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

Editor's column: Another dead child...more reason for tougher gun laws

February 16, 2013

I write this will all due respect to law-abiding gun owners, many of whom I consider close friends: If you are against tighter gun control laws in this state, in this country, you just don’t get it....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(45)

commonman

Feb-24-13 7:21 PM

mc you just don't like my answers. 100 lbs of venison for the price of a license. I used an old arrow, so it didn't cost me any ammo.... Maybe you would like to learn about real hunting.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-20-13 6:28 PM

'The 40 second sound bite you quote is being used by gun zealots as propaganda."~h75

It's hard to take 40 seconds of dialog out of context. Part of a sentence, yes. An entire premise, not so much.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-20-13 2:47 PM

Nice, KK resorts to name calling and demands they keep quiet. Gee, now THAT'S an intelligent argument! But KK, I thought you said only Liberals want to deny others their rights?

Prod, I'll say this real slowly so you can comprehend its true meaning. If you listen to Ms. Fienstein's COMPLETE interview, the ban she wanted was ONLY on "assault weapons" not ALL guns. The 40 second sound bite you quote is being used by gun zealots as propaganda. Obviously, you fell for it.

KK, your generalization of Liberals, if not stupid, was at the very least thoughtless, foolish, irrational, irresponsible, erroneous, misleading, illogical and totally baseless. Feel better now? Besides didn't every young boy have an "artillery style handgun"growing up? In fact I'll bet you still play with yours...umm, the gun I mean.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rockdart

Feb-20-13 1:39 PM

Ah yes. KK flexes his fear center like Rusty, *thinks* it buff in the mirror, then tries to project emasculation onto liberals.

What a piece of work.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-20-13 1:01 PM

Who you calling stupid Hartman you emasculated liberal wimp? Your the one who voted for Obama. And I'm still waiting for your explanation of what a "artillery style handgun" is genius. Pipe down and go lay by your dish.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-20-13 11:46 AM

"Prod claims that gun registration is an invasion of his privacy yet carries a cell phone which the govt. can use to track his every movement and record his every conversation. Brilliant!"~h75

Another issue for another thread.

What is fact is that police abuse access to our personal information, and can't be trusted with what they have, let alone access to anything more they can exploit.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-20-13 11:23 AM

In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster. This was after the gun confiscation fiasco following Katrina.

It's a sad state of affairs when it requires federal enactments to to prohibit federal, state, and local authorities from confiscating lawfully-owned firearms during times of disaster, when one would actually need to defend their family.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-20-13 11:15 AM

"Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

Not much ambiguity there h75, even for you.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-20-13 10:09 AM

Pirate, perhaps if you, Kaptain, Prod & rangeral had the capability to use the internet AND comprehend the spoken word, you each would have discovered that Ms. Feinstein wanted to ban only “assault weapons” from public ownership in 1994, NOT all guns. She was a co-sponsor of the Bill passed in 1994 that banned the sale of “assault weapons”. Of course, the 40 second clip shown by the NRA and other zealots ONLY includes a quote that would lead the uninformed to believe she wanted to ban ALL guns. If none of you seem able to get THAT snippet of information correct, why should any of your other claims be taken seriously?

Prod claims that gun registration is an invasion of his privacy yet carries a cell phone which the govt. can use to track his every movement and record his every conversation. Brilliant!

8 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pirate

Feb-19-13 9:05 PM

Feinstein, on 60 Minutes, stated if she would have had the votes she would have required ALL guns to be turned in. That's a liberal who matters. Do you think she was including her own concield piece?

This is not a falsehood, opinion or outright lie. This is her documented position.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Feb-19-13 5:36 PM

"Liberals in this country appear he11 bent on removing law abiding citizens right to bear arm."

Stupid remarks like this is why this discussion is pointless. Rockdart establishes a reasonable argument and is refuted by the standard NRA BS; the only correct statistics are those provided by the NRA. Not one single so called "liberal" anywhere on the Independent web page has stated a desire for making gun ownership illegal. To say otherwise is an outright lie. You can't argue with those who choose to use falsehoods as fact OR opinion. Gun violence is real and its increasingly apparent that EXISTING gun laws are NOT capable of addressing the problem.

9 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-19-13 5:19 PM

"Per's letter is a great example of the thoughtful and logical argument which seeks to enhance current gun laws."~h75

Actually, I think it's fear mongering like this that caused any politician capable of thought to get as much distance between them and all the radical, knee-jerk, hysterical reactionaries like Per as they possibly can.

The MN Senate hearings this week WILL NOT address gun or magazine bans. They gave up before the fight began.

And the clock ticks closer to the next rampage. Going after the law abiding in the name of safety is an unthinking waste of time. Let's get focused on the cause of these atrocities.

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-19-13 5:03 PM

"Your big-stick-go-bang rights do NOT supercede everyone else's right to live without worrying about being blown to bits by a thing that has but one purpose - to destroy."~rockfish

Get all that from the Onion?

I haven't interfered with any of your rights. "Right to live without worry"...you're kidding, right? We have a right to live without worry? Look up "fallacies".

My rights end...where your nose begins. What I have poses no threat to your nose. Unless it shows up in my business.

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-19-13 4:55 PM

"Why should gun ownership be any different from owning a car?"~rockfish

Already answered. The Federal Firearms Protection Act was enacted because law enforcement abused the access to information. They brought it on themselves, and continually prove they can't be trusted.

6 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-19-13 4:51 PM

You're correct Rockdart my rights do not supercede your rights or vice versa. I have no problem with you not liking guns, don't want one don't buy one. It seems to be you liberals that always want to take things away from others because you know what's best, right? I've already stated I mean you or anyone else no harm. But if you insist upon trying to take away my rights and property, you will be shown how imaginary my line is. And I won't need any big stick that goes bang. Believe me....

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mcgrady

Feb-19-13 4:50 PM

"Why should guns be allowed to transport over state lines but liquor or tobacco can't?"

rockdart, help me out here. I can't bring my smokes with me when I go to South Dakota?

8 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mcgrady

Feb-19-13 4:47 PM

rockdart: "mcgrady - what is/are the 'other reason(s)' you are alluding to? Kill for the enjoyment of killing? If not to eat the meat, then why follow through to the kill?" One could spend much time on this topic but it is evident you wouldn't get it. Much more to hunting than the "kill".

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rockdart

Feb-19-13 4:16 PM

Why should gun ownership be any different from owning a car? Why should guns be allowed to transport over state lines but liquor or tobacco can't?

You gun nuts are on the wrong side of history and it's not blowing over.

What are you going to do if someone crosses over your imaginary line in the sand? Move the line or fire your weapon?

Your big-stick-go-bang rights do NOT supercede everyone else's right to live without worrying about being blown to bits by a thing that has but one purpose - to destroy.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-19-13 4:02 PM

"its more about keeping law enforcement officals from being able to do their job"~rockfish

Well, that's called consequences. MN recently paid out over 1 million to a citizen that had "secure, classified information" breached over 500 times by police...by 104 officers in 18 agencies across Minnesota....because she is pretty. This lead to harassment, illegal stops, threats to her husband, and is now leaving the state due to ongoing police threats.

There are 7 federal civil rights suits against MN now for police using private info for personal gain. Two suits are to become class action suits due to the high number of victims. Florida has 75 cops suspended now for the same abuses.

They can't be trusted with that information.

Nor do they need it. When rockfish gets drunk and piles into a minivan, the dealer he got the car from is really of little importance.

7 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-19-13 3:37 PM

I agree with Prod. that the hysteria of the left will probably blow over for the sake of their political careers, this time. But they will keep trying, democrats in Michigan, Missouri, California, Washington, and yes here in the Peoples Republic of Minnesota have already presented legislation calling for the banning,confiscation,search and seizure of property, and felony conviction of people in possession of legally owned and purchased firearms. Again, I don't see any of these proposed bills passing, the constitution still matters even to some democrats. But in another way I almost wish they would, it could prove very interesting to watch. You want my guns, come get em. Maybe the leftwing commentators on here could form the SW MN Confiscation Squad, now that would be entertainment. One could almost write a script for that. I thank Prod. Rangeral, Pirate, and all the freedom lovers who have posted in these nonstop debates. Remain vigilant.

5 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-19-13 3:20 PM

Every person I hunt and shoot with is a law abiding citizen some even law enforcement. Were parents, grandparents, siblings, friends. We obey our game laws so we can pass the tradition to our kids. We teach our kids to handle firearms with safety and respect. We are active in our communities, schools,and church. None of us have ever harmed, intend to harm, or want to harm another person with a firearm or other weapon. But now were "kooks", "gun nuts", people to be watched with suspicion. SO BE IT. If I am legislated into a criminal then I will be a criminal. It's time to put up or shut up. I will not be subjected to a more invasive background check by some self important bureaucrat. I will not buy a license for my legally owned firearms, I will not register my legally owned firearms, and I sure as he11 will not pay any ownership tax. I will NOT comply.

6 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Feb-19-13 3:09 PM

This debate grows tiresome. Liberals in this country appear he11 bent on removing law abiding citizens right to bear arm. I draw my line. Background checks are already in place when a firearm is purchased from a licensed gun dealer, if one passes the background check they can purchase the firearm. What do they want to add thought crime provisions? How do liberals propose to stop private sales between private parties. I've seen firearms bartered and traded for carpentry work, car repairs, even livestock. What's their plan more jails, gunstapo agents on every corner, maybe drone attacks Obama likes those. Some have proposed that gun owners be forced to purchase a yearly license for their firearms, one for each gun I understand, and that also be forced to register their firearms yearly. In Diane Fiensteins proposed bill owners of her banned firearms would be forced to pay a $200.00 per gun and a $200.00 per large magazine (10 rounds+) ownership tax yearly. NEVER.

7 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rockdart

Feb-19-13 2:40 PM

Your BATF argument is complete BS - its more about keeping law enforcement officals from being able to do their job due to rediculous ALEC and NRA bought-and-sold legislators ramming gun violence allowing and lucrative gun industry legislation down our collective throats.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rockdart

Feb-19-13 2:38 PM

"Junk Science" - what most republicans consider science overall, especially that which shows their rigid ideology to based on nothing close to reality.

Let's compare the Australian Gun Violence/Death Rates to the US's and then see who is "Less Evolved" (what an ***inine statement, @nalProd).

for every 100K people. Total Deaths: US - 10.2 Australia - 1.05 - - nearly 10:1 US to Australia ratio. "EXCEPTIONALISM!!!!"

Broken down further... Homicides: US - 3.2 Australia - .09 That's a 35:1 US to Australia ratio. "EXCEPTIONALISM!!!!!!"

If a county had 1 murder one year and 3 the next, there's your 300% increase.

Guns per 100K: US - 88, Australia - 15.

I don't think I need to continue.

Follow the Australian model. Keep people like Prod away from one degree lunatic fringe movement more from becoming a Breivik.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ProdigalSon

Feb-19-13 2:23 PM

"then one can hardly make the argument that the industry is regulated, much less place "well" as a descriptor."~rockfish

We have the Firearms Owners Protection Act because up to 75% of the BATF prosecutions "disregarded rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States."

The Act prohibits gun registration, and enacts "safe passage" protections for travelers.

The current gun ban effort is now in legislative hospice. The MN Senate has thrown in the towel, and Obama has admitted support isn't there.

You can thank Per for fear mongering and rockfish for an extremist approach people just can't support.

5 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 45 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