Update: To view the forum, Mt. Blue TV has kindly provided this link: https://vimeo.com/59397505
FARMINGTON – A variety of opinions were expressed by both panelists and audience members at a well-attended forum that discussed gun violence and proposed gun control laws Thursday night at the University of Maine at Farmington.
Preventing another school massacre by enacting new laws to promote gun safety was debated by six panelists who expressed ideas that included backing a current legislative proposal for background checks on all gun sales, preventing the mentally ill from possessing guns and limiting the size of magazine clips.
“Our task is to keep guns in responsible hands,” said J. Thomas Franklin, a retired lawyer and president of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence. He added it was unfortunate that the issue has been framed by the National Rifle Association as a win-lose proposition, if additional gun control laws were to be passed.
Other panelists disagreed and urged a slowdown of the rush to enact legislation as long as emotion from the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting was running high. On Dec. 14, 2012, Adam Lanza killed his mother, then went to the school in Newtown, Conn., and killed 20 first-grade students and six staff members before killing himself.
“I was called three hours after the shooting with people asking me what I thought of banning assault weapons,” said David Trahan, the executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. “There’s a rush to gun control. Instead, he said there needs to be time to investigate the Sandy Hook shootings and find out where the system failed.
State Rep. Lance Harvell, R-Farmington, said the “U.S. Constitution shouldn’t be taken lightly,” alluding to the Second Amendment’s firearms possession provision.
Ethan Strimling, said he has sponsored numerous gun safety bills in Maine when he was a state senator, disagreeing that the current discussion of new gun safety laws is anything new.
“Thirty seven kids a day are shot in this country,” Strimling said. Gun violence needs to be reduced, but admitted it’s a complicated issue.
The answer isn’t banning assault weapons, said Barry Sturk, a firearms dealer and state lobbyist for firearms. He cited a 2004 U.S. Congress study that found assault weapons were used in less than a tenth of one percent of crimes. Handguns were much more likely to be used, he said.
Franklin said there are four long-term studies using large sample sizes showing restricted access to guns resulted in a reduction of violence. Those studies are taking place in “Canada, England, Australia and New Zealand. They don’t have the gun violence we have,” he said.
Harvell thought part of the problem is lack of gun safety education. “We learned to use firearms when the family went hunting or learned it in the military. Today, youths are learning to use firearms in simulators,” Harvell said.
Preventing a dangerous mentally ill individual from possessing a firearm is one step, but there’s also a need to have that information accessed in a shared data base, said Dr. Art Dingely, a psychiatrist. In most states, he said, that information is not available.
With background checks, the federal government has a record of where the firearms are,” Trahan said, and added, “it’s a concern.”
“The common denominator is the weapon used,” Strimling said. Background checks are needed for everyone. Currently, 40 percent of total gun purchases in Maine are through private sales and don’t require a background check.
“We don’t need more data; we’re got Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Newtown,” Strimling said listing the places where mass shootings took place. “Background checks make sense.” He said there’s a paranoia out there that if you start talking about gun safety laws, it turns into guns being taken from law-abiding citizens.
Trahan countered that there are “20,000 gun restrictions out there already.” He also noted “there’s a general feeling of not trusting the government – that’s the reality.”
Sturk argued “if the mindset is they’re going to kill someone, what’s going to stop that individual from breaking in next door? If you’ve got the mindset, it’s going to happen.”
The vast majority are responsible, law-abiding citizens and Maine is thought to be a very safe place, Franklin said. But, drug dealers are coming into the state in increasing numbers to buy guns because of lax state law.
“We have a growing problem we have to address, he said. “Maine is changing and we need modern and sensible gun laws,” Franklin said.
Trahan asked Franklin if the laws proposed for background checks for all sales, preventing the mentally ill from possessing guns and limiting the size of magazine clips would “be enough if passed?”
Franklin paused and then said no. “OK, that’s the problem. It’s the little steps to big steps,” Trahan said.
“It’s the fear that drives the debate,” Harvell said.
Strimling asked Trahan if he was willing to look at the proposed laws” for possible endorsement.
“That’s how Americans have lost their freedom,” Trahan replied.
Strimling asked Trahan directly: “Do you support background checks?”
Trahan said, “We don’t need to focus the tragedy onto guns,” and added the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine has taken no position on the background check issue. He said crimes, gangs, illegal drug use are all fundamental problems in society that need to be fixed. “Solve it at its root,” Trahan said.
Audience members worried that the background data base may prove fallible, that there are already too many gun laws, they “don’t want anything else taken away,” and the need to do something to make sure those who shouldn’t have guns, don’t, were voiced.
“We need a reasonable conversation,” Strimling said, noting no new gun regulation laws have been passed in 20 years in Maine.
“We depend on firearms for protection and we’re not going to give it up without the facts,” Trahan said.
Most the bills proposed in the Legislature “come from you through your legislator, Harvell said to those attending. “All the emotion you see here ends up in the Legislature.”
I recall, not too long ago, Lance Harvel wrote in the Bull Dog about a law he sponsored in the Legislature that dealt with allowing beer tastings at Breweries.Since it was legal to do so at wineries, it sounded like a perfectly, equitable reasonable thing. But, another legislator added a clause, and Lance didn’t pick up on the potential consequences until it was too late. The law backfired on breweries and wineries and harmed business for both.
When you come right down to it, Lance got snookered by a more experienced lawmaker who had a different agenda.
All of which makes me personally a bit skeptical of Lance’s abilities to analyze a law
This illustrates how laws can have unintended consequences. When we get all fired up about the founding Father’s intents and their wisdom in writing the 2nd amendment, lets remember, they were human. They had some very significant failings. It’s been said too many times, but, still, it’s true, they had no inkling of what our world would look like today, what constitutes “arms”.
So, just maybe, someday the world will look back on us, and think that the 2nd amendment was our great flaw, the Achilles heel of the great dream that was the USA.
There are some out there who already think that, allies of ours at that.
Only time will tell.
.
According to frosty here, any politician who is protector of the second amendment is in the satchel for the NRA. Who knew? Talk about being paranoid. My guess is frosty is more paranoid than the gun rights people he/she attacks here all the time.
“Clearly, if any and every person in America had assault weapons and carried them at all times, with dozens of rounds of ammo, with no regard to age, mental stability, criminal history, our society would descend into chaos. ”
You ever read any of the Chicago newspapers ,frosto? They have the most stringent gun laws on the planet, and they have 1-2 people shot every day. Hows all those rules and regulations working out there in the windy city?
Re: Tom’s “That’s the way, Lance. Run down the intelligence of those who disagree with you! There may be good points on both sides. So far Terry is the only one I have seen who gets away from the NRA talking points. I’d question the intelligence of people who only spout canned messages.” First he accuses Harvell of running down the intelligence of people who disagree with him, then Tom does the same thing in the sama paragraph! And he’s certainly no stranger to the use of canned messages! The lefties’ attacks on the NRA as the cause of their many gun-control failures gives the NRA way too much credit, the American people themselves have repeatedly rejected the lefties’ propaganda, and are doing so again now. Their further efforts are offensive and counter-productive now, which will just make people remember it longer. So be it.
Oh, also Lance, you should use a spell checker, or Lightnin will be all over you.
Judge Not: I’m sure most people will not blame Wilton Academy for your spelling, spacing, punctuation, editing/proof-reading, or typos. Like most schools, they do not require perfect scores in their courses, and you may have been higher than 70th percentile at the time. They may have CE courses, if you’d like to brush up.
If you find me spouting leftist propaganda against guns and the 2nd, show me that. ASnd then someday we’ll have the talk.
Frosty: I certainly was not snokkered about my beer tasting bill. I argueded against that amendment but was beaten. It was later removed when “the more experienced” lawmaker got dozens of calls to remove it.
It would be interesting to see all the comments on this issue. So far at least one of mine has disappeared. I assume that is to protect the good ole boys, but I could be wrong. My post doesn’t say canned pro-gun amendments, it is anti all canned language. My amusement with this thread grows by the moment, but is already being curtailed by the eds. Anyone else’s posts missing?
my spelling or lack thereof come from large thumbs on a small screen. LOL
Frosty I have never said our founders were perfect or the ConstitutionHoly Writ. Nor as far as I read even implied it. I merely have asked the question as to why has to be central to a debate on gun control.
And as to the swipe about my abilities to read or understand law. Well I am no lawyer or a perfect Legislator. But you have never even had a conversation with me about any of this. So how are you able to make that judgement? I think if a bit or research was done you might be quite surprised.
This was my whole point. No Common Sence!!!! If you new me the last thing you would call me is a leftie. I know Linghtnin is alot more (smarter) than I . Like I said I ain’t very Brite!!!!!!!!
Lance:
I have said several times in this forum, that I don’t care if there is a ban on assault weapons. I personally have no interest in owning one and I honestly look at people that do with skepticism as to why they think they need one.
I don’t mean to be snarky, but I really wonder if the guns is compensating for a lack of something else.
As to what constitutes one, I would go with the quote ( sorry, forgot which justice said this) about pornography, ” I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”
But, at this point, it’s moot anyway. There are so many of them out there now, and ammo for them, that to ban them would be fruitless.
I do however, as I stated above, think it’s high time the membership of the NRA reined in the people at the top and brought some sanity back to the organisation.
I once was a proud member of the NRA. It funded the Boy Scout camp’s shooting range where I first learned to shoot.
We can fully implement background checks,
The NRA has indeed blocked and hobbled the ATF from doing it’s job, through lobbying and intimidation. I can back that up with specific facts; dates, names and bills. There is not enough space here for that but I may submit something to the editors with that info.
A lot of guns have ended up in the hands of criminals through a few unscrupulous dealers and the ATF has been blocked from prosecuting them.
With today’s technology,universal background checks could be done quickly and easily. If you can scan a credit card with a smart phone, you can do a background check with a phone App too. If only people would calm down and stop thinking it was an infringement on the 2nd amendment. If you can ban a habitual offender from driving a car, why does it make sense to let a criminal buy a gun?
If we take the 2nd amendment at it’s absolute interpretation that there be no restrictions of any kind, whatsoever, to anyone, then it’s pretty clear we are in for a lot of trouble. What if that any of these mass murderers had used full automatic weapons? Or RPG’s? If you follow a strict doctrine of absolute interpretation of the 2nd amendment, you could not ban automatic weapons, or tell anyone that they could not own them or any other type of weapon.
How do you draw the line? You can’t. So, you would have anyone, any age, all walking around with full automatic weapons. Inevitably, people would make mistakes, forget to put the safety on for example, bump the trigger, shoot off a few dozen rounds, then somebody else would shoot back, the police would come but, with everyone shooting bullets everywhere, they would have no choice but to also open fire. This would happen everyday, all over the country, over and over. Businesses couldn’t be open. imagine owning a convenience store. Everyone who come in is carrying an assault weapon. You have no idea who is there to buy a pack of ciggarettes, or who intends to try and rob you. How long, would that last? No insurance company would insure you.
The NRA has long fingers. I would be willing to bet that even at the state level, if you became an ardent foe of the NRA, they would fund a candidate to run against you.
If a single f****** person in this thread could spell, it would make it a whole lot easier to believe you’re a rational person with an opinion I should actually respect.
How did any of you make it past the third grade?
The lefties and their Presstitutes all break out in public monkeybites over gun-control, people stock up on guns and ammo as a result (delighting the manufacturers and dealers), and the lefties give the NRA the credit (see David Fisting)! LOL!! Now the lefties are feeling the heat and looking for somebody else to blame it on! Denial or what! Ayuh! They can’t get thayuh from heeuh! Pair-a-noids!
I keep hearing/reading that civilians “don’t need assault weapons,” but I’ve yet to hear why a responsible, law-abiding citizen shouldn’t own one, other than someone’s opinion that “you don’t need one.” I can guarantee the anti’s that if they were ever in a situation where they needed one, they’d change their tune.
If you were to say “Under normal circumstances, civilians don’t need an assault weapon,” I’d be inclined to agree. However, no one can predict when an abnormal circumstance will occur. It’s best to Be Prepared, as the Boy Scouts would say.
When ‘assault weapons’ saved Koreatown
I attended the panel discussion the other night and would like to thank the panelists for taking the time out to present their point of view.
Thank you Mr Hanstein and Representative Harvell for arranging the discussion and for moderating.
Having been raised in a rural household that hunted, and whose members served extensively in the military, my siblings and I were taught to respect guns from an early age, We were taught gun safety from our parents perspective by a guiding tenant: don’t aim unless you are ready to shoot what you aim at, and don’t aim unless you know what it is you are looking to shoot. Guns don’t kill, shooters do.
In the last 37 years, since heading off to college, I have had the chance to live and work in four different states in both rural and urban settings. I have met many good, solid people in those diverse locations, and have also met more than a few shady characters.
With this life experience behind me and hopefully more of the same ahead of me, I offer the following:
I support the second amendment. Family and neighborhood experience has taught me its validity.
I strongly support universal background checks, and the need to educate the general public on firearm safety, and respect for the same. Universal background checks will not stop all weapon transfers that should be stopped, but will stop many weapon purchases that should not happen. Guns don’t kill, but people using them can and do. Let’s put that one hurdle in place to slow the purchase of weapons down, a reasonable background check.
I do not support registration of all weapons. I believe law enforcement should always act as if a suspect is armed, until proven otherwise.
I believe we live in a great country, and we should actively support our local government, police, politicians schools, families, neighborhoods etc in both actions and words. The strength, beliefs and local culture we build in our families and towns is reflected by our state and nation, and by the actions of our children and neighbors.
We should all vote in every election, and get to know our chosen representatives as well as we can. American freedoms were founded on participation in local, state and federal government by voters, we choose those that represent us to represent our views. The closer to home the representative at the state and local level, the better we get to know them, and what they will support as proposed law.
I believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers. We do not always get things right the first time, but in the long run we have done very well. The Supreme Court works to interpret and validate laws, or to strike them down in parts or in their entirety. I do not live in fear of my government, I do respect it.
The dilemma poised by the 2nd amendment has no solution that will appease all sides.
The language of it does truly leave very little ambiguity or room for varied interpretation. Regardless of what the intent was of the authors, it does lend itself to restriction or control.
Yet, except for some extremists, it is clear and logical that to leave it completely uncontrolled, unrestricted would lead to chaos, anarchy and the demise of our society.
Absolute interpretation would allow any sort of arms regardless of how powerful or deadly, to anyone, regardless of age, mental capacity morality or motive. There would be no limit to the amount of armament any one person could amass.
Someone with the financial means of Say, Bill gates or Warren Buffet could amass an arsenal that would could threaten whole countries.
When we argue that we want to own our own gun, whatever it may be, we need to remember we live in a large country that extends far beyond the borders of Maine.
To change the 2nd amendment, would probably create another civil war. A civil war in the USA would completely destabilize the world.
It also would open the door to all sorts of groups and factions who want to change other parts of the Constitution.
I think that if the authors of the 2nd amendment could see where we are at today, they would be aghast at what they began.
This issue has the potential to ultimately bring this country down. It . It has stirred passions to a fever pitch not felt since the Southern states seceded from the Union.
I don’t have a solution. I don’t think anyone does. If the Supreme Court struck down all controls and restrictions on the 2nd amendment, it would well be within it’s power to do so. “Shall not be infringed” has very little ambiguity.
Then our only recourse as a nation, would be to strike down the 2nd amendment or modify it or live with the consequences of unfettered arms ownership. I doubt we have the courage to accomplish a modification. It would mean all sides would have to be calm and respectful of each others points of view and be willing to accept a compromise.
Have any of us, in this forum, myself included, done that?
We sure could use another Lincoln.
Correction Sentence above should read : Regardless of what the intent was of the authors, it does NOT lend itself to restriction or control.
See…. comments like that are what I’m looking for. I don’t have to agree or disagree, but it’s nice to see something different from what I’ve seen since 1957.
Frosty you never asked what I may accept. I certainly favor the blue papering of Dions Bill much of the background checks but when dealing with private sales I am troubled as to what that might mean in transfering a weapon to family members or loaning a gun to hunt with to a neighbor. The mental health piece is a large componant that needs to be adressed. I actually think there is quite a bit of agreement. My point was and is that like it or not the second amendment is not,as you point out easy to get around nor, as you point out should it be.
It comes down to fundemental issues of trust. Of right and wrong. Of how citizens have come to veiw each other.
At one time, Lance’s beloved bolt action rifles were the “assault rifles” of their day. The South African Boers “put their trust in God and the Mauser” and used state of the art bolt action, stripper-clip loading rifles with spitzer bullets to fight the British in an asymetrical fight. The Boers lost, but only after their superior skills at arms led the British to create the worlds first concentration camps, capturing and interning the wives and children of the Boer farmers and thus forcing their surender. Some confirmed kills were made at 1300 yards, by both aged men and young boys, with a reported “withering rate of fire’. A rate of fire based on skills, not on gear. Gear that has since, over time, been accepted as common hunting equipment. Totally non-threatening to most people. They are scarceley mentioned in the media, and that is why they are not feared, but accepted.
I own military pattern semi automatic rifles, and have built many more. It Is merely a 20 shot self loading straight pull bolt action rifle. I see nothing wrong- as there IS nothing wrong- with replacing a 20 round magazine with a 5 round magazine and taking deer with it. It is robust, reliable, accurate and easier to clean and maintain than many so called “sporting rifles”. I also use these rifles for target shooting, plinking, hunting squirels with reduced loads, rifle PT, and defending my home. ONE rifle fills MANY roles and does so well.
Other rifles could do this too- BUT I have more training and experince with the rifle in question. I thought that freedom meant that we could all live our own lives, in our own way, while leaving others to do the same. This is how I have lived life. By the Goldern Rule.
The Government – and some citizens- aparently does not share the same view of freedom that I do. The fact that I choose to own a certain peice of personal property aparently makes me suspect of character, and of mind. My fellow citizens who choose not to own the same peice of property DEMAND the government take ACTION against me and my property based on the actions of a CRIMINAL. This is not the American way.
Some people alledge that as the owner of a semi automatic military rifle, that I must be “compensating” for something or “living in fear”. This two cent psychological evaluation is worth what you paid for it. If that is the game we are playing, Freud also stated that ” a FEAR of weapons indicates a lack of sexual maturity”.
The real reason I CHOOSE to own firearms and other weapons, train and practice in their use, and make such activities a part of my life is that weapons are the Tools of Freedom.
First and foremost, I am a FREEDOM enthusiast. Firearms are mere trappings in comparison.
All I ask is to be left alone. My weapons did not, and will never, kill any innocent person. Do not give in to the media driven fear machine. I do not fear that Lance will come over the hill and snipe me with his “super accurate sniper rifle” ( keep this term in mind, and remember it, as it, or something like it, will be the NEXT buzzword that the media uses to activate your fear and emotions) any more that he fears that I will shoot up his childrens schoolyard.
Sandy Hook WAS a tragedy, as was the multiple car accident the other day on the highway. Ignorance of the Non-Occurance is alive and well: YESTERDAY several MILLION firearms in responsible civvilian hands killed NO ONE. YET the media was SILENT about it. Does the accident mean that I cannot drive without fear, as other citizens may choose to speed during a snowstorm, or they choose NOT to own a 4WD vehicle? Should we pass a LAW that limits the amount of vehicles on a given road in certain weather conditions? Look up the statistics on how many children die each year or each DAY on American roads. I’ll be willing to bet you have a far more capable “instrument of death” sitting in your own driveway. While it is REGISTERED with the State of Maine, it continues to plow a bloody path through our children, daily. Yet, YOU still choose to own it, as YOUR car has killed NO children. And I will not see YOUR rights to own ANY vehicle you want reduced one iota, based on someone elses irational fear, or overzealous political motivations. Please give me the same courtesey, as that is what a free society is about.
Will M. Posted a good link regarding the defense of Korean shop owners during the spring of 1992. I was stationed at Tustin MCAS at the time.
What the news did not tell you is that the older members of those Korean families had imigrated to the US after escaping Comunist North Korea. I cannot provide a link or referenece, I apologize for this, as I read it in the OC Register later that year.
One of the first acts these men performed after reaching the US was to buy weapons to protect their families. Were these men compensating for something? Living a fantasy? Or perhaps they had a broader view of the world and human nature based on their experinces?
Some choose to critisise the NRA, attacking them and firearms manufactures as if Wayne Lapier had been handing the criminal in question loaded magazines as he stalked through Sandy Hook Elementary. These people argue that the NRA is an extremist group, opposed to ” reasonable regulations: and “common sense”.
Peope argue that anyone that is Pro Second Amendment is using “NRA talking points’, while at the same time regurgitating “facts” that they heard on the news. I find this insulting to the intellegence of our nation and myself.
Over the past 25 years, I have spent hundreds if not thousands of hours in personal reading and research regarding firearms, firearms laws, gun control, and its effects in history. I do not “spew the NRA’s line” I speak from my own mind.
If you want honesty, I’ll tell you that while I hold NRA Instructor ratings, among others, that I do not agree with some of their politics. NOT because they are too hard lined, but because they WILL COMPROMISE MY RIGHTS in order to apease an ignorance and media driven fear among the populace, and agenda driven politicians such as Barbera Boxer. This process is repeated, over and over, until my rights die the death of a thousand cuts.
Being ‘reasonable” with regard to gun laws makes one a fool: The Gun Control Act of 1968 created the Federal Firearms Licence, which people at the time were ASSURED would always be 1) free and 2) easliy available. GCA 68 has SINCE been “reinterpreted” several times to be more resrtictive than originally “sold” to the public, selectivley enforced at first, then broadly enforced over a period of years. People at the time were told that BOTH situations would never occur. They were decieved, as they did not want to be seen as unsympathetic or unreasonable.
Politicians and courts do this with all gun laws: California is curently “reinterpreting” their assault weapons ban. They are considering the cylinder of a REVOLVER a “rotary magazine”. Evidently SIX rounds are TOO MANY.
On a final note: a selected group of politicains could publicly BURN all copies of, and the Original, Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, on the steps of the Supreme Court, and it would NOT EFFECT MY RIGHTS ONE IOTA. My rights were not GRANTED by any man, group of men or any government. The Bill Of rights is a SET OF MANACLES on Government power- Americans have been selectively decieved and convinced over generations that Government exists for its own purpose, and NOT to serve the people.
Times like these are what the Second Amendment was intended for. And the funny thing is as long as we KEEP our personal weapons, we will NEVER need to use them. IF we give them up as a society, THEM they will be sorely needed.
Rights do not spring from peices of paper or governments. Neither does right or wrong.
Tom: Have someone who is not a Yellow-Dog (presuming you know someone like that) read your comments for leftie slant, and discuss it with them if you like. You may be very surprised by what you hear. I have no basis for believing that you have any unbiased opinions on gun-control, and no expectation that you could have, from what you’ve said, though I suppose anything is possible. I have tried to express my opposite views as simply, clearly, and thoroughly as I can. If you are not persuaded by them, there’s very little I could add. I see no value to anyone in repeating myself when what I said is all here in print.
At this point, most vets would agree, if the proposed gun-control legislation was a horse, you’d have to
shoot it.
did i get 100th comment?
do i win anything?
JD, Jr.: Re your 8:18 post – Great post! The folks that wrote our Constitution would be proud of you!
John Donald:
I respect your position. My best friend could be described very much as you. We agree to disagree and enjoy conversations about that which we do agree on.
As I said, it’s a large diverse country, with many peoples of many cultures, backgrounds, abilities, religions and races.
What works for one reasonable, sensible mature man in rural Maine, may not be what will work best for the majority.
There are other countries in the world that have extremely restrictive gun laws and that also have robust healthy democratic governments with low crime rates and happy people. While they still have gun debates, there is not the extreme level we have here.
For all of your concern about the government encroaching on your 2nd amendment rights, the fact is, you still have your rifle. No one has tried to take it away from from you.yes, there have been people who have expressed that desire, but in actuality, no one has ever even come close to doing it. Congress would never pass a law that decreed it, the President never has, and if either did, a motion would be quickly filed to prevent it’s implementation until the Supreme Court decided it’s constitutionality, which, given the language used in the 2nd amendment, it would be certain to strike it down.
If someone says, ” I hate guns, I want the government to take them all and destroy them.” they are exercising their 1st amendment right to free speech. It doesn’t mean they will get away with making it happen.
Our government has worked out OK for the most part, for over 200 years because it is a government by the people and for the people. If the majority of Americans decide it is no longer for the people, we can change it, not by taking up arms, but by voting.
My opposite views of what. I have praised posts from what you call “the other side.” And whatever a Yellow Dog is, if I am one so are most of the people posting on this. I think you’d be shocked to know my position on this issue. so far you only know my position on parrott-talking.
Frosty,
These law abiding citizens trying to tell you that the main reason why we do not want more restrictions on firearms if because we feel it infringes on our freedom. You are well spoken and bring up some valid points but I am sorry you are completely wrong.
Paul has the best argument towards your case, it is the bearing of arms that protects and secures our amendments. WHY FROSTY would you ever want to hand over your freedom to the government. Other than freedom of speech, it is the backbone of our constitution. The right to bear arms keeps our government in check Frosty. So no things go wrong in our government everyday, it is our job to keep them from being too powerful. We will keep our kids safe and hold on to the freedom we have Frosty, our government has not become radical and it is our Job to keep them that way. Sleep tight Frosty…..
P.S where did these mass murders take place?
Not in a Biker bar
Not in Police Station
Not in MY HOUSE
BECAUSE THOSE PLACES HAVE GUNS?!!
Rethink your position…. Frosty
Amazing to see what sort of people are so paranoid they suspect the Bulldog of conspiracy and protecting good ole boys by removing leftie comments! Maybe there’s some funny-smelling smoke in the room! No concern for me if it’s weed, which is another harmful prohibition making politicians and some really bad people rich and powerful. No, I’m not a user, never was.
https://vimeo.com/59397505
Check out the full video of the form.
Typical of a Yellow Dog to conclude that agreeing with the majority (if that were true) trumps right or wrong. I believe it was Patrick Henry who once said ……..!
The forum and the panelists I thought went well for the most part. However, I did not learn anything new. I still feel that it was necessary. Even though I believe that most do not want any new laws and more restrictions. The few on the left follow the same rhetoric as the mainstream media and the knee jerk politicians. I’m not saying the right has to change someone’s opinion on the left, but went you just chime in the same battle cries of “assault weapons” the “high capacity clips” the “poor children being killed”. And repeat it over and over even thought it is factual clear, documented and proven that those talking points were not the cause. That for me is when I start losing respect for the person trying to make his or her point. In an argument or discussion I ever have with someone I’m not always right nor do I have all the answers. The difference with me is that I’m willing to admit if I am wrong even if we agree to disagree.
Looks like the usual leftie plan: “If we never give up and shut up, we never have to admit defeat!”
If I’m facing a criminal or a nut-job, and looking down the barrel of a gun, I prefer that it be pointing AWAY from me!
Frosty
You are correct, I do still own my rifle. But also consider the history of gun legislation, and the character of those who pass it. I am not so short sighted as to be seeking a mere” out” for myself.
Politicians have proposed REGISTRATION, not just for guns, but for their magazines, with associated TAXES. The power to TAX is the power to DESTROY.
This means I will, to comply with this law if it passes, PAY A FEE to own MY OWN PROPERTY. Those of you that think me an extremist because of my opinions regarding weapons probably do not want to hear what I have to say about taxation. My ideas would result in the radical change of YOU keeping more of what YOU earn. Gun control rears its evil, manipulative head ocasionally. I get robbed of my earnings every 2 weeks like clockwork. But I digress.
Historically REGISTRATION leads to CONFISCATION.
I saw this myself In California. The CA legislature though it reasonable to register SKS rifles ” just so we know who has them”. LESS than 10 years later- 1996, they legilslated manditory surrender of the same rifles., breaking the “promise” that led many trusting gun owners to comply. How many Crips and Bloods do you think were in the line marked ” turn in weapons here”?
New Orleans saw gun confiscation after hurricane Katrina. Police threw an octegenarian to the ground in order to take her 38 revolver. All the court decrees and motions in the world did not stop her from being thrown to the ground and disarmed. How is that reasonable?
Other US cities have also used confiscation tactics.
I am not willing to set up a situation where my son, grandchildren, or myself in later years, has to make some serious decisions about how far they are willing to go to remain armed. I have made my desision. I am not willing to compromise the rights of those not of age to apreciate them, as has been done in the past to MY rights. That type of behavior stops with me.
Furthermore, what about future generations? Politicians know that banning the sale and manufacture of magazines stateside, and their importation, will eventually result in a zero supply as they are a consumable item. Thus was the reasoning for the 1989 Importation Ban, signed into law by NRA Life member George Bush Sr.
While I will not go on a diatribe about the history of gun confiscation, realize that it is extensive, and well documented.
Those peaceful Democratic countries with strict gun control laws? I have been to a few. I have also been to some not so nice places. I do not really care what THEY are doing with THEIR country, as my concern is the country I live in with the CONSTITUTION we have that supposedly protects us from government intrusion.
That is why I choose to live in America.
Have NO doubt, that once this round of ‘reasonable, common sence” legislation is passed that there WILL be more. OR, the law will be ‘reinterpreted” to give more power ( ALWAYS more, NEVER less) to the forces of gun control and disarmement.
As I said, CA is ‘reviewing” the language of their AWB to include REVOLVER CYLINDERS in the interpretation as magazines.
While YOU might not want a total ban on weapons- NOT just GUNS- in the hands of the “little people’, others sureley do. Dianne Fienstein for one. She stated this publicly several times in the 1990’s.
Some call this paranioa. It is not. It is the result of thorough knowledge of the history of a thing.
In my mind, I have weighed the currently proposed schemes on gun control. They have been found wanting. But the real deficit is on MY side of the scales, while gun control advocates LOSE NOTHING, yet gain a little. Gun owners LOSE a LITTLE, yet GAIN NOTHING. Over time, WHO will eventually lose this game
Frosty, if you’d like to talk this over sometime, we should have lunch.
OH, Canada!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_52pMg8qQcc&feature=player_embedded#!
One of those countries, a peaceful democracy, with reasonable gun legislation.
Is it because most of these mass murderers have turned out to be leftists/democrats and nut-jobs (who the lefties insist must run free) that the lefties are trying so hard to find some way to place responsibility for these crimes on guns/gun owners/conservatives/Republicans/the NRA? They’ve never stopped trying to blame Loughner’s actions on “Neo-Cons” (most of them don’t even know what the word means!), even though it turned out Loughner was a leftie and almost everybody knows it! Remember how hard they tried to blame it on Palin and her “crosshairs”? LOL!! Giffords’ father even tried to blame it on the Tea Party! Ever heard any of them apologize for their outrageous charges? Me, either!