Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DEBORAH HASTINGS | 04/ 7/09 07:43 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
FILE - This file image provided by News 10 Now in Syracuse, N.Y. on Monday April 6, 2009 shows Jiverly Wong's gun permit. A letter that included three photos, a gun permit and Wong's driver's license was mailed to News 10 Now and postmarked Friday April 3, the day Wong killed 13 people before taking his own life in the American Civic Association community center in Binghamton, N.Y. There have been seven rampages that have claimed 53 lives since March 10 in this country, and nearly every gunman in this month-long series of mass killings was legally entitled to wield the weapons he opened fire with. (AP Photo/News 10 Now)

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren't getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts "to pass any similar law."

Gun control issues would only produce "a long and divisive fight," they said, at a time when Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.

A few states are trying to loosen gun restrictions. In the Texas Capitol _ where legislators can carry guns _ bills easily passed the Senate in recent weeks that would allow employees to bring weapons to work as long as they leave them locked in their cars, and let those packing heat off the legal hook if they walked into a bar that didn't have signs saying guns weren't allowed inside.

The state also is considering allowing students licensed to carry a concealed weapon _ there are about 300,000 such adults in Texas _ to bring guns on campus.

Story continues below
advertisement

Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right. In Tennessee, lawmakers made progress this month toward allowing guns to be carried in state and local parks.

"I think you're seeing a continuing change of culture," Vogel said. "I think the gun lobby wants to take away any stigma to gun ownership. I think they feel emboldened, like who's going to stop them?"

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobbying group, declined to comment this week on gun control laws. "Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It is time for families and communities to grieve and to heal," it said in a prepared statement.

Groups such as Vogel's, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak _ just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.

Joining their outrage was the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "How many more gun-related acts of violence must we experience before the nation's leaders will decide that it is time to act?" asked president Manuel Diaz, mayor of Miami.

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts _ whether they have a gun permit or not. And studies conflict on whether stricter gun laws lessen gun violence.

On Friday, a depressed and angry Jiverly Wong used a 9 mm and .45-caliber handgun to kill 13 immigrants and service center employees in Binghamton, N.Y., police said. Earlier that day, the ethnic Chinese immigrant from Vietnam mailed an envelope to a Syracuse television station. In it were his gun permit, photos of him smiling while hoisting shiny, big handguns, and his driver's license.

Questions have been raised over the upstate New York gun permit issued to Wong in 1997. Two years later, he was reported to state police by an informer who claimed Wong was planning a bank heist to feed a crack-cocaine habit. Unlike other areas of the state, including New York City, Wong's Broome County permit did not have to be renewed.

Local authorities, however, have broad discretion in reviewing and revoking such permits, according to legal experts. Especially when it comes to drug use, criminal behavior and violence.

"In retrospect, this is probably not a guy who should have had a gun," said attorney Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police. "No one likes to see things fall through the cracks and it looks like this guy fell through the cracks."

Binghamton police chief Joseph Zikuski said Tuesday that no robbery occurred and there was no merit to review Wong's gun permit.

In New York City, gun permits are reissued every three years.

Yet, regulations differ only slightly between states, Chamberlain said. "They're fairly typical _ don't be a felon, don't be a drunk, don't beat your kids or your wife. Don't be so mentally unbalanced that you need be in an institution."

To Chamberlain, the answer to gun violence lies not in stricter regulations, but in answering the question, "Why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country? The answer to that is historical. We've had guns for a very long time.

"I can't think of any sweeping law change that would address that."

To Vogel, the answer to why atrocities happen in places such as Binghamton, and before that Washington state and Santa Clara, Calif., lies in sheer numbers.

The number 280 million, to be precise, the estimated total of every gun in this country.

"When you have that many guns, those guns are going to be used in horrific ways," Vogel said. "There's just too many. Inevitably, somehow, some way, those weapons are going to be used in an egregious way."

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons. So what does that say about the state of gun ...
They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons. So what does that say about the state of gun ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
3796
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (41 pages total)
- Hobay I'm a Fan of Hobay 4 fans permalink

With legal gun shows, who needs a black market?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:57 AM on 04/10/2009
- OdinsEye I'm a Fan of OdinsEye 57 fans permalink
photo

Legal gun shows are nothing more than gatherings primarily of private citizens (not dealers) making private sales/transfers. Private sales/transfers can be done at a kitchen table, garage sale, via newpaper classifieds, etc.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 04/10/2009
photo

The difference between a typical private sale and a gun show is at a gun show you can buy many guns at one time w/ no background check. On 20/20 they showed a man w/ $5,000 who was able to get dozens of rifles and semiautomatic handguns at one time with no questions asked. He could have very easily just driven straight to a campus and used those to commit another college massacre. I'm sorry, but that should NOT be legal. If a man wants to get that many guns, the only legal way he should be able to do so at a gun store w/ background checks. I'm not saying this would prevent mass shootings, but our laws shouldn't make the process easier either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 04/16/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 19 fans permalink

Can you please explain your inquiry?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 04/10/2009
- Ohio9 I'm a Fan of Ohio9 17 fans permalink

Explain how gun shows are any different then auto shows.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:02 PM on 04/10/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

You do realize that FFL holders selling at gunshows have to do the same checks that they do in their shops so you can stop your hysterical spinning

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 04/11/2009

I don't think gun ownership should be completely illegal.

But I also don't think increased regulation of firearms is an infringement of rights.

Who honestly thinks that all armaments should be completely unregulated? Should it be legal to carry concealed grenades? Should I be allowed to have nuclear weapons in my home? I think most people will agree that restrictions and regulations of weapons is a reasonable necessity in our society.

And yet I also think it's perfectly reasonable for an individual to own a hunting rifle. Though I don't hunt myself and find the idea kind of nauseating, I don't think it's reasonable to make sport hunting completely illegal.

But what about fully automatic long-range assault rifles? Or semi-automatic pistols? Where should we draw the line?

I haven't the foggiest idea.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Fully automatic and long-range are mutually exclusive ideas - unless you are talking about .50 cal machine guns or 20 mm cannons. If you can hold it in your hands on full auto, forget about long-range.

Full auto weapons are illegal for civilians to own unless acquired before 1986.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 04/08/2009
- HisXLNC I'm a Fan of HisXLNC 7 fans permalink

If the police can have it, I can carry have it.

That's the line we have now and that's where the line should stay.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

The police can carry and use weapons which are illegal for the general population already. They don't normally and most police forces don't stock them because of the huge initial and maintenance costs; but, they can borrow them from the FBI or the National Guard. In fact, both of the latter organizations will supply the weapons and shooters thse days because they don't want to chance untrained police using those weapons. However, that wasn't always the case.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 AM on 04/09/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 5 fans permalink
photo

Let's try to draw the line logically: you cannot control who gets hurt if you toss a grenade, much less a nuke. By their very nature, they are randomly lethal. There are many instances of grenades used in warfare that wind up killing friendly forces. They're certainly handy in some situations, but they cannot be strictly controlled by the person throwing them. So grenades, bombs, poison gas and other such weapons seem too dangerous for common use. The knowledge to make such weapons, however, is our right to possess.

Likewise, fully automatic fire is generally difficult to hold on a man-sized target, and its utility in combat is dubious for the individual soldier. Our infantry is taught and told to shoot semi-auto only, even though many M-16 type weapons are capable of full auto fire. So I don't see fully automatic weapons as controllable enough to make a stink over, although some people like to shoot them at targets, which looks like lots of fun.

A multi-shot, semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or handgun, if used properly, is a threat only to the person at which you aim it. Guns are powerful but controllable weapons, and as such are suited to the responsible citizen. Sound reasonable?

Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Don't even bring it up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Of course, you are assuming that the person using the weapon has been trained iin its use. And, is firing it from a stable shooting stance.

btw, you might be interested in the goings on in Switzerlad, a country which required gun "ownership" of almost half its adult population and which ensure that those owners are responsible and well trained.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aMKldtonnQMU&refer=germany

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 AM on 04/09/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 19 fans permalink

A "line" was drawn in 1934, restricting civilian access to fully automatic firearms and to firearms chambered in a caliber in excess of .50. Thus far, no one has provided a compelling justification for altering this "line". Frequently, advocates of increased firearms regulation propose a prohibition on the sale and manufacture -- and, in some cases, possession -- of classes of firearms least likely to be criminally misused, which is fundamentally irrational.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Oh, really? Care to make a case for that "fundamental irrationality" instead of just asserting it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:01 AM on 04/09/2009

Another good reason to not live in Texas...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:53 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

It's everyone problem.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 AM on 04/09/2009
- gino618 I'm a Fan of gino618 46 fans permalink

Very simply - someone please tell me how, if all the gun regulation & licensing & oversight laws were passed that you all want passed, what difference that would make to any gang bangers, illegal aliens, drug merchants, or any other criminals who currently, or intend to, own weapons?

Perhaps more should be focused on dealing with those who truly do own automatic weapons & machine guns and far worse - the criminals.

Canada, Great Britian, etc. with all the gun laws some tout on here, don't have the same criminal problems that we here in the US do. If they did, they'd be clamoring for the same freedom to own weapons that we enjoy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 04/08/2009
- Ohsherri I'm a Fan of Ohsherri 102 fans permalink
photo

Gangs are the biggest gun-magnets!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

With the NRA claiming there are 290,000,000 firearms in the USA. I don't think we can call it a gang problem and forget about it. Were any gang memers involved in the mass murders of the past two months?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:17 AM on 04/09/2009
photo

One of the reason we don't have the same criminal problems is because we restrict the number and kind of guns that people can have.

Yes..the criminals can get guns but we don't have as many "spree killings where 10 people are shot at a time by people with mental health problems

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 19 fans permalink

Have you considered that perhaps it is improved access to mental health care, rather than reduced access to firearms, that affects the quantity of "spree killings" in the country in which you reside?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 AM on 04/09/2009
- OdinsEye I'm a Fan of OdinsEye 57 fans permalink
photo

They did not have a problem to begin with even prior to the restrictive laws. The cultural norms are quite different for each country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:33 PM on 04/09/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

Great Britain has had a lower crime rate than the U S for a century-gun bans have nothing to dowith it

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 04/10/2009

There should be no restrictions on owning any weapons that existed at the time the 2nd amendment was written.

If some psycho goes on a shooting spree with a musket....odds are they will only kill one person and EVEN that is debatable considering the lethality of late 1700's ball and powder technology.

Note to Republicans: George Washington was not a deity with supernatural powers. HE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE HANDGUNS! Or hand grenades. Or bazookas. Or Nuclear weapons.

So this appeal to the intent of the Founding Fathers are unquestionable god-like beings needs to stop. You're embarrassing yourselves.

Self-defense is a right....but owning military grade firearms, tanks or attack helicopters IS NOT a right.

Please stop watching "Death Wish" over and over again. It's rotting your brain.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:16 PM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 19 fans permalink

Who has advocated ownership of military-grade firearms, tanks or attack helicopters as a "right"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 AM on 04/09/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

primarily gun banners

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 04/09/2009
- Ohio9 I'm a Fan of Ohio9 17 fans permalink

Handguns did exist when the constitution was written.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 04/09/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Yes, they did. They were called pistols, and they were flintlock or matchlock, just like muskets.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 04/09/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

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.

Your argument is specious. The amendment doesn't claim you can keep guns solely for hunting or revolutionary war reenactments.

You'd have a citizen militia armed with muskets to take on Black Water, if Cheney had taken over after 9/11 &imposed Marshall law?

The 2nd amendment is to provide people the ability to repel an attempt by the government to take away our ability to defend ourselves from a government gone bad as well as an invading nation.

Ask the Polish how well horses & pitchforks worked against the Panza divisions. They still fought but it was a short battle.

Ask the Afghans how well the war against their Soviet Government was going before we supplied them with weapons capable of taking on their own "governments" weapons. They had more than muskets, but couldn't make a dent in the Soviet army.

I enjoy being an American, & enjoy our freedom. Freedom carries risks & must be maintained constantly. We do not live in a Utopian society where the Government never seeks to abrogate our rights. Warrant less wire taps anyone? Black hole sites? Jose Padilla a U.S. citizen spirited to an off shore brig to circumvent our legal system?

At age of 44, after 9/11 my view changed on the 2nd amendment. I feared my government for the 1st time in my life.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 PM on 04/11/2009
- Aranxa I'm a Fan of Aranxa 5 fans permalink

The hunting excuse does not legitimize gun ownership. Killing squirrels and raccoons because it is "fun" does not change the fact that it is killing. Acceptance of killing for sport degrades the value of all life.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:05 PM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

The Constitution does not protect your right to drive a car because there were no cars in 1788. The Constitution does not protect your right to fly an airplane because there were no airplanes in 1788. None of the weapons you claim to have the right to own existed in 1788. Therefore the Constitution does not protect your right to own them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

So this generation has alot of important work to do.......would you agree?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:58 PM on 04/08/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

And that work does not include more gun bans only affecting the law abiding

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 04/08/2009
- gino618 I'm a Fan of gino618 46 fans permalink

Well then - Abortion issue resolved - since the general practice of abortion on demand was most likely not around in 1788, there is no Constitutional right to it.

Simple!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

What makes you think abortion wasn't available. Abortion has been around since the Bronza Age. Read, why doncha?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 AM on 04/09/2009

I guess you don't have a right to free speech on the internet since the internet did not exist. And you don't have a right not to be subjected to warrantless searches of your car because cars did not exist. And the separation of church and state is obsolete because scientology hadn't been invented yet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:07 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Warrentless searches. as a for instance, are subject to the normal legislative process as is free speech on the internet. Check out the Patriot Act. You really must do some homework.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 AM on 04/09/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 5 fans permalink
photo

And there were no black presidents back then, and I could kill my slaves, children or wife with impugnity, and I could get $5 for an Indian's scalp -- SO WHAT? The Constitution was amended to correct those injustices. If you want to restrict gun rights, amend the Constitution according to the rules. Otherwise, you're just tempting civil war. And you think we got gun violence now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

You are flat wrong. . The Constittution was amended to eliminate slavery. All of your other examples were "fixed" as a result of ordinary legislation

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 AM on 04/09/2009
- OdinsEye I'm a Fan of OdinsEye 57 fans permalink
photo

"The Constitution does not protect your right to drive a car because there were no cars in 1788"

There were other modes of tranport which did exist yet none of them are protected.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:34 PM on 04/09/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

Not every right is contained within the BOR or Constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of rights that grants citizens the right to any mode of transportation even those which existed at that time. Only the rights of members of members of Congress to travel to and from the Congress.

Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 PM on 04/12/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

People should have a right to bear any arms that existed in 1788, when the Constitution was signed. They should have no right to own any weapons invented since.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/08/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

Then you would be ok with your computer and telephone being taken away since they did not exist in 1788

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:52 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Is it your belief that everything not guaranteed you in the constitution is going to be taken away from you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:59 PM on 04/08/2009

"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."

My copy of the constitution doesn't say you have a right to bear museum pieces. Only a willfully ignorant reader of the constitution could conclude that the right to bear arms means the right to bear obsolete museum pieces that could not be used to defend. It specifically mentions the militia and the security of the state. How could any honest person not conclude that they meant military style arms?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 5 fans permalink
photo

The founders could have easily written "a flintlock Brown Bess loaded with black powder and a round lead ball" instead of "arms" if that's what they intended us to have.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:20 PM on 04/08/2009
- jbritt I'm a Fan of jbritt 2 fans permalink

Let's not forget that modern high speed "assault" printing presses are cable of spraying libel into innocent people at astounding rates and with terrible consequences. They didn't exist when the Constitution was signed so they should be banned. Oh, then there's this whole interwebs thing that let's people spout off utter stupidity without even having to be government licensed and registered blog commentors. With all the fallacious arguments and pure stupid flying around people could be injured by acting upon false information.

Do you even think before you type?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:13 PM on 04/08/2009
- Ohio9 I'm a Fan of Ohio9 17 fans permalink

Then I guess the first amendment doesn't apply to any forms of communication that have been invented since the 18th century either, like cell phones and e-mail.

Also, that means the fourth amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of 18th century homes and 18th century property.

Using you logic, the entire constitution would not apply to anything in the modern world.

But thanks for showing the desperation of gun control activists. They are so desperate to trash the second amendment that they are willing to destroy the entire bill of rights to do so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

Does the right to bear arms include swords?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:44 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Arguably, arms are arms.

Which is why concealable blades longer than 4" are illegal. Heh, heh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:48 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Now you've done it. The National Edge and Point Association is right around the corner. Followed by the National Taser Association. Followed by the National Acid Squirting Association. Followed by the .....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 AM on 04/09/2009

The 2nd Amendment was written with MUSKETS in mind.

If we want to outlaw all weapons except MUSKETS then I have no problem with that.

But trying to take a law written for muskets in 1776 and applying it to machine guns in 2009 makes no sense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:32 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

To be fair, it doesn't apply to machine guns. They are illegal for civilians to own.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 5 fans permalink
photo

WRONG. Machine guns are perfectly legal in some states. And yet the only recent crime I know of in which machine guns were used was the LA bankrobber shootout a few years ago (where full auto guns are illegal).

With at least four fully automatic real live ASSAULT RIFLES to commit their crimes with, the score was 2 dead robbers, no dead civilians or cops.

Remember too the DC snipers, who brought the region to its knees by firing no more than one shot at a time. They could have used a flintlock rifle and accomplished the same thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 04/08/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

Voodoo--machineguns have been severely restricted since 1934--you have been drinking too much Brady Campaign KOolaid

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 19 fans permalink

Your assertion is demonstrably incorrect. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual right to possess arms that are "in common use". This includes handguns and semi-automatic rifles.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:46 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Neither of those items is in common use, Besides, where did you find that phrase in the Constitution?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 AM on 04/09/2009
- SouPro I'm a Fan of SouPro 9 fans permalink
photo

The Musketeer anti-gun people really need to think about what their proposing a bit better.

The shot used in a musket were lead balls. Lead is poisonous and was outlawed in the early part of this century because of it's potential harm on the environment. So in this "strict" (selective) view of the Constitution, we would have to use lead shot again as well?

Another example of the lack of concern for the effects of gun legislation.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 04/08/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

I'm a life long liberal, opposed gun ownership, but moderated my view when I moved to a rural Oregon, where many people hunt. The majority for the meat, as work is seasonal.

Most of my life I rejected the bumper sticker: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. I work as an indigent defense investigator in Oregon. Done so over 20 years. In Oregon, anyone not convicted of a felony can carry a handgun or rifle anytime, almost anywhere, as long as it isn't concealed. Two years ago, we started requiring background checks before purchasing a handgun.

Despite a lot of contact with thousands of felons over the years,I didn't get a CWP & start til last year. But meth has gotten more potent & more users & dealers are packing. Druggies do break into homes & steal guns which they trade for drugs. Now the odds of people I contact being dangerous & armed has increased.

I enjoy my profession as I do make certain the State doesn't trample over the rights of people charged with crimes. I intend to do the job as long I can. However, I promised my mother she would never have to bury another child before she died, my dog I'd always come home to him, my girlfriend, that she'd go before me.

In a perfect world, would I prefer no need for concealed weapon? Absolutely. But we do not live in a perfect world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:23 PM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

Do your neighbors hunt with AK47's? With machine pistols? Are these weaposn part of your perfect world?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:37 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

an AK 47, properly outfitted and sighted, would be pretty good for hunting - but many if not all jurisdicttions won't let you use a semi-auto to hunt.

Machine pistols are illegal. Period.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:50 PM on 04/08/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

Whether or not my neighbors hunt with auto or semi automatic weapons is not the issue here. The issue is more complex. The Bush administration, for the first time in my lifetime, made me reassess the armed militia clause.

A single shot rifle would not protect me, my family, neighbors, city, or state from an attack ordered by King George as our rights were eroded as occurred after 9/11. Imagine a world where Bush was replaced by Cheney, who declared Marshall law, suspended the majority of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights. And hired Black Water to uphold that Marshall law.

It was for this type of situation that the people were granted the right to maintain an armed militia.

For me, it was solely an intellectual exercise for 44 years. 9/11 changed that. Not because I feared an enemy invasion, as I beleive our armed services would enlist us to turn back the enemy. But because of the arrogance and certainty the last administration had.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:02 PM on 04/11/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

I'm a life long liberal, NOT opposed to gun ownership - nor to common sense regulation. I've had guns and done target shooting all my life. I'm an expert shot with the ones I own (several at this point). I haven't killed anything since I was about 14 (squirrels), as I've neither the need nor the appetite to hunt.

What I keep on hand is what I feel is appropriate to my family's defense, keeping in mind that all of my practice and experience may mean little if confronted with the (however unlikely) real life-or-death situation which gets the adrenaline pumping. So, I want to be able to keep pulling the trigger until a lethal round connects, without having to pull back a hammer or reload, and I want my rounds to dissipate their energy in the target and stop, not pass through.

Since I favor rural living and being self-sustaining, then if supply chains were to break down, I would become a hunter again.

But in no way, shape or form do I support the idea that more lethal instrumentalities in more people's hands makes the society safer.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 5 fans permalink
photo

I hope you'll be coming out publicly against the drug war, which seems to be at the rotten root of this whole problem. Anyone remember alcohol prohibition? Flashbacks anyone?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

"Flashbacks anyone?"
Yeah mann, the colors...

Sorry. I couldn't pass that up. I'll state publicly that the drug war is only another failed attempt at prohibition. "It's a war on personal freedom."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:46 PM on 04/08/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

I am very opposed to the drug war.

A good many judges, and prison personal are against it as well. Although our reasons are miles apart.

I beleive that if drugs were legal, the crime rate would drop dramatically, no need to smuggle, no need for dealers, no need for users to commit crimes like theft, burglaries & robberies, to get the drugs.

I'm not a big fan of the government telling an adult what they may or may not do to their own body as long as what is being done is not harming another. Persons crimes, endangerment crimes, on the other hand, I have no problem with.

Prison officials and Judges see the war as a losing effort, mandatory sentencing as overreaching and in the end, a life long punishment as felons are not the easiest people to get hired on at jobs. Drug users also use up the scarce tax dollars most states have.

Prison is also sadly, the most formal and lasting education, as well as consistent environment many drug users have had. They are interacting with gang members, people who have committed person crimes, and after less than 18 months, studies show the vast majority of inmates become institutionalized, unable to cope out side of the environment. This contributes greatly to the high rate of recidivism of those who are incarcerated over those who receive treatment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 04/11/2009
photo

Can someone please give me a quick civics lesson because I am a Canadian and I may have a knowledge gap. Is it the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that supposedly gives a person the right to bear arms. I am reading both on here.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:00 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Bill of Rights, Amendment 2

If I recall correctly,

"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."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:05 PM on 04/08/2009
- dan-o I'm a Fan of dan-o 5 fans permalink

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the constitution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

The second amendment in the bill of rights is the pig in the poke.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:07 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

Type it into your favorite search engine and find out for yourself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:09 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

Thank you for your thoughtful answer..... conservative hippie. Can I teach you anything about Canada?

To all the others who answered me...thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to what you might have considered to be a dumb question

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

That answer was a little hostile Conservative Hippie.....Do you have a case of indigestion?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:26 PM on 04/08/2009
- tre I'm a Fan of tre 12 fans permalink

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution 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.

The "Bill of Rights" constists of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. And, it doesn't "give" us the right. The Constitution recognizes rights the people already had. The Declaration of Independence states "..the peoples are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienalbe rights and among these are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

What are peoples?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:16 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Really? Got that old Constitution is inerrant thing going? The Constitution is a document written by men with the flaws of those men built into it. Just like the Bible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:31 PM on 04/08/2009
- LHoney I'm a Fan of LHoney 41 fans permalink
photo

Rick Sanchezzzz on CNNNN just announced the killlller of the 3 kops in Pittsburgh was as a result of him listening to Faux Newz and Rosh L....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

Nice try......but I doubt it....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Well, Rick did say essentially that.

If you doubt Rick is correct, then I submit you have no basis to either believe or disbelieve him as you know nothing of the killer's mind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:06 PM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

He was a "well regulated militia," therefore he had a Constitutional right to kill police.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 04/08/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

Roadapples--the BOR does not protect criminal activity try again

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:11 PM on 04/08/2009

The only logical conclusion that can be made here is that GUN CONTROL LAWS DON'T WORK!

The only illogical conclusion is to call for more of what already doesn't work. Isn't the very definition of stupidity is for one to continue to do the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result?

How many of shooting victims were unable to defend themselves because of the gun laws and policies in place? Truth be told, it is those very policies and laws that continue to contribute to the tragedy of these mass killings. The blood rests not only on illegal gun use , but on the hands of all who continue to deny people their right to defend themselves.

In this era of Hope and Change, let us end the stupidity, let us wash our hands of the blood of these tragedies and effect real Change by putting our HOPE and trust in our fellow citizen and neighbors to be peace loving, law-abiding, and responsible gun carrying defenders of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like our founding fathers intended.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

No thanks....I don't want my next door neighbour with an anger issue problem to be a gun carrying defender of my life and liberty.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

What are your issues with the rights of Americans?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 04/08/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

None of us want our neighbors as described by you. However, persons with anger issues can buy guns illegally, so passing a law restricting that right only restricts you from defending yourself, your family, your children.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 PM on 04/11/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

Properly written gun control laws work fine. One need only look to Canada or the other developed countries to see. that. Our laws are poorly written and ineffective as is your logic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 04/08/2009
photo

You are right bubbah...but don't let any facts get in the way of a rant on why you can't restrict the right to bear arms.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 04/08/2009
- dan-o I'm a Fan of dan-o 5 fans permalink

New York has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 04/08/2009
- OdinsEye I'm a Fan of OdinsEye 57 fans permalink
photo

"Properly written gun control laws work fine. One need only look to Canada or the other developed countries to see. that"

There is no proof their firearms laws are any more effective than ours. In fact, in Canada some of their laws have been quite ineffective.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 04/09/2009
photo

Try passing some..you might be surprised how well they work!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

Gun control laws work in Great Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy etc. etc. etc. So where is the stupidity?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Well, people in those sissified countries aren't all out to murder each other, and their government isn't out to rescind all their constitutional liberties and make them wear monotone grey clothing and live in small houses with no yards and hard beds.

But here, if we didn't all have guns, we'd all be slaves of the government. And dead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 PM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 19 fans permalink

I would prefer not to live in a restrictive police state such as the one that Great Britain is becoming.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 04/08/2009
- Tom Payned I'm a Fan of Tom Payned 68 fans permalink
photo

For decades the "bobbies" didn't carry guns, only clubs. Not so anymore. They are all armed now. Control works only for citizens that respect the rights of others. Sadly, that is not the entire population of any country. A majority, most likely, but not all.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 04/11/2009
- Aranxa I'm a Fan of Aranxa 5 fans permalink

You are right, every one of those children should have been able to protect themselves against their father with their own personal guns.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

Word.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:00 PM on 04/08/2009
- jbritt I'm a Fan of jbritt 2 fans permalink

See, Aranxa get's it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 PM on 04/08/2009
- dan-o I'm a Fan of dan-o 5 fans permalink

Here in Michigan the has the state police collect data on concealed pistol license holders. CPL holders commit fewer crimes than any category of people in the state. They commit less crime than Police, Judges Politicians or any other group of citizens or residents. Only one case has occured of a CPL holder using his or her gun illegally and that person was a police officer firing into the ceiling of a bar while drunk. The people in this story were mentally ill and their families knew it and did nothing about it.

Do the opponents of individual gun rights think our nations founders would put a amendment into the Bill of Rights to protect the right to deer hunt? It was considered a right that was needed to protect yourself against a tyrannical government.

My political views go from liberal to moderate and I am a gun rights supporter and a gun owner. If one right in the Bill of Rights is ignored by government then others will be ignored also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:18 PM on 04/08/2009
- BruceHNV I'm a Fan of BruceHNV 64 fans permalink

How is a "well-rgulated militia" a defense against a tyrranical government?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:23 PM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 5 fans permalink
photo

It seems the folks so eager to label the 2nd Am. as "archaic" can't wrap their minds around the archaic meaning of "well-regulated" as it was commonly used in the 1700s. It meant "properly equipped and trained," and there are oodles of contemporary examples of it being used that way. Look it up.

While this country has long ago abdicated its obligation to "train" the militia, at least the militia is still fairly well equipped. It's not as good a defense as it would be with proper training, but it's all we have left if peaceful efforts fail.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 04/08/2009
- jozinha I'm a Fan of jozinha 21 fans permalink
photo

Gun ownership is NOT in the Bill of Rights!!!! Whoa, so incorrect!

The right to raise a militia is in the Constitution. But that has nothing to do with gun owner "rights." Recent politics has made it synonymous along with a highly flawed SCOTUS ruling, but civilized minds will win out in the end.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 04/08/2009

Dude...in 1776 both the military and the people were limited to single shot muskets. That's it. Plus there was no concept of an organized police force.

Trying to apply 1776 concepts to the 21st century makes about as much sense as the Mormons wearing those ridiculous Pararie Dresses.

This is 2009 and not 1776.

There was no concept of an organzied/official police force in 1776...there is in 2009.

There was no concept of a federal nationwide military in 1776 that is any way comparable to what we have today. Soooo....yeah. Trying to extrapolate what someone in 1776 thought and trying to apply it as irrefutable religious tracts that must be obeyed WITHOUT MODIFICATION in 2009 seems a little unreasonable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 04/08/2009

There is a process for amending the constitution. Some people would rather just ignore the parts of the constitution they don't like and take away our rights by force. Liberals claim to believe in rule of law. Until it gets in the way of what they want to do.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:23 PM on 04/08/2009
- mingjia I'm a Fan of mingjia 7 fans permalink


So, Dan-O:

People don't need guns to protect themselves against "tyrannical government" anymore--unless of course you watch a lot of Fox News. (Speaking of which, isn't it funny how conservatives rail about "liberal bias" in the media when it is conservative Rupert Murdoch who has completely destroyed pubic discourse by starting a "news" channel that features an array of wack-job commentators who blantantly make up stuff about Democrats. All that faux indignation that scares simple-minded rural Americans!)

But I digress: The bottom line is that there are a TON of mentally ill, maladjusted, sociopathic people in America--m­illions--a­nd if you have a culture where handguns are freely and easily available, you have a problem. The problem is that the mentally disturbed obtain guns and then go on shooting rampages--and by now there is about ONE A DAY in America. Anyone who doesn't think this combination of mental instability among millions of people and tens of millions of handguns is a problem is mentally unstable himself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 04/08/2009
- bubbuh I'm a Fan of bubbuh 126 fans permalink
photo

The second ammendment was never about citizens protecting themselves from tyrannical government. It was about citizens serving government, hence, themselves in a military capacity. It, in fact, was an economy measure. By providing the "right", the government could also demand its citizen soldiery equip itself when called to fight. Check out how the Civil War armies on both sides were organized and equipped if you chooose not to believe me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:46 PM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 39 fans permalink
photo

License holders kill fewer people than non-license holders. Not that's real logic!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 04/08/2009
- djkrlsn I'm a Fan of djkrlsn 23 fans permalink

Don't forget that the license we are talking about here is to enable the licensee to legally carry a concealed handgun

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:28 PM on 04/08/2009
- dan-o I'm a Fan of dan-o 5 fans permalink

Concealed Pistol License holders have not committed any murders in Michigan because they are law abiding citizens. Get it!! NONE. There have been CPL holders that have killed in self defense but that is different. There has been no wild west shootouts and no whole sale killings by CPL holders. Reread the above post.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:44 PM on 04/08/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (41 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect