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

Balancing The Constitution’s Stance On Guns

May 5, 2013

Our county legislature has had two votes about gun violence, one vote each in its last two sessions. The vote in May was about newspapers printing the names of people who had gun permits....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(32)

MacKenzie

May-05-13 2:27 AM

Hoyer is an idiot! His interpretation of the Constitution is seriously flawed, because the Bill of Rights is very clear. The 2nd Amendment is very clear. It is about preserving life, which is self-defense. After all, none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights would have meaning if you are dead. The well regulated militia is in case of a too powerful government, like the one the founders left behind in England - and the one Hoyer would like to be the head of. The Federalist pspers of Hamilton and Madison say just that. Hoyer has an agenda. And, once again, is making criminals out of law abiding gun owners. His statistical quotes are out and out lies, made up by another liberal hack.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

May-05-13 2:39 AM

This authors stats are not only flawed, they are a blatant lie. The states with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest murder rate - examples of this would be D.C. and Chicago/Illinois. The accident statistics are wrong. People who lies to push an agenda are despicable.

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

May-05-13 2:47 AM

I know Chicago and D.C. aren't states. In the case of Chicago, they took the restrictive gun laws of the state and made them more restrictive. In D.C. their laws basically prohibit anyone from carrying a gun outside their residence, very restrictive. These 2 places lead the country in murder rates. Then look at all these "blue" states, restrictive gun laws, high murder rates, NY, NJ, CA, just to name a few.

Who in the world elected this Hoyer guy?

10 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

carlaw

May-05-13 4:14 AM

MacKenzie the people of his district elected him. Scary, but maybe this time we will have better luck. You are right on the money with your comments. Now why can't someone like you run for office!

9 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regulator

May-05-13 7:40 AM

Hoyer says that it's best if you know if your neighbor's have guns. Why? Would your reactions to them be any different? Would he avoid them at all cost as well as any one else who carries a gun, even police? The whole concept of concealed carry that we have today is so that NOBODY KNOWS YOU HAVE A GUN on you. Duh! If Hoyer wants to know who is carrying guns, then he should push for open carry laws. There is no need to publish names. Everyone will know who has the guns, just wear them openly. Same thing as publishing names. Right Mr. Hoyer . Would you be comfortable with that.

13 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GeorgeB67

May-05-13 8:25 AM

I guarantee you Mr. hoyer's opinion on the press's right to publish names would change if someone at the PJ decided to post a list of names and addresses of the people who collect welfare benefits. After all, it's taxpayer money. Don't we have a right to know?

He, and other liberals would somehow magically find that right to privacy in the constitution if someone decided to do that.

12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Larry1

May-05-13 9:37 AM

What does Hoyer propose when someone wants to break into your home? Open the door, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya?

Remember, when seconds matter the police are only minutes away!

11 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mrinbetween

May-05-13 9:46 AM

Very simple Tim, let's just assume that EVERY household has guns. It is not up to the government to provide this information. In the words of your fearless king, "if we can save just one life", then (my words) owning a gun for defense is worth it.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

OMG2012

May-05-13 9:53 AM

This Hoyer guy is twisted. I don't believe his statistic's. Every American need's to motive their government Representatives to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at all costs. Those value's alone are what have made this the greatest nation on earth.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

May-05-13 12:53 PM

What Hoyer & co. refuse to understand is you don't actually have to use a gun for it to be effective. How many homes are not broken into because of fear that the homeowner has a gun in the house. What's the stat on that?

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

May-05-13 1:30 PM

MacKenzie, if the purpose of keeping guns is self-defense why would you need to take one out of your home? How would you be defending your home if you were not at home?

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

May-05-13 1:47 PM

Monkey- You take the gun outside your home because you may need it to defend yourself or somebody else out in public. Do I really need to explain that to you?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

May-05-13 2:08 PM

It would be nice if Coumo and Obama would do for the rest of the economy what they've done for gun retailers and manufacturers.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

May-05-13 3:29 PM

Gee, Monkeyboy, no one is ever attacked when they are away from home! There are no muggers, rapists, murderers or carjackers out there that would attack innocent, unsuspecting people. (sarcasm, for those that don't get it).

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

May-05-13 4:56 PM

Thanks, carlaw, for the vote of confidence(pun intended), but I don't think the electorate has much of an appetite for candidates that think like you, me and many of the others here. They seem to prefer sleezy individuals, who have an agenda, think they know better than the rest of us, so they must push than agenda down our throats and ones that are "Santa Claus" and will give them things. Sad, but true.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

May-05-13 4:57 PM

that agenda, not than.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MacKenzie

May-05-13 4:59 PM

BTW, there is a female living in D.C., who was attacked. She fought very hard and now can carry outside of her residence. It's very difficult to get a permit for ANY gun in D.C., even one you would just keep in your home.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

May-05-13 5:28 PM

Could it be that the left hates guns because you have to buy them? If Coumo and Obama came up with a plan where everybody in the country was given a free gun I bet the left would love them.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

May-06-13 1:53 PM

What a crippling amount of paranoia it requires to think you need to take a gun with you wherever you go.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regulator

May-06-13 3:30 PM

I carry 24/7, except when asleep. Then I have it 12 inches away. No paranoia here. It's simply that if my life is ever in jeopardy by some dirtbag, then I get to live and they don't. What's your choice?

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

May-07-13 12:45 PM

Monkey-If you are sitting at McD's and some maniac comes in and starts shooting, do you hope the law-abiding citizen sitting next to you took his gun outside the home?

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Monkeyboy

May-07-13 1:46 PM

Somebody has been watching too many shoot-em-up westerns and wants to be a cowboy in the Wild West. You are too late and you're on the wrong coast.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bluesman

May-07-13 4:22 PM

Monkey- I assume you are saying one doesn't need to carry a gun because he will not need to stop a mass shooting. If there isn't going to be anymore mass shootings than why the new gun laws? Sorry to keep asking you hard questions that you'll never answer.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

apologeticsnow

May-07-13 4:50 PM

Momkey, there is no negative comment from you concerning what Rev. Tim Hoyer, Democrat on the County legislature has said politically and keeps on saying politically to advance his poltical agenda as he is a cleric. What gives? Why not vent the criticism at him like you do me? I have a strong inkling that it is really not about separation of church and state as it separation of certain views that don't agree with yours from political policy.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

50s4ever

May-07-13 8:17 PM

The constitution doesn't have to spell out self defense or defense of one's home, family, or property. It is a natural law.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More 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