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

The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting

February 19, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: Hunters were not silenced by lack of an organized voice as you depicted in your February 7 editorial....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(208)

jamestownfan18

Feb-19-13 2:14 AM

Lovely rant. Problem though....no one is trying to take away your guns...the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with high capacity assault rifles. You can still own guns.

I know that's pesky. Sorry.

8 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jamestownresident26

Feb-19-13 4:04 AM

Actually the new classification of assault weapons does take away many guns that are used and developed primarily for hunting. You know nothing about guns if you have this opinion.

16 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yankee

Feb-19-13 4:49 AM

Letter makes perfect sense to me. Too bad it will take hundreds of times longer to repeal or amend the SAFE act than it did to instill it.

19 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Jazzie

Feb-19-13 5:18 AM

How many more times will we have to hear this rant?

6 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bobbybill

Feb-19-13 6:46 AM

I guess it takes an extremist to know an extremist eh??

2 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnee

Feb-19-13 7:19 AM

By the argument of some then the 1st Amendment does not cover electronic media since it was not around 200+ years ago either.

14 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sueanne

Feb-19-13 7:29 AM

The creeps who want to take my assult rifle that i need for protection are extremist and dangerous to our constitution that protects us for you extremist.

15 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

darkeagle

Feb-19-13 7:57 AM

Jamestownfan and resident you two do not know what you are talking about. this is not about hunting it is about our right to bear arms any arms.you 2 can live in your fantasy world if you want to but when trouble starts don't come running to a gun owner to protect you.

13 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mrinbetween

Feb-19-13 8:36 AM

With all this talk of gun control, I haven't heard one politician say how they are going to take guns away from criminals, just the law abiding citizens.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Feb-19-13 8:43 AM

the 8:36am author hasn't heard the constant, and loud "talk" about helping to stop criminals with background checks, and gun show loopholes yet? A single "stop" could save a life, possible a child life.

2 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhD1960

Feb-19-13 8:50 AM

Here's the reality of it: a few years down the road our civilized society is going to collapse. It is the hunter, with his gun, that is going to be able to survive. He will have the skills required to feed his family. He will also be able to use that same gun to protect his acquired food from the non-hunters who fought to ban all guns, but now is dying of hunger. That will be called poetic justice.

11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhD1960

Feb-19-13 8:52 AM

correction: ARE dying of hunger. (plurality shift)

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

duckster

Feb-19-13 8:53 AM

more free entertainment today! keep posting

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Feb-19-13 9:06 AM

let's hear it for the OK corral mentality--ready -fire -aim. Precious.

2 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Badnewsbear

Feb-19-13 9:08 AM

For those of you ignorant enough to keep posting that "no one is trying to take your guns away", you simply aren't paying attention. Several legislators have already released details of the governor's original proposal that specifically included confiscation of certain weapons and magazines. Several other states are proposing confiscation as well. Now, Felix Ortiz, from NYC, is proposing a bill that would require gun-owning, law abiding citizens to buy excessively high-cost insurance and, you guessed it, if you cannot afford it, you have to surrender your weapons. This is called "backdoor confiscation". Wake up people, before they get to a piece of the Bill of Rights that you actually do care about. Just because you personally do not like guns, does not give you the authority to infringe upon the rights of others, as laid out in the constitution.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Feb-19-13 9:21 AM

I could have sworn that "confiscation" was not included--unless you can make the case that making those clips or magazines illegal to purchase can be defined as "confiscation." That's a tough sell. The term "ignorant" adds nothing to the debate.

1 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Badnewsbear

Feb-19-13 9:26 AM

Apparently the truth hurts. Confiscation did not make the final bill, but it was in his proposal and is one of his ultimate goals. As stated, they are pushing alternate methods that result in surrender of the weapons, which is, as I said, backdoor confiscation. As for making certain magazines illegal, that also is sheer ignorance disguised as doing something for the well-being of society. A properly trained and equipped person with a revolver can empty all rounds and reload just as quickly as someone with a semi-automatic.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Feb-19-13 9:35 AM

Oh really now--"confiscation didn't make it to the final bill?" And "the truth hurts?" Thank you for making my argument in this case.

1 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Howard

Feb-19-13 9:36 AM

The writer asks "Is it extremist to allow law abiding citizens the same means of self-defense as might be used against them and that police use?" Of course that is not extreme. Every-one's personal vehicle should be equipped with not only the exact same firepower as all police cars but with more and better weaponry! Yahoo, Yippee-I-Ya, Shoot 'em up. Can't wait to go into town to the Saloon on Saturdee night!

1 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Badnewsbear

Feb-19-13 9:40 AM

Also, the push for "additional" background checks to help prevent crime, what a joke. It is pure fallacy, again to placate the ignorant. We already have strict background checks. The problem is not with controlling the guns that people are buying legally, all of whom have undergone these background checks, it is with getting rid of our politically correct society and stop worrying about hurting someone's feelings. As of right now, we cannot flag a person with mental issues because it might stigmatize them. Too*****bad! These are the people that we need to be concerned about and until this changes, no amount of increased background checks will provide any type of results. Not to mention, criminals are not buying their guns through legal channels, so they aren't going to be deterred by stricter background checks.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Badnewsbear

Feb-19-13 9:55 AM

Allie, I made not point for you. Quite the opposite actually. Even though it didn't make the final bill, they are still "TRYING", which was the whole point of my comment. And yes, the truth apparently does hurt some, as in the ignorant. Ignorant is defined as uninformed. Those pushing for these regulations and additional legislation fall squarely within this definition and frankly, they cannot stand to be called out on it. All of the so-called gun control regulations are purely based in ignorance. Period.

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-19-13 9:55 AM

gee i owe ali----what is a "gun show loophole"?

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

Feb-19-13 9:59 AM

Cars with too much power and speed kill more than guns. Regulate them. Save the planet from pollution while you're at it.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pharyngula

Feb-19-13 10:05 AM

"A properly trained and equipped person with a revolver can empty all rounds and reload just as quickly as someone with a semi-automatic."

The fire rate of a AR-15 is 45 rounds minute. Can you or anyone fire and reload a revolver at that rate? The 12-15 r/min rate for the AR-15 is suggested to prevent overheating and voiding the warranty, something mass murders may not be concerned about.

0 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Pharyngula

Feb-19-13 10:12 AM

"Not to mention, criminals are not buying their guns through legal channels, so they aren't going to be deterred by stricter background checks."

The great majority of mass murders bought the guns they used legally." I cited the details of many of them in a earlier thread. you can read them your self at Citizens Crime Commission of NYC.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 208 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web