traveled to other lands(yes,even in service to their country-which you discounted as not REAL immersion in foreign culture).they'd know how lucky we are-if we can save our land from people who would steal our rights.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-09-13 12:30 PM

cont). 1Laona, to finish, "get a life." My image of you is of a worker (perhaps retired) who has an ax to grind for what you have (or haven't) made of your life. Sure, you may have great grandchildren. But what is the world you wish for them to grow into: Newtown? Can we do anything democratically and reasonably to prevent that frog recurring? Or are the protections that might at least help (if not prevent) just an inconvenience to you? What can you sacrifice, in relation to gun ownership and use, that might be a democratically fair and balanced step to protecting our children, elderly, and common citizens? How selfish it to insist on 'your way or no way' when the alternatives are so reasonable. Or are you just paranoid about law, government, and the democratic way of settling such issues? Speak, source of your echo-chamber friends. Do you really think anyone cares beyond the echo chamber? I'm just amused, otherwise I'd ignore you.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Mar-05-13 2:33 PM

r whipping boy,OK regulateski SE.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-05-13 11:41 AM

1Laona: Hyperbole (look it up) is not an argument nor evidence. You clearly have no grounds that you can cite for why, for example, someone of your delicate emotional balance should be allowed to have a gun. When you're opposed, you "open fire" with your mouth. That's your ideal of conversation and discussion. I hope you realize that, as science has shown, the kind of anti-social rants in which you engage just turns off the ordinary reader--civilized people who get along with each other with a little patience. You have no such patience. You're a bomb waiting to explode. I worry about people like you who can't have a civilized discussion with rhetoric, and hyperbole. You'd make an interesting study for a novel about the disaffected in American today, and that examines how misfits find common cause and think, therefore, that they are right. If you reply, it will be to your echo chamber: I won't be reading it any longer. Sorry to take away your amusement. Get anothe

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Mar-03-13 12:03 PM

Amish Assassins?Automatic Rifles and Pistols?Seems to be a trend here....Cia?,Rails to Trails hit squads?You've got me looking over my shoulder...lions and tigers and bears-oh my!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-01-13 12:03 PM

(cont.) Don't get me wrong; I support hunting (at least by real sports people) for the environmental advantages. I have less enthusiasm for the 'fun' and trophies. But my house has been hit by gunshots. I was fired upon by an Amish lad who shouldn't have been able to have a gun, especially not on Rails to Trails. How many gun related deaths are due to alcohol, not to any other mental disease? To drugs? It seems cautious, then, to be concerned about the kind of mayhem that an automatic rifle or pistol can commit (compared to, say, a knife in the hands of a drunk or druggie). The NRA extols the need for better enforcement of the preset laws. Agreed entirely. But to some of us, that's not enough. With the right to own and use a gun come responsibilities and I hope the gun-owning citizens will begin to 'police' their own members. For example, why shouldn't gun owners be legally responsible to keep their guns protected from children, the mentally disabled, and thieves?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Mar-01-13 11:53 AM

Mike: I wish you and yours were more protective of our other freedoms, than the right to beat arms. It is so convenient, to ally oneself with "the militia" protecting us against OUR government, when what is at stake is a long lists of social discontent that should be resolved in and by government. I'm frankly quite fed up with those who own guns for hunting and target shooting qualifying themselves as "patriots" defending us all against socialism or worse (not that anyone in these forums seems to have ANY idea what the word means). I travel the country roads of WNY and rarely see a STOP or other road control sign that does not have bullet holes through it. Is that a sign of responsible gun owners: shooting from a moving car and who knows where the bullets end up? Is that the kind of "mental" disease that the NRA wants to blame, or is it an all too common problem? Why should landowners have to go to the trouble of posting their land against hunters who

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-26-13 12:31 PM

Mike Davis: In short (hopefully): First many of these comments seem address not to guns but to government.In this regard, the animus against our (elected) president as not an American, a socialist, and other such BS are common. I think that more than a little of the animosity against gun regulation. proposals have more to do with an opposition to government and Obama as the current president, than guns. The paranoia and fear-mongering seems to be more a matter of that than of guns. I hope that most gun-owning citizens realize that. Most American do not own guns; since we lead the world in gun ownership per capital, that leads to the conclusion that a minority own guns. The conclusion is, therefore, that the majority has every reason to feel that guns are a problem--considering that 30,000 people a year die from gun related events (especially suicide and homicide).

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-25-13 10:18 PM

And I am sorry about the spelling errors, I am very tired and have several other things on my mind tonight. A pet peeve of mine, actually.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-25-13 10:14 PM

And, just as an FYI Tom, this is where I perceived your allegations. You stated "More than a little of this seems to be a kind of paranoia about the US government (especially under a Black president). Should we be honest and discuss that? Cuomo is a Catholic. Is that his problem? Or is it that he supported gay marriage?" So you brought up those issues, not me. Maybe I am mistaken in my understanding of your intent? You didn't mean to imply that some people are so bigoted that that is their only reason to defend the 2nd amendment? Because the President is half-Black? Or that there are people so homophibic that if gay marraige is allowed it somehow impugns the 2nd in their mind? Why else would you bring these issues up? I see no analogy to them. I honsestly see only the thinly veiled insults, directed at the people that disagree with your opinion. if I am mistaken, I do apologize. But I would like to hear an explanation of your meaning if I misunderstood.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-25-13 10:03 PM

(con't.) Confiscation, sir. What else can you call it?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-25-13 10:02 PM

When is it considered a safe level of "arms to bear" in your view Tom? The people of this country should be able to have any and every weapon in their possesion that any law enfocement agency has in their amory at the police station. Any less is an infringment on the right garanteed with the 2nd amendment. You see no reason for it, fine sir. That is your opinion and you are not only welcome to it, it is your Right! Also bestowed by the Constitution. But because you are uncomfortable, or hear of some maniac perpetrating horrific crimes and actions, using weapons for anything other than any law abiding citizen would, you want those weapons banned. Eventually taken from the citizens that legally own them. And please don't act so naive that every bit of pending legislation states that the current owner may keep any weapon currently in their possesion but, upon passing the weapon is to be turned over to the state. That is confiscation Tom. Not control, not registration. Confiscat

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-24-13 12:31 PM

Mike: Your post isn't up to your usual standards of discussion. I make no allegations of racism (etc.) in connection with the second amendment. You should read more carefully. I am as far as you could be from the neo-cons you accuse. I still await, from anyone in these posts, clear evidence of any government (laws, state, etc.) who are threatening to take away the right to bear arms. My point is, and its hard to get through the echo chamber that 'hears' everything as a threat, that many (most?) posts against various gun control provisions are really protests about the government's role--or, I would argue, it's responsibility: Chicago has strict laws about guns, but surrounding areas do not (same with Virginia and DC and New York and NJ). Only a national approach can begin to address the issue. But, if you oppose Government in favor of your own 'freedom to' then you won't be convinced. But that's a different argument. No one has proposed taking guns away. What proves that worry

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-23-13 2:51 PM

Tom, seriously? You bring up gay bashing, racism, and religious beliefs? And infer that if one wants to keep the 2nd amendment as it is that one is therefore guilty of being all these things? That was not only a reach, it's the thing that all the neo-cons accuse the far left thinkers of resorting to when they have no substance for their side of the debate. You are much better than that, please.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-23-13 11:20 AM

There will be a local(Dunkirk/Fredonia) bus going to Albany on 2/28/13 to protest the NY SAFE ACT.Call 672-6210 for details. $55 a seat

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-20-13 1:14 PM

WHAT is that whining noise!It's Regulateski on a rant.Golly Bob son,you've got to calm down.Japan&England-I've been there.Talked with regular folks,been to see the Kabuki Theater,enjoyed the public baths.Would I live there-no.I've already commented on how the English felt on gun confiscation.China,now that's a place that REALLY worries me.The people in Free China and Hong Kong can set you straight on fearing them.Here we are in America,what do we have to fear as long as we have Regulateski on our side.Ready to wave that white flag

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-20-13 12:06 PM

Localresident hides behind the anonymity of the moniker while insultingly referring to me as Rebel ski. I thought this nation was founded on rebels. And what a way to start a conversation. I followed your suggestions and Googled the topic you mentioned. I leave it up to fair minded readers to decide for themselves the political posturing of the 'reporting' and whether there is any threat (in NY or elsewhere) that guns will be confiscated. All those 'hits' are just more evidence of the ideological echo chamber. I still await evidence that any serious threat is "on the table" to responsible gun owners. More than a little of this seems to be a kind of paranoia about the US government (especially under a Black president). Should we be honest and discuss that? Cuomo is a Catholic. Is that his problem? Or is it that he supported gay marriage? A balanced budget? Let's talk about that and not confuse guns with an a-political agenda of hatred and distrust of government.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-20-13 11:50 AM

Well, this is interesting. My post was ***** for using the word referring to Hades (and a term found in the Bible.) And for some reason my mention of Reagan as "president" was also censored. Maybe the Observer's software mindguards are too much at work, and too little noticing of name calling, insults, and other uncivil language on this site.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-20-13 11:46 AM

Mike Davis: There you go again (a favorite expression of Ronald Regan when he was ******). A proposed law to ban assault rifles is not a law designed to confiscate them. Please note the difference. There are those who would prefer a gun-free nation, as is the case with Japan and England, but there's no chance in*****that it will ever happen here--and for good reason. Since you seem newly interested in trying to cite evidence, have you researched the death-by-gun stats from Japan or England? Or most other countries? Why do we lead this category (and trail in education)? Might it have to do with all these mentally unhealthy souls you blame that have somehow gotten access to guns due to NRA lobbying? Kerry was blamed for "being for before being against the Iraq invasion. Now we have recorded evidence that Wayne LaPierre was (20 years ago) in support of loophole free gun registration. Why the flip-flop? Why the resistance to the control of a 'dangerous substance"? You're s

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-19-13 4:26 PM

Did you happen to go to the Missouri news site I suggested and read about the Democrats of that state legislature proposing to confiscate so called assault weapons? Or is that inaccurate also? Or just not fit your liberal ideal of weapons are evil? You rant and rave that the other point of view doesn't listen. Then argue the validity if the sites and news outlets they cite? And your continued use of the term paranoid is showing how willing you are to listen to an opposing view. You really are frustrated that everyone here isn't cow-towing to your over whelming intellect, aren't you? Maybe you and Steiner can get together for a meeting of the great legends of self import. Let us, the paranoid losers of the world, know what you come up with Tom.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-19-13 12:06 PM

Mike Davis and other paranoids: You're so afraid of what? I consult your sites. The NRA and such are not sources of accuracy. You accused me (in another of these strings)of not following what you call facts. Demonstrate, by quotation, any laws currently on the books, or before Congress, where there is ANY legal language even suggesting confiscation. Please" write to the Observer with your evidence of this--not just claims, worry, paranoia about the slippery slope. Beyond that, why do you so much suspect government? Clearly, some governance is needed. Th last time I read, the US government was of, by and for the people, not a foreign power imposed on us. This is not the minutemen against the British. Who, really, are you against, and why? What facts (give me quotes) can you produce that validates your fears. Why are you so fearful. It must be terrible hating everything American has become and what most Americans stand for. We're a great country, but you whine. Why?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-18-13 4:06 PM

Judeye that was a little of a reach. Wyatt Earp didn't want the guns in the saloons and dance halls. Drunk cattle drovers and guns don't mix. Comparing them to law abiding citizens having possession of guns is not the best example you have used to support point of view.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Feb-17-13 4:39 PM

stangv8...EXACTLY.

Criminals would NOT submit to background checks. Thus if all guns required such checks it would be more difficult for them to obtain weapons.

Oh yes I am well aware that they still could get what they want. The fact though is that it would make it a bit more difficult..and come of the law abiding citizens who would undergo background checks..are the very same folks who "flip out" and start to use their weapons in a killing spree.

By the way..if any of you think more guns deter criminals...why did Wyatt Earp OUTLAW them in Tombstone? Think he thought that less guns would result in less gun violence in town?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 59 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