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

Obama’s gun control game plan

Debate rages locally

January 17, 2013

Jessica Fischer says she is surprised some of the gun-control laws President Obama is asking Congress to pass aren’t already in place. A.J....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-17-13 5:54 AM

Playing with the second amendment rights only opens up all the wrong doors for our safety .

19 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:51 AM

I'm probably going to get blasted from both sides here, but I really don't care so... 1. Unless you believe it ought to be legal for a felon with deep emotional problems to walk down the street carrying a fully loaded M-16, you believe in gun control. Beyond that, it's a matter of levels that will always be changing based on public sentiment, the way the country was designed to operate from the beginning.

2. The Second Amendment does not provide for an unadulterated right to own any type of gun you want.. any more than the First Amendment allows you to say anything you want anywhere you want. Public safety is always a consideration that governs your rights.

3. None of the President's executive orders even come close to infringing on anybody's rights, and all of them should have already been in place.

4. If any of the rest of the suggested actions get done, you can "blame" is on your Congress, not the President. He can't pass a law.. he can only suggest it.

12 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 6:53 AM

5. The Assault Weapons ban is stupid. Assault Weapons offer no additional killing power than a hunting rifle, they just look different.

18 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:20 AM

I don't know which is worst to have a few nut cases and cooks with guns. But now you have a bunch of sane law abiding citizens ****** off at some people in our government ! Which doesn't the second amendment rights give the people in this country the right to bare arms against an unjust government looks bad to me . A few or many ? lol.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:36 AM

The 2nd amendment..made for times JUST like this.

15 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 7:52 AM

Nice comment Dad, especially your #2. But I disagree with #5, calling it "stupid".

I don't understand why any average, law-abiding citizen has the need to fire off more than ten rounds at a time with a semi. Or any reason why a fully-auto weapon is ever needed. I see in hypothetical self-defense situations a person needing ten quick shots, especially if being robbed or attacked by multiple people. But higher capacities are a threat to public safety.

Both Sandy Hook & Aurora shooters shot off 100+ shots in what...a minute and a half? They didn't have to reload because of their high capacity weapons. And yes, there's the argument that these weapons fell into the wrong hands. But I just can't think of any citizen who has the "right hands" except the military and law enforcement. The 2nd amendment does not give you unlimited rights, just as the 1st amendment does not give you unlimited rights.

9 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:33 AM

kyliee, so just because you don't understand it, we should take that right away? Give me a break.

12 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:34 AM

Fully automatic weapons are not covered under an assault weapons ban. They are already covered under a different classification. Deeming illegal any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds, makes most full sized handguns sold today illegal. Get rid of those two concerns and you are left with rifles that function exactly the same as a hunting rifle with nothing but cosmetic differences. It just doesn't make sense.

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:37 AM

An "assault weapon" ban is a joke and nothing more. The only thing military about an "assault weapon" is the way it looks. It is not a machine gun. I use qutation marks around the word because it is nothing more than a made up word used as a propoganda tool to get people to think a certain way about something that they do not understand.

10 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 8:49 AM

This is the perfect time to consider the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

If Obama and Pelosi and Reid and Cuomo want to prevent citizens from being able to defend themselves with firearms of any and all sorts, they should not be able to have bodyguards who protect THEM with many of these same weapons!

15 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:00 AM

Sarek, very well said. I wonder how many people understand that Prohibition worked much the same way.

10 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 9:19 AM

I'm sure all the criminals will stop stealing weapons and will follow the new laws ..........

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 10:07 AM

COMPLETELY agree with Sarek's comments. Very well said and true!

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 10:43 AM

I must also caution the dangers of using the guise of mental health in this issue. We need to be very careful upon invading an individuals privacy in the name of safety. What we need is better recognition of CHILDHOOD issues, and the ability to diagnose those problems. To incorrectly lable someone dangerous and infringe upon their rights is not the answer. People need to understand that no matter what is done, bad things are going to happen that will not be stopped. Quit trying to punish everyone else because of the actions of a criminal. We are wandering into Minority Report territory here. For those of you that have not seen the movie, read up on it.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 11:07 AM

Last night my car went out by itself and got an OVI. I have told my car many times not to drink and drive......

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 11:33 AM

I, like Kyliee, do not understand why the average citizen has the need for a weapon that fires 10 rounds without re-loading. Someone please enlighten us as to why anyone other then military or law enforcement need this thype of weapon? A good argument may convince me. As far as the statements about high ranking officials (and I'll include the President's children here since the NRA has done so) not deserving any more protection than the average, they are not better than you or I, but, unlike the average Joe, they are in CONSTANT danger coming from some nut case with a weapon and need protection.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 11:53 AM

bobber21.....the 2nd amendment states, "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."

Our founding fathers wanted to ensure that we "the people" had a way of protecting ourselves, and not just from other people, but also from its own government if necessary. That being said....criminals have "assault weapons"...and for me to counter that and protect myself (if I so choose)my right to bear arms (the same arms that the criminals have) must not be infringed upon. If you can 100% guarantee me that ALL "assault weapons" found in the United States will be turned over and destroyed so there will be 0 left, I will support a weapons ban. If you cannot do that then you cannot ban "assault weapons".

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:02 PM

Oboama will never get away with this. The NRA will not allow it. Second Amendment rights will be faught for. Can't stop mentally ill and deranged people from getting a gun. The Sandy Hook incident, that gun wasn't even was his mothers. All registrations, background checks, limitations etc. would never have caught that. I can't figure out why people are not using their brains and common sense. Those few are trying to rule the rest of us who get it!!

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:20 PM

the laws, all laws, are slowly enslaving the american public. 50 yrs from now it will be dress right dress and no one will realize the different. think about it what you take from me today, makes it easier to take from you tomorrow.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:22 PM

Here's to bubber: Since when do we argue what we "need" as opposed to what we "want", as allowed in a free country? Many people don't "need" an automatic firearm or a magazine that can hold 30 rounds of ammunition, or a firearm that looks neat like an assault weapon. But, many people "want" one to enjoy shooting as a sport or to have in case of being attacked or, even, as the Constitution allows, to protect us against a tyrannical government. (Or just because it's neat to have one!)

Maybe the question you should be asking, especially with Obama in office, is "Why does anyone 'need' FREEDOM?"

10 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:25 PM

Can anyone come up with a good reason for needing an semi-automatic assault weapon with a magazine holding 30 rounds without throwing the catch phrase "second amendment" in it.

I have hunted for years, I have plenty of guns in my house and I am a member of the NRA for 35+ years. I, and all other civilians, have no use or need for semi-automatic assault weapons!

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:29 PM

I am fully aware of what the 2nd amendment says, but this was written in 1787 (I think) and I seriously doubt that out forefathers had a clue about how weapons would evolve. So..the two reasons given for private citizens to have assult weapons are 1) to protect ourselves from our own government and 2) because the "bad guys have them"? Hardly enough to convince me!

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:29 PM

"We need to be very careful upon invading an individuals privacy in the name of safety."

The rights of many outweigh the rights of one!!!!!

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:33 PM

Lizard just added another reason: just because we "want" them! :-D

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-17-13 12:56 PM

Freedom of Speech, 1st Amendment, still holds true even though our forefathers only wrote with quills and charcoal sticks. They never envisioned the development of computers or internet, yet, we still celebrate (to a certain extent) freedom of speech!

The founders of this country did not need to envision the future. They developed and wrote a document that was timeless and still would work today if only our politicians, who "swear" to uphold and protect it, would actually follow it!

10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 83 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