Current weather

  • Scattered clouds
  • 19°
    Scattered clouds
  • Comment

A red herring in the gun control debate

Posted: January 14, 2013 - 8:39am

I lived in Alaska for 18 years beginning in 1967. I taught school in a variety of settings, flew airplanes, was in business, and babbled for a while in a column on these pages. There were ups, and downs. Since leaving, I’ve lived for a long time in several countries where guns are vigorously controlled (Australia, France, Ireland, China, and The United Kingdom). I have come to think the following is obviously true.

I have been a gun owner and hunter for over 50 of my 71 years. Hunting moose and caribou for the table, many of my days have been spent in areas of Alaska well populated by brown bear. Doing so, I have never felt I needed more than the five cartridges held in the magazine of my hunting rifle. Only once did I see another hunter bring a military style, assault rifle, to the field, only to be greeted with knowing smiles from more experienced riflemen. We wondered why the hunter didn’t spend time improving his marksmanship, instead of packing all those heavy extra bullets around in an area where one shot should be enough to kill the prey we were after.

There is a red herring being championed by the NRA and other gun fanatics, unscrupulous legislators, gun manufacturers and those in debt to them, and uninformed, inexperienced members of the press. It is the idea that it is too difficult, even impossible, to define the line separating weapons a private citizen has a legitimate need for, and right to have, from those for which there is no Constitutional, hunting, or self-protection justification for owning. That is nonsense.

We need to make a clear distinction between the firepower of law enforcement, and that of the general populace. That distinction protects the law abiding, and threatens those who are not. It will take many years to do the job completely. We have polluted our environment with millions of guns that should not be in private hands. Collecting them will take effort, education, and, from time to time, force. It should be a federal felony for a private citizen to possess any weapon capable of semiautomatic or fully automatic fire after a period of “No questions asked” opportunity to turn them in for disposal.

The Second Amendment was written at a time when the most powerful weapon a person could carry was a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. Only an expert could fire it as many as four times a minute, and not for very long. Modern semiautomatic and fully automatic weapons are able to fire four to nine times a second. They may be fitted with magazines carrying one hundred or more cartridges available for purchase over the internet. No questions are asked beyond, “Credit card number?” That is a situation the civilized world legitimately calls “insane.”

We have already barred the private possession of fully automatic weapons except under strict registration requirements. They are almost never used in the commission of a crime. Regarding semiautomatic firearms, we have seen schools shot up, people cut down on the streets of our cities and university campuses, gun fights with our police forces that kill and injure public servants, and a broadening opinion among the populace that such weapons should be in their closet or desk drawer as the result of our toleration of their profusion. Many states now permit people to have such weapons hidden on their person. It is time to take a simply defined and politically demanding action to reduce substantially such scenarios, and partially redeem our standing among the civilized countries of the world.

We should immediately outlaw the private possession of any weapon capable of semiautomatic or automatic fire, and magazines for any firearm capable of holding more than six cartridges. Again, barring such weapons is entirely consistent with the citizens right under the Constitution to bear arms. Under such a law, a citizen could still lawfully possess revolvers, single shot weapons, pump action shotguns, and/or bolt, pump, or lever action rifles, even a muzzle loading, smooth bore, flintlock long gun. We would be prevented from being able to cut down trees, or huddled masses in a mall, with a burst from our “hunting rifle.”

We should be.

  • Comment

Comments (233) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 01/17/13 - 06:07 am
0
2
Sam Von Pufendorf, Minutemen?

Sam Von Pufendorf
My point was that the Minutemen had to have their weapons right there with them and JDBishop would have had their muskets banned like semi auto weapons today. I made no claim as to how Minutemen were selected, assembled or how old, reliabile or strong. They may have been many things but I never referenced any of it. My reference was the fact that they would not have had a weapon with JDBishop around, thus the British and Hitler would have later kicked our butts because of people like JDBishop, thus making him never exist 2013 for us to talk about.

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/17/13 - 04:59 am
0
0
Mr Bishop

Thank you for the added information. I will definitely research it when time allows.
However, I have non-military type semi-automatic rifles that bear none of the criteria of even the New York law. According to your editorial, I should neither possess nor be legally able to obtain such a weapon. The fact is, of all of the guns I own, only 1/3 of them are not semi automatic.
What I believe is going to be attempted in congress (assault weapons ban and magazine capacity limitations etc) will do nothing more than turn previously law biding, tax paying citizens in to criminals. The points concerning semi-automatic weapons (all weapons) that need addressed in my opinion are the mental health status of the consumer, training of the legal gun holding populous, stiffer penalties for crimes commissioned with a firearm of ANY type. Jail time for the possession of or sale of stolen firearms and universal back ground checks to name just a few. We seem to go to through these emotionally charged political highs in which both parties are able to make a statement and score political points with their owners and after a while, it is business (or lack there of) as usual in Washington. We, the [filtered word] seem t argue in the same fashion. We use emotion far more than we use logic and information.
Again, I appreciate the well thought and well researched debate and look forward to seeing others on this blog do the same.

Kenai123
Your notion of a minuteman is slightly flawed. He was not the gentleman farmer you portray him to have been. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle. They were more like a 1776 version of "Seal Team Six." They were given long rifles and flint lock pistols. Something the regular militia rarely carried.

JB, I know it is not your job to do my research for me, but it would make easier my task to confirm and/or rebuke your points if you were to add source or reference links in the future. Should you decide to do that ... thank you in advance.

K123, here is the link describing the roll of and selection of minutemen.
http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/17/13 - 06:26 am
0
2
Thanks for being sensible (Even if you're wrong. ;-[) )

I didn't mention Minutemen, unless I was typing in my sleep, again. Given your text, I doubt there are many people who would argue that contemporary gun owners should possess the same tools Seal Team Six is issued.

I have attempted above to provide source information, and will continue to do so. I fully agree with the concept that we are fellow citizens trying to work through a disagreement in a context of mutual respect.

One motivation, for me, bears repeating. Should this issue not be resolved through legislation and discussion, the lack of agreement could trigger a movement demanding a Constitutional amendment. That would be very dangerous, as all too often advocates for gun rights bellow absurd claims that frighten people. The population of the United States is concentrated in urban areas. The majority of city people have no tolerance for heavy weapons in the hands of private citizens. Rural people have different views on the subject. However, when one member of the Board Of Directors of the NRA is manifestly irrational, the pop singer Ted Nugent, it contributes little positive to the image of gun owners. And, when the V.P. of the NRA prescribes 'more guns' as a cure for the tragedy in the Connecticut primary school, we rational gun owners are swept away with the chaff.

BigRedDog
686
Points
BigRedDog 01/17/13 - 06:43 am
0
1
Disaster, Survivalist, preperation

I don't know about you, but I don't have a lot of trust for a government that would Lead this Great Society to the edge of the Fiscal cliff or any other cliff. I don't feel the Government is going to turn and use force against me or fellow citizens. But I see indicators that an out and out collapse of our monitary system would make general commerce near imposible resulting in chaos. If chaos does follow being out on the edge of civilization might be advantagious. Being able to defend yourself, your neighbors, and form Malitias to defend our State might be the straw that broke that camel or shall we say camel jockey's back.
Alaska is in the direct line of fire and still heavily targeted by our old cold war enemies. The addition of the missile defense system at Clear adds a very high priority target to our back. A big bullseye with a plan for lowering local fighter aircraft cover and adding 30 min to any responce time! Seems to me a strong Alaska is very important to a strong America.
Hitler, Castro, Gaadafi, Stalin, Idi Amin, Mao TseTung, Pol Pot, Kim Jung-il all agree that disarming the populous is the best way to have absolute control. Does anybody want to add their name to that very historic list?
With Islamic terrorist threatening attacks on our infustructure and civilization in general you want me to disarm and trust that You as in the US Army or other military will allways be their to cover my *#@. This government that can't balance a budget, reduce spending, quit cheating it's citizens of their livelihoods may just not be around at some point. You don't have two weeks of reserve, let alone two years and I'm susposed to have the faith in this current Government to protect my interest.
Forgive me for being a little skepticle about your intents with America's best interest. If you had all your ducks in a row and standing tall it might be a little different. You know things like the economy, SS, hell a sound dollar would help. But right now the way things are being handled I don't trust that these very basic stepping stones for commerce are secure. My perspective that those currently running rampant with the keel of our ship of hope might just run her aground in these dire straights they seem to be comfortable navigating.
Hey get away from these rocks that might just rock our boat a little more than needed or than it can handle!
I'm sorry that for whatever reason I feel less than inspired with confidence concerning the current Government that is running things, to not just run it into the ground. Then come up with society sweeping changes catered to control through whatever means they deam necessary. Your job is to Govern and not to RULE.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/17/13 - 07:28 am
0
1
My question is what is real and what can be staged?

Funny thing about time after things happen and Normal starts to resurface is that no matter how hard one tries to hide TRUTH, it always springs foreward to reveal LIES & DECEPTIONS used for a specific purpose or end goal for control of certain situations, as in GUN CONTROL.
Was this really a mass shooting or a Hollywood type drill to cause histaria and crys for gun control?
When one starts disecting all the ever coming out info of what was said and how people acted and so forth, then one can start to piece together things that reveal what actually happened.
As i read and see more news clips from many i see where these gun laws have been worked on for the last year according to Diane Feinstine D-CA, one of the major PUSHERS of control of guns.
Or we can even go back to 911 and view reactions from differant people and the way things were handled and realize that there is something amiss or HIDDEN from plain view. But, for what means or end game? War in the middle east and Trillions spent & earned along with the promotion of hate towards Americans.
Then there is the Benghazi HIDDEN SECRETS, people i should say that can't be found or talked to for answers about what happened. Just like the 911 thingy, we had planes and military ready to respond within minutes, but, there was no responce, just stand down and wait, wait until it's done and then we'll see what happens and what effects come about.
Just wondering out loud here folks about whats true or false in this game of control and dependance on the Government that thinks we are all in a state of not knowing whats best for or good, thus must be redirected down the right path by begging the Goernnment to take our rights away from us for our own good. REALLY?

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/17/13 - 09:01 am
0
1
SVP Don't take this junk

Step it up Sam, the Battle Lines have been drawn here on the Clarion and it has been determined that your wrong, inspite of your calm senceable knowledgeable well spelled and punctuated responces which are overflowing with TRUE proof of your correctness of understanding of what our forefathers aims for future Americans was. A WARNING to maintain our freedoms against people like JDB or others that would reinslave us by removals of our Soveriegn Rights, in hopes that we would be like they are. Ireland is inslaved and have no Soveriegn rights or freedoms as they protest continual control pressure to remove even more of their Past History as a people, they fight with their rock chunking verbal stances against governments that have weapons.
Many False prophets will come in the Last Days seeking to mislead or decieve the many, leading them away from the TRUTH into false promises of new hopes and changes as well as fundamentals to believe in for their desired Global unions fulfillment & worship system.
The LORD rebuke you Jim D Bishop for your lies and deception which abounds and is increasing daily against the TRUTH due to a desire, wishing to Inslave many for distruction of all.
All things are not as they appear and we all must search out what is being said and done as to whether it's Truth or Lies.
Take the Hoak by Manti TE'O from Hawaii a Hiesman candidate who lead his football team to EMOTIONAL victories due to his pretend girlfriends death from leukemia. It never happened, but, EMOTIONS SOARED which changed course for his Notre Dame team. Funny how people from or say their from Hawaii seem to be able to dupe others into EMOTIONAL CHANGE for a desired End Game. HE ALMOST MADE IT.
EMOTION-a complex and usually strong subjective responce.
It's a hard thing to admit being duped or lied to and ending that control over you due to being duped.

DON'T BE DECIEVED BY MANIPULATED EMOTIONS FOR INSTANT REACTIONS, REACTIONS THAT ARE USUALLY WRONG, BUT, DO ACHIEVE DESIRED RESULTS.
Stop, look, listen & WAIT, then react with understanding of what your doing Battle with and what that Battles End Game is geared towards, GOOD OR EVIL, NO OTHER CHOICES APPLY, which sometimes look so much alike you can't tell them apart with out allowing time to pass and then each will be revealed in it's time.
Prepare for more Battles in this fight for all humanity between Good & Evil.

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/17/13 - 11:25 am
1
0
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Adds:

Please take a few minutes to read this piece by a very well respected gentleman.

Again, the 2nd Amendment is not about the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is designed so that liberty-loving free people can shoot tyrants!

NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer
The Second Amendment is the guarantee of freedom

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.

As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.

The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.

The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.

Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.

To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.

There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.

The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king's government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.

We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.

The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.

Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.

Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ants-not-deer/

, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom”

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/17/13 - 12:18 pm
1
0
Mr. Bishop: You Are Taking Your Argument To The Wrong People

It is more than apparent that Mr. Bishop has kindled some real debate over a very important issue.
To Mr. Bishop: We who still reside on this side of the pond are not likely to give up our arms. If you've read my opening statement to the US Senate and the words of Judge Andrew P. Napolitano (above) and the supporting thoughts of several patriots (who know what the 2nd Amendment is all about), you should be able to grasp the notion that your argument is wasted. I'm sure you'll find more a more fertile audience among the globalists in the east.
I do want to thank Mr. Bishop for his accomplishments. He has spend a lot of time putting together his arguments, but sadly, they hold no water. Even today, the Alaska Legislature is moving toward nullifying King Obama's sweeping gun ban effort.
The 2nd Amendment is our guarantee to shoot tyrants with the same weapons they aim at us. And, as the central government increases its threats, so will WE THE PEOPLE increase our defenses.

Nothing much has changed since the 1760s-1770s

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/17/13 - 12:48 pm
0
1
@normolson

Most Americans have already agreed that private citizens, clearly entitled to be armed for lawful purposes in the United States, do not have an entitlement to military weapons. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnntime-poll-slight-dip-...) You will have to do more than say my arguments 'don't hold water' to score in this debate. Beyond sedition, why do you actually need to possess semiautomatic weapons loaded with 30 to 100 rounds of ammunition?

Obfuscate
235
Points
Obfuscate 01/17/13 - 02:00 pm
1
0
Continue to miss the point.

Mr. Bishop - you continue to miss the point. Please read this slowly and open your mind.

It does not matter WHY I need to possess a semiautomatic rifle loaded with 30+ rounds, all that matters is - as a free law abiding citizen - it is my right to do so. I don't need to have a reason that you agree with. I shouldn't need your, or anyone elses, permission or approval. I retain this right until such time that I am guilty of abusing my responsibility to act in a cival manner.

(Please excuse the word typed in caps. I wanted to make sure it was highlighted, as it is important that you notice it, but I am unable to add underline or italics.)

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/17/13 - 02:31 pm
0
0
JD Bishop

From what you just told Norm it appears that if the Government decided that every weapon is a Military type weapon then the Populas, the citizens, should be outlawed from using those weapons, is that correct in my sumation of what you said?
That, sir does not hold water actually and would be the very step the Government would take by classifying all weapons as military.
I still maintain that our American Forefathers were very smart, in fact probably divinely inspired from God above when they wrote the Constitution. Our forefathers used the word arms, as God new that as technology advanced in the future that the present weapons would become obsolete and replaced with much more advanced weaponry that would give an unfair advantage to Fanatic rulers of the past, which would actually escalate beyond or wildest immaginations to the point of what we see now posessed by Governments who wish to have ABSOLUTE CONTROL of ALL for a Global society and universal citizenry.
We would be rock chunkers of petro throwers like Ireland if we submit and allow governments like England or the present American govt. to roll over us Soveriegn Americans who depend on our Constitutional rights given as WARNINGS in order to slow down or prevent such govts. from being unhindered in their EVIL desires for absolute control of all.
Remember how the Sun use to never set on the British Empire, until they put the screws to the Jews in Israel in 1919 because of the thirst fro Arab Oil? Well thats the very same mindset we see evolving today for a Global society mentioned in Revelation 13; for this exact time, the End of an Era, dispensation of time that many have said was very near, even this last yr of 2012 & now 2013, not the end of the world.
We will not surrender our arms no matter how GR8 you try and make your life over there sound, we can see the writtings on the Wall for a change in the guard, Power structure at the end of the 500 yr cycles that history shows has always been constant with a power shift East to West and back again.
America may go down, which i truly believe is the case, but, we shall go down fighting against Evils spread every step of the way God willing. Guns & Bibles the two True weapons that have hendered Evils spread are the two things that helps keep us free and all the world hates each, even you sir.
Have a GR8 life and hang on Judgments coming for all of us any day now and we must control what we may, and surrender the rest unto God almighty, our only true hope of fundamental change to believe in for all. Obama will get his Global society, but, he nor his followers will remain excited about that when reality of the deception by the Evil One becomes clear resulting in the almost total distruction of every thing on earth with only 1/3rd of all life surviving in THE END.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/17/13 - 02:46 pm
1
1
@Obfuscate

You don't need my or anyone's permission to have anything, unless possession of it is against the law. Law, so long as it is consistent with the Constitution, is binding on every person in the United States. We have agreed on a process for creating, enforcing, and adjudicating so our laws respond to the needs and wishes of the population to the extent they can while being consistent with the same Constitution. Thus, at the moment, you cannot be required to explain why you '...need to possess a semiautomatic rifle loaded with 30+ rounds...' I completely understand that you are behaving legally. We have a process for changing the law and both of us have the right to participate in that process. I will be among those trying to disarm the entire American population of all semiautomatic weapons. The most dangerous weapon, according to police sources, is the semiautomatic handgun. The assault rifle is a clear symbol of the enemy, so far as many of us are concerned. You would have a stronger political position if you advocated for the continued allowance of semiautomatic pistols with small magazines than you will if you try to keep M15 rifles, 100 round magazines, and such.

No need to apologize for your use of caps. Compared to several of our correspondents, you are the new Shakespeare.

Obfuscate
235
Points
Obfuscate 01/17/13 - 03:27 pm
2
0
Thanks, but...

Thanks for the reply Mr. Bishop. I am aware of the current firearms laws and the method in which new laws are created. My prior post was a response to the specific question you asked Mr. Olson. Maybe you misunderstood this or just chose to skirt the issue. I replied because I take offense to the insinuation that sedition is the only reason I would want to own a semiautomatic rifle. Comments like that may lead me to believe you are nothing more than a forum troll looking to get a rise out of people.

Comments such as "The most dangerous weapon, according to police sources, is the semiautomatic handgun." and "The assault rifle is a clear symbol of the enemy, so far as many of us are concerned." are also the same type of vague but drama inducing statements. A clear symbol of the enemy? What in the world are you talking about? Are you speaking of a particular type of semiautomatic rifle or are you indicating that you consider anyone owning/wanting one your enemy?

Advocating for the continued allowance of either handgun or rifles would simply be a capitulation of my entire right to freedom. Giving up halfway is not an option. I can appreciate that you must feel like "your side" of this debate is winning. It is a hot topic at this time primarily because the news media has done such an outstanding job prostituting the recent tragedy to lambast firearms. This drama still does not provide a valid, viable or legitimate reason for banning semiautomatic rifles or high capacity magazines. You have not provided a legitimate reason either, just your opinion.

You would have a much stronger position if you had a legitimate reason.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/17/13 - 04:15 pm
0
1
The question is did it really happen?

Was the CT. shooting a TEST for the purpose of a national HOAX outcry against guns? This seems to be whats spreading like wildfire across America with alot of questions of did it really happen and if so where is the evidence of it?
From hospitals prewarned of incoming casualities of adults & children from gun shoot wounds, to no visual evidence of any deaths or bodies, to supposed victims parents yucking it up just before new broadcasts, then sheading of tears for their loss.
http:www.hallindsey.com/ is showing the many questions and other cases of it being a TEST in other schools as well nationwide.
Just asking and with the massive amounts of electronic equipment everywhere taping peoples actions and watching the 911 responders go about their pretend searches one must wonder if this indeed was a National Hoax.
DEMS said they were ready for such a time as this with gun restriction laws to remove guns from Americans.
Never let a crisis go to waste is what i see here.
As far as HOAX's go did ya see where the Hawiian Manti TE'O is involved in a massive HOAX of deception about his girlfriend that NEVER EXISTED? Totally made up girl friend to get an EMOTIONAL reaction from team mates at Notre Dame? It worked, he got his mates to go undefeated this year until the title game off of EMOTIONS for his continual lies about a girl friend that never existed.
EMOTIONS-- A complex and usually strong subjective responce to love or fear.
EMOTIONS cause people to do things that they would normally not do as in push for a useless gun control society thats ment fpr absolute total control of all.
Have a Good evening and ILBCNUL8R, Lord willing.
Keep your powder dry and your sword sharp.

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/17/13 - 07:53 pm
1
0
Military weapons?

To the best of my recollection, a lever action Winchester was at one time a "military weapon" yet civilians owned those as well. They were "modern" by the standards of the day in 1865 and the only persons who legally could not obtain them were those to whom our government opressed ... the Indians. Ironically, those same repeating rifles are often described as a deciding factor in the Indians victory at Little Big Horn.
My point is, the founding fathers knew there would be technical advancements in modern conventional weapons. They had lived through some of those advancements and made some of their own.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/18/13 - 01:05 am
0
0
@Obfuscate

I was very recently watching an interview with a police superintendent from New York City. He strongly stated that semiautomatic pistols are the weapon police forces consider to be the most often used in crime, and the most dangerous.

Semiautomatic 'assault rifles' are easily recognized and have become symbols of mass murder to those who think weapons should be more controlled. While people shooting the guns, are comparatively interchangeable, the guns are nearly identical, to the non gun person. In the most populated areas of the country, people react with fear when they see an assault rifle.

I made both points, and wrote the passage on how laws are made, to argue that we gun owners need to put on our politician's hat if we want to avoid a Constitutional amendment battle, which we very well could lose given the changing dynamics within the American populace. When we allow insane people and ideas to 'brand' our interest group (Ted Nugent babbling about 'going to jail or being dead,' and attracting the attention of the Secret Service. The latest idiotic gun shop owner that went on Youtube shouting about 'getting ready to kill people,' and having to rapidly retract his comments and engage a lawyer. Some moron going on an interview on CNN and screaming at the top of his lungs about 'NEVER GIVING UP HIS ASSAULT RIFLE!' And the people that claim a 'right' to own any weapon the army has because they want to be able to defeat any U.S. government that they disagree with.) we are asking for much bigger trouble than we now have. No one wants to live among crazy people, and threatening people, particularly those that are also well armed. Few people want to fear their neighbors, and the wild eyed completely uncompromising gun fanatics threaten everyone, including other gun advocates.

As you clearly reject the implication that potential sedition is the motive for your wanting military style weapons, what is your reason? As we both understand, there is a process in motion. We are both involved in it. I am interested in removing semiautomatic firearms from the private possession of ordinary citizens, whether they are felons or not, because they are the most dangerous and have no possible application beyond killing people. You disagree. At the moment, politically, I think I have the stronger side of the disagreement. What rational argument, beyond 'I want one,' do you have to offer for the private possession of semiautomatic firearms?

BigRedDog
686
Points
BigRedDog 01/18/13 - 01:28 am
0
0
Old Eyes

In responce to the absord idea that a 30 round clip is to many bullets, the older you get your eyes get worst every year. Hell 20 years from now I might need 30 rounds to get a solid hit, if that bothers you perhaps we are having the wrong conversation. I have a licence tag in the front window of my home. It reads "Forget 911, I dial .357" which is to me like asking just how crazy are You? Most theives are cautious about armed residents, and you would have to be crazy to knowingly mess with an armed homeowner. But to think that citizen may have a 30 round clip, might just sober a guy up real quick.

BigRedDog
686
Points
BigRedDog 01/18/13 - 09:38 am
0
0
Every Blade of Grass

The change you are asking for is not some mystic political vote on a democratic theology. The 2nd Amendment will not be changed by some populous vote or liberal Court Appointees. No matter how serious you take your position of self proclaimed higher ground, there are other Citizens who disagree very ardently. These Citizens have the support of the Bill of Rights which has stood out World wide as one of the most important documents since the Magna Carta.
Now political dogma and media pressure fail to show me how any political party in Power has the right through simple majority to change this most treasured document. Particularly when the current Party in power has shown an inability to secure basic economic stability in the land of plenty. I'm saying anybody that can't promote profitable civil commerce within this great nation of ours is to simple minded to trust with something as important as the 2nd Amendment.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/18/13 - 10:05 am
0
0
Those that cling to

Those that cling to Bibles and Guns are considered MEAN AMERICANS and must be stopped or restricted or voted out or bypassed with another ideal or differant FUNDAMENTALS now. Sounds about right, first the Bible is made of no effect and outdated and not ment for such a times as this and there are many ways to God and what ever anyone wants to believe or do is now an acceptable fundamental right.
The Bible is gone, now comes the Guns attacks and the rights of people to not have to worry about them so we can all have it our way and become a UNITED GLOBAL SOCIETY DEPENDANT ON GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING.
Remember Obama's words. "THOSE THAT CLING TO BIBLES AND GUNS ARE MEAN AMERICANS."
War lines are drawn and we all must decide which side we are fighting for, GOOD OR EVIL.
And please don't start in with we Christians are supposed to be meak & mild and not fight for ourselves or others. That is a lie straight from the pit of hell and Gods word never said that, in fact he warns us the we must prepare and put on all the proper armor so we can stand and fight & win the Battle against Evil as it tries to destroy all of us.
Jesus asked his followers if they had any swords, to which they replyed two. They had TWO ILLEGAL SWORDS according to Roman Laws and Jesus said that was GOOD.

Mat 10:34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
[Luke 22:36] Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
[Luke 22:38] And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Just a few, then there are the verses that show when Jesus comes back he is gonna do some major butt kicking against all unrightiousness, Evil people.
That should be enough for now, i hope it's OK if i slipped back slightly into what the Bible says which is likened to the Constitution.

Obfuscate
235
Points
Obfuscate 01/18/13 - 11:44 am
0
0
Still so narrow minded

Mr. Bishop - Using one persons comment does not make it factual, period. Because you heard an interview, but a anti-gun news media outlet that hand selected the proper law enforcement officer to provide the comments they were looking for does not provide a reason.

You did not answer several of my questions; instead you chose to highlight those very few spots that have been highlited by the news media. I hope you do not believe for one moment that "most" of America is anything like what you see in the news media.

'Because you are going to lose some freedom anyway, you might as well make it rifles instead of pistols' is not a valid reason. Highlighting the very few times (when applied as a percentage and compared to other tragedies in America) that semiautomatic rifles have been used as justification they are deadly and need to be banned only makes you sound biased. There are far more children injured/killed by drunk drivers each year than by semiautomatic rifles. There are children being sexually abused by teachers every WEEK in this nation and the U.K. I assume you would agree both those examples are tragic for the child involved. Why are you not championing a ban on alcohol or requiring all teachers to be eunuchs?

I believe it is because you are afraid and you blame firearms for some reason. You are using the idea that you are a gun owner to somehow provide you with more credibility, but it is a sham. You want all firearms abolished, but knowing it will never happen in one fell swoop, you are focusing on one step at a time.

As for my reason, I will give you an answer. I enjoy shooting. I enjoy shooting of all types. My favorite part is shooting light caliber center fire semiautomatic rifles at targets that animate when struck (old potatoes or apples are fun).

But this doesn't really need to be said. Unless you truly don't want to be free, then you must believe in innocent until proven guilty. Removing my access to something I love because others have used it inappropriatly means I am treated as guilty before I done anything wrong. And yes yes, I understand that this statement is not technically correct at this time because guns are not illegal and I'm not in jail, but it is the idea. Please take a moment to think of a few things that you really enjoy. Now think about them being taken away because others don't like the fact that you have them. I know you will come up with the excuse that items you enjoy don't kill people, and we'll never get beyond that because you refuse to see that guns don't kill people. But the story will be the same; you are happily voting for the reduction of other peoples freedoms. I'm sure you have heard the phrase that starts with "give them an inch"; that is exactly what you are proposing "we pro-gunners" do. We give them semiautomatic rifles without a fight, next it will be semiautomatic pistols, then all pistols, then all firearms - just like the land you are living in. That is not the direction we should be headed; look how well it has worked for your neighbors.

You think you have a politically stronger side right now because emotions have been abused by politicians to get what they want, not what is right. And you are trying quickly before the nation moves on to the next big talk in the media.

Now - please - give me a valid reason why or how me giving up my semiautomatic rifle will EVER make America a safer place to live. I'm certain you can't. Because the firearm is not the root of the problem and as long as you continue to focus on firearms, you will only add to the problem.

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/18/13 - 04:35 pm
0
0
Mr Bishop. Amend the constitution?

I would be curious as to what this constitutional amendment would declare?
Originally, the bill of rights constisted of 12 amendments. The two remaining, the 27th was ratified 203 years after its proposal date. The other (enumeration) became moot after the senate out grew the orignally proposed number for the house.
Six other amendment proposals have failed the ratification process and I am sure any amendment that would amend or change the 2nd would surely meet the fate of the other six.
As for justification of owning an assault rifle? Syria would be the latest example of why I should be able to own one if I choose to. A resistance to a tyranical government, regardless of that governments overwhelming military strength, is still resistance. You said: "And the people that claim a 'right' to own any weapon the army has because they want to be able to defeat any U.S. government that they disagree with." It's not simply that we "disagree," it is that the majority feel opressed or there is a threat of ones human freedoms and inalienable rights. That Mr Bishop, is just one reason why a person should have the right to possess a semi-automatic rifle, assault or otherwise.
A law abiding citizen with a semi-automatic rifle represents no more of threat than a law abiding citizen with a baseball bat. However, criminals with either represent an inherent danger.
Your insistance on illiminating semi-automatic weapons of all types is not only illogical, it is highly improbable.

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/18/13 - 04:51 pm
1
0
Again, Thank You Mr. Bishop

Your postings have clarified the feelings of many who have no understanding of the 2nd Amendment and its purpose.
You certainly got a bunch of people to stand up and speak out. For that I thank you.

But one thing you fail to understand, and that is this:
The 2nd Amendment does not provide the individual the right to protect himself. That right is a natural right given by God.

Neither does the 2nd Amendment grant the right of an individual to kill game.

The 2nd Amendment grants nobody the right to do anything. The 2nd Amendment REFLECTS THE GOD GIVEN RIGHT for free people to arm themselves against tyranny.
Showing the scope of your ignorance on the subject, you said,
"Most Americans have already agreed that private citizens, clearly entitled to be armed for lawful purposes in the United States, do not have an entitlement to military weapons." This, of course is a bogus argument. First of all, WE THE PEOPLE are not guided by polls, but rather the Rule of Law. Secondly, your argument that it would be okay to own firearms for "lawful purposes" is both right and wrong.
Lawful doesn't necessary mean "legal," nor is that which is legal lawful. It may not be legal for the militia to exist, but it is certainly lawful. Lawful pertains to natural law.
No amount of legislation can or will disarm the militia since the militia stands for one purpose only. It is made up of men and women who will not give up their firepower to a tyrannical government THAT CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
George Washington didn't trust the central government. Jefferson was very frightened of a central government. In order to keep the central government in its place, the Founders added the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the natural right of free people to SHOOT tyrants.

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/18/13 - 05:25 pm
0
0
It's not about disagreement with Govt.

I never like LBJ and i'm a Texan, i never like III/OII(add three lines), i never like Goober Carter(the worst we have everhad), inever like Ford, i never liked Bush SR, i don't like all of thems cousin BO either. But, i sure didn't use arms against any of them and i ain't gonna use arms against BO either. UNless Bo decides to remove my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS for his Dream of a Global Socity for ALL the World, America included.
Lets review what Morely Saifer said about we defeated Hitler, so why can't we defeat the NRA/
REALLY? What part of defeating Hitler doesn't he understand that we used GUNS to GET-R-DONE?
It's Hitler minded rulers that we keep our guns and ammo at the ready for that our forfathers warned us would come if we allowed them to do so and gave up our rights under the Constitution.
I have absolutely no problem with Presidents who really mean what they said when they SWORE THE OATH to PRPTECT OUR CONSTITUTION from both Foriegn & DOMESTIC ATTACKS.
Many people will sware on a stack of Bibles and go right out and commit the worst crimes against God, country and fellow humans with out blinking or any though of their lies of deception or OATHS.
Troubles are coming and God along with our forefathers WARNED us it would come, they also SHOWED us how to survive it when it did come.
WE JUST CHOSE NOT TO LISTEN TO EITHER GOD OR FOREFATHERS.
Not yelling there, just TICKER TAPE LARGE PRINT.
Keep you r powder dry and save AMMO, thats what their gonna take away from WE THE PEOPLE.

kksalm
247
Points
kksalm 01/19/13 - 09:31 am
0
0
BHO's 23 executive orders

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executi...

"It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis - or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority - would hold no validity."

Have a nice day

Sam Von Pufendorf
1088
Points
Sam Von Pufendorf 01/18/13 - 08:59 pm
0
0
kksalm Rick Ungar Forbes Magazine

Your source is less than objective and not necessarily well informed or unbiased.
"Richard "Rick" Ungar (born in Youngstown, Ohio in 1950) is a contributor to Forbes.com and the Washington Monthly where he writes on American health care policy and politics. He additionally appears weekly as the liberal voice of the "Forbes on Fox" television show and as a political pundit on other television and radio programs. Ungar moved into the world of journalism after a long career as a creative writer and executive producer in television, particularly in the world animation industry. His first creation, Biker Mice From Mars, which began its first run in the United States and the United Kingdom in 1993, became one of the most successful animated television programs of its time, "

Watchman on the Wall
2893
Points
Watchman on the Wall 01/18/13 - 09:41 pm
0
0
MY FELLOW REGISTERED AMERICAN VOTERS.

WHY THE SILENCE ON THIS ISSUE?
What happened to LOVE OF USA and support for all of us AMERICANS?
Just wondering why the SILENCE FROM THESE GR8 AMERICANS? Why are you all so silent about OUR AMERICAN RIGHTS? Could it be because you are full of it, as SUPPORTERS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Please forgive me for asking what your problem is and WHY the SILENCE from VOTING AMERICANS that appose every one that does not vote or vote for YOUR CHOSEN ONES?
May the LORD forgive you for your ABANDONEMENT & SILENCE in support of Fellow Americans in their time of need to protect OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS from this onslot of EVIL.
Not trying to P.O. anyone, just wondering where the REGISTERED VOTERS, EXMILATARY, SUPPOSED FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR ALL, REALLY ARE ON THIS ISSUE AND WHY THE SILENCE?
Your not laying in the weeds waiting to sit on a jury against your fellow Amewricans are you by chance?
Some of you have said in the past that this would be a wonderful thing to do and an Honor.
Just wondering whats with the SILENCE FROM Y'ALL and if your keeping your powder dry?

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/18/13 - 11:14 pm
0
0
JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/19/13 - 01:11 am
0
0
@Sam Von Pufendorf

'Your source is less than objective and not necessarily well informed or unbiased.'

And you base your suspicion on what? Your arthritic knee?

You seem to mean, because he is identified as a 'liberal,' he is not credible. That is what we generally call 'prejudice.' It is also called 'closed minded.' It is typical for the simple minded to attend university, encounter new, different, and/or challenging ideas that might force them to change their mind (An absolutely essential part of education, by the way.) and begin jabbering about 'liberal professors.' You know, the Professor of Biology that discusses Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as a fact, not a doubtful concept, and the History teacher that points out the facts indicating the United States did not defeat the Germans in Europe during WWII. Are you one of those types? You know, 'ineducable.'

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 01/19/13 - 02:30 am
1
0
JDBishop

My point still stands that if JDBishop and his kind would have been running the show historically, they would have made sure we did not have modern muskets in 1776 or M1's during WW2. Which ever war we would have lost, there is a very good chance that JDBishop would not be allowed to shoot his mouth off publically like he is now. Both Hitler or the British would have shot him for speaking against THE GOVERNMENT like he is doing in these posts.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/19/13 - 02:38 am
1
1
@kenai123

Congratulations! You've almost made my 'ignore list' for posting the least relevant, most idiotic, jabber of the day! Where, anywhere, in what I have written can you find any support for your text? '...speaking against THE GOVERNMENT like he is doing...' is my absolute favorite.

My prescription for your problem is that you immediately employ someone trained in teaching American Government in your local high school. Get your G.E.D. first.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321268/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321253/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321248/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321243/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321208/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/320593/
  • title http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321173/ http://spotted.peninsulaclarion.com/galleries/321163/
My Gallery

CONTACT US

  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING

MORRIS ALASKA NEWS