Current weather

  • Clear sky
  • 16°
    Clear sky
  • 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.
normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/22/13 - 03:54 pm
0
3
Whatta Bunch of Drivel

Norseman daftly bleated, "I am one of the fellow citizens that JD is talking about. I will load up my musket and defend our government against the treasonist traitors who take up arms against her. You go against my country, you go against me."

My, my. You sound like Davy Crocket, Norseman. You don't have the stuff to even state your real name in defense of what you say and you're talking about defending yourself against free men and women who are willing to die to stay that way? Give me a break, will ya?

And by the way, the flowery words, "You go against my country. . ." is a joke. You really mean, "You go against my central government, you go against me."

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/22/13 - 04:13 pm
2
3
You've got to be kiddin', right??

JDB just said, "President Obama '...is so simple minded and lazy...?' Right. 'Simple minded' people regularly get a Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Harvard, become Editor and President of the Harvard Law Review, go on to become a United States Senator, and are twice elected President. It's common. Lazy people fit into that mold easily as well. You've got your facts straight."

You're kiddin', right? You actually believe what the adoring and worshipful sheep say about their king? Actually, he's a lying fraud and a joke. Your adulation and admiration of the fool only goes to expose your immense ignorance of what he really is.

Is there a blessing for Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama)

(from Fiddler on the Roof):
Lebisch: Rabbi! May I ask you a question?
Rabbi: Certainly, Lebisch!
Lebisch: Is there a proper blessing... for the Tsar?
Rabbi: A blessing for the Tsar? Of course! May God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us!

Is there a blessing for Prez Obama?
"Lord, keep Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro (or whatever his real name is) far from us!"

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/22/13 - 06:43 pm
1
0
Good-bye Watchman On The Wall

Let me preface the following comments by saying that I hope that I am wrong in accusing the Clarion of censoring a blogster without just cause.

The Peninsula Clarion staff has decided that Watchman's blog contributions are to be no longer tolerated. As far as I can tell, he has slandered no one, has never used abusive language, and has posted no libelous or malicious material.

If he was banished from the blog for stating his sincerely held Christian point of view, then I, as a fellow Christian, an Alaskan, a firm supporter of the 1st Amendment, and one who is knowlegable in the historic place of the press as a voice of the people, am justly upset.

When the press can, or will, no longer endure the voice of the people, then it ceases to be a clarion. (Definition: an urgent call to action; inspiration to act. A clear and certain sound)

“The media tends to report rumors, speculations, and projections as facts... How does the media do this? By quoting some "expert"... you can always find some expert who will say something hopelessly hopeless about anything.”
(Peter McWilliams)

I would question whether the Peninsula Clarion has the accuracy, or spotless perfection in the journalistic craft to censor anyone.

More troubling is the thought that comes from a quote by Malcolm X who said, "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” Few would deny the power of the press to make the innocent guilty. By censoring Watchman on the Wall, the Clarion has accused him of being guilty of something. Perhaps the Clarion will be good enough to explain what WOTW has done.

I suspect that Watchman's banishment is the decision of more than just the web master's discretion.

I suspect also that if Watchman has been silenced, so too will my voice be silenced. Others too. Whose voice will be the next to be silenced?

Norseman
3616
Points
Norseman 01/22/13 - 06:56 pm
1
2
TOS

I assume he violated the TOS

Terms of Service

Your continued use of PeninsulaClarion.com constitutes acceptance of these Terms of Service, which may be modified by us from time to time. The current version of this document will always be available on PeninsulaClarion.com, and it is your responsibility to review it on a regular basis. By continuing to use this site, you agree to be bound by any future changes published on PeninsulaClarion.com.

While much of this website is open to the public, certain services, including participation in the online interactive community, require registration. Participation in this online community is a privilege and not a right. If you violate these Terms of Service or otherwise disrupt PeninsulaClarion.com or make a nuisance of yourself, we may cancel your account, prohibit you from opening alternate accounts and deny you access to affected portions of the website.

Conduct and Use

You agree not to post, email, or otherwise make available content:
■that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, pornographic, libelous, or invasive of another's privacy, or harms minors in any way;
■that harasses, degrades, intimidates or is hateful toward an individual or group of individuals on the basis of religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, age, or disability;
■that purports to be from any person or entity, or falsely states or otherwise misrepresents your affiliation with a person or entity;
■that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person's explicit consent.
■that is false, deceptive, misleading, deceitful, mis-informative, or constitutes "bait and switch";
■that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights of any party, or content that you do not have a right to make available under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships.
■that constitutes or contains "affiliate marketing," "link referral code," "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," or "pyramid schemes."
■that constitutes or contains any form of advertising or solicitation if (1) posted in areas which are not designated for such purposes; or (2) emailed to PeninsulaClarion.com users who have requested not to be contacted about other services, products or commercial interests.
■that advertises any illegal services or the sale of any items the sale of which is prohibited or restricted by applicable law;
■that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment;
■that disrupts the normal flow of dialogue with an excessive number of messages (flooding attack) to the Service, or that otherwise negatively affects other users' ability to use the Service;
■that employs misleading email addresses, or forged headers or otherwise manipulated identifiers in order to disguise the origin of content transmitted through the Service.

Additionally, you agree not to:
■contact anyone who has asked not to be contacted;
■"stalk" or otherwise harass anyone;
■collect personal data about other users for commercial or unlawful purposes;
■use automated means, including scripts, spiders, robots, crawlers, data mining tools, or the like to download data from or upload data to PeninsulaClarion.com;
■post irrelevant content, repeatedly post the same or similar content or otherwise impose an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on our infrastructure;
■attempt to gain unauthorized access to PeninsulaClarion.com computer systems or any other user's computer systems, or engage in any activity that disrupts, diminishes the quality of, interferes with the performance of, or impairs the functionality of, PeninsulaClarion.com.

Just click on the terms of service to read more if you are confused.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/22/13 - 07:10 pm
1
2
About banning WOTL

Should the clarion choose to ban this person,
They will be doing it because of his Christian beliefs.
As far as the terms and conditions of this forum,
I believe everyone who debates here is breaking
One rule or another.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/22/13 - 07:16 pm
1
2
Wrong

It would be terribly wrong to ban WOTW.
He posts some very educational blogs and I enjoy
Reading his posts. Everyone can learn from this
Person. I see more problems with others on here
As far as breaking terms of agreement than I do WOTW.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 01/22/13 - 08:45 pm
2
1
JDBishop5 Obamo is a 100% complete fraud

JDBishop5 you have got to be kidding. You actually believe Obamo has a Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Harvard? How would you know this being that our courts have SEALED UP every scrap of educational information out there on Obomo? Why would they seal up all this information? Real good question, why would they do the same with Obamo's real birth certificate? If you want to deal with REAL FACTS when speaking of Obamo, you have to start by stating up front "I have no idea why EVERYONE
has decided to hide EVERYTHING about where Obamo came from, how he was educated. Does JDB do this? NO! He does like the commies as they wave their little red book in the air and dance around in circles as they worship who ever their current fraud is. Obamo is a 100% complete fraud. He will make one ton of cash when he is out of office writing his best seller about how he scammed the American fools who voted for him and those fools will still be dancing and waving his little Obamo book in the air long after he is out of office.

Here's how his best seller will start.

It twas a's greats time in America, there twas fools everywhere and they's believe's every golden word that's fell froms my lying tounge. I twas golden, anything I hollowed out was a printed alls over the world. I was borned in a backwater mosiktoe infested swamp in Kenya ands my mommy saids lets'em goes off to Ameraca's and gets rich likes thems whites folks. We's can tells them thats wezes cames from Hawies and thats you's is a Juris Doctorate, magna cum laude, from Harvard. You known's theys will be believen us cause theys is all so stupid over there's. Comes on theres Barry, Momma says yous gets youren things together, wes is going places...

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 01/22/13 - 09:32 pm
2
1
The Watchmen and censorship?

Yes the Clarion has successfully changed the subject of this forum from "a red herring in the gun control debate of what kinds of gun we can have", to media censorship. Opps doing that is number 17 on the Clarions own "don't do it list". So the Clarion has gone and changed this gun topic into a media censorship topic. That is posting irrelevant content to the gun issue, posting its censorship is posting irrelevant content, so I guess the Clarion should ban itself for converting this topic from guns to censorship. The Clarions TOS is so monstrous that every person on this gun forum, including the Clarion, has violated it. So reality says that the Clarion should ban us all along with the Clarion. So why don't you just vaporize this ENTIRE gun control topic Clarion? After all we don't really need to talk about guns or censorship, right?. The Clarion is proving the point of many of these posts; the truth has become meaningless. What is meaningful is who controls the censor switch and that is basically how Obamo got into office with our media preventing anyone from printing or broadcasting ANYTHING negative about him. So basically the Clarion is doing the same as every other publisher/broadcaster. Vaporize the competition, grind up the truth, reprocess and remanufacture truth and turn it into a lie. If you vaporize enough "Watchmen On The Walls" you will eventually have what you want, a 100% pure lie. The watchmen did the same thing JDB did, constantly repeating what he believes but JDB is still here and the watchmen is gone. When the Clarion removes posters they should at least publish the reason on the forum as to why they were banned. To just vaporize is lying journalism.

kksalm
247
Points
kksalm 01/22/13 - 09:54 pm
1
1
Watchman on the Wall, banished?

That's just wrong. His opinions inspired me to wonder at this faith of his. I learned a lot of his particular religion that spared me the hypocrisy of sitting in a pew. If I found the remarks offensive I could have toggled the "Ignore user" link that is at the bottom of each individuals post. I find other posters much more offensive yet it is I that have a choice to read them, or not.
So much for free speech. What-ever. as they say these days
Have a nice day

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/23/13 - 01:03 am
1
3
The owners and funders of this newspaper banned someone?

Well, if you don't like the flavor of the free ice cream...

Participants here might try to read this fine article on the history of gun control in our country from The Atlantic for a change of pace. Some may want to have a dictionary at hand.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-o...

A taste...

>In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)

Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

The NRA today condemns every one of these provisions as a burdensome and ineffective infringement on the right to bear arms. Frederick, however, said in 1934 that he did “not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.” The NRA’s executive vice president at the time, Milton A. Reckord, told a congressional committee that his organization was “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation.” According to Frederick, the NRA “sponsored” the Uniform Firearms Act and promoted it nationwide. Highlighting the political strength of the NRA even back then, a 1932 Virginia Law Review article reported that laws requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon were already “in effect in practically every jurisdiction.”

When Congress was considering the first significant federal gun law of the 20th century—the National Firearms Act of 1934, which imposed a steep tax and registration requirements on “gangster guns” like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns—the NRA endorsed the law. Karl Frederick and the NRA did not blindly support gun control; indeed, they successfully pushed to have similar prohibitive taxes on handguns stripped from the final bill, arguing that people needed such weapons to protect their homes. Yet the organization stood firmly behind what Frederick called “reasonable, sensible, and fair legislation.”

One thing conspicuously missing from Frederick’s comments about gun control was the Second Amendment. When asked during his testimony on the National Firearms Act whether the proposed law violated “any constitutional provision,” he responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.” In other words, the president of the NRA hadn’t even considered whether the most far-reaching federal gun-control legislation in history conflicted with the Second Amendment. Preserving the ability of law-abiding people to have guns, Frederick would write elsewhere, “lies in an enlightened public sentiment and in intelligent legislative action. It is not to be found in the Constitution.”

In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had bought his gun through a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, Franklin Orth, then the NRA’s executive vice president, testified in favor of banning mail-order rifle sales. “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” Orth and the NRA didn’t favor stricter proposals, like national gun registration, but when the final version of the Gun Control Act was adopted in 1968, Orth stood behind the legislation. While certain features of the law, he said, “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”<

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/23/13 - 04:44 am
2
1
No thanks JD

After reading the first sentence of your comment,
I cared not to read further. Also, it was just
another very long comment That I knew would
Not educate me in anyway.
The banishment of one of the best bloggers
On this forum had nothing to do with the length
of his comments as you suggest.
If so, then you would be banned as well
I, too have had my posts removed from
this page. It was due to content only,as most
of my blogs are short and to the point.
My point today is: Guns and Bibles.
Regardless of what the clarion censors or
any other person here believes, the two are
Totally related and do fit this forum.
Taking in to consideration that you "babbled"
on this newspaper at one time does make me
Wonder if perhaps you caused this censorship?
You say you had lived in Alaska for 18 years.
Now for many years in foreign lands.
I suggest that you keep your opinions in
Those foreign countries and leave the many
Dedicated Alaskans that have lived here since
Before statehood and newspapers to express
Their opinions about how their state handles
Gun controls and bibles.

BigRedDog
686
Points
BigRedDog 01/23/13 - 06:38 am
0
0
Love that WOW

And everyone else that does realizes our brother sometimes says things that make you say "I can't believe you would say that." Still love him but you to be honest must admit that on occasion he really lets a jaw dropper out that you don't understand or must be explained. I don't think he has mallas or is unkind in any way, and I would stand up and literally fight King Kong bareknuckles for the man, (be a good fight)but he does let it slip every now and then. I read the blog in question and saw that it had been removed. I remember thinking from the moment I read the test statement that my brother was reaching a little to far in what he was saying and would probably offend a broad segment of the readers.
It's no real surprize that I was right. I have had blogs stricken down, thought about it and got the message out in a little better form so as not to enflame other bloggers. But it may have been a little heavy handed coming back at the publisher instead of heading his directives. It saddens me greatly to see this outcome, but I'm going to have to stand up for the people making this blog posible. They have readers and a publisher that doesn't like printing or publishing hypothedical poisoned retoric. To inject those accusations, into such a heated topic as this was clearly not appreciated by staff who have a BOSS. Back to topic.
Thank God it looks like the Texas campus shooting was just a regular good old fashioned gun fight. But those idiots just got so much press, their taking this business to school makes it SO federal they are toast!

Norseman
3616
Points
Norseman 01/23/13 - 07:29 am
0
3
Thanks

Thanks again JD for sharing that. I HAD been a member of the NRA for many years and never really knew the historical background. One can learn when they open the eyes and ears.

bluffbunny
82
Points
bluffbunny 01/23/13 - 01:37 pm
2
0
gun control laws

What concerns me, and I have not heard anyone discussing this is;

Regarding registration and "background checks" .... many people think that is a reasonable request, what harm is there than letting they have your name and address?

If I recall, the first 'background checks' were ONLY supposed to be kept for 3 days after you passed and bought your gun...

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY DO NOT STILL HAVE EVERY ONE OF THOSE YOU FILLED OUT????? ( yes, I am shouting)

Think about WHO is in charge of what information they require?

Yes, YOU know.

So what if THIS year they only want your name, address, etc but NEXT year decide they want to know if you've ever been prescribed PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS?
Then they will decide they want to ask you if you ever took anti-depressants?
Then the next year, have you ever been arrested for drunk driving?
Then, Have you ever been questioned about spousal abuse?
If a veteran, have you ever experienced PTSD?
Have you had any ...arguments ...with the IRS?
Next could come - what prescription drugs do you regularly take? (Oh?)

You know from the past how these 'required' forms keep changing to reflect more information that could be used to deny your rights to own a firearm.

Once you start allowing bogus officials the right to decide who gets to own a firearm and who cannot, you are half-way down that slippery slope.

HELLO?????

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/23/13 - 01:46 pm
3
0
Take Away The Patriot's Gun -- Forget That!

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topic/show?id=2600775%3ATopic%3A6068268&x...

Hey, check this out. Just the mention of the central government's gun grab seems to infuriate the crowds of CONCERNED Americans.
It would seem that those who are really patriots in defense of liberty and supporters/defenders of the Constitution are those who speak out. The passive sheeple who bow down to the central government say very little, and when they do, it comes out as total nonsense.
Does anyone really think it would be possible to disarm this crowd? Does anyone really think the central government will even try?

April 19, 1775, Lexington Commons, the British tried to make patriots disperse. The rest is history

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/23/13 - 02:16 pm
0
4
@bluffbunny

You wrote that the government, on an application for a firearms permit, say a permit to concealed weapon, might ask one or more of the following questions.

1 'NEXT year decide they want to know if you've ever been prescribed PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS?
2 Then they will decide they want to ask you if you ever took anti-depressants?
3 Then the next year, have you ever been arrested for drunk driving?
4 Then, Have you ever been questioned about spousal abuse?
5 If a veteran, have you ever experienced PTSD?
6 Have you had any ...arguments ...with the IRS?
7 Next could come - what prescription drugs do you regularly take? (Oh?)'

I hope so. I’ll answer your points in order.
1 Regarding the use of psychotropic drugs
From Wikipedia -
'A psychoactive drug, psychopharmaceutical, or psychotropic is a chemical substance that crosses the blood–brain barrier and acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it affects brain function, resulting in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, and behavior.[1] These substances may be used recreationally, to purposefully alter one's consciousness, or as entheogens, for ritual, spiritual, and/or shamanic purposes, as a tool for studying or augmenting the mind. Some psychoactive drugs are also recognized for therapeutic use as anesthetics, analgesics, or for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.
Because psychoactive substances bring about subjective changes in consciousness and mood that the user may find pleasant (e.g. euphoria) or advantageous (e.g. increased alertness), many psychoactive substances are abused, that is, used excessively, despite health risks or negative consequences. With sustained use of some substances, psychological and physical dependence ("addiction") may develop, making the cycle of abuse even more difficult to interrupt. Drug rehabilitation aims to break this cycle of dependency, through a combination of psychotherapy, support groups and even other psychoactive substances. However, the reverse is also true in some cases, that is certain experiences on drugs may be so unfriendly and uncomforting that the user may never want to try the substance again. This is especially true of the deliriants (e.g. Jimson weed) and powerful dissociatives (e.g. Salvia divinorum). Most purely psychedelic drugs are considered to be non-addictive (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline etc.); "psychedelic amphetamines" or empathogen-entactogens (such as MDA, MDMA etc.) may produce an additional stimulant and/or euphoriant effect, and thus have an addiction potential.
In part because of this potential for abuse and dependency, the ethics of drug use are the subject of debate. Many governments worldwide place restrictions on drug production and sales in an attempt to decrease drug abuse. Ethical concerns have also been raised about over-use of these drugs clinically, and about their marketing by manufacturers.
2 The use of anti-depressants could indicate an elevated risk of suicide and/or the possibility of harming another person, particularly members of the applicant’s family.
3 Arrests for drunk driving should be something that shows up during a record check. Substantial alcohol abuse might well be a valid reason to refuse permission to own a firearm of any description.
4 Having a record of spousal abuse should be disqualifying in most circumstances, in my opinion.
5 PTSD can manifest itself in ways that would disqualify the sufferer from having a firearm, if only to reduce the risk of suicide.
6 Arguments with government agencies can be praiseworthy, or not, depending on the circumstances. Waving a gun at a federal officer, or threatening to do so, should disqualify a person from possessing a firearm, I would say.
7 It could be a very reasonable consideration to enquire into the prescription drugs a person is taking. What are they? What are they be used to treat? How do they act in combination? What does the applicant’s doctor have to say? All of those seem reasonable to ask of a person wanting to carry a concealed weapon, as far as I’m concerned.
Any one of these areas of concern could properly be disqualifying. In combination, I would think any two might or, certainly three would automatically be.

normolson
428
Points
normolson 01/23/13 - 05:22 pm
1
0
PTSD?

I suffer ACTIVE traumatic stress every time I see BHO's mugg on TV. Every time he makes a move to steal away more of my rights and liberties, I feel a twinge and a tightening. Every time he tells me how good I will feel as a disarmed slave of his globalism, I have a reflect action and reach for my rifle. He is stressing me out far more than anything I experienced in my 2-1/2 years in Southeast Asia!
As far as POST traumatic stress goes, I'm still suffering from Bill Clinton's gun ban of the 90s when I was a gun dealer. The stress came from having customers "3-deep" at the counter all wanting semi-auto rifles and large cap magazines. Every day was an exercise in exhaustion.
I must admit that I'm getting better nowadays. When I see thousands of people protesting in support of the 2nd Amendment, and hundreds of new militia units being formed around the country, and news that more than 2 million military pattern weapons were purchased in December alone, my heart just pitter-pats in confirmation that I'll never be alone in the cause of liberty.

bluffbunny
82
Points
bluffbunny 01/23/13 - 08:12 pm
2
0
gun control laws

JDBishop5. Your reply was filled with "Could be" , "Should be", "Might be" , "could indicate", "Can be" and "reasonable consideration" but there ARE no facts or statistics that prove any of your objections are valid.

Using your proposals, you would deny the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of more than a majority of American citizens based on unsupported supposition and impossible enforcement.

So someone who was forced to take certain drugs when a child, that forever keeps them from owning a firearm? If those drugs are so dangerous and do not provide a CURE, why are they still being sold and administered?

Any argument with a government agency means you are a THREAT? Not a valid argument until this arrogant sockpuppet manages to completely turn this country into the Socialist dictatorship he seems to want!

Inquiry into what prescription drugs someone takes regularly is appropriate? Well, under Snobamacare that might be possible, but I believe there are already laws on the books that prohibit others from getting YOUR medical information. But even so, do you want some pencil-pusher in some agency to decide that the drugs you are taking are dangerous?
I don't.

If you think these requirements would keep criminals and those intent on causing harm from getting weapons, you are incredibly naive. And if you truly believe what you wrote, we should IMMEDIATELY implement the same requirements to getting a driver's license and 'save' the lives of the numbers of people killed by cars - which are far, far more than are killed with guns. How do you like walking to work?

The bottom line is - ANY of these bogus requirements 'INFRINGE' on the peoples' right to 'bear arms'. I believe we already have enough laws that have not worked and that the Founders did not ask for any such requirements in their clearly stated decree. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is good enough for me.

I will support THEIR ideal rather than ANY political bureaucratic posturing and pontifications by smoke-blowing sycophants whose sole desire is to be re-elected into infinity, spending as much money as they can while doing as little for their constituents as possible.

kenai123
1319
Points
kenai123 01/23/13 - 08:30 pm
3
2
Luvflyfishing, gun control from Ireland?

Good point Luvflyfishing. Why is JD sending out his gun control concerns all the way to Alaska? All the way from Drogheda, Ireland? What would it take for a real Alaskan to locate a paper in Drogheda, Ireland and write a story about some issue and then spend days and weeks of their lives pounding out posts in an attempt to brainwash those persons living in Ireland, that they are all wrong and you the Alaskan are right? It is my opinion that anyone who would do this kind of thing is truly mentally disturbed. Think about it, who has the time or is nuts enough to target the citizens of a foreign country and spend A LOT OF TIME trying to brainwash them about how great gun control is? If I had just met a person like this and they told me that this is what they did day after day,
I would automatically assume THEY ARE CRAZY. It is bad enough for us folks here locally to debate an issue like this but to debate gun control in Berlin or London just for kicks? I would assume that a person who does this kind of thing is completely out of there minds.

That said, what does it say for a news paper that cannot locate this kind of crazy person locally so they have to import them from foreign lands. How crazy is it that all us Alaskan posters have sent in many letters to the Clarion but none of them were ever published like the ones they published from foreign lands. Why is that? Why would any new spaper
ignore its own local citizens in favor of a deluded person floating around the planet out there somewhere. JD's story is as telling about his own messed up little life but what does it say about the Clarions messed up publishing and censorship? I used to ALWAYS have the Clarion paper delivered 1980 - 2005 but since it was taken over by certifiable bad publishers, bad censors bad everything, I cancelled my subscription. Don't know what happened to the Clarion but I do not like its new direction. I now wait for the Clarion to return to the way they used to publish. No doubt the Clarion wonders why they cannot sell more papers. Well I am trying to tell them why.

BigRedDog
686
Points
BigRedDog 01/24/13 - 05:25 am
2
0
They could be Fishing

That is for an idiot to make a brash statement about a topic that engenders such passion in the blogger that they over step that old 1st Amendment arguing about the 2nd. IT happens, and it might be the guys hobby trying to make somebody blow a gasket in public. Then proceed to square two for the government and say we have a winner in the "Looks like a patriot gone crazy contest." So think about it when some obvious fool is trying to incite decent and comment.
So I feel JDB's main purpose is to make US a bunch of spineless Europeans minnie states robbed of their gun rights via electing the wrong dictator. We sure might have done that this time, and may pay dearly for electing someone whose party has learned the art of buying votes with public tender! All along I feel those sneaky demos were eyeing our guns and plotting desperately to take advantage of any and all opprotunities to slander or demean law abiding gun owners because of the actions of a few very insane people.
These types of attacks are continuing and the press is silent about the many attacks thorned bye armed citizens intervention. But my spin of this blog now is it's a fishing trip for this Limey Blogger.

Raoulduke
3084
Points
Raoulduke 01/24/13 - 06:54 am
1
0
ptsd

NORM
I find it very disheartening of your taking light of PTSD. Military combat veterans acquire this by fighting not customers 3 deep,but by having the enemy running at you 3 deep to kill you.It is obvious you are not a COMBAT VETERAN.A combat vet does not joke about the ptsd. They have to many nightmares.But I do take offense of your remarks.There are way to many vets coming home to put a bullet in their own brains.So! please have the common decency to curb your comments pertaining to PTSD .
If you may know a vet that is having adjustment difficulties Have them do a google search -VETS JOURNEY HOME.I personnally have gone through their program.It helped me.Maybe it could help another vet.I take the vets very seriously especially combat vets.

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/24/13 - 07:05 am
0
2
@Raoulduke

I certainly have not joked about PTSD, and agree with you that it is a serious problem and that those suffering from it should receive our respect, consideration, and the best treatment available in the nation.

Thank you for your service, and I'm very glad to know you have been able to get assistance.

My exact statement was...

'5 PTSD can manifest itself in ways that would disqualify the sufferer from having a firearm, if only to reduce the risk of suicide.'

I stand by it. SOME individuals with the condition do present a heightened risk of suicide, and a small number also may be risks for other people until they get assistance. During that period, I think it would be wise to keep them away from firearms.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/24/13 - 07:10 am
1
0
JDB

Regardless of how you think all Alaskans are illiterate,
We do know how to search the Internet for
The info we need. Save your time and the
Clarions web space and leave the rest to we Alaskans.
I think we all need to take a break and go fishing.
Where are fish biting best today Bigreddog?
:-)

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/24/13 - 07:13 am
0
2
@Luvflyfishing

So go fishing there buddy. You weren't tearing up the track here anyway. Reasoned conversation does not seem to be your bailiwick.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/24/13 - 07:40 am
1
0
JDB

Oh, I believe I have made a few tracks here.
I just do not speak your rhetoric.
Plus, I do not agree with you. So?
Now I suppose I am going to have to
Google the word bailiwick. :-). I do have a question for
You: What is it that drives you and has you totally
obsessed within your self to prove you
are 100% correct and the rest of the world is
wrong?
I mean, do you already have Ireland
Convinced so you have no other place
To post but here in Alaska?
Come back to Alaska, USA and live.
Pay your taxes and vote. Then and only then
will you have the right to Americas freedom
of speech.

Obfuscate
235
Points
Obfuscate 01/24/13 - 07:56 am
2
0
He has trolled us all.

The only way to get trolls to leave is to stop feeding them.

Luvflyfishing
214
Points
Luvflyfishing 01/24/13 - 08:08 am
1
0
Obfuscate

You are absolutely correct. I just put
The troll on ignore. I just felt compelled
to respond to his false allegations.
Thank you for your comments and have
A nice day. :-)

JDBishop5
182
Points
JDBishop5 01/24/13 - 08:17 am
0
2
@Obfuscate

Nope. First, I am not a troll. I presented a case with which you do not agree, and have not been able to disprove. My original post was carefully written, and the position it takes reflects the majority opinion of the people of the United States.

No one, certainly not myself, is suggesting that we give up our right to firearms. However, some on this thread have demanded that ordinary private citizens have the 'right' to possess any weapon the United States military uses. That would allow the private possession of nuclear weapons. As that cannot ever be the case, we obviously have a line between what we citizens may possess, and what the military is equipped with.

The discussion I was interested in starting among the readers of this conversation was about where a rational line can be drawn. Again and again I have said that the difficulty in describing the kind of weapon citizens are entitled to have has been over stated. It is not difficult. We already have a line between our selves, assuming you are a law abiding citizen, and fully automatic weapons except under closely controlled circumstances. As one result of that line, we have almost zero incidents of automatic weapons being used in crimes within our country.

Now, a majority of our countrymen, including the International Association Of Chiefs Of Police and the President of the United States, and little old me, think the line needs to be moved to include all semiautomatic firearms as well.

The discussion here, when carefully read, discloses some members of the community who raise questions about their qualifications to have any firearm at all, even their sanity. Several have advocated the forceable overthrow of our national government, in itself a federal felony earning, on conviction, up to 20 years in prison and and/or a fine. The presence of such people in the community should alarm everyone to the fact that a minority of Alaskans on the Kenai are dangerous, and should be dealt with by law enforcement before we have a tragedy on our conscience.

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