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

Changes on the horizon to state’s gun laws?

January 19, 2013

MARSHALL — While politics will surely play a role on the national level when it comes to debate on stricter, more widespread gun control, in Minnesota, Sen....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(40)

rona45

Jan-19-13 9:50 AM

Why don't we make and enforce a law retroactive that makes it illegal to lie. or enforce the laws we have. If there was half the uproar over illegals, Fast and Furious, Lybia Fiasco, using more then one Social Security Card, politicians lying and getting away with it something might have gotten done but its all covered up.

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sumyounguy

Jan-20-13 2:18 PM

Gun control has never been about guns, only control.

6 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-20-13 6:44 PM

Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000

Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000

Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79%

323 people out of 300,000,000 were killed by a rifle in 2011. That's about 1 out of every 1,000,000 people.

Homicide rate for Lyon County: 1.7 per 100,000

Suicide rate for Lyon County: 13 per 100,000

Which of those numbers should we be working on?

4 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-20-13 11:41 PM

"Gun control has never been about guns, only control."

That too naive and simplistic sumyouguy. Gun laws are necessary to prevent the ability to purchase or possess specific types of firearms and accessories not required for hunting or self defense. Was it wrong to ban machine guns? Laws (controls) are necessary to provide a safer environment for the general public. Banning some types of guns and accessories would have no effect on your rights as specified by the 2nd amendment.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-21-13 9:13 AM

"Banning some types of guns and accessories would have no effect on your rights as specified by the 2nd amendment."~h75

It may help if you expound on the specifications of the 2nd amendment. There'll be questions regarding that part that goes "shall not be infringed".

To be clear, we agree there is a problem of great magnitude. I question your objectives when you conclude without supporting information guns caused all this tragedy, and willfully ignore that the perpetrators of more than 60 school shooting incidents were on or had been on psychotropic drugs.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Jan-21-13 9:16 AM

Thanks to the NRA, the ATF can't enforce the laws we have, because they've been stripped of their authority to verify compliance with the laws. Swedzinski's comments on the NRA underscore what is wrong with GOP policy making; they let groups like the NRA tell them what to do. The NRA's membership, while impressive, is still less than 2% of the population. Yet another example of the GOP listening to the wishes of the 2%, while the other 98% pays the price.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-21-13 10:12 AM

I agree SEL, the NRA has done more to cause problems than solve them when it comes to preventing gun violence.

Machine guns are illegal to sell and own Prod. Is that ban an infringement on the 2nd amendment and, if so, why has it still the law? I question the objectives of those who believe nothing should be done to prevent gun violence or that other constitutional rights are somehow less important. As someone who believes all types of guns should be available by anyone who has the means to purchase a gun, what do you suggest be done to stem gun violence?

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-21-13 10:40 AM

Don't be afraid of change, Prod. Slavery was abolished quite a while ago and maybe it's time you also recognized that 2nd amendment you keep hiding behind to rationalize your position was written for its time. Your anitiquated thinking interferes with your ability to reason.

10 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-21-13 12:22 PM

"Yet another example of the GOP listening to the wishes of the 2%, while the other 98% pays the price." ~SELyonCo

Yet another example of your attempts to minimize your opposition. Deduct from the 98% figure you spout members of the Gun Owners of America, Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; add the state groups like the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance and the 156,577,620 NCIC background purchase checks since 1998, and your 98% number is closer to 50%. At best.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Jan-21-13 1:22 PM

In a Fox News poll conducted last week: 91% support background checks on ALL gun sales. 86% support improved enforcement of existing laws. 83% support mental health checks on all gun buyers. 80% support background checks to buy ammo. 56% support high capacity magazine bans. 54% support assault weapon bans.

I think you're well short of your 50% margin, Prod, if even Fox news can't get lower than 54% in favor of banning assault rifles.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-21-13 2:13 PM

SELyonCo, 54% is a lot closer to 50% than 98% is. And as the propaganda gets dispelled, that number will move.

If your position is truly morally superior, there's no need to fudge on the numbers.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Jan-21-13 4:35 PM

Who's fudging numbers, Prod? I said that 98% of the country doesn't belong to the NRA, which is true. The NRA, at less than 2%, however, has a grossly disportionate influence on legislation, having authored several pieces of model legislation that were subsequently passed into law; legislation that does things like prohibit the ATF from conducting inventories at gun dealerships to verify the accuracy of their records.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-21-13 5:54 PM

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" The Constitution isn't a list of rights we are given by the government. It lists the rights the government cannot take away. The right to keep and bear arms should be no less a priority than Rosa Parks' right to sit at the front of the bus.

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-21-13 8:14 PM

WW, I don't believe any arms, at any price was the reference. I was merely stating that amendment is as outdated as slavery, which I believe both were common to the same era. Yourself and Prod should consider the changes in our country between then and now.

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-21-13 10:28 PM

I see I'm not the only one who views your statistics as "fuzzy" Prod. All they prove is that there is a problem but you still haven't provided any ideas for a solution except more of the same.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

Jan-21-13 10:45 PM

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written there was a minuscule standing army, only 800 men. The federal government relied on the states to provide regiments, who were raised, when needed, from local militias, a practice that continued through the Civil War. These local troops often provided their own arms, which were basically their hunting muskets.

During the Civil War the practice of issuing standard military arms to new recruits became common, although it was still normally state or private funds that paid for the equipment. The Civil War saw the rapid development of new arms intended solely for military use.

The simple fact is that the 2nd amend. is outdated, as our means of national defense has changed dramatically since it was passed. There is also little evidence that the drafters of the bill of rights were concerned about arming the populace to fight the government, they were more concerned about war with France or a resumption of hostilities with England.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WW07

Jan-22-13 12:38 AM

You cannot "outdate" rights that are inherent. The Bill of Rights led directly to abolition of slavery. Not by accident but by design. With the repeal of the BoR, what will end the slavery that will inevitably result?

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

Jan-22-13 4:15 AM

And while the Coffee Mafia has another amature debate on the well defined meaning of the 2nd another nut case is finalizing a plan to exploit another protection free zone.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 10:14 AM

"The simple fact is that the 2nd amend. is outdated, as our means of national defense has changed dramatically since it was passed."~SELyonCo

Don't toke before you type. The 2A isn't about national defense, never was, never has been. Its purpose was to ensure that American citizens could own weapons to prevent the overthrow by internal or external military threats of our freely elected democratic government. This places the power in the hands of the people, rather than the government with power over the people.

Get it?

The Bill of Rights aren't subject to government control, aren't subject to societal whims, and if you look, they aren't bonus privileges. They're derived from natural rights. The right to speak your mind. To self defense. To be free of unwarranted search and seizure. To vote for your representation.

Originally designed to limit the federal government, they've been extended to the states by way of the 14th amendment. [cont]

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 11:43 AM

[cont] In 2008, the US Supreme Court established in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home.

Today, some want to ban an entire class of firearm favored for defense and sport. Hasn't this been covered?

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

orangesnail

Jan-22-13 12:42 PM

Antonin Scalia in Heller stated - “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” In the majority opinion he also speaks of the need to limit dangerous and unusual weapons and to consider prohibitions on concealed weapons. Could that not speak directly to the conversation we are having now? Clips that hold 100 bullets could fall under unusual or dangerous weapons. I think Scalia is challenging the rights of the individual to carry concealed weapons in Heller.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 1:18 PM

Good point, orangesnail. You present a well thought out, respectable position. Much better than the school yard "nu-uh" offered so far.

In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in "common use”, which is a common standard in jurisprudence. A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use. There's over 4 million semi auto rifles in the US today.

The ruling in McDonald v. Chicago extended to states the decision in D. C. v. Heller, so that ground's been plowed.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

commonman

Jan-22-13 7:02 PM

Prod found someone to agree with, so he is happy, yippee! Of course there was the reference to marijuana smoking to the person who didn't agree with him. I guess that's your argument when you miss the point of what SEL said?

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Jan-22-13 9:58 PM

"All they prove is that there is a problem but you still haven't provided any ideas for a solution except more of the same."~h75

I don't recall anyone saying "do nothing". OTOH, I'd prefer we use facts to make a determination of what we should do, rather than ill-informed emotionalism.

h75, rise above a tantrum and communicate why the fact that perpetrators of more than 60 school shooting incidents were on, or had been on, psychotropic drugs isn't a primary issue.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jan-23-13 11:19 AM

No one has claimed mental illness is not an issue Prod. But how and who determines which individual presents the greatest threat? Do you expect the greater percentage of Americans who don't own guns to sacrifice their rights for the few who mistakenly believe their should be no restrictions on guns, clips or ammo? I agree with commonman, your argument is so weak that you must resort to accusing those who disagree with you of using drugs. Actually haven't presented an argument, just excuses.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 40 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