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)

joew

Feb-16-13 7:56 AM

Well written Frank,agree 100%!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Feb-16-13 8:00 AM

Very good job Frank! The Constitution is meant to be a document that outlines the restrictions upon the government, not the restrictions upon the governed.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Feb-16-13 8:15 AM

I lived in New Hampshire for eight years before moving to this area. There are many reasons why NH has a lower crime rate..and NONE of them have to do with gun ownership.

It is a very small state. Most areas are rural with no really large urban area like its neighbor states like Mass. It is also a very wealthy state which I just looked up the median household income..is $64,664 and the median home valued at $250,000. Jobs are plentiful, and not sure what they are paying now, but when I left in the late eighties, McD was paying almost $9 an hour. They also had strict laws on bars and drinking alcohol, closing bars at 1am..and bars had to sell more food than liquor..all bars.

Those are more the reasons for the low crime rate than gun laws. By the way I never saw anyone anywhere just carrying a gun. It might have been legal, but I think few exercised that right.

Oh..and yes we laughed all the time state motto..Live Free or Die...on license plates made by those in prison.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Feb-16-13 8:25 AM

Who is against background checks before you purchase a gun? Closing the loopholes in the laws that now let nearly 40% of all purchases not go through any background check.

Who is against outlawing straw gun purchases, where you get someone who can pass the background check buy the gun for you?

Can we not at least start here?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steiner

Feb-16-13 8:40 AM

Judeye gets it wrong again. Straw purchases are illegal. Walter williams had a great article on Cultural deviancy and guns in 2/15 Observer. But, better yet , we can be proud of our democratic public employee union, the cops. They were shooting trucks ! Trucks kill people and there is no constitutional right to own a truck. They are large emitters. judeye is sure that dorner and his types will follow the law. amazing right ? The dorner case is the best case against any further gun control we have. Libs will find it hard to believe.In williams article, do you think the shooters followed gun control laws ? It must be the love thing spoken of frequently by libs in their pusuit of more laws and happiness. Love conquers all, right libs, well except for bullets that is.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rdnewt

Feb-16-13 8:48 AM

Judi, we have background checks already, even to buy a shotgun. We have laws against "straw purchases". We have laws against magazines over 10 rounds. We also have laws against drugs, murder, rape, theft, etc. Do these things still happen, yes. Why don't we concentrate on the laws that we have, and make the proper punishments stick, instead of having these corrupt judges and lawyers who let people out of jail on stupid technicalities, or "feel good" reasons. Most people who commit violent crimes have committed some kind of crime in the past. Let's fix our rehabilitation process, and go back to making prisons places that people don't want to go back to. Enough of these prisoners rights groups, they should lose their rights when they commit a crime, until the debt to society is paid back.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 10:00 AM

Judeye, you said "Can we not at least start here?" Background checks being the starting point...just where is your "end point"? That seems to be the biggest objection to many people that think the 2nd should be left alone. Including me.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 10:08 AM

Jeez Steiner, will you unwind just a little? Try a dialogue sometime, not a condescending attack on everything someone says that you don't agree with. Make your point without sounding like you somehow evaded the guards and got on line to go nuclear against any and every person out here. Agree or disagree, we are all in this together, it's called life. Thank you.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 10:13 AM

And love her or hate her, Judeye has points worth considering, cites where to find the info she places here, and is usually respectful. Frustration can get the better of anyone, once in a while. But you sir, live in that state.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SmallTownSmallMind

Feb-16-13 11:12 AM

Wow! Mike Davis I take my hat off to you, sir. I don't often agree with you but I enjoy your posts and think I would enjoy having a beer or two and shooting the breeze with you and most others on this post, in fact. I definitely agree with your latest post to the Steinman. He takes others' posts personally and attacks Judeye often. Also, you are right, Judeye is cordial and makes her points peacefully and with supporting docs. I enjoy the posters on this site and what they have to say. It is a daily staple of mine, and I thank-you for trying to keep it civil and still engaging. You're all right, Mike.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 12:47 PM

Small, thank you and right back at you. Disagreeing is no reason to lambast someone. Make your point, read theirs. Then at least consider the others opinion before countering it. Seems as though a few here look at the name and hit the agree/disagree button accordingly. That's helpful...lol

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cruisin

Feb-16-13 1:36 PM

Sad that so many gun supporters are so incredibly naive while parroting NRA talking points. Columbine had a professionally trained armed guard on site. Virginia Tech has its own armed police force. Fort Hood is a military base filled with military grade weapons. It didn't stop the shooter. So please explain how arming teachers and administrators is going to save lives, especially in a crisis situation where they have little or no training or skills. And the ex-LA cop, are you going to pretend he was mentally ill too? The world isn't black or white, yes or no, right or wrong. You can't continue to ignore the grey areas.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-16-13 1:42 PM

Fanck:Your remarks are in many instances reasonable.I have two issues for you (and readers) to consider. I'm not given to 'originalist' takes on the Constitution: that the words written then mean what we take them to be today. The "militia" mentioned was understandable given the recent revolution against Great Britain. But unless you're given to paranoia that 'the government' (which is actually us) is trying to confiscate arms, in what sense is the "miltia" to be disposed? We have a national Guard. The only FEAR (NRA) seems to be be the assumption that "the government" threatens our freedom, rather than facilitating it. Sure, there are more and more laws (by people we elected) that govern the increased complexity of modern life. Were the framers to imagine an assault rifle, I think they would be concerned with the damage it can afflict, beside defending the home or nation. The second point concerns the accessibility of guns in society. tom.regelski@

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 2:05 PM

Crusin' you are going to say that the ex-LA cop wasn't deranged? And quoting Samuel Adams isn't an NRA talking point. The military usually stores their weapons in an arms room. The Muslim Major that did a personal jihad on American military people is a terrorist, no matter how the Obama administration is trying to sell it as a "work place incident". They don't carry their weapons 24/7. If you had ever served in the military you would know that. If any of the soldiers had had a weapon we wouldn't still be waiting for this cowards trial. You and Regelski seem to think that banning certain weapons is the answer. The problem is there is no answer to bat s!@t crazy. Wouldn't it be great if we could have two states, one completely gun free like you want, and one where law abiding citizens were afforded the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution? Which state do you suppose would have the higher crime rates? Give you a hint, criminals wouldn't bother coming into the state I lived

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Feb-16-13 2:45 PM

Mike, I am thinking the same thing. Cruisin has trouble spotting a mentally ill person. True, the LA cop was out to get the LAPD, and by some accounts, they deserve some punishment for some of the things they've done. But this guy thinking that one person is going to win a war against an entire police force? Juuuuuust a tad insane.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

cruisin

Feb-16-13 5:15 PM

Most people would consider those who suffer from acute paranoia and unfounded fears as mentally ill. Yet these are the very same folks who claim they need an assault weapon to protect themselves and their families. You are more likely to be struck by lighnting.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1Laona

Feb-16-13 7:54 PM

cruisin.just keep whistling in the dark,don't forget to kiss the hand of your Masters...oh worthy subject.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-16-13 8:31 PM

LOL cruisin..Yet again with the mental and paranoia references. Did you and Regelski read the same hand out from Cuomo and Obama? It isn't paranoia when the government is saying they want your property. That is reacting. Don't you, at the very least, find it an interesting question? Why is alright for the government and local law enforcment to have those and even more powerful weapons, but not for the citizenry as the Constitution not only allows but nearly demands? "Of the people, by the people and for the people" I seem to remember hearing that a few times in the last couple of days. Why are law enforcment or a government employee higher in the "food chain" than ANY citizen then? As Orwell said in "animal Farm" some animals are more equal than others. Some people are an example of ones that would gladly sit in the back of the pen quietly.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Feb-16-13 8:37 PM

Judeye, what loopholes are you talking about. You keep mentioning them but never explain.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Feb-16-13 8:40 PM

Next to a school, a military instillation is probably one of the largest gun free zones in America. Major Hassan knew that and that's why he was able to kill and wound so many. When only the police are armed, they can't be everywhere at the same time.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

Feb-16-13 10:25 PM

The Framer's intent? Slavery was the Framer's intent -- but we don't do that anymore, do we? Women not allowed to vote was the Framer's intent --but we don't do that anymore, do we? Shall I go on?

Or do you want to continue to go down that ignorant slope of so-called Framer's intent, as it relates to the 2nd amendment?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

Feb-16-13 10:34 PM

FYI...Columbine's 'resource officer' was on his lunch break, sitting in his car in a school parking lot eating a sub. When alerted to the gunfire, he immediately went to the scene and exchanged gunfire (pistol versus rifle) with one of the two shooters as they entered the school.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Feb-17-13 1:16 AM

You must be getting desperate Dc. You use two examples of rights being added to the Constitution for the good of many more people... to justify and defend your stance to take rights away from some people that you don't agree with today? Law abiding, moral people. Not people denying freedom or representation to anyone. But that doesn't strike you as hypocritical at all, does it? WOW

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Feb-17-13 2:46 AM

Mike, DC is good with Excel, not the Constitution.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Feb-17-13 2:51 AM

Not ironic at all that DC ignores the Declaration Of Independence, you know, the whole where "all men are created equal" thing, and that silly little skirmish in the late 1800's where slavery was a main issue, and was abolished beforehand. But yeah, slavery was a main staple of the Constitution. Wow.

4 Agrees | 0 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