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

America is a mess

March 9, 2013

To the editor: A part of the debate on the gun issue is truly clear to all — guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Well, with one you get better odds of killing something, too....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-14-13 10:52 AM

To quote my favorite radio show host, "Liberalism creates the exact opposite of it's stated intent." The gun grabbers, especially Obama have sold more guns and ammo than anyone in history. Even some people (libs, and dems I know) went out and bought guns having never owned one before. I'll put it this way, the more guns and ammo people buy the more tears liberals shed. I hope they are washed away in their own flood.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 1:52 PM

I understand the argument perfectly, you do not understand what an "assault rifle," or a "high capacity magazine" is. Therefore, trying to carry on a discussion about this with you would be like someone trying to carry on a conversation about differential equations with me. You lack the basic foundation of knowledge in regard to firearms, and about the second amendment. My copy of the Constitution says "Shall Not Be Infringed." I believe that both you and I know what that means.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-13-13 10:59 AM

You see, that is just the problem with you. You want to play scrabble when your arguments fall short. We were discussing firearms then you bring in all sorts of stuff and now you want to discuss brass knuckles and ICBM's. I doubt that you could even define what a "high capacity magazine" is, let alone define the term "assault rifle." Just out of curiosity, what is your issue with automatic knives and brass knuckles?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-12-13 11:34 AM

Core, perhaps you did not understand the idea "as long as somthing does not infringe upon the rights of another." If a person could buy weapons grade uranium (and by the way your example is crap and not practical) fine, as long as it does not injure, kill, or contaminate somthing belonging to someone else. A better example is the Kalashnikov, it is perfectly fine to carry, own, and use, so long as said use does not infringe upon the rights of others. You have a problem understanding what true freedom is, don't you.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-13 8:51 PM

Rocket Propelled Grenade0340. Hmmm? Interesting.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-13 11:51 AM

The people should be free to buy, and own and operate whatever firearms they want. Their right to operate said firearms ends when their bullets fly over, across, or into my property. As for government regulation of brass knuckles and automatic knives go, how did such things come about? Automatic knives are no more or less a knife than a steak knife, or a common pocket knife, they just have a spring. "Brass knuckles" are just an inert piece of brass which the same purpose could be served with a roll of quarters, a caribiner, and some types of mechanic gloves. My point is that government should stay out of the whole dang argument, let the people do what they want as long as "whatever" does not infringe upon the rights of another.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-11-13 10:47 AM

Mr. Core, the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, the one that shall not be infringed is a right. So, if you are taxing people to utilize that, it is no longer a right it is a privledge. If you start taxing people to vote, the same thing happens, same as if you were to tax people for assembling and protesting this oor that. Rights are not things that can be taken away or charge a fee to express. BTW, of all your comments, not one person agrees with you. I wonder who is wrong here?LOL! You're playing of word games does not change the fact that your ideas are bassackwards.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-10-13 8:46 PM

By imposing a tax on firearms, you are turning a right into a priveledge. If voter fraud is so enforced, how come those in Chicago caught in the act of voter fraud are not serving a 10 yr mandatory sentence? That is just the tip of the iceburg for firearms violations. The left wants to disarm citizens so that the citizens must rely more upon government, thus keeping liberals in office. Take Mark Kelly for example, after delivering his speech about how we need more gun control he buys an AR-15 a 1911A1 and "high-capacity magazines." I think we need to bring back a poll tax. If you pay income taxes you can vote, if you are on welfare you have to pay 15% of your benefit cost before you can cast a vote. To use your lingo we would not be stopping people from voting, just charging them to do so.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-10-13 10:57 AM

Such policies would be an infringment upon the rights of gun owners. The 2nd Ammendment makes firearm ownership a RIGHT. Gun owners should not have to register, be taxed on, or pay fees for a right. On a side note, would you be outraged if tax consumers were charged a poll tax, voter registration tax, etc to vote? How about a mandatory 10 yr sentence for voting violations? Gun owners that violate laws (regardless of how stupid those laws are) are fined and to be honest the penalty for violations are very high (10yrs in most cases). Police investigate crime, not prevent it. You could have an officer on every corner and crime would still happen. The best option is still to allow citizens to be armed.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 10:00 PM


0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 2:58 PM

And your point is???

Criminals won't give up guns, follow laws, abide by their probation agreement, stop robbing, murdering, raping, shooting, stabbing, or bludgening people, or buying selling, and using illegal drugs. Police cannot be everywhere so without the abaility to obtain, and carry a firearm where does that leave the citizen? It makes them easy victims of criminals. You are avoiding this argument with your typical diversionary tactics because you know you'll lose.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 12:40 PM

Actually, no, I made the argument that the laws that already exist should be enforced, and that those that break said laws should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I also stated that firearms need to be available to law abiding citizens so that they have the means to protect themselves and their families from those that disobey the laws. If I recall, you once said that if someone saved your life or the life of a family member with a firearm, you'd try to beat them up.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 11:23 AM

The idea of the author that somehow criminals will follow the laws is laughable. The problem is that laws that are already on the books are not enforced. Criminals are paroled, released early, when they are charged and convicted anyway. Firearms need to be available to law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the scum that do not follow laws. Remember, police investigate crime, not prevent it when you need them, they are minutes away.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for: