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

Too far on guns?

April 10, 2013

There was a time when neighbors were neighbors; people spoke, shared stories of their kids, their lives and even a cup of coffee now and then....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Apr-10-13 6:58 AM

I agree 100% Vicki, but with one exception, and that's the source of most criminal guns. Those guns are usually purchased by "straw buyers" in states where obtaining firearms is a whole lot easier. Nobody could steal the number of guns held by the criminal element in this country.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 8:36 AM

Why would anyone support a filibuster instead of permitting a vote on background checks for all gun purchases? If people not guns kill..then why not support background checks on all people?

Not sure about the SAFE act and how quickly it was pushed through. I might not know that much about guns..but I randomly picked three out from the assault weapons now banned under this act. ALL three were designed for COMBAT USE. I just do not understand why anyone would want a gun that was designed to kill a human.

Where are the laws that say if someone gets into your guns due to your negligence that you will be charged? That is a law I would like to see enacted.

I also cannot stop crying when I think of Sandy Hook and those "babies" who were gunned down. Now just maybe if he did not have a high powered gun with a large magazine that could fire off as many bullets in such a short time..just maybe...a few of them would have been saved.

5 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 8:51 AM

the two most learned liberals, judeye and christopher chimed in. judeye just cant understand the owning if a COMBAT weapon. Conversion disorder. Why do we have to explain it to you judeye? political correctness ? All guns can kill as well as knives . they had a knife attack a few days ago.Gun confiscation not a possibility ? really, the tolerant libs printed up gun owner addresses to stigmatize them. It is easy to see from background checks a universal registry made of gun owners. then it would be announced that the gun laws are insufficient and confisaction is in order.Gun hot line ? the libs took a tip right from the USSR who admired people who turned relatives in for crimes against the state.Judeye, you could be the mommy superior, approving all things for adult grown men. Fair enough ?

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 9:01 AM

Judye, noone cries for the slaughter in the inner city of inner city folk. This is conversion disorder. obama is playing up on this, full well knowing the slaughter of his own kind. Vicki raises an important point, the number of guns in the country and the number of deaths. Glossed over by the activists. there should be a wholesale slaughter of people and there aint. So judeye, imagine if legions of weeping women marched for gun confiscation. the govt would do it to listen to the voice of the people and not reason. The libs and you judeye, just keep playing up the emotions again and again.Now we see why women had to be delayed in getting the vote. Emotions would have ruled from the get go and the country would have floundered.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 10:32 AM

@judeye - there's no way the guns you supposedly "randomly" picked out were designed for combat use. If it's not fully automatic, it's worthless in actual combat. Every single legal weapon sold to the general public in the USA is single shot. I despise the term "assault weapon" because technically, all objects that can be used to attack someone are "assault weapons", including your fists if you're a professional martial artist. A scary looking gun isn't an assault weapon when used properly.

Let's see.. in a poverty-stricken state, offering cash rewards for turning in potential illegal gun owners? Yeah that's not headed for problems. Turn neighbor against neighbor in the name of a few $100s. There are so many more important things this state needs to address we don't have enough hours in the day to discuss them, but make sure you arrest law-abiding Joe Citizen because his pistol has a 10 round clip. Cripes.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 10:51 AM

"Sam Grant nearly celebrated his eighth birthday party in jail. The North Carolina boy had been charged with two felony counts of discharging his BB gun."But their world got rocked when the received a letter from the Department of Juvenile Justice summoning the family to court."“They told us that they considered it to be a violent felony — discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle,” Robbins said. “It was crazy. We completely disagreed with the charges.”The parents of a then-seven-year-old North Carolina boy are beyond angry after their son was charged with two felony counts of possessing a BB gun. Just moments before the child was expected to answer to the allegations before a Catawba County judge — the charges were dropped" ht tp://freepatriot.o rg/2013/04/07/seven-year-old-receives-felony-gun-charges-for-bb-gun/ go here for the rest of the story.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 10:54 AM

Yes we have carried it to far. And Cuomo is the worst of the lot with the UN-SAFE ACT and bounties on friends and family. Can you say traitor?

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 11:06 AM

Can anybody who is in favor of universal background checks please explain how that will be implemented? If Jimmy sells Tommy a rifle, how will we make sure that the background check is performed? If there is no gun registry, and the government doesn't know who has what guns, how will they even know that one changed hands?

I have no problem with implementing background checks for sales at gun shows, that is easy to control. But this "universal background check" thing isn't practical, because there is no way to enforce it.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 11:26 AM

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 11:28 AM

Vicki,nice level headed article, too bad that the people who need to read it are not level headed.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 11:51 AM

Good article Vicki and yes, the marginalized fringe is going too far.

Even SC Justice Scalia -- the most uber-conservative, constitution-originalist on the SCOTUS -- says gun control is very constitutional: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Even when on Fox News, Scalia said that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.

If Scalia -- Scalia -- believes that gun control and gun restrictions are constitutional, then the NRA, Gun Owners of America and the gun fringe are, indeed, are and have gone too far on guns.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 12:04 PM

Ok so if gun registration doesn't equate to confiscation then why has ny state police started to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens just be cause they are on or have been on antidepressants? What right do police have to search any ones medical records with out a search warrant? Then ask your reps what they have known about the connection of antidepressants and the mass shootings and why if the anti depressants why do we need any of the other laws they pushed through?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 12:15 PM

Yes, Scalia said the 2nd Amendment allows for some restriction, but stop interpreting that as what you want it to mean. He said some restriction, and that could mean automatic weapons, and that you can't carry them in restricted areas, like airports & courthouses. Tired of hearing this twisted. Scalia wrote “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - that doesn't mean pistol grips are not OK. That doesn't mean AR-15s. Until the SCOTUS defines what these restrictions are, stop putting words in his mouth.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 12:50 PM

Ripley -- Scalia is putting his own words in his mouth: he doesn't believe gun control/restrictions are unconstitutional. He believes the Founders had gun restrictions/controls, which means, he's open to any and all of them, and will most likely, agree with some of them. Moreover, he put it on paper in Miller for all to see and to be used to build the precedent for future 2nd Amendment cases. So, should he decide on some restrictions, it builds the precedent for future controls. And so on.

Your disagreement -- or disillusionment, whatever -- with what Scalia said is irrelevant: he's the fifth vote if not the sixth vote.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 12:55 PM

PR24601, Judeye admitted herself that she isn't informed on guns, but yet there she is, however uninformed, proclaiming that an AR-15 is designed for combat. This the majority of the anti-gun crowd. They don't understand the differences between "combat" and "civilian", but that doesn't stop them when it comes to gun control. Kind of like a city-dweller telling you what kind of car to buy. They don't own one themselves, but they are expert at telling you what you need.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 1:33 PM

shaver58, My hunch is that the State Police, under orders from the Office of the Governor, obtained the records of persons who have been prescribed Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) from a pharmacy under the state's pharmacy licensing authority. It was then an EZ task to run the pharmacy data against the names of Erie County pistol permit holders until they got a match. Of course the NY SAFE Act DOES NOT require the reporting of persons using any drug, only the reporting of persons whom the doctor believes may harm themselves or others, regardless as to whether they own guns or not. My hunch is that Cuomo is trying, via "case law", to prohibit any person who has been prescribed certain drugs at any time (the victim in Erie County has not used such a drug for some time) or for any reason, from firearm ownership. I wouldn't doubt that the prohibition would be then extended to keeping guns on any domicile...

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 1:42 PM

kcw007 contin:...wherein there resides any person who has ever taken such drugs; similar to the current law prohibiting firearms/ammunition in any home where a person convicted of any felony or crime of misdemeanor domestic violence lives. If you factor in all the reasons(ie pre surgery) that such drugs are prescribed for, the combination of the previously mentioned prohibitions would likely result in at least 50% of the population being denied their 2nd Amendment rights directly or indirectly. Now where are those people who've said here that nobody is out to take your guns?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 1:56 PM

DC - you are the disillusioned one. Scalia stated "that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" and that any new gun restrictions will have to be weighed "very carefully," and gave no indication. He also later said “What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases, what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,”

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 1:56 PM

My limited research shows that at any given time 10+% of the U.S. population is on SSRI's. Then also factor in all the people who previously used such drugs, for whatever reasons, and you can see where this may be going.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 2:18 PM

Let's see:

1. Male [check] 2. White [check] 3. Gun owner [check] [check] [check]

Uh, oh – I guess I’m a “high risk individual” because most mass shootings are done by white males. (Excluding, I suppose, drive-by shootings.)

Geeez, Louise - I’m glad I’m in VA rather than NYS! And please note: If the South ever rises again, it’ll win – we’ll have all the firepower.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 2:45 PM

Those who favor universal background checks should be reminded that Jared Laughner, the shooter who wounded Congress woman Gabrielle Gifford, passed a background check before buying his weapons. The shooter in Newtown, Conn., didn't need a background check because he used his mothers guns. I don't have a problem with background checks but I don't think it will put a dent in the problem. Those who want to kill will find a way to do it and keep in mind that there are already 300 million guns out there. Many Americans oppose background checks because we have a government that can't be trusted and their next move will be a ban on all weapons (except those used by government).

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 3:19 PM


5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 4:43 PM

"NOW THAT THERE WAS A STABING OF 14 PEOPLE.I THINK THE GOVERMENT SHOULD PUT A BAN ON ALL KNIFES . WE NEED KNIFE CONTROL." You're late. This clever remark was appearing all over the internet yesterday, minutes after the breaking news of the attacks. It was just as stupid and irrelevant then.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 5:28 PM

Why do you consider it "stupid and irrelevant"? Is it because it doesn't fall into the category of garbage like cuomos UN-SAFE ACT or what senator Feinberg wants? It's just as relevant as wanting to ban guns because they look "scary".

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-10-13 6:06 PM

No, it's stupid.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 105 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