Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Pro and Con: 'Does the United States need more gun regulation?'

Feb 1, 2013 | 46 Comments


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

09:39 pm - Thu, January 31 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Henry Evers, gets my thumbs up!
11:14 am - Fri, February 1 2013
David Bates said:
Mr. Evers, suppose you were still serving in the Air Force today. Let's say that while you're on duty, a few hundred, or even a few thousand American citizens decide that the President of the United States is acting like a dictator who wants to "enslave" the people and needs to be removed from office. These citizens decide to take up arms against the U.S. government.

1) In your opinion, are these citizens committing a crime?

2) As an active member of the U.S. Air Force, would you fire on them?

3) Most importantly (for the purpose of considering the usefulness of the Second Amendment in the 21st century) how effective do you think those citizens will be against just the Air Force? (In answering, exclude from the equation the considerable firepower available to the Army, the Marines and the Navy, along with the government's fleet of armed drones, nuclear weapons, etc. Also exclude the resources of all municipal, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies, which presumably would be the first responders before the military was involved.)
05:51 pm - Fri, February 1 2013
troy prouty said:
Of course I think Semi-Auto is not needed or clips that cotain mass amounts of Ammo. But let me steal something from Japan..

"Applicants first must go to their local police station and declare their intent. After a lecture and a written test comes range training, then a background check. Police likely will even talk to the applicant's neighbors to see if he or she is known to have a temper, financial troubles or an unstable household. A doctor must sign a form saying the applicant has not been institutionalized and is not epileptic, depressed, schizophrenic, alcoholic or addicted to drugs.
Gun owners must tell the police where in the home the gun will be stored. It must be kept under lock and key, must be kept separate from ammunition, and preferably chained down"

The fact is that if guns are suppose to protect people and property, how come most guns used in crimes are stolen? Isn't that property. also.. 5 cops with guns couldn't stop a gun attack ny surprise, what makes others so sure they can?

Guns are meant for one purpose to fire at something.

troy*
09:13 pm - Fri, February 1 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
The wonderful thing about the Internet is that it allows people here in America to see how fast societal change is playing out all across our planet. People are more worried about life as we've come to know it, devolving into anarchy right here in our own country.

People have every right to defend themselves, their families and their neighbors against those that couldn't care less about any rule of law, much less our Constitutional rights. If you feel uneasy about owning a firearm and don't wish to own one, that is your Constitution right, right on up to the very moment your government... places one in your hands, trains you how to use it, then orders you to use it on anyone your government orders you to use it on.

That is how it is in the real world.

09:45 pm - Fri, February 1 2013
fmtko said:
An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that the military uses. Fully automatic rifles are highly regulated, in that to own one, you have to pay a yearly tax and your home can be inspected and any time by the BATF. An assault rifle was not use to kill the children at Sandy Hook. A semi- automatic rifle that looks like the military's assault rifle like the one that is being blamed for this massacre, but in fact, It the weapons used were four handguns that Adam Lanza took from his Mother's firearms collection. The Semi-auto being called an assault rifle was found in the trunk of Adam Lanza's Mom' car that evening. All of the old arguments that have been used are being regurgitated and re-used for the same old argument. The second amendment was not put into place to protect the right to hunt. It was put in place to protect you and your family against any threat up to and including tyranny and no, a few people who feel the president needs to be removed from office does not equate to responding to a threat of tyranny. Lets stay on the topic and refrain from using opinions to make our points.
11:42 pm - Fri, February 1 2013
treefarmer said:
http://vs.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-01-31/story/fact-check-misinformation-over-sandy-hook-shooting-wont-go-away

There was/is a lot of misinformation about the weapons used in the Newtown massacre, this link provides one source for fact-checking.
06:22 am - Sat, February 2 2013
troy prouty said:
posted "The second amendment was not put into place to protect the right to hunt. It was put in place to protect you and your family against any threat up to and including tyranny and no, a few people who feel the president needs to be removed from office does not equate to responding to a threat of tyranny"

Actually I think it had more to do with the people being the army of that time. The U.S. certainly wasn't outspending the next 17 countries military budget combined.

They aren't banning guns. They are banning certain guns with certain clips/magazines, working on requiring better back ground checks and hopefully in my opinion will increase penalties for "accidents" from careless gun owners.

Just because it's in the constitution does not mean it is limitless. Speech is a prime example, it's allowed to a point.

Is gun control going to end murder. No.. Could it help stop high death tolls in a single incident. Ask Australia.

troy*
07:56 am - Sun, February 3 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Our first amendment has been stretched and contorted to encompass and include so much in terms of what actually constitutes 'Free Speech', yet, when it comes to interpreting the words that describe our second amendment right to self defense, the term 'right to bear arms' some how is meant to be interpreted to mean or encompass so much less.

Why do you think that is, Troy?
08:24 am - Sun, February 3 2013
David Bates said:
If I might jump in ... that's an interesting question. I don't think one could provide a definitive answer without having a comprehensive understanding of both First and Second Amendment law, and I doubt anyone here does.

However, my view is this: The conception of the Second Amendment was written to address the legal requirement 18th century American males had to fulfill their civic obligation of serving in a militia, which was more integrated into social and cultural life at the time than any other institution, and certainly more so than any today. Today, the role of a 17th century militia is served by the U.S. military and local law enforcement agencies, both of which are under civilian control.
09:18 am - Sun, February 3 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Thank you for a thoughtful response, David. In my own view, I see a big difference between what is defined as a requirement and what is conferred or defined as any individuals right of choice.

This same argument is or has been made in arguments for or against abortion.
10:07 am - Sun, February 3 2013
David Bates said:
Yes, there is a difference, but I think the issue that we're grappling with today is that the legal requirements and civic obligations that provided the "subtext," if you will, of the Second Amendment were completely bound up with the "right" it spells out. The book I've cited elsewhere, "A Well-Regulated Militia," by Saul Cornell, goes into this issue with a lot of detail and historical context. Once you've removed the "subtext," it follows that the conversation -- and the law -- must change.
12:35 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
fmtko said:
Well, I am glad that the Supreme Court agrees with the wording, in that the individual is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. To understand the 2nd amendment, you must also understand England's "Bill of Rights1689", considering the fact that we were under British rule previously. The right to have arms was a long established natural right in England in it's time and you can't eliminate it's influence on the writing of the 2nd amendment, since it was written after the Revolutionary war when it was fresh in the minds of the fore fathers that without arms, they would not have had the ability to declare their independence and back it up. As far as the opinion of one man who wrote a book goes, well, it is just his opinion and not the law of the land.
12:37 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
fmtko said:
So, according to treefarmer, I guess NBC was wrong when it announced this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo
12:45 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
fmtko said:
In any case, the rifle retreived from the car Adam Lanza took to the school was not an AR 15. It looks to be another form of semi-auto rifle with a dragunov style stock. AR 15's do not have this style of stock.
01:04 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
troy prouty said:
Dave is right on the two main priorities it appears the 2nd amendment was applied. Law enforcement by citizens and military both being citizens at that time. Now we have Military and now we have police.

It also doesn't say anything about felons not being allowed to have a gun or a person that is mentally unstable, and yet one of those are already done and the other in process.

Freedom of speech is allowed unless it affects others freedoms and liberties under the law (ever changing) or the threat of affecting it.

The supporters behind guns have often said it violates life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. At the same I think it fails to recoginize the victims that die because of guns; didn't that affect their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness at a far greater level?

I'm asking for change with semi-automatics and clips and requiring a class (like Japan), and background checks. I would prefer a national popular vote.. but that won't happen, so all I can do is email my reps.

troy*
01:16 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
troy prouty said:
in the article..

"The passenger jets hijacked on 9/11 could have been saved by armed pilots"

Could have been saved by a secure door which ralph nader attempted to do prior and was never done because (it added cost).

troy*
02:30 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
David Bates said:
Fmtko: The opinion that the law must evolve is my own; the author of the book is one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars, and he does in fact address the British law to which you refer.
03:11 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
troy prouty said:
Can someone help me?

I can't find the mention of the internet in anything they wrote in the constitution.. Do you know what page I can find it, I'm sure it must be there, after all they had totally thought out the future of America, they wouldn't forget the internet.

troy*
05:27 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
David Bates said:
Typo in my 8:24 a.m. post: Should be "an 18th century militia." I hate typos.
05:37 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
sbagwell said:
The Sandy Hook children were shot with a Bushmaster .223 rifle, a semi-automatic manufactured in an assault style. A a knockoff of the assault rifle the military uses, it looks absolutely nothing like a hunting rifle.
Yes, there were some early false reports — several of them. The shooter was even misidentified in the early confusion.
However, the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy pulled bullet after bullet out of the kids, and they came from the Bushmaster.
He was also carrying two handguns. The only weapon in his trunk was a Russian-made semi-automatic shotgun with a high-capacity drum magazine.
Steve Bagwell
Managing Editor
08:16 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
fmtko said:
I happen to know a little bit about this subject. Those Bushmaster bullets would not have lodged in those small bodies at the range that they were fired from. They would have passed throurh them. As a matter of fact, very few pistol bullets would lodge in a body that small at that range also. Having a long history of hunting, I know what I am talking about.
10:33 pm - Sun, February 3 2013
fmtko said:
I have two questions. First, for those who feel that these weapons of war are not needed on our streets, then who is our law enforcement at war with, that they need them? and two, If our forefathers meant that the civilians and ultimately the military should not be infringed, then why would they write a law expecting the military to be the entity to fight a tyrannical government, if needed? 635 people today would be no match for the military and there would be no need for such an amendment.
03:29 am - Mon, February 4 2013
troy prouty said:
I'm not getting your question exactly fmtko. I think banning certain weapons to the public will make it harder for them to get anf help police officers not come across them so much. I used Austarlia earlier to point that when they banned them. Mass killings went down. Japan which host strict regulations has more people killed from forks than guns. Remember we aren't talking about banning all guns, only certain one's.

posted " military to be the entity to fight a tyrannical government, if needed?"

Military is a part of government. Back when this was created there were few, most people that fought were volunteers with the understanding they would receive property. We on the other hand would be fighting the army to overthrow the government and semi-auto's aren't much of a match for airstrikes. (they didn't have planes back then either).. Or destroyers.. etc..etc.. Or a 10 Billion aircraft carrier.

Just like it being hard for them to think in terms today, it is also hard for us to think in terms of them. Which is why I have always asked should dead people have more voice over today than those of us that are alive?

also remember when they talked about freedom. They takled about specific freedoms only to a few. Slaves were hardley free to do what they wanted, you couldn't run for specific offices without property valued at 1000.00 etc..etc.,.

troy prouty*
06:34 am - Mon, February 4 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Gotta wonder how a new and improved, fully modernized U.S. Constitution would read, and if re-written, by who's hands?

And what would be the criteria for choosing the re-writers? Would there be race based and/or even a sexual appetite quotient involved/considered in the choosing?

And last but not the least, will it become a possibility or worse yet a reality, that, a U.S. President will remain in office for however many consecutive terms the citizens wish to keep him or her seated as their President ... ie. no more term limits on the P.O.T.U.S.?
06:54 am - Mon, February 4 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
: Note to Troy Prouty.

Benjamin Franklin in all probability had that little ditty about land ownership thrown in so that he could collect on any political campaign debts run-up at his printing shoppe by future politicians having come up short after the polls had closed and final count tabulated.

Smart guy!
08:20 am - Mon, February 4 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
As for the Internet question, no, I wouldn't think that anyone (Vice president Gore excluded of course) had ever envisioned that one coming down the road.

But I for one, am able to envision a time in our future that all will be required to acquire a connection to it, And all will be so ordered by way of a government mandate very similar to, and in all probably just as encompassing as 'The Patient Protection and Affordable Act'

And it most certainly doesn't require a jewel encrusted & feather adorned 'Swami Hat' to see that one coming in what will be hailed as 'The New Age of Enlightenment' ..or.. as some are already exclaiming this dawning as (or is to be) 'Our Time'

Gotta wonder just how inclusive that term is meant to be ..or.. will be.

Any thoughts?
08:48 am - Mon, February 4 2013
sbagwell said:
Regardless, a large number of bullets were recovered and traced to the Bushmaster. It was not sitting in the trunk of his car and he did not use handguns to create all the carnage.
It would be nice if we could at least stick with the facts. Cases can be made either way, no matter what weapon any particular mass killer used in any particular mass killing.
Steve
09:19 am - Mon, February 4 2013
Lulu said:
Adam Lanza's mother repeatedly warned a babysitter never to turn his back on the kid--ever. I believe little Adam was about 9 years old at the time. He was a walking time bomb.
12:15 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
sbagwell said:
So she steeps him in the survivalist mentality, exposes him to a veritable arsenal of deadly armament and repeatedly hauls him down to the local gun range so he can hone his skills with high-powered firearms.
Does that make sense to anyone? It certainly doesn't to me.
Steve
12:20 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
silencedogood said:
sbagwell,
We don't truly 'know' what weapons were used we only 'know' what the media tells us. Lately I have been bouncing back and forth between the liberal media and the conservative media rather than get my news from only a few sources that tickle my ears and back up my pre-concieved opinions. I can tell you both sides lie! Their stories aren't even close! If you want there to be an assault rifle you can find plenty of news sources to back you up if you don't want it to be an assault rifle you can find plenty of sites to back that up as well.
Sticking to the facts is not as easy as it may seem.
The problem is it's human nature to read what we want to be true, listen to what we want to hear, watch what we want to see and then preach as if we know what we're talking about. We all do it, including myself.

I realize you read news papers for a living therefore may be more "informed" but you also may be more "mis-informed". Unless we were there that day and saw it with our own eyes we truly don't actually know.

Fmtko (above) made a comment based on his own real life experience and being a hunter and shooter my whole life I concur with what he said.
Weather the killer (I refuse to post his name) used an assault rifle or hand guns is a moot point, he wasn't spraying bullets, otherwise there would have been a bunch wounded and some killed. This sicko was taking his time before the cops got there.
My point in short is: The particular model of rifle he used that day is not important, if it should be outlawed or not on it's own merit is the question.
04:48 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
troy prouty said:
posted "We don't truly 'know' what weapons were used we only 'know' "

They had it on tv in the start of the gun control hearings.. along with several other guns, on CNN Channel 24.

troy*
04:53 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
troy prouty said:
posted "Gotta wonder how a new and improved, fully modernized U.S. Constitution would read, and if re-written, by who's hands?"

Probably depends who is writing it and why, similar to back then. There were many parts that we glorified of past history. Some would say that the people that wrote this was elite and wealthy, that they didn't want to share with the U.K. but after facing reality they could not win unless they had help from those of lower character, so they designed many rules to get that support, but not enough to lose power. And certainly we have stayed fairly consistant with that. Rich people tend to be in charge. People born rich often die rich, people born poor tend to die poor., etc..etc..

troy*
05:20 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
troy prouty said:
Do you remember those Diners 1971 or so.. Use to make the best food back then. So.. now you go there in 2014. The decor is still the same from 1971, except the chairs are worn and torn. The menu the same, but instead of 80% fresh and 20% can it is now the opposite and most food sucks. Prices are kind of high, but because it is Nostalgia it's worth more (btw.. Nostalgia isn't want it use to be) wink.. Well... That is a pretty good representation of our government and the laws of the past. Most people don't think much of leadership these days and there are rumors that the real leaders of our nation own party houses on K street.

troy*
09:53 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
silencedogood said:
Troy, Thanks for your response.I understand your response but have a few reservations. You responded: "They had it on tv in the start of the gun control hearings.. along with several other guns, on CNN Channel 24."To me:Gun control hearings = Senators and representatives... who are known liars.CNN = Main stream media... who are known liars.Call me a conspiracy theorist but I don't trust them, I've caught them in too many lies. I wish we would spend half the money we're spending on "gun control hearings" on "violent crime hearings"... We should be looking at understanding mental health, the effects of violent video games on our youth, the effects of violent movies on our society, the effect of pharmacy drugs on our mentally ill, the statistics on criminology, the trade off of massive killings by sickos having access to firearms opposed to every day crimes being prevented by firearms etc... etc... etc... Bring in the professionals and have them conduct a report!!!
09:53 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
silencedogood said:
Continued...


Good grief, we couldn't come to a conclusion about Bill Clinton and Monica without congress appointing a Kenneth Star report but we jump to all kinds of conclusions based on opinion without any professionals giving a report.Instead we pay millions if not billions of dollars on "hearings" discussing silly stuff like magazine capacity and heat shields (scary looking stuff). While our economy goes to hell in a hand basket. If my child died that day I'd want an answer not an opinion! I'd want a pro not a blogger! God forbid we talk about:Taking prayer and the pledge of allegiance out of our schools and teaching kids the sanctity of life. It's sad, we're missing the forest through the trees! Maybe we should... or maybe we shouldn't, ...allow the public to have access to a particular models of rifles or bullet capacity (we already have gun laws) but that's so minor compared to the real issue. As a society, we don't have a gun problem we have a respect for life problem.
09:57 pm - Mon, February 4 2013
silencedogood said:
Wow! Somehow my paragraphs and breaks went away... Sorry for the run on...
03:14 am - Tue, February 5 2013
troy prouty said:
posted "effects of violent video games on our youth, the effects of violent movies on our society, the effect of pharmacy drugs on our mentally ill, the statistics on criminology, the trade off of massive killings by sickos having access to firearms opposed to every day crimes being prevented by firearms etc... etc... etc... Bring in the professionals and have them conduct a report!!!"

They were there and they testified at the hearings. That is what happens at hearings. The elected officials ask people from various fields their thoughts and opinions and data. Of course sometimes I prefer people more involved directly. For example I noticed they didn't have a person that had committed a crime with a gun. I think there are plenty of voices from that side we also need to hear from. There was victims there.

I believe if you need to find a solution you need the full picture and view and in opinion not having any individual that committed a crime there was a mistake accomplishing that goal.

posted " have a respect for life problem"

Well, that comes from being selfish. Our society promotes it. Capitalism for example is a prime example of "Me" syndrome. Yes.. We cpuld possibly all usea retreat with a few Buddist Monks to learn it's okay to be without and learn to love.

troy*

troy prouty*
03:20 am - Tue, February 5 2013
troy prouty said:
To further a quick point about selfish and even mental health and our culture.

When people kill themselves in Japan they usually (not always) feel they had let someone down.

In the U.S. when someone kills themselves they usually (not always) feel someone had let them down.

Which do you think has the most selfish desires of the two?

It's real interesting when you dig into the cognitive thoughts that surrond our society and how they became. In my new book I'm working on, I have a chapter on it, because I think it's important when speaking and understanding politics.

troy*
01:55 pm - Tue, February 5 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
"It's real interesting when you dig into the cognitive thoughts that surround our society and how they became."

Well let us all now pray that hobby store Drone Kits don't become the next 'Weapons Platform' of choice for the next generation of mass-murder enthusiasts.
02:07 pm - Tue, February 5 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Believe it ..or.. not, there are now actually educational courses advertised on television offering degrees in the field. Now You or your neighbor can become a Drone commander, too.

07:31 pm - Tue, February 5 2013
kona said:
I have fired thousands of rounds with an AR-15 and still can't figure out what the draw is that so many people feel the need (or desire) to have one.
03:36 am - Wed, February 6 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Why would you?
03:41 am - Wed, February 6 2013
Dances with Redwoods said:
Time Check 03:56
05:22 pm - Wed, February 6 2013
troy prouty said:
Iave 5:36 a delay of 2 hrs.

watch off?

wink..

troy*
08:30 pm - Sun, February 10 2013
Bob I said:
I agree with Mr. Evers. When the insane and criminal element all turn in their firearms, the average gun owner will still need a firearm for self defense. As seen with the murders in China and other places in the world, nut cases will use anything they can lay their hands on to try to destroy innocent lives.

Dialing 911 when someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones is not going to get a response quick enough to save your life. The police will arrive in time to put yellow tape around the crime scene, and take witness statements.

05:41 am - Tue, February 12 2013
troy prouty said:
I think what keeps getting lost in this arguement is nobody is speaking about total bans of guns. We are talking about certain guns, high magizine clips and back ground checks, perhaps a class similar to Japan.

Do we need more regulation?

I don't know.. Enron worked pretty well, I think gutting the banking industry (1999) did wonders especially the last 6 years or so, gutting tax regulations on imports have done a great job moving jobs somewhere else. So.. where do you think I stand? If companies and people could be good little citizens, I'm all for it, but it's a tuff sell when almost everything is based on "Me" syndrome.

troy*
© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS