Comment Archives: stories: News: Cover Story
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Hitler was appointed as Chancellor, not elected.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>others in favor of the 2nd Amendment were asked but declined.<<
"And you can most likely thank the Scene's reputation for many of those, IMO."
Which makes us doubly grateful to Bill Bernstein and D.M. Adkerson for the courage of their convictions, and under their actual names.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
@Mark Rogers and bobs. In the mists of my history lessons I think I recall that Germany was severely dysfunctional after WWI because of international sanctions imposed and then their situation worsened when the Great Depression hit and the combo allowed Hitler to blame their national suffering on the Jews and most of the German people just ate it up - Ja! Ja! Now all that needs to be done is substitute "The Rich" for "Jews" and voila.... Remind you of anybody and any place we know?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancellor<<
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Bobs,
Actually under the Weimar Constitution the President was elected and the Chancellor ws appointed. In Hitler's case, Paul von Hindenburg was the elected President, defeating Hitler in 1932. Hitler's National Socialist Workers Party had the most seats in the Reichstag, giving Hitler the political strength to convince Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancellor.
When Hindenburg died, Hitler had himself made Furher. All of this was legal under the Weimar Constitution so that Hitler's subsequent dictates were legal, many surviving WWII when dealing with individual provisions of estate law and other civil matters.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>others in favor of the 2nd Amendment were asked but declined.<<
And you can most likely thank the Scene's reputation for many of those, IMO.
Regardless, since the Scene did have two pro-2nd writers, why didn't the Scene limit the gun grabbers to only 2 as well? Certainly they had that option.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>Hitler was not an elected offical.<<
Actually, he was, IIRC. He was elected to his chancellor (sp?) position in 1933, IIRC?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
"An exclusively-male panel"
You might want to fact-check this statement.
"This is just another example of the Liberal media bias that exists in our country today. Out of the 5 opinions in the article only 2 were in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the other 3 were against it. They call this "fair and balanced"? I don't think so."
As I believe some commenters in this thread can attest, others in favor of the 2nd Amendment were asked but declined. In fact, the only people who declined (or didn't return our calls) were on the pro side. I'll be happy to out them the next time they whine about the liberal media.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Hitler was not an elected offical. The editor should have at the very least written [sic] next to this statement.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
This is just another example of the Liberal media bias that exists in our country today. Out of the 5 opinions in the article only 2 were in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the other 3 were against it. They call this "fair and balanced"? I don't think so. More laws will not prevent another tragedy like this from happening again because history has shown us time and time again that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS. I think we need to address the real problem here which is lack of mental health care in this country and congress needs to really put the whole gun control debate on the back burner and focus on what is really important right now: getting the economy back on track and reducing the 7.8% unemployment rate so we can have stable jobs again.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
In the last few weeks I have decided not to frequent businesses that have "no gun' signs.
The only people that will abide by that are the law biding citizens with carry permints.
I refuse to be in that business when the only people with guns will be the crazies.
I would certainly be in the company of "carry permit" holders.
I would prefer to go into businesses that have signs that say. We encourage law biding citizens with carry permits to frequesnt this establishment. NOTE: Any attempt to shoot, rob or rape or commit other crimes on our patrons or employees may be met with deadly force.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
bobs is such a lier, always lieing. Sheesh. Phonetics are the salvation AND the bane of the communicatively challenged, as is that tricky spell check feature.
bobs is ever so much more persuasive in his rhetoric when he's challenging people to meet him in person to either "put up, or STFU." That's a home run every time. Who could argue with that?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>Um, hello, Bobsguns<<
And Good Morning to you, sir.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
And here I thought jewish people were supposed to be smart. WTF was *I* thinking???????
Um, hello, Bobsguns?
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
After reading all the comments, some I blatantly disagree with and others I wholeheartedly agree with, one thing that I don't believe any logical-thinking person can deny is: if we take the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to own firearms, then only criminals will have access to firearms. Yes, it sounds cliché, but it can't be denied.
Criminals are not concerned with the laws that we pass. No, this is not an excuse not to pass laws that need passing, but let's use some common sense about it. We need to be careful that we are not taking away the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves, due to the acts of criminals with no regard for the law.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
Here's a tale from north of the border that offers reason enough to be wary: http://news.yahoo.com/man-acquitted-charge…;
and once again - who's buying guns? http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/03/the-list…
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>"You won't prevent all crimes, but you'll prevent some"
An armed-robbery victim says more guns are not the answer
By Adam Ross<<
Mr. Ross, ALL street drugs are illegal, are they not? Pot, cocaine, herione (sp?), esctacy, crack, meth, etc. are ALL illegal. Yet, how hard are they to find for those whom want them?
Guns are virtually ILLEGAL for anyone to own in Mexico, yet the cartels seem to have NO proplem getting their hands on them. Just as the scores of dead police officers.
Go defenseless if YOU want. No one is making the arguement that one HAS to carry or even own a firearm. That's an option that's open to everyone (except for a small town in GA, where firearm ownership IS mandatory, bless them) as this IS America, after all. But don't take away MY right to protect MYSELF from the very thugs you describe.
I also urge you to plant a large sign in front of your home saying "No guns in this house" so burglars will know ahead of time.
Have a NICE day, sir.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>Buyback programs are fine - if they are voluntary.
Who is saying they wouldn't be voluntary?<<
Concertina Terpsichore, they WEREN'T "voluntary" in CA, where gun owners had to either ship them out of CA to somewhere it was legal, sell them at a HUGE loss (knowing the owners HAD to sell did the owners no favors) or render them inoperable.
All of that is blatently & clearly un-Constitutional, yet CA went ahead & did it anyway.
Gun grabbers in here are either grossly misinformed, grossly naive or grossly lieing. Take one's pick.
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
>>Ask restaurants and bars to prohibit guns, tell them about the new law, and make sure they post no-gun signs at their entrances before you go in. You can make a difference.
Ray Friedman is president of the advocacy group Gun Free Dining Tennessee.<<
Ray Friedman, can you give us the long, long, long of troubles with permit holders who have carried into restaurants? No doubt there HAS to be THOUSANDS of such incidents based on your hysteria & handwringing. Where is your list, sir?
How well has the "gun free zone" worked for the Aurora, CO theater? Or VA Tech? Or Sandy Hook school?
And here I thought jewish people were supposed to be smart. WTF was *I* thinking???????
Re: “A variety of viewpoints take aim at gun control, pro and con”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gapin…
"But where, I’d like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator – who had been under treatment for mental-health problems – may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”
"Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs."
"Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s 1 in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion."
"Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine."
There's LOTS more examples at the link at the top of this post. I've said before & I'll say it AGAIN: GET THESE GD KIDS OFF THESE DRUGS!!!!!!!