Comment

Comment by mary deitemeyer on January 28, 2013 at 11:01am

while I certainly believe that the case sited was a travisty of justice--you are speaking about English law and English government--our founding fathers  knew the pitfalls of that government--they traveled 3000 miles to get away from it and lost countless lives to avoid their control--our government is not a monarchy, dictatorship or military rule--the reason it's none of those should be clear to all--they knew that in none of the existing forms of government could they excercise freedom while keeping the public safe--so they drafted a form of government that was free--free to establish laws to protect and serve--to protect against state religions (where you would be forced to worship at the whim of the heading govt. official, once changed, religion could also be changed to accomodate)to be given a choice as to its leaders (one in which, if we cared enough, would offer us a choice of officials that deserved and were qualified to serve--I no longer feel we are getting choices between 2 qualified leaders but 2 people who shouldn't be elected to any governing office) voting rights, ownership rights,and a host of other items theyformerly had no control over--things jammed down their throats, not given a choice of even a yes or no.  How far we have fallen from the original intent--but most of the time the "fall" has been in the publics favor.  Compare the crime rate in Britain, with its strict laws, against our own.  The governments checks and balances, another founding father's implementation, is there to help, not to hurt.  We are quick enough to say to our government--come help me --we have had a natural disaster (or something similar) but stay our of my business all other times, ecept maybe when I need you to control animal population, people population (legalized abortion, death sentences, lax guntrol) busines monopolies (Utilities spring to mind) fixing bad roads and stuff like that.  Because one personwas railroaded, it is a one sided argument--just as the defense attorny's state they would rather see all criminals go loose rather than have one  wrongful person in prision.--looks good on paper.  The second amendment was put there so people could protect themselves--it is in the constitution and an amendment cannot wipe it away--it can only control it--perhaps beyond what people are comfortable with, and perhaps they may lose some freedom--but freedom comes with a price --in this case--senseless killings, not be ilguns, but mostly those purchased outright with no background check or a cooling off period to someone out for revenge.People need to educate themselves on the constitution and on the functions and responsibilities of each seperate branch--stop being intimidated with the radical view that all of our guns and freedoms will be removed along  with our guns. Nixon/Agnew came as close as government will allow to establish a dictatorship that would let something like that happen.  Do not throw at us things that are strictly fear based citing the horrors of "look what happened in Europe" as a reason to not have any control at all.  Please let us work in harmony with the idea of better gun regulations without taking awayand constitutional righscare tactics--from both sides--let us try to think of the subject objectively, intelligently, and with common sense--stop worrying about becom ing a george orwell novel ( as an excuse to do nothing.  Let us not become extremists in either direction.  Because of the structure of government into 3 distinctive sections, each with the power to stop the other from taking absolute control--stop worrying about loosing everything and worry more about the immediate--no law abiding citizen who likes to hunt, fish and/or just protect themselves should fear a government "take-over"  ,need to fear a waiting period, a mental health check, a criminal back-ground check (unless you had been convicted of murder) and a test to see if you can fire a gun without shooting yourself or the closet, a 2 hour seminar on how to clean, store, and fire the gun you want to purchase--especially in AR where we certify every type of job, why do we fight if we want to certify your right to a gun--safety first--that should be a priority--what do you think you will lose by gun education--good drivers take driver's Ed but any moron can license a gun?  I don't want the guy next door, who is cooking meth, to own a gun, I don't want the crazy housewife,

 who just poisoned her husband, to have a gun--I don't want the suicidal teen to have easy access to a gun, I don't want the customer service rep, who has had it with the customer's rudeness and beligerance, to have access, immediately from a gun show, to a machine gun, I don't think it is necessary to kill deer or rabbits with an assault rifle--some things are just plain common sense--I am not for controlling or manipulating the government to pass a law that is so strict it will make my constitutional right null and void but neither do I feel that better controll will mean an end to my constitutional rights nor a step towards it--that's why we have checks and balances in government--so one section doesn't get to have total control of government.  I do believe that the public should have a right to weigh in on whatever bill is passed to get more gun control--they need to have the right to veto anything out of line with 2nd amendment--but you have to read it first before you can know if any new law it is pro or con the constitution. As a law abiding citizen, I don't mind being searched at an airport, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me, or inconveniences me because i want to feel safe up there (where you are literally sitting ducks to terrorists), and when asked, most americans feel the same even tho they may hate it--its a small price to pay for what could be your last flight if those restrictions had not been imposed. Yet the NRA somehow feels that it is necessary to protect our constitutional rights by allowing us to freely purchase weapons of mass destruction or not asking questions or teaching safety prior to obtaining a gun.  As Sheli can cite cases of what could happen to an innocent man (in England--the country we fled from because we disagreed with their constitution), there are plenty of cases where a kid got into daddy's guns and shot himself in the head or shot his buddy, one of the parents, or daddy shot himself, cleaning the gun, a hunter shot a neighbor (he thought it was a deer?) our VP shot a fellow hunter (he definately should have had either glasses or safety class) or in the last case--stole his Mom's guns--all avoidable with common sense, and safety classes, better control and restrictions--one of which would be you have a certify (thru instruction classes) and renew your license everso often (say maybe 2 or 3 years)  Do not let fear of something that our government is protected against doing, allow us to be sensible about passing certain laws to prevent us from killing each other.  Neither faction should use the extreme to make their point--it is counter productive

 

Comment by Michelle Gardner on January 18, 2013 at 10:19pm

I think Shelli is just presenting what could be a possibility if the push for stricter gun laws continues on the extreme. I can't speak for Shelli but she's all about keeping us informed so I'm just gonna guess she's giving us info get perspective.

Comment by Whoopi on January 18, 2013 at 3:01pm

So now we have to argue gun control and the judicial system in England too??