Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stop attacks on the Second Amendment

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:00 am

Help stop the wussification of America! Stop Obama's attack on the Second Amendment!

J. Kurt Roberts

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

28 comments:

  • Walter Chang posted at 5:21 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1069

    Grandpa's old rusty 22 single action revolver doesn't count!!


    [wink]

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 5:04 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1321

    Kevin....you can't legislate idiocy out of people. Anyone bringing a loaded firearm into a vehicle (that isn't in a holster) needs to be slapped. Unfortunately, like the cases you described, it requires a horrific mistake for a dummy to learn. I am at a loss why someone would load a firearm at a store and then put it into the car and drive around with it.

    We already have many laws which follow the "castle" doctrine, even in CA. I'm sure some would argue you should be able to shoot someone in the back three blocks away simply because you catch them stealing your TV set. I'm not sure these are the kind of people that should have guns. You can protect yourself and others from a threat in your house, and probably make a good case for the same outside of the house. No need to hear the choruses of boos from the ill-informed. If you're not sure it's not ok to shoot someone who is stealing your tv, you should volunteer to be the test case.

    Some states like Florida have a stand your ground clause where you don't have to retreat. It certianly worked out well for that guy who shot the teenager. We usually like to say "use a gun, go to prison" and think it means the criminal. We can see now, under some circumstances, it refers to over-zealous crime stoppers. Not the kind of position I would want to be placed in.

    Bottom line: if you see a crime being committed, and no one is in danger, just be a good witness. I have many guns and have had several opportunities in the past to have used them in what we would call today clean shoots. I chose not to. There is one incident where if I had found the criminal, I would have shot him. This was an attempted murder. it wouldn't have been a clean shoot as there wasn't a timely progression from imminent danger to lethal force, but I would have done it without remorse and taken my chances with a jury of my peers who would all agree, little old ladies shouldn't be assulted by some nut with an ax.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:02 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    The REAL question ms bobbin: WHEN are you going to apologize the fallen soldiers, patrol agents, policemen, fire fighters and othe public safety servants for calling them nothing more than ":Collateral Damage"?????

    The REAL irony Wally is...you don't have a point!

    Yes, I don't have any guns...just the RIGHT to have them.

    Mrzerotothenth: Are you refering to msb as a vulgar idiot? Or Wally or yourself? I haven't used any vulgar words (a--) neither has Mr Kinderman, Mr Liebick or Mr Roberts. Must be you.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:58 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2942

    Do you ever know what you are talking about? [lol]

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 3:57 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Walt Posts: 1069

    The real irony is...

    "They" don't own any guns!


    [beam]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 3:36 pm on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4485

    "msb: "Try Executive Order #13 (BTW, ALL of the Executive Orders were merely suggestions for what Congress should be doing - NOT SUPREME COMMANDS)." WOW!!!!!!"

    #13: "Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime."

    OOOOH, scary. What do we do now? Pat perpetrators on the back and give them a parade? The sad fact is that people caught with a small amount of marijuana have received greater sentences than those who have killed with guns.

    I'm sure that YOU and Mr. Liebich interpret this as black helicopters coming into your home and confiscating all of your guns whether you are a suspect of any crime or not.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:17 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1300

    Thank you LNS and I apologize for my above post which was a reaction to an insenitive post refering to the slain officer here in Galt of which many of us are still in shock over.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:52 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2316

    Brevity is the soul of wit?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:39 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2942

    Unbelievable indeed. The ignorance can only be described as willfull. [thumbup]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:27 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2942

    Suggesting that the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent was "collateral damage" is "ASSININE" but then again we are talking about an individual who believes "entering the United States illegally isn't illegal"
    [rolleyes]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:17 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2942

    First,
    A "private citizen" can NOT get a "military weapon" without a class III license.
    [sleeping]

    Second,
    Sen. Feinstein's legislation being introduced Thursday will be all about "giving up guns" Try reading it!
    [sleeping]

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 9:45 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1300

    I can't believe this ASSININE claptrap is still on the boards here. This is just flagrant illustration of rules violation and inconsistent enforcing of the rules which are now seemingly condoned by LNS. Far less distasteful posts get the boot. This vulgar idiot is given a pass? Unbelievable.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:35 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2316

    Mr. Roberts, while off topic I was wondering if you'd seen Bill the Cat recently? While in the Air Force in Germany in the early 1980's, I looked forward to my daily dose of Bloom County in Stars and Stripes. Opus was my pal indeed.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:31 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2316

    Mr. Paglia, my only issue with these proposed training classes is that since firearm possession is a "right" and not a "privilege," as driving a motor vehicle is, I don't see how making them mandatory is possible. After someone violates the laws with a firearm, I would think at that point more could be done.

    Keep in mind that any and all laws regarding firearm ownership must not in any way breach the Second Amendment. I would also think that if the Obama administration truly does want to make a difference, they're going to have to start at the Constitutional level. Perhaps an amendment to the Second Amendment? Considering that there have been no such changes to other Constitutional rights (specifically the Bill of Rights itself), all of these laws may be facing very steep uphill battles.

    On the other hand, with the current political climate across the nation heading toward a majority of liberals/progressives, how difficult do you think it might be to do away with the Second Amendment altogether? This may be Obama’s ultimate intention anyway. With 20 innocent deceased children as a backdrop, he might be able to pull it off.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 5:43 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1300

    OK define essential liberty. If you are refering to regulating guns in this country that is not giving up guns unless your talking about guns that the military should wield as opposed to what a private citizen should need. There is no essential freedom lost there. If you feel you need military weapons to take on our government, my government, then you are on a fools errand. So an increase in safety here is not a loss of liberty nor do I expect safety to be temporary. Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty and thats what we all expect.

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 5:32 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1300

    I can't tell if there is a topic here and whether it is on topic or not if there is a topic but it definitly is insulting. and in bad taste especially refering to the recently slain officer here in Galt.

     
  • Patrick W Maple posted at 5:29 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Pat Maple Posts: 1805

    WHAT??????????????????????? It is no wonder the people of this country are screwed up...listening to claptrap such as stated by the stump of a tree.

    msb: "Try Executive Order #13 (BTW, ALL of the Executive Orders were merely suggestions for what Congress should be doing - NOT SUPREME COMMANDS)." WOW!!!!!!

    Executive orders have the full force of law. Mere SUGGESTIONS???? Holy COW!!!

    EVEN WARS have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. Billy Bob bypassed Congress's duty to declare WAR! WAR is the job of CONGRESS!!! Good Gosh are you that ignorant of the Constitution that you would actually put those comments in WRITING????? WOW!!!! WHO are you listening to???

    Even FDR used EO's to an extreme: Executive Order 9066: Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) it paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II. YOU are unbelievable!

     
  • Andy Crowder posted at 4:11 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Andy Crowder Posts: 244

    Looks like Kurt scraped a bumper sticker off his car and mailed it to Marty. Slow day at LNS, so it became a letter.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 2:24 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1444

    As soon as you think that the LNS Opinion section can stoop no lower or become any more bias in there selection of letters allowed, they prove you wrong. Is this a letter or a 2014 campaign slogan

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:56 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1300

    As I said on another leter thread many of the gun laws have been made null and void or serioously striped of teeth by persistent and wide spread effort of the NRA. Laws that are on the books have been superseded by other laws that make them ineffective. So new laws are needed to reinstate laws that are needed by law enforcement. Can anyone say why gun checks aren't necessary for gun show sales?

     
  • Thomas Heuer posted at 1:40 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    nth degree wise Posts: 1300

    Thanks Joanne it is so easy to whip up hysteria with some.

     
  • Kurt Roberts posted at 1:39 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Kurt Roberts Posts: 55

    A wise man once said, "Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 10:00 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1904

    Jerome, I agree much tougher enforcement of current laws would have been a logical start. I also think there should be a "standard" to maintain the right to have a weapon that causes such damage. Recently there was a story from back east of a dad who shot his son climbing into his truck with a loaded weapon after leaving a gun shop. Another story was three people getting shot when a man carried a loaded shotgun into a gun show. These people have clearly shown that they can not be trusted with such weapons. If not a permanent ban then a number of years probation when they are prohibited from owning or using a gun.

    I would also like to see stronger home defense laws. Laws that would protect a home owner from persecution if a firearm is used to defend their home from an intruder. Search "homeowner sued for shooting intruder". I know Florida has some protection for home owners (castle laws)

    I also freely admit that there is a lot I don't know about current laws for gun owners since I don't own one, yet. But I do see a real value in something like the Motorcycle safety course all new riders are required to take. A firearms safety course in incremental levels (handgun, rifle/hunting, and assault). Each with a suitable level of training, education and even mental evaluation. The standard of these courses would be up to the individual states to determine the strictness.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:50 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 539

    Kevin perhaps this is the problem you see...
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:02 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2316

    But as far as your concern about finding a way to make both sides happy, how about getting tougher on criminals instead of law-abiding Second Amendment gun owners? Any crimes perpetrated with the use of a gun should be met with mandatory sentences with NO chance of parole - and those sentences (even for "first time offenders") should be severe. Oh, and once an offender is caught and the gun is confiscated, after its use as evidence in criminal proceedings is complete, destroy it.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 8:58 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2316

    Mr. Paglia, how many "intelligent" laws are already in place to control guns? I sure wish this administration had thought about intelligent laws insofar as immigration is concerned.

    No, this is nothing more than political posturing by our Supreme Ruler. As we learned yesterday, "'His' journey is not yet complete." (Quote slightly modified for accuracy's sake.) Oh goody!!! An unleashed Barack Hussein Obama! Hang onto your hats, folks - hopefully we'll be able to hang onto the Constitution as well.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:24 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2942

    just curious Kevin... Did you see HR 347 as an assault on the 1st ammendment?

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 8:00 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 1904

    I don't see making intelligent gun laws as an assult on the 2nd Amendment, nor is it the "wussification" of America.

    But I do see WHY some would desire to have STRONG, near military strength weaponry. It is the only way they feel safe. They fear a lot of things and the weaponry is what makes them feel safe.

    I have been trying to think of a way for both sides to be happy, but I haven't seen a way... YET.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 28 minutes ago by Ed Walters.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

It would seem that both posters left out the most important item of all. I have given up on everything else, however the one and the most …

More...

Posted 30 minutes ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

No, Andrew, you didn't answer the question...another propagandist You Tube channel called "Western Journalism" did. Along with…

More...

Posted 50 minutes ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Many states allow guns in schoo…

Mike, Will you at any point be reading the NRA's letter of opposition to AB 1014? ROFLMAO![lol]

More...

Posted 1 hour ago by Andrew Liebich.

article: Letter: Questions for Obama supporters

I have a question for Obama supporters. Why do you ignore the 13 unanimous Supreme Court rulings that have been issued against President O…

More...

Posted 1 hour ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

"One thing I've learned here is its easy to make allegations but very time consuming to verify them or debunk them." [thumbup] …

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists