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

Law contains many flaws

January 18, 2013

The state’s rapid-fire passage of a gun law is over, but it left controversy in its wake. Some of the provisions are sensible, but others are questionable or wrongheaded....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

rschweizer

Jan-22-13 11:54 PM

Exactly, MrBoB51. Now grow up.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-22-13 10:19 PM

MrBoB51 "check the bottom of my barn boots." you are going to need a shovel, he is MUCH lower than that!

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-22-13 7:26 AM

Rs, I'm not a republican. I am a Constitutional Conservative. Furthermore, when I feel the need for your input I'll check the bottom of my barn boots.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-21-13 8:27 PM

Look at the downside. we have 4 more years of pass to read in the dark of night legislation. It has cost us dearly and it is going to grow substantially as O knows no cuts. Not a single one... except the ones that are not true cuts. Like ending the Iraq war only to sink our money in another in Afghanistan. He has a lot of those type of cuts!

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-21-13 4:05 PM

crawl back in your hole, nothing but a snake

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Jan-21-13 2:52 PM

Mr Bob, 'Every family should practice self-protection. Every family should have a gun of some type for that purpose. You are irresponsible if you don't take every legal measure to protect yourself and family from danger. '?

That's an utter crock of b.s. and you know it. So because the Constitution says you have a right to it means you have to do it? Do you know what a 'right' is? There are a lot of things the Constitution says. It's imperfect, too, to the extent that it's been changed nearly 30 times.

I truly love how you fake Republicans claim to love the Constitution but nit-pick the causes to whatever suits your agenda.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-21-13 9:32 AM

Hey sheeple, ever notice that your 'shepherds' are protected by wolves with guns??? Big guns, fully automatic guns. Get theirs first, if you dare.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-21-13 9:16 AM

Let the progressive (phony) outrage begin!!!! Ohhh, gunzz....baaaad....baa....baaaad....then the devil said 'breaks over, back on your heads'.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-21-13 9:10 AM

Every family should practice self-protection. Every family should have a gun of some type for that purpose. You are irresponsible if you don't take every legal measure to protect yourself and family from danger. If you choose not to avail yourself of such self protection that's your problem. I'm pro-choice...I choose to protect MY family, not yours. To conclude, you cowards will never drag any gun owner down to your level of fear and angst. All we see is unabated hate that makes our resolve even stronger, it's something you do not possess, the courage of YOUR convictions, not somebody's ideas you just adore. Sheep.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-20-13 8:31 PM

This law is a flaw. From inception to print it is not what we needed. I stocked up on ammo this weekend... just had to circumvent the upcoming background checks. I believe that the state now owns the losses anyone suffers from a lack of self protection.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-20-13 4:03 PM

Thanks for clarifying Bob...I thought you meant I was hiding behind a tree....and my wife would disagree with you about me not being a dummy.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-20-13 1:40 PM

For those of you who didn't get my first response to Laker, here goes...No one, not the Military, not the Police nor anyone else who legally has a gun will EVER try to forcibly take a gun from another legal, law abiding citizen. That leaves only people without a gun (gun-grabbers)(hiding behind a tree) waiting for somebody else to do it for them except there is nobody, except criminals who get to prey on them first.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-20-13 1:32 PM

Laker, you're no dummy, you know exactly where I was going with my comment and you are not one of those. That being said, we do not have access to Automatic Weapons, no matter how much you would like to believe it. Only under the most strict of circumstances can a private citizen obtain one. Remember, after the Newtown shooting all the News shows ran segments on private schools, including the Presidents' children school. Where was the outrage then??? On this very forum, back then, I asked if the presidents children were more important than our own. I was not banned from the forum, no one attacked me with outrage, feigned or not. So whats different now? Why the VOICE of 4.2 million people asking the same question is the difference.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-20-13 10:53 AM

Bob, Not sure where you're going with the "gun grabbing" and "hiding behind a tree"?? I am just unable to sit back and say since criminals won't obey laws, then we can't have regs about AR, and just continue to have easy access to them. Will the new law deter anyone?..Did the new law go to far?...I don't know. But I will say that the defiance of the NRA leadership, and the idiotic tv ad only solidifies and increases the determination of gun control advocates.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-20-13 8:57 AM

Anyone who wants to read the 41 pages of the law with signatures go to want ad digest, then guns for sale, then follow the link.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-20-13 8:26 AM

Laker, good point but the NRA and its 4.2 million members did NOT start this. Law abiding legal Americans did not start this but are being singled out (freeze your target) and are getting sick of the implication WE are the criminals. I wonder what the results would be if gun grabbers put as much effort into empowering people rather than trying to control them. My one consolation is that it will require someone with a gun to take my guns. All BS aside, any gun grabbing volunteers out there or are you satisfied letting 'somebody else' take care of your wants while you stand behind a tree throwing rocks. Lets see who has the courage of their convictions.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-20-13 8:07 AM

Drugs...hard to say, and certainly can't predict...expansion of Kendra's law, tougher background checks, safe storage requirements...? No one can forget that "criminals don't obey laws"..it's the NRA mantra...Would this have stopped Sandy Hook?..doubtful, will it stop all further incidents?..nope. But if it deters just one person, then it's been worth it.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Jan-19-13 11:11 PM

These new laws are not directed at crimes they are aimed at limiting the previously legal owners of rifles that are used in less than 3% of crimes involving guns. If he actually cared about saving the children then they would have addressed school safety, not self defense weapons.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Jan-19-13 10:31 PM

laker, please explain how the "new" law makes it tougher for criminals to get guns. Or did you forget that criminals don't care about laws

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-19-13 9:28 PM

Bob....I agree in that there will unfortunately still be unspeakable tragedies like this in the future. But murder is against the law and there will still be murders. The argument that criminals will still obtain guns....does this mean that we still continue to make it easy for them. Answer this question, how many tragedies may be PREVENTED through these regulations?? Yes, it's naive to think this will stop all future incidents, but its also naive to say we do nothing re any gun control measures with AR. And as I said, the NRA leadership needs to be replaced, they're hurting their own cause.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

Jan-19-13 2:22 PM

I have a slightly different take on this. I believe this law is flawed on purpose. Forgetting an 'exemption' for off duty police is one way to open the door for further 'exemptions', modifications, clarifications, and other motions that will keep counter lawsuits from going forward due to the ambiguity of sections of it thus dragging it out. Meanwhile were stuck with it, even if only for awhile, as planned. The sad part of this is that none of these or any other gun control measures or legislative pieces of paper will stop a bullet or the insanity that causes one person to kill many.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

Jan-19-13 1:06 PM

Wow can't believe all the people talking about the rally!....Have a great time at President Obama's inauguration everyone.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 11:14 AM

got to go a rally to attend to

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 11:08 AM

on oops sorry for typo. Need to get a lobbyist to proof read for me lol

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxtired

Jan-19-13 11:05 AM

Well said tot. Lets have another prohibition on alcohol also. And ban the sale of tobbacco products as well. Communist Mario lets get it done. Sarcasm, can't do that. The state makes to much of of them

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 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