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

Hunters need voice

February 11, 2013

In our area, there are hundreds of hunters who have never had a single mishap with their gun. They are law-abiding citizens. Their guns don’t end up used in robberies or murder....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-11-13 11:41 AM

Little bit of divide and conquer at it's best... What part of the next gun on the hit list will be 'sniper' rifles.. aka a 30-06 with one of them big scarey scopes on it...

11 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 11:46 AM

The NRA is correct, we do not need gun control anymore than we need hammer control, bow and arrow control,or automobile control. Yes folks, I said automobile; I don't have to have a license, a background check, or meet any requirements to buy a car.

What we really need to do is address the rising crime rate in this country. In 2011 alone the rate rose by 23% to 5.8 Million. According to NYS Department of Criminal Justice Services, guns were used in just 16% of all crimes.

Interestingly, the places with the highest crime rates are in Cities which are also home to the most liberals.

11 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 11:59 AM

I do not see "hunting" in the Constitution or any of the writings of our Founders. The right to bear arms is expressly to deter tyranny. This is not a hunting issue. I am a hunter of over 20 years. I have deer rifles but I also own range guns for target practice and sport shooting. I also own weapons to protect my family and deter tyranny. "...shall not be infringed."

11 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 12:18 PM

It's not about controlling guns as much as it is about controlling people. Everything progressives do, think, and live has to do with control. Let them bray, threaten, and call you whatever they want. Meanwhile, I and others will continue to protect their right to be wrong with our lives and they still won't get our guns. Scream all you want while I calmly clean my firearms and chuckle at progressive stupidity and cowardice.

9 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 2:11 PM

I want to thank the NRA for being the ONLY voice that has taken gun owners side. Especially when you read things like Biden: We’re counting on ‘legitimate media’ for successful gun control effort. What does that mean? the only legitimate media is the one that agrees with you? Yeah he represents all of us!

9 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 2:19 PM

I'm a gun owner and hunter, and the NRA does NOT speak for me. I refuse to have anything to do with the NRA and any organization that accepts money from them.

So far as the second amendment is concerned, it has nothing to do with protecting citizens from a tyrannical government. State militias fought along side the Continental Army in the revolution, hence the words "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."

That was followed by the Militia Act of 1792 that stated "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe." The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service.

All males between the ages of 18 and 45 were conscripted and required to provide their own muskets.

10 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 2:58 PM

Dave, please read the Federalist Papers.

9 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 3:11 PM

@Dave Gibson. Some definitions

mi·li·tia n. 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb) Verb

1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright". 2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

So what part of a Militia being comprised of citizens and the fact that there ability to have Armaments shall not be limited (aka "infringed") or you having trouble comprehending?

7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 3:24 PM

So I'm sitting here in Southern California with a heavily armed psycho on the loose, and I feel safe having to limit the bullets I'm allowed to shoot? Do you think the cop killer will obey the law if there were limits the number of bullets he's allowed to have in one clip?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 4:15 PM

MrBob- It's not relevant what the federalist papers say. They're not law. The Constitution is. Essays written by Madison, Jay, and Hamilton are not the opinions of three men.

Scarecrow- What part of "So far as the second amendment is concerned, it has nothing to do with protecting citizens from a tyrannical government" don't you understand? Conservatives use this protect-from-a-tyrannical-government argument as their reason to own any weapon they want. That is not the reason for the 2nd amendment and never was.

I'm actually in agreement with this editorial.

8 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 4:39 PM

Dave, consider this. The revolutionary war was started when the British were on their way to arrest John Hancock and Sam Adams in Lexington and then on to Concord to confiscate the weapons of the Minutemen. The British were unsuccessful and because the minutemen kept their weapons they were able to defeat the "tyrannical government". Do you not believe that they thought about this as they drafted the U.S. Constitution???

However, if you take the time to read Federalist 29 you will find that the framers intended for a small and limited Army and Navy that would be supplemented by the militias s needed. One could argue that our current world wide military complex is Unconstitutional.

7 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 4:53 PM

We as a people must be very careful about how many rights are given up. History shows us that no society nor nation has lasted indefinitely. If we as Americans wish to continue to live a "free" life and have the same for our children, then we must remain vigilant and not be easily persuaded to act. Horrible and violent acts have been committed by unstable individuals with firearms as of late. However, as our population continues to grow, there will be a greater number of individuals callous enough to commit acts of violence through any means available to them. Taking freedoms away from the law abiding citizenry is not the answer to our societal problems. New York's law was passed expediently while the people of the state slept. Any such law should not be passed so quickly and without debate and likely should be sent to the voters and not simply passed in our state legislatures.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 4:56 PM

How many here have read the articles on the recent trend of the Chinese purchasing US businesses? Change in this nation is coming whether we want it to or not. I would rather feel safe than be sorry. We must tread very carefully in these times of an easily manipulated society. We have moved from a cautious dis-trust of government to a reliance upon government. In my opinion, this trend is not in the best interest of a "free people".

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 5:05 PM

From the Times Union: "Just prior to the judge's announcement, Karim Little, 21; his brother Tray Little, 20; Robert Davis Jr., 27; Carl Falsen, 23; and Tyrell Watson, 26, pleaded guilty one by one to second-degree criminal possession of a weapon. Each will be sentenced to five years in prison and four years post-release supervision next month. The defendants who all come from Troy could have faced 15 years on each of the charges."

Read more: ***********timesunion****/local/article/Gang-members-face-prison-in-gun-case-4269265.php#ixzz2KdAxN3m1

These are gang members and likely had the propensity to use the weapons for violence, so why are "deals" being made when law abiding citizens must follow additional laws and restrictions??

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 6:09 PM

Scarecrow, it doesn't matter what the founding fathers thought. What matters is the Constitution and the laws that were passed.

Imagine if the Gloversville city council passed local legislation, and then several of the council members wrote letters to the editor about what they really meant. That doesn't fly.

Look, I support the 2nd amendment in that citizens have a legal right to own guns. But to think that citizens can own anything they please is nonsense. There's been gun control laws in place for decades, including registration. How many guns have been confiscated from law abiding citizens?

Just like machine guns and sawed off shotguns, I think reasonable gun control laws are prudent, and should be updated as technology changes.

9 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 6:41 PM

DaveGibson- FYI, the Federalist Papers were written to convince the American citizens to accept and vote for the new Constitution. That makes them relevant. The original reason for what ended up being the Constitutional convention was to make needed changes to the Articles of Confederation. They decided to scrap those in favor of the Constitution. Sen. Lindsey Graham recently stated that we have a constitutional democracy when in fact we have a representative republic. Sad comment from a senator who is also a lawyer

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 8:04 PM

Not that I'm for these dumb gun laws by any means but, why does anyone think a hunting rifle is going to put up a fight against the technology the government has at it's fingertips? You really think we can put up a resistanceagainst drones, infrared scopes, smart weapons, and military assault rifle (which most are automatic weapons by the way)? They've slowly taken what privacy you have and erroded it in the name of "public safety". It matters not whether you have a 10 round clip or 30 round clip as to how many rounds you could carry or fire if you were well trained. But you can't exactly by a 7 round clip for a gun that only comes with a 7 round clip. It's called backdoor policy making. It's even the way marijuana was initially made illegal. You had to have a tax stamp in which the government didn't sell ( read the book "Reefer Madness" ). This is how terrorists and criminals win. They slowly errode rights and priviledges through a progressive agenda...

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 8:05 PM

... in an effort to make individuals feel in control. Guess what people? Control is merely an illusion!!!

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 8:05 PM

The federalist papers are not law, nor were the founding fathers gods where disciples cling onto every word. We are a nation of laws, not op-ed pieces.

"I know what the constitution says about militias, but this is what they really meant!" Give me a break. Go before Judge Judy and see how that works out for you.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 8:14 PM

Regardless of how any of this turns out, those who will be affected are our children, grandchildren, etc.... How many decades do any of us truly have left to worry about these issues for our own personal reasons?? I have already lived half or more of my life. If America wants to let freedom slip away for our future generations then it will happen, most people these days live for today and do not think about the future. Our FOUNDING FATHERS or as you say "gods" were concerned with the future, this is why their words are still relevant today.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 9:52 PM

Our founding fathers words may be relevant, but they're not sacrosanct. We've had to amend them to give women and minorities the right to vote, to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, and so on. They were smart enough to provide for the process of amending the Constitution to keep it relevant.

We should honor our forefathers, but not put them on an alter and worship them, and we shouldn't treat writings like the Federalist Papers as some kind of bible.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 10:37 PM

The Federalist Papers explained where our constitution came from and why. Of course it's not law, but it helps decipher meaning on where our founders came from. I would love to see Obama do the same, honestly. Hunters do not need a voice. Our amendments have spelled it out for us.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-11-13 11:15 PM

Anna, in the 1980s I was a contract specialist for a computer software company. I excelled in making sure everything was clear and understood. If I had to write letters explaining what I really meant to say in the contract, I'd have been fired.

The Constitution is a contract. It was created by a committee and approved by the states. The Constitution is the ruling document, not letters saying what the intent was supposed to be.

Have the Federalist Papers ever been contested in court? Have they ever been disputed in a court of law? No, of course not, because while they may be interesting, they have no bearing on the legal tenets of the Constitution.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 7:24 AM

The left has always sought to eliminate firearms rights and, they exploited Sandy hook as a catalyst to enact executive powers while disregarding legislative oversight. We have had four years of bypassing the voice of the people to enact the liberal vision. There is a reason Congress isn’t functioning effectively; it is because congress debates issues and the effects of those issues while the left doesn’t want to get bogged down in debate (Pelosi-we can find out what it says when it is a law.). Congress is the molasses in the legislation process and that gives our society stability. Executive powers equal rapid changes which creates uncertainty in society. Tolerance of executive powers by our society is not a favorable characteristic.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-13 9:23 AM

Flapper- I have to agree with you butdue to the fact that we have a big bunch of career politicians in congress, they don't really act as they should being our voice either.

Dave- while the Federalist Papers have no legal standing, they were authored by Publius(Hamilton, Madison, and Jay)as arguments (opinions) FOR the proposed Constitution further explaining its intended contents, which makes them very relavent. I suggest you read "The Original Argument"

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More 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