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

Make sure laws work

April 17, 2013

Mingo County, W.Va., Sheriff Eugene Crum might be alive today if an existing federal gun control law had worked as it was supposed to. That revelation came on the very day U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(25)

drugsrus

Apr-17-13 1:28 PM

How right you are Disco, but it "feel good" legislation. Is it going to prevent another occurrence? NO -- Will it keep firearms out of the hands of criminals?? um, NO Criminals by their nature do not obey laws. These guys are just trying to insure re-election

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-17-13 2:06 PM

It is all part of the divisive leftist plan, just keep peeing on the rights of Americans as long as you are in charge. And it seems to be working!

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Apr-17-13 4:59 PM

TiredOfTax, exactly what right are the left 'pe-eing' on? No one said you can't have your guns. So please explain.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-17-13 6:33 PM

The Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.

In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-17-13 7:26 PM

NYS has just taken a HUGE chunk of our 2nd amendment away. The victory today was in Washington where new gun laws met its match nationally, now we have to continue to fight the liberal state of NY! These laws do not protect anyone from anything. They only pee on our freedom! Chipping away at them one law at a time!

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

notgood

Apr-17-13 8:03 PM

It doesn't matter how many laws are made, those that don't obide will find away!!!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gville70

Apr-17-13 10:52 PM

So you're saying the left is legislating away everyones' rights? While the right only does that to non-christian, non-white, poor, gay, and women.. Talk about tossing stones in a glass house..

9 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

getreal

Apr-18-13 7:07 AM

Hey how about just obeying the laws already in place!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-18-13 8:41 AM

So who is attacking our constitutional rights right now? Need a clue?? It isn't the r's, and it starts with a D and that they strongly leans L for left and liberal! I feel that we have to fight the threats that we are presented not the ones you cannot that are already past. It is a leftist tool to blame others and look at historical mistakes to justify their current paths!

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-18-13 8:58 AM

The head of a group accused of illegally taping private meetings of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign visited the White House days before the group's Twitter account began actively attacking the Kentucky Republican, according to White House visitors logs. White House logs and the Twitter feed of Shawn Reilly, one of two men at the heart of the McConnell wiretapping scandal, show he met with White House officials on Dec. 5, just days before his organization Progress Kentucky began a messaging blitzkrieg against the Republican leader.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Annarondac

Apr-18-13 11:34 AM

The Federal Government does not enforce 40% of the laws that exist today and HIPPA rules forbid the use of personal info. Any law put forth is to curtail law abiding citizens and would not have prevented the Connecticut, Colorado or West Virginia tragedies. Criminals will not obey the law either. What needs to be addressed is the curtailing of mentally ill and to do that Congress needs to relax the HIPPA regs.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Annarondac

Apr-18-13 11:40 AM

gville70, the Republican Party has more Black, Hispanic, Asian and Cuban representatives than the Democrat Party. Since California has a high Hispanic population and more Democrats than one can count, legally, how do you explain the voting down of the gay marriage law?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Apr-18-13 1:25 PM

Annarondac, I'm going to assume you're incorrect with that 'fact' until you can show some proof. And Lord knows people here just love showing proof of anything...

Also, you're incorrectly assuming that even IF (which I still refute) the Republican Party has more minority members than the Democrat Party that it somehow means it's Democrats taking away the rights of the same minorities. Just because party membership includes a group or groups of people doesn't mean that the actual elected officials will vote as those groups want.

It happens each and every time a campaigner tries to get the vote of a group they historically don't win, like when Romney tried to get the Hispanic vote.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseGetAClue

Apr-18-13 1:36 PM

Hey TOT, Could you point out the part of the 2nd ammendment that spell out youhave the right to automatic weapons with huge unlimited firepower? I can't seem to find that language.....

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Apr-18-13 1:50 PM

PleaseGetAClue - the second Amendment is simply put -", the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".Funny thing, I can't seem to find where it says that they are not legal.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseGetAClue

Apr-18-13 2:02 PM

so, in reality, you are claiming that politicians are infringing on YOUR INTERPRETATION of the ammendment...that's what I wanted to hear you admit......Thank you for clarifying.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseGetAClue

Apr-18-13 2:08 PM

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment."

Since this has been ruled on before, another set of restrictions on what types of weapons we can own will violate nothing.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PleaseGetAClue

Apr-18-13 2:12 PM

and before you and your compadre, TOT lump me in a group (without actually knowing me) let me point out that I am a gun owner, but I DO NOT share "yours and TOT's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Apr-18-13 7:46 PM

that is not an interpretation, it is the text of the document. What is so hard to comprehend that a gun does not do anything without it being in the hands of a person. All this new "feel good" legislation will do absolutely nothing to prevent future occurrences. This crap is getting old in a hurry. Time to start bi**h slapping some idiots. We could start with Plugs Biden.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

getreal

Apr-19-13 7:02 AM

GETACLUE, so your a gun owner does that make you more knowledgeable about the second amendment? why should your interpretation of the second amendment be any more valid than DRUGS...I do not own a gun and I still feel the government is going to far with trying to infringe on everyones rights, not only gun owners.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-19-13 7:45 AM

Can anyone point out where the constitution says that I cannot have automatic weapons? Tanks? Planes? Drones? Who do we turn to when the government is too powerful and takes a turn that is NOT IN AMERICAS BEST INTEREST??? I know that the founding fathers were very concerned with the scope and power of government. That IS WHY there is a second amendment! You do not need a militia to hunt rabbits and deer! Dinner is usually easier to overcome!

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

Apr-19-13 1:41 PM

PleaseGetAClue, I agree with you; however Heller doesn't apply to states. It only applies to 'enclaves' of the country, such as DC.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

Apr-19-13 1:51 PM

swizzer and GetAClue, what part of actual text , not an interpretation is confusing ??

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-19-13 2:33 PM

The union representing New York State Police say they believe the state's stricter gun laws could put law enforcement officers at risk. In an email release on Monday, the New York State Troopers PBA said its 6,000-member group "holds widely shared concerns" about the NY Safe Act. Nonetheless, the union takes exception to some state lawmakers accusing the troopers of failing to enforce the law. The troopers are not the first law enforcement group to criticize the Safe Act. The New York State Sheriffs' Association has expressed concern about the likelihood that deputies can enforce certain provisions of the law, including background checks on private gun sales. The sheriffs group also believes many provisions of the law will only increase requirements among those who abide by the law and do little to ward against violent crimes or mass shootings.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

Apr-19-13 6:50 PM

Background checks under government control would not be very effective. One of the Boston bombers became a US citizen on september 11th. How do you suppose that could happen? Our government 'inaction'!!

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 25 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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

 

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