The great gun debate - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

The great gun debate

Locals air opinions over Obama plan to curb violence

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:00 am

POST FALLS - Some local residents are up in arms over the federal government's proposal to curb gun violence.

The sweeping package that President Barack Obama announced on Wednesday includes a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 bullets, a call for universal background checks and a boost for mental health services, teacher training and anti-bullying efforts.

Coeur d'Alene's Joey Hovaldt, who practiced shooting at Center Target Sports in Post Falls on Wednesday, said it's good that laws are being reviewed in the name of safety.

But he also believes that, unfortunately, an assault gun ban won't go far in curbing violence.

"If somebody is going to do something, they're going to do it," Hovaldt said. "It's a trigger in their mind."

He said pinpointing a ban on certain weapons is a difficult line to draw.

"A shotgun can do more damage in close quarters than an AR-15 (semi-automatic rifle)," Hovaldt said.

Hovaldt said there should be more focus on criminal acts and less plea deals in the justice system.

He said he does support the idea to boost mental health services and the push for universal background checks.

"The government needs to reflect on cuts made to mental health and social services," he said. "That's a sad ordeal."

Hovaldt said more education requirements are also necessary.

"Owning a gun can be intimidating and, if people were more educated with firearms, it may not be as scary out there," he said. "It's all about accountability and responsible ownership."

Hovaldt said he agrees with the president that laws aren't going to be a silver bullet to curbing violence, but he also believes the government should tread lightly when it comes to fixing the problem.

"I have kids, so it's a real thing to me," he said. "I believe I should be able to have the option to defend them."

Post Falls' Tracy Johnson, said the Second Amendment needs to be protected, but said the assault weapon ban is a good idea.

"I just think the fewer of those types of guns that are available, there will be less of a chance violent people will get ahold of them," she said. "I know banning a certain type of weapon won't be a cure-all, but it couldn't hurt. I don't think people need military-style weapons to protect themselves - there's plenty of other guns for that."

Spokane Valley's Colby Davis said he believes a lot of the gun control debate is a knee-jerk reaction to the Connecticut school tragedy, but favors universal background checks and more education.

"I have a responsibility to myself and my family to be proficient at using a gun," Davis said. "I have to understand the legalities and others should have to, too."

Davis said he believes it should be left up to the states, not the feds, to decide on gun control.

"The states should trump the feds because each state has its individual needs," Davis said. "Otherwise, I think gun control can be overdone."

Post Falls' Bob Flowers called the assault gun ban proposal "ridiculous."

"I believe the federal government has no right to tell individuals what to do when it comes to personal property," he said. "Somebody can do just as much damage with a baseball bat (as an assault rifle). The feds shouldn't impose their will on the states. This is America."

Flowers, like others interviewed, said he supports more background checks, but he hopes guns don't become over-regulated.

"They need to enforce the laws that are already in place instead of trying to come up with new ones," he said. "If they enforced what laws they have in place, there may be less problems. But making it harder for citizens to buy and possess firearms isn't going to help."

Idaho legislators said they have heard from a lot of residents on the gun control debate, feel the resistance to more regulations and understand people fear their Second Amendment rights may be eroded.

"Our natural instinct in response to a tragedy is to try to do something, but action that does not help the problem and restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans is not the answer," Sen Jim Risch said. "I am troubled by the continuing efforts of this president to legislate by executive order when his responsibility under the Constitution is to execute laws enacted by the legislative branch.

"All proposed legislation should be put before the people's elected representatives, fully debated in Congress and then voted on under the specific procedures clearly provided by our Constitution."

Rep. Mike Simpson said he hasn't heard a lot of support for new restrictions on gun rights nor has he seen momentum building in Congress for more federal gun control measures.

Rep. Raul Labrador said examining ways to protect people without taking away freedoms can't hurt, however.

"I will review these proposals to ensure that the president's actions and proposals do not violate our constitutionally-protected right to bear arms," Labrador said. "I will also thoughtfully consider whether the laws we currently have on the books can be better enforced to safeguard our lives and our liberty."

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

73 comments:

  • casey99 posted at 10:41 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

    casey99 Posts: 1

    chouli, I wish to understand your reasoning on this issue. Please explain and convince me you are right.

    Just so you know where I am coming from and where to start, I am coming from the position that the 2nd Amendment was included to primarily protect citizens from being unarmed by the government. Allowing citizens to be a significant military force if needed. I also believe that the common personal weapons of the citizenry at the time of the 2nd Amendments writing were of equal lethality to the common weapons of government forces at that time (both groups had the best weapons of the time = equal firearms).

    Admittedly, todays citizens could not take on the US military and it's advanced weaponry and expect a quick, decisive win with direct head to head combat. However, please note that there are numerous examples of underdogs not being defeated in a decisive manner by superior military powers. I will use the Soviets and their experience in Afghanistan as evidence.

    I also see that many discount the need for the 2nd amendment as it pertains to protection against government. This seems like a very optimistic and uninformed view with no basis for proof in human history. History abounds with evidence that is pro 2nd amendment- both before and after the 2nd amendments writing. I have found nor have I been provided as proof with examples where foreign or domestic threats can be ruled out as being a part of a societies history.

    If you did take your desired action, the argument that criminals would still get them seems logical. Just adding 1 firearm for every 5lbs of drugs and 1 firearm for every person illegally entering this country a year and you get a fairly sizable number.

    Lastly, the number of individuals your are trying to keep from getting firearms (people who murder others) is small compared to those who already use them lawfully without the negative aspects you are really trying to minimize. At a basic and general level, it seems logical that you must severely restrict a massive amount of those who are lawful to prevent the very few causing the problem. This is largely based on the fact that nobody can predict or identify those who will do bad things in advance well. I will provide evidence of this rational by applying it to - drug abuse, sex offenders, DUI's, suicide, kids drowning, teenagers and car accidents, etc. We could do all sorts of things to further reduce problems in these areas, but we balance those measures as to reduce (not eliminate) the undesirable while still letting the responsible partake. With guns, this means honoring the intent of the second amendment.

    Please correct me where I am wrong with thoughtful comments.


     
  • BoxcarBill posted at 6:24 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    BoxcarBill Posts: 1074

    @flatt, Your post suggests reason beyond their vain image concern in the eyes of mind washed, political correct constituents, not to mention their reverence and fear of big brother.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:56 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Maybe we should ban fast food too? Or religion? I'm concerned about GMO's, how do we really know that they are healthy? When I swim in the ocean, I'm afraid of sharks. One time I cut my tongue on a can of peaches. Did you know that diesel exhaust is a group one carcinogen (same group as asbestos and agent orange).


    Lot's of worries, but need to make sure that what happened in Sandy Hook never happens again first.

     
  • sukisuki posted at 4:51 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    sukisuki Posts: 24

    Too true..

     
  • sukisuki posted at 4:47 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    sukisuki Posts: 24

    As I said in my other post...I'm wondering if alcohol should be banned? I mean really why do we need it? It has no function really except maybe to get someone drunk so they can get in a vehicle and kill someone. Or maybe so they can get in a bar fight and stab someone, or maybe so they can go home and beat the mess out of their spouse and kids. The only good thing about alcohol is that you can cook with it so why keep it around? You don’t NEED to have it, there is NO NEED to use it so why have it? I mean really, if some drunk gets in a car and uses that car to kill someone who's at fault? The guy, the car or the alcohol? Let's say the drunk person is driving a huge SUV, is doing 50 miles an hour through a school zone, jumps the curb and rolls through a school yard full of kids...who's to blame? The guy, the SUV or the alcohol? Do you take the alcohol and SUV away, ban them from everyone’s use because really…you don’t NEED alcohol and you don’t NEED SUV’s? Maybe you just punish the driver instead of everyone else who enjoys drinking alcohol and drives an SUV…Just saying… and now I’m sure all the anti’s will resort to name calling but hey…whatever.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 4:41 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Maybe somebody pays more than the NRA?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 3:40 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "... well there i your problem.If you think I am "acting aggressively" then you have a paranoia psychosis. You should get that treated."

    This is why we have gun laws, so you won't be my problem.

    Guns don't help with any of my troubles or paranoia, while you buy ammo and cling to your guns to cope with yours. This is why we have gun laws, because how you cope is scary.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:23 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    People who cling to guns make me nervous. Concerned that's why you're acting aggressively. Wish you would unload your gun and store it in a safe.

    I'm an American exercising my 1st Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment was for those who wish to defend constitutional rights, not squash them.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 12:12 pm on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "I will Cling to my guns and keep them prepared for use"

    Not sure, but this might be a warning sign.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 10:38 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    If the Idaho lawmakers back down to these new federal laws it means only one thing... they were bought out.

    The one guarantee I can make regarding this ugly debate... it's a money maker. Politicians on both sides line their pockets from the lobby groups on both sides of the issue, while the manufacturers, distributors and dealers struggle to maintain inventory due to explosive sales.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 10:30 am on Fri, Jan 18, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    ...And for the 21st century we will need drones and satellites and mini nukes. If we can't have those basic items for self defense we don't stand a chance against the upcoming invasion.

     
  • BorneNIdaho posted at 11:32 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    BorneNIdaho Posts: 142

    chouli, you are wrong! Anyone who wants to have a surface to air missile should have the ability to have one, as long as they do not use it to kill innocent people! It is not the weapon that is the problem, it is the wacko that uses it to kill that is the problem. Duncan did not use a gun to kill 3 people, he used a hammer, should we ban hammers?

    What exactly is an assault weapon anyway? Apparently a hammer can be used to assault people, as well as bats, knives, and crowbars. People can kill each other with no weapon, should we also ban people?

    The problem lies not in the instrument, but in morals and education of the one using it. If people do not understand that killing is wrong, then it will continue to happen, just has it always has!

    If we want to end violence, then maybe we should start with not killing people in other countries!

     
  • BoxcarBill posted at 11:04 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    BoxcarBill Posts: 1074

    Anyone seriously wondering how Idaho lawmakers and law enforcement would respond to Federal gun mandates, legal or illegal, only needs to envision Morris Dees showing up here with a camera crew.

    The good ol' conservative Republican boys would do a full, unlimited bow.

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 11:04 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    With doctors, one endures the death of a thousand cuts. How many are obese with the intended consequences (pun intended!)? How many are depressed and discouraged only to get rx'd a pill that mutes their emotions? How many families split in disillusion failing to live up to the TV enticements? How many get cancer as a direct result of their environment and the food the eat? How many are rushed to ER due to the impact of known and undisclosed side effects? How many comply with their providers and dutifully ingest the psychotropic drugs, never to wake in the morning? Then there's Lily getting fined $1.3 Billion for off label marketing an antidepressant to children. Hang your heads in shame physicians for the gullible role you play blindly poisoning humanity further rather than addressing the real cause of dis-ease!

    I feel terrible for our valiant, dedicated, highly trained soldiers who are discharged and welcomed home by the WalMarts for a menial job stocking shelves. Today is no different than the 60s & 70s, except their reception is kinder and gentler. Vets don't get spit on, merely put in their place at the bottom of the ladder behind high school graduates.

    We have been divided as a nation by lust for money.


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/veterans-kin-demands-answers-on-ptsd-drugs/


    I am not proud to be an American, but the Obamas certainly sing a different tune: Yes We Can!

     
  • Cody Wiench posted at 10:32 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Cody Wiench Posts: 348

    You need to learn punctuation.

     
  • efromm posted at 9:28 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 645

    Thanks for the sarcasm. I am sorry that you feel so threatened by your fellow man. It seems to me that if you distrust people so much maybe you should live away from them. If your being stabbed with a knife would that be an assault weapon? How about a shot gun? Which would you prefer? I am serious. Please explain to me which is worse. And which one you would allow me to keep so that you feel safe?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 9:10 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    My heart doesn't want to get shot by an assault weapon.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 9:05 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Haven't figured out why you are your pals would be fighting wars against other countries without the assistance of the US Military.

    Oh wait a minute... you're pretending that you might be fighting the US Military!

    Better add Nuclear Weapons to your list of 2nd Amendment rights then as per your definition of arms. You know this makes you an enemy of the state right? How many virgins do you get in Founding Father heaven Joe?

    This sort of behavior will know be known as Constitutional Jihad

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 8:47 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    Jill is spot on.
    Guns kill FEW people next to all the rest, car accidents, medical accidents, etc etc etc.
    The REASON gun control is an "issue" is because it's a LIBERAL issue. Guns are literally everywhere in North Idaho, but alas, nobody's shooting each other....I WONDER why?
    "Gun control" is PURELY a liberal mantra; same as "gay rights" instead of "equality".
    Gun control=Conservative control.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 8:40 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    IF myself & my countrymen are fighting an army that is bent on destroying our constitution, I want the new Gen 7 model of the Stinger Missile System, for me & everyone alongside of me.
    YES, I believe that we, as citizens of these United States, have the RIGHT to own ANY weapons that any Army we may fight has.
    What does "reasonable" mean, GM?
    Let me interpret for you:
    "Reasonable" means whatever a liberal THINKS it means. IF a liberal THINKS that a 357 handgun is "unreasonable" because it has "too many rounds" or because it has "too much gunpowder", than that's "unreasonable".
    FORGET the premise of what the Second Amendment was MADE for, that counts for nothing in "todays' modern world".
    The definition of arms, AGAIN, is exactly what I have said repeatedly.

     
  • efromm posted at 8:33 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 645

    So from reading the comments here and other places it seems to me that people don't want people to die from guns. Now every other way to die seems to be okay. Car wrecks. No one cares no biggie. Surgeon accidentally kill you. No prob. Get hit by a train ok. But don't let anyone die from the barrel of a gun ever again. Can we really guarantee this? That not one single innocent person will die from a gun ever. No children will die from gun fire. They might get hit by cars. Murdered by a guy like Duncan. But no kids will die because of a gun. It seems to me that people don't like to die an untimely death.

    Ya know one of my close friends in high school got killed by a drunk driver. The man who killed him had not drank in 20 years. His friends talked him into getting drunk at his bday party and then they let him drive home. My friend Will did not survive the accident. He died instantly at 17. I decided not to go to the basketball game with him that night. I wondered for years if there was anything I could have done to change it. Nothing changed it. He was still dead. And still is.

    We all will be called to meet our maker. Untimely death is a fact of life. One we choose to ignore a little to often. Your not guaranteed to live a full life. Many people do not get to. Weather it's a gun car wreck or any other fatality we are all going to die. If death is the focus then should we not treat our fellow man better? No amount of disarming is going to change the fact that we will go back into the Earth. Death is a fact of life. Even without guns their would be death. How is gun death different fro car death? Both people are dead. Somehow the manner in which one dies makes a difference? In the end they are gone. The loss is still the same no matter how it happens.

    How many innocents have died through tax payer supported war? How many innocents have the USA killed on our behalf over the last 10 plus years? Anyone feel any better? Did going to Iraq bring back anyone who died on 911? How do we decide that the score is now even? That we killed more of them than they killed of us? Your supporting war if you pay taxes. Your supporting death. And a lot of times the casualties are innocent children and civilians. And how are those people any different that the innocents that died on 911? If people want to change the world ban guns and violence and judgement from your hearts. No law will make you a good person. Only your heart and God can do that. And I don't care what God you choose. It's not about religion it's about love and respect for yourself and those around you. If you want war in your heart war you shall get....

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 7:27 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    True, but need to block bad guys from purchasing at legal venues. Among other things, makes responsible sellers look questionable, may jeopardize future purchases by responsible gun owners.

    States can also implement their own laws.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 7:21 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "... doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control"

    Was that sarcasm or are you being serious?

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 7:17 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    The FIM-9 Stinger Missile System is a man portable, shoulder-fired, supersonic missile system designed to counter high speed, low-level, ground attack aircraft.

    Are you saying that you have a right to own one of those? If you believe that American tyranny is a threat you'll need one. Does the 2nd amendment allow you to have a FIM-9 Stinger Missile System? Is there a reasonable limit to the weapons that a citizen can own?

    You sill haven't really answered the question... What is the definition of arms?

    Can't believe that you are so passionate for something that you cannot objectively define!

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:42 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Joe, your numbers seem somewhat bizarre. Please explain the wild shift...

    In 2010, 199 Idahoans died from being shot. Of those, 183 pulled the trigger themselves.
    Source: Idaho Department of Health and Welfare


    Joe, this one's gonna hurt your credibility if you can't better clarify your numbers.

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 5:34 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    The top five causes of death in the United States, in order, are: Tobacco, alcohol, medical malpractice, traffic and firearms.

    According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control.

    http://rense.com/politics2/doctors.htm

    As for people being up in arms, I don't see any evidence for concern that our government daily targets it's citizens well-being either directly or by omission in that they fail to regulate the introduction of industrial poisons into the environment.

    As for mental health, I know one Vet who rejects psychiatric drugs pushed his way. He claims many Vets, especially homeless, don't want anything to do with the VA - the doctors abuse their power, fail to listen and treat even service connected issues, and have labeled him 'non-compliant'. He is ready for a national call-up (?) to restore sanity to America.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:33 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    I'll bite, GM.
    "Arms" to the Founding Fathers meant any weapon necessary to fight ANY standing Army, foreign or domestic, in defending the Constitution of the United States. The intent was purely to ensure that the individual citizen was never at a disadvantage when faced with tyranny.

    Your intent is tyranny. Your goal is an unarmed & vulnerable citizenry.

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 5:23 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    The top five causes of death in the United States, in order, are: Tobacco, alcohol, medical malpractice, traffic and firearms.

    According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control.

    http://rense.com/politics2/doctors.htm

    As for people being up in arms, I don't see any evidence for concern that our government daily targets it's citizens well-being either directly or by omission in that they fail to regulate the introduction of industrial poisons into the environment.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 5:18 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "Right to keep and bear arms"

    What is arms, a musket? Seriously what was the founding Father's definition of arms?

    Q: What are we fighting for?
    A: The right to keep and bear arms!
    Q: What is the definition of arms?
    A:

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 5:09 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    199 gun deaths in Idaho in 2012.
    187 of them attributed to gang violence, mostly in Boise
    That leaves (12) actual gun deaths, as the gangs will ALWAYS have guns and will ALWAYS shoot each other.
    Know who else had (12) gun deaths last year?
    GREAT BRITAIN.
    And guns are banned outright for ANY citizen of the UK.

    "Gun control" equals liberals controlling conservatives. Period.

     
  • Icecold posted at 5:03 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Icecold Posts: 47

    Flash, you should have at least skipped a few pages on your google article search, instead of picking the first one on the list and citing that ONE (business insider). As for your interesting find on the 2nd amendment "people", look at the first three words of the constitution. WE THE "PEOPLE". BTW flash gordon is gay.

     
  • chouli posted at 4:46 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    chouli Posts: 1254

    the "rights" you speak of are not being infringed upon. Do you have to have assault type weapons to keep your "right to keep and bear arms"?
    and thanks for the warning, I'll stteer clear of Balck Sheep on Saturday. Wonder if this will hurt or help their business? or if anyone will be hurt over egos and adrenaline?

     
  • chouli posted at 4:41 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    chouli Posts: 1254

    We do not need to have assault type weapons. Period.
    No one is trying to take away your ability to have guns but there are types of weapons that individuals should not have. You also cannot have surface to air missles…does that bother you too?

    SOMETHING needs to be done and it doesn't end with restricting the sale of assault type weapons.
    We need mental health care available to all our citizens.
    We need the entertainment industry to stop thinking we need to be desensitized of gruesome violence labeled as entertainment—movies and video games.

    Everyone needs to be open to think about how to work towards ending the gun violence that is unacceptable and out of control.

     
  • efromm posted at 4:39 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 645

    Sweet! I am glad to hear it. Gotta link to the site would like to read the data. I figured it would be more with everyone text messaging and all the hysterics about texting and driving....

     
  • efromm posted at 4:35 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 645

    Flash browning makes a very nice 300 win mag semi auto as well as others. And Remington has a very nice semi auto rifle 750 as well that I use for hunting I have a 308. The Remington 742 has been out since the 50's similar to the 750. And they have others. A gun is a gun. It don't matter if it is a bolt action muzzle loader or semi auto. They all do the same thing. Kill game. I also archery hunt. Just cause your embarrassed to use one don't mean that others are not using them. And I am not embarrassed to admit that I use one for hunting. Use my 10-22 Ruger for getting grouse. Guns are guns don't get it twisted. They are used to kill things. They are a tool.

     
  • efromm posted at 4:25 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 645

    Flash I don't know if you have heard of the remington and browning simi

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 3:57 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1165

    Triumph.......There are so many statistical articles out there comparing the United States to the rest of the world regarding gun ownership and death rates. I'll cite one. Business Insider published a recent article that says the U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the second highest rate of gun deaths among industrialized nations. They make a statistical correlation between the higher rate of gun ownership and more people dying from gun wounds. Their conclusion is that very simply "the more guns the less safe". Business Insider concludes that all European nations are ...."safer"

    Anddddddd, I was being sarcastic about hunting in Idaho with any kind of automatic/semi automatic weapon. I've never seen or even heard of one hunting experience with such a weapon. It would be too embarrassing to admit to even if it were "true". All the Idahoans I know that hunt are what I would call "hunting purists". Even for those that hunt illegally, none that I've ever heard about or read about ......... still fit the definition of "hunting purists"

    The 2nd amendment is interestingly worded. It does say "people" as you've written....it does not say person or individual, curious wording wouldn't ya say?. And the word militia.....the 2nd amendment "works" within a specific "context. I'm sure that's what the Montana Militia had in mind when it prepared itself to defend Noxon and surrounding environs in its close association with the aryan nations:) but that's not the intent of the 2nd amendment now is it....that's rhetorical by the way......

     
  • DeNiles posted at 3:57 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    GM...... They can make it a federal crime to cross state lines with such weapons and still leave gun regulations to be defined by each state.

     
  • Keven Johnson posted at 3:40 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1225

    Those who say "They aren't taking your 2nd Amendment Rights" are mistaken. As BorneNIdaho says, the 2nd amendment states ".... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If you look up the definition of infringe, it is "to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress". So any restriction of our right to keep and bear arms is in fact an infringment and therefore a taking of our 2nd amendment right. It doesn't have to be a complete ban on firearms to be an infringement.

     
  • BorneNIdaho posted at 2:51 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    BorneNIdaho Posts: 142

    If you support the 2nd Amendment, come to the rally at Back Sheep Saturday at 1pm. Some of our local legislators will be there speaking, and be sure to exercise your right to carry.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:47 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Fyi... Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control.

    While gun deaths rise (more guns), auto fatalities have been reduced thanks to stricter laws (mandatory seat-belts and harsher penalties for drunk driving).

     
  • Ghost Writer posted at 2:03 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Ghost Writer Posts: 46

    Find out about the Larger Picture, this just another stepping stone. Read, Research and look at the Facts.
    Gary Kah's book "Enroute to Global Occupation" it spells it out before this day has ever come.
    Do not fear Gun Opponets, Fear those in office who Supposedly Represent YOU.

     
  • efromm posted at 1:58 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    efromm Posts: 645

    More people are killed every year by un attentive motorists than die of guns. How many of you speed and follow to closely in the winter and summer? People are breaking the rules all day long. And yet there is no outcry to ban you. To take away your cars. Or put limiters on them so they can only go 55mph. No one needs a car that goes over 55mph. People are not nice. They try to be. But fail miserably daily. They can pass all the laws they want. If it's not in your heart to be kind no one can rule your mind. They can try to but it is still yours to think as you wish. And you will justify your bad behavior on someone else. Society is the problem. Jesus tried to help mankind and they killed him for it. No one wants to hear that they are wrong and need to change. If we don't change our ways these things will just keep happening. How can people be so alone and yet have people all around them? And yet they are....

     
  • Triumph posted at 1:56 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Triumph Posts: 533

    Hi Flash! I've got a couple of thoughts and questions for you. First I'd like to know the democratic societies that you were referring to as having less guns and far more safety than ours, and what your resource for that information is. I tend to be conservative in my views, but if there is evidence that someone else is doing it better than us, I would very much like to know about it. In all sincerity I would really like to know that information.
    It's my belief that because our entire nation is armed, that foreign enemies stay clear of us. Of course there are exceptions such as September 11th and some others, but by and large our nation has been a place that foreign militaries dare not go. Isoroku Yamamoto a Japanese military general is reported to have said that they could not attack the mainland USA because there would be a "gun behind every blade of grass". I'm not sure if that was actually said, but I still feel that the point is accurate.

    Automatic weapons are illegal for the vast majority of Idahoans. You must be referring to semi automatic weapons. You should make that clear because there is a big difference. Idahoans do NOT use automatic weapons to hunt the animals that you listed, and for the most part they don't use semi auto weapons for those hunts either. You are misinformed as to what hunters want or need. Finally, it seems that you do not interpret the 2nd amendment correctly. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It does not say that people may own 22 single shot rifles, or muzzle loaders only. It does not say that people may own guns if it's for hunting purposes. Hunting has nothing to do with it! All people have the right to bare arms, not just hunters. The 2nd amendment says that it's necessary for the security of a free state for citizens to have the right to own weapons.

    I look forward to your thoughts

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:52 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Davis said he believes it should be left up to the states, not the feds, to decide on gun control"

    Doesn't work. Bad guys will drive to where they can get guns (see Chicago).

    Need a Federal Law.

     
  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:45 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    Re: "And i do believe that Adam would have attained whatever he felt appropriate to commit that act with or without legislation"

    Good reason to do everything in our power to make it as difficult as possible for evil people to obtain weapons. The opposite, leave things as they are seems reckless.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 1:37 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    I don't disagree... But by that mindset what's the point of any laws? If the proposed gun laws will just be ignored, and sociopaths will keep buying the guns from the shops that sell them.

    Just because your neighbor drinks to much at the bar doesn't mean you will right? So what's the point of drunk driving laws as drunks just ignore them anyways... right?

     
  • Triumph posted at 1:35 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Triumph Posts: 533

    Hi Flash! I've got a couple of thoughts and questions for you. First I'd like to know the democratic societies that you were referring to as having less guns and far more safety than ours, and what your resource for that information is. I tend to be conservative in my views, but if there is evidence that someone else is doing it better than us, I would very much like to know about it. In all sincerity I would really like to know that information.
    It's my belief that because our entire nation is armed, that foreign enemies stay clear of us. Of course there are exceptions such as September 11th and some others, but by and large our nation has been a place that foreign militaries dare not go. Isoroku Yamamoto a Japanese military general is reported to have said that they could not attack the mainland USA because there would be a "gun behind every blade of grass". I'm not sure if that was actually said, but I still feel that the point is accurate.

    Automatic weapons are illegal for the vast majority of Idahoans. You must be referring to semi automatic weapons. You should make that clear because there is a big difference. Idahoans do NOT use automatic weapons to hunt the animals that you listed, and for the most part they don't use semi auto weapons for those hunts either. You are misinformed as to what hunters want or need. Finally, it seems that you do not interpret the 2nd amendment correctly. It says that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It does not say that people may own 22 single shot rifles, or muzzle loaders only. It does not say that people may own guns if it's for hunting purposes. Hunting has nothing to do with it! All people have the right to bare arms, not just hunters. The 2nd amendment says that it's necessary for the security of a free state for citizens to have the right to own weapons.

    I look forward to your thoughts

     
  • throwntothewolves posted at 1:24 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    throwntothewolves Posts: 1

    yes, i do believe that violence and evil deeds are inevitable, its not cynical, its reality. And i do believe that Adam would have attained whatever he felt appropriate to commit that act with or without legislation. We have thousands of laws, its the individuals choice whether or not to follow them. Marijuana is illegal, does that stop stoners and drug dealers?? No, it does not. Feel free to attack or evaluate my stand, but until i see a degree in psychology or sociology, ill only take it as opinion, Have a great weekend.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 1:19 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    What easier to carry and reload 6 30 round clips or 18 10 round clips?

     
  • flattopramen posted at 1:07 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    Huh, because mass murders can't walk to their destination?

    Good for you... continue to dilute an important debate with nonsensical arguments.

    While the rest of the country moves forward with attempting to reduce gun related murders, the minority (you) will continue to justify your right to bear AKs because of irrational fears... fema camps, HAARPO,chem trails, shadow govts, Obama etc. The paranoia is so rampant in N Idaho, I hope no one gets hurt...

     
  • Insider posted at 1:00 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Insider Posts: 360

    In case those of you who fear those scary bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, flash suppressors and hi cap mags have never shot one, you can change out a mag in less than half a second on just about any weapon. The entire argument is a facade. The government wants you to feel fear so they can come make it all better.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 12:31 pm on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    ........ Flash....... Did I say - do not help them try to resolve their mental problems? How many forlorn souls have killed themselves using an AK or an AR? Is that 10 round magazine gonna save them?

    By all means we should do our best to dissuade people from adopting actions to their demons whether they aim to kill just themselves or others along with themselves. THAT is your argument, not assault rifles or ammunition caches. Try not to confuse the 2 issues and you'll be more effective in addressing this particular problem.

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 11:52 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1165

    But getting back to Joey......there are over 300 million guns circulating in our society today and they and their owners have not made our society as a whole more safe. In fact they have made our society less safe. There are many more societies that are far safer than ours with far less guns. Democracies one and all.

    What is so objectionable to a certain segment of our society about gun safety laws is that :
    1. It's perceived as interfering with the gun and ammunition "business cycle":)
    2. A certain segment of our population wants to over throw a duly elected president ( secede if they could) and gun safety laws are perceived as interfering with that....might curtail access to fire power against the oppressive and dictatorial racist, European, fascist, communist, socialist, authoritarian, totalitarian brave new world one world Obama administration.
    3. Apparently Idahoans are fixated on automatic weapon access for duck, elk, moose, deer, grouse, goose , wolf, coyote, bear, beaver, and varmint hunting....it also takes plinking to another level:)
    4. But more significantly, gun safety laws interfere with access to automatic weapons that could be used in the killing, in large quantities, the people that threaten to enact ....gun safety laws....(watch some of those youtubers protecting our 2nd amendment rights):)

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 11:16 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1165

    Niles....you know nothing about suicide. Most "suicidal" people do not want to die. Most "suicidal" people "threaten" suicide.....most "suicidal" people can be dissuaded from suicide by "intervention" where most never attempt suicide again. It all revolves around "help" and "mental health access". "suicidal" people can be moved away from death toward life. I'd suggest you consult a mental health professional that deals with such people and "things". It's obvious you've never dealt with such matters on a regular basis.....

     
  • flattopramen posted at 11:11 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    "The proposals laid down just will not make any difference to the nutballs who intend to kill."

    Maybe not, but what do you propose that we do that will adjust an individual's intent to kill?

    ...in the mean time.

    If we can control the cost and availability of the weapons that enable these "nutballs" to inflict massive damage then why not try? Nobody is losing anything they currently own, it was never your right to own a military style rifle anyways... technology and a latent federal govt enabled it. Not the constitution.

    Drunk driving laws work at reducing fatalities
    seat belt/childseat laws work at reducing fatalities
    work place safety laws work at reducing fatalities
    healthcare laws work at reducing fatalities.
    etc

    Most likely, nothing we do will stop these types of crimes from happening, but we can reduce the amount of fatalities.

     
  • flattopramen posted at 10:45 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    flattopramen Posts: 140

    If you can't stay on topic, at least get your facts straight...

    Both operations were under Project Gunrunner that was started by the ATF in Texas in 2005.

    Keep in mind most gun dealers near the border will sell to anyone regardless of the current gun laws. Guns have been illegally walking from the US for decades, can't blame the Feds for trying to stop it no matter how ill conceived.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 10:32 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Yes, suicidal people 'want' to die. That's why they're called suicidal. They suffocate themselves, jump off of buildings, light themselves afire, etc, etc. And the Sandy Hook shooter did not buy any guns. He took his mothers guns.

    It takes only one bullet to kill. Limit a clip to 10 bullets and you can kill lots of people using multiple clips or multiple guns. It is the intent to kill that needs adjusting. The proposals laid down just will not make any difference to the nutballs who intend to kill.

     
  • Triumph posted at 9:59 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Triumph Posts: 533

    Wow Jeff. I often agree with you, but not today. Those who's lives were ended in Conn did have their rights violated. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was taken. Their rights were violated. Weather they believe in God or not, they have the right to life on earth.

    Don't get me wrong. I support the 2nd amendment. And the guy who shot up those kids would have done it one way or another. He did not just see a gun and decide to take it and kill people. He planned his actions, and he would have found a way to carry them out.
    Flash: YES! if that young man wanted to kill 20 children he could have found a way to do it. He did not need his mom's gun. He stole her gun, he could have stolen someone else s gun. He could have used a bomb. He would have found a way to kill if he wanted to. A world without guns might be a pleasant thought, but it's a dream. It will not happen, and if we take guns away from those who are willing to obey the law, then guns will only be in the hands of criminals.

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 9:34 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1165

    Joey Joey Joey...."But he also believes that , unfortunately, an assault gun ban won't go far in curbing violence". " If somebody is going to do something, they're going to do it". If you really truly believe this then "everything" is inevitable and that nothing can be done to.....intervene or change things......very.....cynical or just plain disingenuous.

    Is suicide inevitable? Do most people who have suicidal tendencies really want to die? No they don't....and it's not inevitable and neither is gun violence. And by the way, if that Bushmaster had not been in his mother's home, along with the other weapons, that young man would not have been able to buy those weapons and use them.....or do you believe he would have inevitably been able to acquire all those weapons and commit that inevitable act?

     
  • blazer posted at 8:54 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    blazer Posts: 17

    Count me among the fervent supporters of the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. One question troubles me, though. What rights did 20 little girls and boys have at the moment they were being mowed down?

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 8:38 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1161

    You just have to love people like cody who should be reminded not to engage adults in conversation. Poverty we had a great depression and peole sold apples and worked on farms to make a living and didnt shoot up schools or movie theatres. Perhaps cody relates to the picture of the LOON who shot up the movie theatre in aurora or the the kid who killed his mother and the school children before she could take him in for treatment. Poverty never killed anyone in the US but psychos who respond to the voices in their heads have killed quite a few. As for the black youths shooting each other in the inner cities perhaps you should go there and show some support for them and tell them you are in solidarity with them. Also make out a durable power of attorney,a will and a living will before you go to inner chicago. And you are wrong cody I do care about the innocent by standers who are shot as for the gangbangers dying from their life style its no loss for future generations.

     
  • Cody Wiench posted at 8:13 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Cody Wiench Posts: 348

    I think that people blaming our mental health system for all this are idiots. Sure, there are the tragedies in Colorado and Connecticut. But what about the thousands of urban black youth who are shot? No on ever seems to give a "darn" about them. The issue is not guns nor mental health issues. It is POVERTY.

     
  • Sagecreek posted at 7:37 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Sagecreek Posts: 29

    Please join us next Saturday, January 19th and exercise your 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    Where: Black Sheep Sporting Goods in Coeur d'Alene, ID (US95 at Bosanko just north of I-90)

    When: January 19th, 1:00 pm.

    Who:
    State Senator Steve Vick
    State Senator Bob Nonini
    State Rep. Vito Barbieri
    State Rep. Ron Mandive
    Ed Santos, Center Target Sports
    Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers

    Bring your own signs, and open carry is encouraged.
    Any questions contact Scott W @ idahoridgerunner@hushmail.com

     
  • DeNiles posted at 7:31 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    IMHO the feds are overstepping states rights with their approach to this problem. Each state is better equipped to recognize its own gun regulation needs and how they relate to that states criminal activities and police presence. Some states clearly demand more and some a lot less in these regards. Idaho has one of this countries highest household gun ownership percentages and presents one of the lowest incidences of violent crimes. The balance found in current gun laws seems to work well in Idaho. Yet Illinois is failing. Illinois needs to change, not Idaho.

    It is also noteworthy that Obama's urgent proclamations totally ignored the graphic gun violence so realistically depicted in film and digital media. This is where common citizens gain frequent exposure to horrific gun violence that is unapologetically murderous. It is glaringly hypocritical for Obama to remain officially silent on media gun violence while calling current levels of gun violence an "epidemic".

    From a distance it is almost like Obama aims to empower the criminal gun element by hampering legal citizens in providing for their own self defense. And of course Hollywood is allowed free rein to stir up as much gun violence interest as possible. Colorado's theater massacre was a real life replay of Batmans' Joker. The Sandy Hook shooter was an avid fan of violent video games.

     
  • capnbutch posted at 5:43 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    capnbutch Posts: 729

    Thanks, Mr. Walker for an excellent article.

    You have written without hyperbole. In the entire nation it is difficult to find even one article like this, one that simply reports what citizens are thinking, one that refuses to substitute the reporter's opinion for citizen thoughts.

    Please keep up the good work.

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 4:55 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1610

    A program similar to Fast and Furious did go forward under the Bush administration in 2006 and 2007. That program, called Operation Wide Receiver, also attempted to track suspicious weapons. Allowing gun sales to go forward even when the ATF had probable cause to believe the sales were unlawful has come to be known as "gun walking."

    The two operations -- Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver -- had some similarities, and both were run out of the ATF’s Phoenix Field Division. The inspector general explored both programs in depth and found similar problems.

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 4:48 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1610

    Again, no one is TAKING AWAY your 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, NO ONE. Can you people ever tell the truth about anything??? You are just as bad as the head of the NRA in not being able to tell the truth.

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 4:46 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1610

    HE DID NOT CONTRIVE FAST AND FURIOUS!!!!

     
  • LMYCDA posted at 4:46 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    LMYCDA Posts: 1610

    No one is taking your 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AWAY. You are no better than the head of the NRA and all his lies. Oh, and your NRA DIDN'T get started with FUND raising prior to the President speaking, of course not!! You people are really a bunch of crazies sometimes.

     
  • Insider posted at 4:31 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Insider Posts: 360

    Crapo hasn't responded to me yet, but Jim Risch has in full support of our 2A rights and against any legislation limiting our freedoms. I know Crapo tends to stay away from committing to a position however I wrote every one of our representatives and even got a smart aleck response from Obama trying to lecture me on rights and freedoms. Crime has diminished, statistics show that. Weapons bans do not work, history has shown that. What we need to focus on is mental health issues and not medicating everyone with social anxiety symptoms. But then, there is no money in it for the government if they have to actually do something as opposed to making a buck. That'd be crazy talk.

     
  • Jill Heine posted at 4:09 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    Jill Heine Posts: 408

    Sen Jim Risch said. "I am troubled by the continuing efforts of this president to legislate by executive order when his responsibility under the Constitution is to execute laws enacted by the legislative branch.


    Obama contrived Fast & Furious to provoke restriction of the 2nd Amendment and more importantly to advance the North American Union. Obama's latest hometown of Chicago has the most rigid gun controls AND the nation's most violent crime rate. It is safer to live in a border town like Nogalas. Is that because drug cartels already control the turf?

    http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html

     
  • IdahoMan posted at 2:54 am on Thu, Jan 17, 2013.

    IdahoMan Posts: 100

    1. NO "enforce existing laws" that are unconstitutional already.

    What? If a law comes down demanding registration and/or confiscation of certain firearms or a ban on certain firearms, are you going to comply? How about some form of fingerprinting or ID? We are not going to register or turn in our firearms, and we are not going to allow them to be taken either.

    I certainly hope our local Sheriff and police are with US and not THEM in this matter. I'd like to know what Sheriff Wolfinger's, PF Chief Haug's, and CD'A Chief Longo's answer would be to the question: "If a ban on any firearm, accessory magazine, etc. came down, would you enforce it?"


    2. NO background checks and "prohibited persons" lists.

    Government is prohibited -via the 2nd Amendment- from getting involved in this very issue.

    Government WILL use such categorization of individuals to its own ends. That's why they want "prohibited persons" list... First "Felons", then "misdemeanors", then anyone who the state says is "mentally ill" (How Soviet can you get?), then anyone on a "watch list", then finally anyone the state doesn't want to have a gun at their own arbitrary discretion.

    And you must prove yourself innocents (via a "background check") before being "allowed" to exercise your rights? Doesn't work that way. It's a right, not a privilege.

    It kills me to hear people who say they support the Right to Keep and Bear Arms come out and say they support background checks, or feel they need to be apologetic with "you still have to go through a background check". If you care about your gun-rights, stop doing this.

    Gun purchasing and ownership MUST be a non-issue: No IDs, background-checks, dangerous record-keeping paperwork (like the 4473 form), "prohibited persons" lists, or government involvement.


    3. This isn't all about Obama and the Democrats.

    Yes, the Commie Kenyan and the Dems certainly would love to enact gun-control that would make past great collectivists like Stalin and Hitler blush. We all know that.

    But what about those who are supposed to be fighting for us, like the GOP and the NRA? Are they going to sell us out via a so-called "compromise"? Do they have a plan to go on the offensive and REPEAL current gun-control laws, or is it just "We don't agree with more laws"?

    Where is the plan to get rid of past gun-laws like the GCA68 and its "Sporting Use" language, or some kind of "Gun Owners Privacy Act" that eliminates record-keeping on gun-sales?

    Many people who have for years if not decades been expecting "our team" to get government out of our faces and get our liberty back from past restrictions are fed up.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks