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

Washington and 2nd Amendment rights

April 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — Like many people from Northern Michigan, I grew up around firearms and I’m a lifetime gun owner....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-13-13 6:06 PM

Managed to spell reputable wrong in both comments. Not a record for me, but out of the ordinary. Ha!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-13 6:05 PM

Sebeck, they arent as reputible as the FBI. The FBI compiles data on everything.

I can cite studies that refute your claims.

Like this for instance. Most instances of self defense with a firearm go unreported as such. Why? Because in most instances the firearm is not discharged. The firearm was responsible for stopping the attack, but seeing as it was not technically used, it goes without report.

The list goes on and on. Some of what you posted is to be expected. Here is one in your favor. A Home with no gun is safer from accident than a home with one. Odds you will be killed by a gun in an accidental shooting? About as likely as being struck by lightning 2 times in your lifetime.

The problem is that your side of the argument is stretching and reaching. It makes no sense to try to do that because people just aren't that stupid. To be real, we aren't in much danger from guns if we don't live in places where gun violence is more of a problem. Look at Escanaba. Low violence

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-13 12:26 PM


The sources that I cited are reputable.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 6:37 AM

Sebeck, you can save the BS and get some information from somewhere reputible.

The FBI tracks information on violence, including gun violence. They release the information for all to see and even you can go to their website and sift through the information free of charge.

Here are some stats for you and you can confirm them all with a simple web search.

You are as likely to be struck by lightning as murdered with a gun.

You are 2 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by any type of rifle.

Gang members and the sort I described before account for 95% of all gun murders.

Gun mureders and violence in general have been going down every year for 20 years.

That is just a few things. Go do some real research that is not slanted to fit your fringe political views. Obama won't know you did it. It's alright to be informed even if Obama doesn't tell you to be.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-08-13 10:07 PM

What is really needed here is a pill.

Modern medicine has fixit pills for just about everything.

Think of it.

Science, and the republicans could make this the next biggest advance for humanity and civilization.

Take one pill, and a person's life could be over.

No need to pass gun laws, legalize suicide!

Once this is done, gene pools, and other cleansing could be accomplished easily, as long as the government insists on keeping the price of these pills affordable, as in affordable healthcare.

Once the demand for healthcare is reduced, healthcare providers would have to lower prices, and presto, healthcare would once again become 'affordable' for everyone.

Just a simple pill.

People could keep their guns,

and those intent on killing, could take the simple way out,

as long as government healthcare made the pill available over the counter and "affordable" !

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-08-13 9:54 PM

Let's see....

Out law guns ?

Good idea !

Then, the only people who have guns will be outlaws, intent on breaking the law.

Will this also apply to governments?

I'm all for this,

as long as governments don't use guns and assault weapons against people,

or insist they must have guns and weapons of mass destruction to protect themselves against outlaws who are in possession of guns, and others who have weapons of mass murder !

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-07-13 9:00 AM

Shlort, you're reaching here. To suggest that I simply "do what Obama tells" me as you suggest is, at best, inaccurate. But, I digress.

I'd love to the actual study that show's that "99.9% of guns are never used to commit a crime of any kind". Something leads me to believe there is no such study.

However, there are many studies that show that the pro-gun lobby is full of nonsense. According to a study performed by the NIH, for every instance of a gun being used in self-defense in a home, there are 7 murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents resulting in death or injury. In a study performed by the American Journal of Epidemiology, they found that individuals in homes with guns were 10 times more likely to commit suicide than those in homes without guns and that those suicides are 31 times more likely to be committed with the gun than any other means. Another NIH study showed that drivers who carry a gun in their vehicle are 77% more likely to have road r

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-04-13 1:30 PM

we need to put more money and effort into mental illness treatment and diagnosis than into disarming america. we need guns to defend our country. we don't need mentally ill people running our lives and changing the constitution.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 7:01 PM

Sebeck, this is what you really should ask. Does imposing more laws on people who do not break laws make any sense?

The reality here is that no law will stop a criminal from committing a crime. Especially if that law is not written to impact criminals and their ability to get guns.

99.9% of guns are never used to commit a crime of any kind. Why not target the recidivist criminals, the mentally ill, gang bangers and drug dealers? Go after them with a new law and I am in full support.

Mr. Sebeck, you are a liberal and typical of a liberal, you do what Obama tells you. If Obama says it is good, you say it is good. that is how liberals are programmed. Get back to reality and we can solve the problem. Stay wherever it is you are, nothing will be solved.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 1:08 PM

No, Bryan, we should continue to pass and enforce laws that deter and punish people who commit crimes. But most laws that punish crimes, or serve as a deterrent, do not fall heaviest on those who DO NOT break said laws, while having little or no effect on the very thing they were designed to deter. For example, airport security requirements fall on all of us who want to travel, and can be a pain in the rear sometimes, but few would argue that those requirements have not made it much more difficult to hijack a plane or do harm to those on it. When someone in Washington can convince me that they have come up with a law that will make a tragedy like Sandy Hook less likely to happen, I would support it. But I am in no way convinced that universal background checks and/or a gun data base would do anything to prevent the next mentally deranged idiot from shooting up his or her target of choice.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-03-13 9:54 AM

Here's the thing that is completely baffling. The argument that you're all making here is "People who steal guns for crimes don't submit to a background check." People who steal guns don't submit to our laws against stealing, but that doesn't mean that we don't have them. What you're saying is "There's really no point in making any laws at all because people will break them."

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-29-13 2:53 PM

How about we leave the 2nd amendment alone and bring back public hangings... That would make these idiots who do these mass shooting think twice.. Our "justice" system is a joke, too many people get a slap on the wrist... Look at john holmes, i bet he lives the rest of his days protected from other inmates.. When in reality he should already have been executed.... Even the people who get deathrow in this country usually sit 10 years and some even die on deathrow... Start giving these idiots something o think of before they commit these acts..

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-29-13 1:36 PM

Sorry, Taurus, meant to click "agree." You and William hit the nail on the head. The only ones affected by additional background checks will be law-abiding gun owners. Criminals have no respect for the law, and would rather obtain a gun by stealing it or buying it on the street. A database of gun owners is scary -- aside from the fact that I don't want the government knowing what guns I own, a database can be hacked into by criminals, who will then know who has guns (homes to avoid breaking into unless you're stealing guns), and who doesn't (targets for home invasion).

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-29-13 12:51 PM

The good congressman knows far more than 'perplexed" regarding the Constitution, especially the Amendments to the Bill of Rights, which limits GOVERNMENT, not the citizens. criminals do not go to gun shows to purchase guns, they steal them or buy them on the street from the drug cartels, who for the most part get their guns from the Mexican army via corruption or extortion.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-29-13 11:22 AM

Thank you for the excellent article. The Justice Dept told Holder that universal background checks can't work without a database of gun owners. This is unacceptable as all confiscations have happened because of them. History has not been kind to the disarmed, we know them as "victims". Only 2 percent of interviewed incarcerated criminals report getting weapons from legal sources, that includes gun shows. Why would a criminal, whose job description is "rob and steal" even buy a gun? Their "homies" would probably laugh at them. Criminals by definition don't obey the law so this bill is obviously aimed at the law abiding citizen with no safety benefit. Thanks for defending the Constitution.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Apr-29-13 10:38 AM

The good Congressman should realize that he knows nothing about the constitution. Backgound checks are a reaonable step to protect us from people who are either criminals, emotionally unstable and/or straw purchasers. How much money is he getting from the NRA for his vote and editorial? Maybe he could donate it to the head start programs and education which he has voted down. He does not service us. His master is the Koch Bros agenda.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web