E-Editions | Subscriptions | Contact Us | About Us | Classifieds | FREE Classified Items Under $50 | Photos
The Lakeland Times | Minocqua, Wisc.

Mulleady Realtors

home : letters : letters April 29, 2016

3/5/2013 5:16:00 AM
More gun laws? Think again

To the Editor:

It’s been many weeks since the Sandy Hook massacre yet some people in our nation still believe that if we had just a few more gun laws somehow we would be safer. 

Never mind the fact that the nutcase that caused this massacre broke over 40-plus laws in his criminal act. Not one of those laws stopped him and another law surely would not have stopped him. As much as the left would like to blame the tool used in the crime we can’t ignore the person.  

But in typical fashion they blame it on the gun and guns just don’t fire themselves. Our president wants us to believe that we can somehow legislate evil out of our society by passing laws against guns. But who really suffers with these laws? 

Law abiding citizens do. 

Law abiding citizens always pay for the criminal acts of evil people and somehow are demonized in the process when we stand up for our rights. Do you really believe criminals go through extensive background checks or care about limits to magazines? Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and crime in that city is also one of the highest in the country. How are those gun laws working, we ask?

In the past few days, many on the left have even admitted that the new laws being proposed by President Obama would not have stopped Sandy Hook from happening. Yet still they tell us we need to lose just “a little” more of our freedoms because they say so. They have yet to make any credible case on how their proposals would keep us safer. Many studies and facts prove it’s quite the contrary.

If you haven’t noticed, our government already is telling our kids what they can eat at school, how many calories can be in a lunch box, how much soda we can drink, how much salt we can eat, what cars they want us to drive, what gun we can own, what the gun has to look like ... how long before they say, “well you don’t need all of the First Amendment.” We can tweak it a little more to say it’s a felony to say anything bad about President Obama or the Congress. It’s coming, because people allow them to chip away at our rights and choose ignore what is really happening. How would you feel if they wanted to change the 4th Amendment? Many states and cities have been writing bills requiring visits by local sheriffs to see what guns you own. It’s not fantasy, its already being proposed. Making changes a little at a time is the plan and before we know it, we will have very little freedoms left.

It’s also very disturbing that Mayor Bloomberg of New York City when asked directly if he would give up his security detail said “no,” but is spending millions of dollars pushing laws that will not allow you to protect yourself. 

It’s the greatest form of hypocrisy. Why mr. mayor, are you more important? Why, President Obama, are you and your family so much better than the rest of us? Your kids are protected 24 hours a day, mine are not. 

The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason. It’s there to provide protection from evil and from our government. No wonder they want to restrict it.

Chris Fadrowski

Reader Comments

Posted: Sunday, March 10, 2013
Article comment by: Gary Meinert

Guys I don't think even discussing the 2ed amendment has merit. Obama won't pay any attention to it or anything else in the Constitution. Remember his comments about it being outdated etc. Remember his obvious avoidance of it when he made "in sessions" appointments which are "supposed" to be reversed? Or when he told the "dreamers" he COULD NOT just allow it to go forward because it "wasn't the way our democracy works" and then did it anyway six weeks later. We are all in this sinking ship together so we might as well just hold hands and sing Cumby ya together.

Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013
Article comment by: James Baird

To Tim Vocke

I didn't include a Constitutional Convention that the Several States Legislature can call sense it did not involve the Federal Government. If 37 states call for a convention, so be it.

As to the chipping away at the Second Amendment, the right to free speech is guarantied in the First Amendment, yet you cannot yell "Fire" in a theater, nor make death threats to public officials. These are simply common sense limits on that unlimited free speech that the Constitution guaranties. It doesn't protect you from prosecution for slander or libel, but by Supreme Court decision, you can lie, except in court.

The proposed limits to unfettered weapon transfer and ownership are only common sense. Back ground checks before all sales, magazine size limits, "straw-man purchases', and the like have no effect on the right to own as many weapons as you can afford. It is the idea that every one needs military weapons that increase the possibility that a disturbed kid will decide to take his parent's, uncle's or neighbor's weapon and slaughter those that he perceives as enemies. The increased number of weapons increases the chance of an intersection of the deranged with a means of mass murder.

Posted: Saturday, March 9, 2013
Article comment by: Chris Hansen

I was in the military and I am here to tell you that the military never used the word "assault rifle." It was called your rifle, or your weapon. I'm not sure where the term "assault rifle" came from.

Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013
Article comment by: James Baird

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularize the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.

Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip.

The M16, the military version of the AR-15, was first introduced into service in 1964 with the United States Air Force. It fires the high velocity 5.5645mm NATO cartridge and is the second most used assault rifle in the world after the AK-47.

(From Wikipedia).

Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013
Article comment by: Chris Fadrowski

James you completely miss the point. Just what do you think could happen if the democrats had the house, senate and presidency? yep that's right. You also just can't see that they are already chipping away at our rights whether it be the 2nd Amendment or not. I stated the examples in my letter.. you should re-read it and maybe you will see.

Posted: Thursday, March 7, 2013
Article comment by: Tim Vocke

Amending the Constitution also needs ratification by 3/4ths of the State(38 of 50). The fact that anti-gun people are incapable of amending the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean that this present government is NOT trying to violate the 2nd amendment by passing laws/Executive orders designed to unconstitutionally regulate firearms. Semi-automatic firearms are NOT 'military type weapons' or 'assault weapons' as that term is deliberately misused by the anti-gun factions. Semi-automatic firearms have been in civilian hands since 1911 and contrary to what the "anti" folks want us to believe with their propaganda, AR-15s are NOT "assault rifles".

Posted: Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Article comment by: James Baird

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is not under attack. Any high school senior who has finished their government class can tell you that it takes the two thirds of both houses of congress to pass a proposed constitutional amendment and the ratification of two thirds of the states legislatures to make a change. No law passed only by Congress can nullify an Amendment.

The same constitution prevents the President or any other officer of the Federal Government from seizing power and voiding any part of the same Constitution.

Therefore the argument that military type weapons are needed to protect the population from the Government is inane. If you do not like what the Federal, or any government, doing, vote against it at the next election. If you loose however, you do not have the Constitutional right to shoot up the winners. That is an insurrection and the treatment for which the Constitution has a remedy. It can call out that "Militia" that the Second amendment allows.

Article Comment Submission Form
Please feel free to submit your comments.

Article comments are not posted immediately to the Web site. Each submission must be approved by the Web site editor, who may edit content for appropriateness. There may be a delay of 24-48 hours for any submission while the web site editor reviews and approves it.

Note: All information on this form is required. Your telephone number is for our use only, and will not be attached to your comment.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

Advanced Search
search sponsored by

Subscription Login

Life | Snow/Trail Conditions | Road Conditions | Wisconsin Lottery | Facebook

Lakeland Printing, Inc. • P.O. Box 790 • Minocqua, WI 54548

The Lakeland Times • The Northwoods Super Shopper
Phone: (715) 356-5236 • Fax: (715) 358-2121

Members of the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, Wisconsin Community Papers, Rhinelander Area Chamber of Commerce, Minocqua Area Chamber of Commerce

Software © 1998-2016
1up! Software
, All Rights Reserved