Sunday Apr. 20, 2014
Comments on:
Out of Bounds
Let’s be civil.
The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), accuse someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail webmaster [at] flatheadbeacon.com.

The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.

  Newest First
By Mtwatch on 12-26-12 @ 10:07 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
57 up | 53 down


Maybe its time to look at the REAL CONNECTION! 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/business/real-and-virtual-firearms-nurture-marketing-
link.html?_r=0&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=edit_th_20121225&adxnnlx=1356541383-
QRfbFvTkj8vWRDGCrCc+zg

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/technology/02wargames.html?pagewanted=all

THE NRA CONNECTED TO THE GUN MANUFACTURERES CONNECTED TO THE
KILLING VIDEOS!!!
By Craig moore on 12-26-12 @ 11:00 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
57 up | 67 down


Actually, hunters need not declare anything as the Second Amendment is not about the right to hunt.

As to magazine size see http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/08/large-capacity-magazines/  Professor
Volokh writes:
===quote===

And mass shootings, in which more rounds are fired, usually progress over the span of several
minutes or more. Given that removing a magazine and inserting a new one takes only a few
seconds, a mass murderer — especially one armed with a backup gun — would hardly be stymied by
the magazine size limit. It’s thus hard to see large magazines as materially more dangerous than
magazines of normal size…

But given that only a tiny fraction of gun homicides involve more than 10 shots fired (see
Kleck, Point Blank, p. 79, and Kleck, Targeting Guns, p. 123), that mass shooters who really
want large-capacity magazines will likely be able to get them even if they are outlawed, that
mass shooters can and generally do carry multiple guns, and that only very rarely will people be
able to tackle someone during the second or two that he needs to reload, I suspect that
large-capacity magazine bans will have extremely little effect. So while a large-capacity
magazine ban would impose only a very small burden on law-abiding citizens who want to defend
themselves — which is why I think it would be constitutional — it would also provide, at best,
only a very small extra amount of public safety (and might be a net zero or a negative if it
interferes with law-abiding people’s self-defense in the very rare situations when more than 10
rounds are needed and the defender doesn’t have an extra magzine).
===end quote===

As a hunter, it has been deeply instilled in me to not shoot until I am absolutely certain of my
target.  I suggest the same with any “do something” legislation that will acually hit the
target.  We don’t need ineffective, meaningless, symbolic measures that merely disarm the public.
By mooseberryinn on 12-26-12 @ 2:25 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
51 up | 56 down


Craig - exactly right.
By Mark W. on 12-26-12 @ 3:09 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
52 up | 56 down


Instead of legislation that hits the target, how about no new legislation at all?  It’s no surprise that
nearly every pro-Second Amendment person in this discussion has capitulated to the idea that
“something must be done.”  Just like your forbears have capitulated to every single “discussion”
the left asked you to engage in for 100 years.  That’s the whole point of the discussion.  To engage
you in a dialectic you did nothing to instigate in order to get you, in an effort to be seen as
“reasonable,” to relinquish more of your God-given rights. 

With the way all you fools prostrate yourselves every time a left wing drooler like Breeding attempts
to take the high road on you it’s really a wonder we have any rights left at all.  And yes, what they
are after here is “meaningless, symbolic measures that merely disarm the public.”  If you haven’t
figured that out yet are you sure we are living in the same country? 

The left deserve about as much respect in the course of this ghoulish romp as they give the right—
none.  Enough discussions.  We mourn, we move on, we try and do better.  We don’t saddle our
posterity with our shortfalls.  For our sins we get our Lanzas.  Not for our lack of legislation. 
Sheesh.
By Craig moore on 12-26-12 @ 4:03 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
46 up | 54 down


Mark,  “you fools” really?  Makes me think that you caught your image in a mirror. 

As to any legislation hitting the target, frankly I don’t know what that would be short of
unconstitutional confiscation. 
http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html

So which of the myths frighten you most? 

ANY violence control legislation should address the specifics of past tragedies and demonstrate
how it would have been stopped not only by the chosen implement of harm but any reasonable
sustitute.
By Mark W. on 12-26-12 @ 5:09 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
53 up | 58 down


The only thing that frightens me is would-be allies falling into left wing traps.
By mdt1960 on 12-27-12 @ 11:41 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
53 up | 50 down


Forgive me if I’m a bit out of touch here, but has the NRA called for fireman to be armed now too?
By Jäger on 12-27-12 @ 4:19 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
45 up | 51 down


I am not sure what Mr Breeding teaches, but presumably it has nothing to do with the
Constitution nor the Framers’ intent.

“Hunters need to be clear where they stand”?  Really?  What part of the Second Amendment has
anything to do with hunting?  What discussion and debate leading up to that Amendment
distinguished between firearms hunters use and firearms kept solely for defense?  I’m sure Mr
Breeding will make his case next week where he thinks the rest of us who are hunters should
stand on this, but in case he hasn’t figured it out already, the Second Amendment is not about
protecting his deer rifles and pheasant shotguns.

He thinks more gun control is not a bad thing, and we need to take a “good hard look” at
semiautomatic rifles?  Oh yes, please, let’s let the government take even more of our rights.
After all, the first “assault weapons” ban was found to be a total failure in reducing violent
crime and murder, so let’s reinstate it, chip away at rights some more, and then give ourselves
a pat on the back that we have somehow or other achieved something.

It’s a funny thing, but while they’re talking about shredding the Second Amendment, they never
talk about doing the same thing to the First - censoring the media who gives these murderers the
infamy they seek, and providing the template for the next one on what to wear, the weapons to
choose, and the sequence of events to follow culminating in their suicide.
By mooseberryinn on 12-29-12 @ 8:51 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
24 up | 39 down


If one follows the news (the real news) closely, it becomes apparent that all of our Constitutional
freedoms are under attack.  Comrade Obama does not want to be delayed or obstructed by silly little
things like our constitution or Bill of rights.
By GATE on 12-29-12 @ 10:08 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
25 up | 34 down


Here’s a quote from the Gun Manufactures ‘Salesman of the Year’: ” I ran for office again so I could
have ‘Men with Guns’ around my daughters”!!
By Mark Phillips on 12-29-12 @ 8:10 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
15 up | 18 down


Assault weapons and external clips will become like cigarettes; socially ostracized Marlboro men
smoking cancer sticks and relegated to a cold shed out back where only “those people” go when their
addiction calls.
By GATE on 12-30-12 @ 6:34 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
20 up | 22 down


Gun Control? It’s the best thing you can do for Crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m
the bad guy, I’m always going to have a Gun. Safety Locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on,
and I’ll pull the trigger..we’ll see who wins”. - Gangster Sammy ‘the bull’ Gravano
By mooseberryinn on 12-30-12 @ 9:01 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
19 up | 25 down


Bottom line - “gun control” laws would only effect law abiding people.  Lunatics and criminals would
ignore such laws.  For example - Lunatics would not admit to having “assault style” weapons, or even
any weapons..
By Am Trans on 01-02-13 @ 8:08 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 2 down


It would be interesting to see a study about how many people have been killed by swords.  I think you’d
be absolutely shocked.  They should be banned.
 
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown5h
@kellynbrown
County denies beekeeper a license to sell honey http://t.co/Q02rAuPa7d Kalispell man failed health inspection but says he doesn't need one
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish19 Apr
@djtabish
KALISPELL, MT: You'll find the box in a brick building filled with history. Skateboards, pizza, clocks & ties #THTH14
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy18 Apr
@mollypriddy
@natashavc @TaraAriano @allyzay Oh no, I've been thinking it's a room for all your types of mustards. Recalibrating my ideas now.
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott19 Apr
@tristanscott
@tristanscott *Billie Joe
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines10h
@flatheadbeacon
Kalispell’s Core Area Redevelopment Plan Inches Forward http://t.co/EO2le2frPY