Wednesday Apr. 23, 2014
Comments on:
Letter
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 mooseberryinn on 02-15-13 @ 9:32 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
20 up | 30 down


Agreed.  and for those who simply can’t comprehend “God”.  how about “normal healthy family
values”, or at least “non-aggressive mutually supportive community values”?  The “weapon” any
“weapon” is an inert, lifeless, article, possessing no morality of its’ own.  Not until touched by the
human hand.  Now, in the hands of “humans” great harm or great good is possible, or at least
stopping great harm is more likely.  If “banning” of allegedly “evil looking” things becomes the
pablum of an easily anxious (and thoughtless) society becomes the “norm”, then get ready for
bullies of every sort to visit.
By Craig moore on 02-17-13 @ 12:09 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
17 up | 26 down


Take a look at what the Dems are trying to pull in Washington State. 
http://www.islandpolitics.org/?p=9121   It was intentional to include a provision to allow law
enforcement to conduct warrantless searches of a person’s home and confiscate weapons deemed
outlawed.

===quote===
Part of this new Bill includes:

(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of
the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting
a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition.

(5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the
effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the
following:
(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than
once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

As defined, “assault weapon” also includes any semiautomatic with a fixed magazine capacity of
more than 10 rounds, any firearm with a threaded barrel, shotguns with detachable magazines or
revolving cylinders, and assault weapon conversion kits.

And when you die your beneficiaries must either render the weapon inoperable, destroy it or
relinquish it. There will be no method or process to pass these commonly owned firearms down to
your children or heirs.
===end quote===
By Clarity on 02-17-13 @ 5:20 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
25 up | 21 down


Weapons that are not safely stored are used by kids and criminals with tragic harm.  There are
SO MANY deaths and terrible accidents every year with kids ‘playing’ with family guns.  What
happens if kids play with an assault weapon?  Assault weapons take it to a whole new level that
is beyond safety and common sense in normal living situations.  Imagine living in an apartment
where your neighbor has an unsecured assault weapon downstairs or next door.  What happens if
there’s an accident or altercation?  My understanding from news stories is that children and
teachers were killed at the school because an assault weapon was available, unsecured, in the
family home.  I thought all guns were meant to be stored safely, but people just don’t seem to
do it reliably.  That would be why an annual check would be advised.  I didn’t see any mention
of confiscations?  Although, it would be a very good thing if an assault weapon owner continued
to disregard basic safety measures!
By Craig moore on 02-17-13 @ 6:07 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
19 up | 29 down


Clarity, you inability to see “confiscsation”  is not surprising.  Many people choose to ignore
the obvious when it runs counter to their beliefs.  For starters, inability to pass down a
firearm is confiscation.  And if you want to allow law enforcement into your house without a
warrant to check on if you have “unsecured” firearms, what if they find your drugs in the process?
By mooseberryinn on 02-18-13 @ 8:07 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
19 up | 27 down


Clarity - The killer in the Ct. school shootings accessed his mother’s weapons by murdering her. 
I’m fairly sure she didn’t see that coming, and having her guns locked up would make no difference
there.  “Assault Weapons” are merely semi-automatic guns that LOOK like military arms. 
Legislators are being evasive about their intentions to ‘ban” thousands of weapons by using the term
‘assault weapons” incorrectly on purpose.  Legislators and Kings can make any laws they see fit it,
seems in violation of our constitution, but none of these laws or edicts will even be noticed by
criminals or wackos. These laws would only infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans.
By mooseberryinn on 02-18-13 @ 9:40 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
16 up | 29 down


OK - Here it is!  the “new and improved” more or less, kinda sorta, “constitutional” (maybe?) gun
law to end 99.99% of “gun violence” (unless the gun is used as a club).  Any person in possession
of a fire arm of any style, caliber, model etc. may only carry one round (bullet for you dummy types)
and may only carry this round in a shirt pocket.  We’ll call this law the “Mayberry law”.  Now, then,
recognizing that there may be folks who are obviously criminal types and will insist on carrying two
rounds, warrant-less searches will be authorized.  Random, “Stop, Search and Seizure” will, of
course, also be required.  there, problem solved.  No more “gun violence” will happen.
By GATE on 02-18-13 @ 9:47 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
25 up | 29 down


Should the US pull out of Chicago? Body count: In the last six months 292 killed(murdered) in Chicago
compared to 221 killed in Iraq, and Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the US! We can thank
the ‘progressive’ leadership in Illinois for the combat zone in Chicago and they’re all blaming each
other. They can’t blame the Repubs. because there aren’t any!
By terryt on 02-18-13 @ 4:12 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
26 up | 20 down


I was a police officer for 35 years. I had one partner murdered by a a black panther. That same
man was out and tried to kill another police officer in 7 years. Lets see, he was prohibited from
having a gun but wait he had 2. He realy cared about the gun laws. If we put away the bad
guys for life for a second gun offense it may help a little. If we started back again to put the
mentaly hazzardous people away most of he recent events wouldn’t have happened.I have no
problem with any one having assult weapons as long they arn’t felons or mentaly hazzardous.
Dont punish the many for the bad behavior of the few.
By GATE on 02-18-13 @ 5:26 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
22 up | 25 down


terryt: Your post sent a chill through me and brought back a long forgotten memory. Just prior to
reporting to Fort Ord for Basic Training I was working the graveyard shift at a Standard Station in
October 67’ at 7th & Cyprus in Oakland. This was the hotbed neighborhood of the Black Panther
Party.Officer John Frey and his partner would often use our lot as a staging area during their
‘graveyard’ shift. I was one of the last to speak to him the night he was murdered by Huey Newton in
an ambush a few blocks from the station. Scum like Newton, Seale and Cleaver literally got away
with murder.  Thank you for your service!
By Craig moore on 02-18-13 @ 6:06 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
13 up | 17 down


This memo from the National Institute of Justice,  part of the the Justice Department,  agrees
with the basic premis of this editorial. 
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf

===quote===
In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their
availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An
exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would
need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines…

Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of
guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled
with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.
===end quote===

Now, a federal mandatory buy back program with “no exemptions” is ‘confiscation’.
By Grizzzz on 02-19-13 @ 11:00 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 18 down


Craig Moore is 100% accurate. Here’s another link to the legislation proposed right next door in
Washington State:

http://www.therightscoop.com/washington-state-gun-control-bill-calls-for-annual-police-inspection-of-
gun-owners-home-for-compliance/

And yet, Sheriff Chuck Curry continues to say that no legislation has been introduced affecting our
2nd Amendment Rights. Evidently, he’s oblivious to Diane Feinstein’s bill that’s been introduced in
the Senate and now this attack on our gun rights in Washington State. Chuck Curry holds the top
law enforcement position in Flathead County and appears to care less about the attack on our gun
rights and the subsequent legislation to limit those rights.

In the election cycle for 2014, Chuck Curry needs to be handed his walking papers.
By LogicalOne on 02-19-13 @ 12:10 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 12 down


There is no chance of Diane Feinstein’s bill passing much less even making it out of committee.

And I believe Curry did make his “what me not worry?”  statement BEFORE it was introduced.
You bleeding knuckles have to remember most print storys run a few days to a week later than when
they do the interviews.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s150#overview

STATUS S. 150: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on January 24, 2013, which will consider it before
possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.
PROGRESS
Introduced Jan 24, 2013
Referred to Committee Jan 24, 2013
Reported by Committee ... NO
Passed Senate ... NO
Passed House ... NO
Signed by the President ... NO
PROGNOSIS
10% chance of getting past committee.
1% chance of being enacted.

Only 12% of Senate bills made it past committee and only 2% were enacted in 2011–2013
By mooseberryinn on 02-19-13 @ 12:27 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 17 down


ooh, scary stuff - by that I mean the fact that bills like these are even considered by legislators!  So
what happens if a person denies owning any guns?  (In Wa.) - would the local gestapo still “be allowed”
to enter and search the home?  What about the state borders? Would there be vehicle searches at the
state line?  What about a student’s back pack, or a hiker’s back pack?  Would they be stopped and
searched for guns?  hmmm, sounds a lot a dictator’s (pick one, any one) decree now doesn’t it?
By Montanadan on 02-19-13 @ 2:15 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
13 up | 17 down


People need to do a little research on Country’s who have murdered close to 200 million of there
own citizens.  First they were going bankrupt, then they started to elemenate ,  there freedoms and
started taking   there gun rights, health rights . Government started to control every thing. Sound
familiar ?  Those people put there pant on the same way we do. If you think this couldn’t happen to
us, then you are a fool. This country is sliding down the same path. Just look who taught Obama
his values. Grand parents his parents and his mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a America hater
and card carrying Commie and lover of Marx and believer of Saul Alinski’s plan, Rules for radical’s to
over throw America. Obama is following it to a T. He taught it in his Chicago law class.
You Liberal wak jobs go after the criminals and the dangerous mental types and leave the 99.99%
of good gun owners who probably some day could save you and your family butts. and America.
God willing. 
By JosephineDoody on 02-20-13 @ 6:16 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
5 up | 10 down


http://www.youtube.com/embed/F584p5kJL-U?feature=player_detailpage
By Gators on 02-20-13 @ 10:53 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 2 down


Guns: I do not own one yet.  But I know some people who own guns who should not. But for
the most part most people know how to operate them in a safe and correct manner.  It reminds
of people who drive cars…these are a deadly weapon just like the gun.  But a small few DO not
operate them correctly.  Why aren’t them banned for life from not driving…many have killed
innocent people. Just like guns we all know some that should not have them…but they do
anyway..either in a legal way or non-legal.
I support people rights to guns..but a small few make it a pain for everyone!!!
By GATE on 02-20-13 @ 11:01 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
14 up | 17 down


If the Loony Progressives ever introduce a bill to keep women from being able to use a gun to defend
themselves against rapists, they should call it the Kennedy-Clinton Protection Act!
By mooseberryinn on 02-20-13 @ 4:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
7 up | 15 down


Yup, saw that yo-yo on Fox and Friends, saying women on campus don’t need any guns to protect
themselves.  Forgot who/where etc.  but one thing is for sure - He won’t get the female vote
By Fast on 02-20-13 @ 5:18 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 16 down


I got my first gun when I was seven and I never kill anybody. So that proves that all seven year olds and older
Should be packing at least a .380 to school.
By Bob Morris on 02-20-13 @ 6:18 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
16 up | 6 down


My name is Robert Morris, and I’ve lived in Brooklyn since the 1970’s. I’ve never owned a pistol or
rifle, and have fired one exactly once in my life (I’m almost 66.)

I don’t think most people want to take guns away from anybody who is sane and not a criminal.
What they do want to do is to prevent their abuse and misuse, much as a mother wants to keep a
small child away from boiling pots on a stove. If someone wants to limit access to assault weapons
or 30-bullet magazines, it’s because, if someone criminal or emotionally unstable gets hold of
them, they can do a lot more damage than they could if the weapon had to be cocked after each
shot, or had to have its magazine replaced after 10 shots, instead of 30.

I don’t think the position of most gun-owners is unreasonable. I don’t think the people who want to
limit gun access to the sane and healthy are unreasonable. I think the people most at fault in this
debate are the present-day leaders of the NRA. They take the negotiation away from reasonable
people, and say, “It’s all or nothing, and we want it ALL!” Whereupon people in the cities, where
most of the murders by gunshot take place, and where most people know nothing about gun-
ownership or Montana, say,“If it’s all or nothing, you get NOTHING,” and contribute to organizations
such as Handgun Control. If the gun-owners’ leadership would come half-way, I think such a
gesture would be reciprocated.

I think that most gun owners are conservative, law-and-order types. I think that guys like me could
deal with them and come to some sort of reasonable compromise. However, the NRA, and those
gun manufacturers who fund them in their present posture, make that exceedingly difficult.

I’ll give you an example. A few years ago, a law was introduced into Congress which would have
required that all weapons be manufactured with locks. It was stopped by the NRA because, they
said, it would cost too much. However, what if the rifle that that young man in Connecticut used to
murder his mother and those children had had such a lock?

If a gun-owner and I were negotiating, and I proposed this, he (or she) might say, what about
requiring locks only on assault rifles and weapons with large magazines? That would reduce the
cost to the manufacturers, while making access to the most dangerous weapons more difficult.
However, as I said above, the NRA has made this an all or nothing decision. The
word “compromise” isn’t in their dictionery. Their motto is that guns don’t kill people, people kill
people—but when it comes to reducing access to emotionally unstable people to such weapons,
their motto seems to go out the window.

Thank you.
By Craig moore on 02-20-13 @ 6:54 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
6 up | 9 down


Robert, thanks for your thoughts.  You might be interested that both you and the NRA want
greater control over limiting access by the mentally unstable.  In fact when Wayne LaPierre of
the NRA testified before congress last month voiced support for better enforcement of existing
laws, beefing up school security and strengthening the government’s ability to keep guns from
mentally unstable people.

I also humbly ask that you read the National Institute of Justice memo which discusses the
efficacy of control measures on the table. 
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf
By Bob Morris on 02-20-13 @ 7:08 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 5 down


Dear Mr. Moore,

Thank you for your kind note. I did look at the NIJ memo. It says that ” . . . summary: Great
potential to reduce lethality; requires a massive reduction in supply. ” In other words, it’s hard and
it’ll take a while, but it’s doable.

On universal background checks, it says, ” . . . summary: Effectiveness depends on the ability to
reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process . . .” Again,
it’s hard, and will take time and investigation, but it’s not by any means impossible, and if it saves
lives, like those of those kids and teachers in Connecticut, wouldn’t it be worth it?

What that article said is that such a process would be long and hard. However, if both gun owners
and city guys like me get together on this, it’s eminently doable—as the article says.
By Bob Morris on 02-20-13 @ 7:19 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 5 down


Dear Mr. Moore,

One other thing. You said that when ” . . . WayneLaPierre of the NRA testified before congress last
month voiced support for better enforcement of existing laws, beefing up school security and
strengthening the government’s ability to keep guns from mentally unstable people. ”

Please excuse me if I say that I don’t believe thathe meant that. He’s opposed to background
checks at gun shows and in private sales of guns. Such pious publicity doesn’t mean very much if
he says that guns must be kept from the hands of mentally unstable people, and then opposes the
government when it actually tries to do as he advises.

Thank you.
By Craig moore on 02-20-13 @ 7:34 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
6 up | 8 down


Robert, you are missing the point of the memo as I quoted above.  Here it is again:

===quote===
In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their
availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An
exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would
need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines…

Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of
guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled
with a gun buyback and no exemptions then it could be effective.
===end quote===

Now, a federal mandatory buy back program with “no exemptions” is ‘confiscation.’

Also the memo points out the futility of targeting scaring weapons. 

===quote===
Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of
assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions…Therefore
a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.
===end quote===

Now it seems you have overlooked that both you and the NRA want to keep firearms out of the
hands of the mentally unstable.
By bopho on 02-20-13 @ 8:23 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 2 down


Bob Morris - Are you here commenting at the Beacon because you saw the article about Kalispell and
the local firearms industry in the New York Times today?

The article, along with the accompanying video was well written and well done and gave a fine shout
out to the good people of the Flathead.
By Bob Morris on 02-20-13 @ 8:48 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
13 up | 4 down


Hello again Craig,

I think you are also missing my poijnt.

Most murders by gunshot are committed by two categories of people—criminals and the mentally
unstable. I would agree that the vast majority are criminals, but it doe4sn’t mean we shouldn’t try to
prevent murders from the other category.

Secondly, you say that mandatory buybacks are confiscation. If State or Federal Law forbids
someone with a recent criminal record (New York State’s definition is 10 years) or a history of
mental illness, it does so for a reason. I see nothing wrong or immoral about confiscating a weapon
from someone whose record indicates he/she can’t be trusted with it. This makes a much sense as
keeping litttle kids away from boiling water—especially when, as in this case, they are likely to grab
the pot of hot water and spill it on someone else.

Your “confiscation” only applies to confiscation for political reasons—not the issue here.

I read somewhere that someone who saves one life, is as if he saved rthe whole world. That’s where
I’m coming from.
By Bob Morris on 02-20-13 @ 8:51 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 1 down


Dear Bopho,

Yes, I read the article about Flathead County and the Beacon in today’s New York Times. The NYT
can be as slanted to the liberal side of things as Human Events or National Review are the other
direction, but, as you say, this article was very well written and well-balanced. I’ve kept a copy of it
in my computer.

By the way, what does “Bopho” mean?
By Craig moore on 02-21-13 @ 10:02 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 10 down


Hi Robert,  as to firearm deaths, see
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf   In
2010, there were 19,392 suicides and 11,078 homidices by firearms.  Suicide is not necessarily
driven by mental illness.  For example, shame, guilt, loss of loved one, and facing terminal
disease. 

The confiscation (mandatory buyback) is not about putting coin in criminal pockets as felons are
not allowed to possess firearms.  The grab is from lawful citizens.
By mooseberryinn on 02-21-13 @ 11:06 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 13 down


Bob Morris/Craig Moore - Good discussion.  Well done.  But… I believe it has been well
documented that the guns used for criminal activity were obtained from “black-market” sources,
and/or simply stolen.  This means that any and virtually all guns now out in the public are available
to criminals.  Same with the mentally ill as exhibited by the Sandy Hook shooter.  Estimates are
that 300 million guns are out in civilian America?  (not sure of that number).  The law enacted in
N.Y. is a fine example of creating thousands of “instant criminals”.  etc. etc. and so on.  the bottom
line - All these glorious laws being enacted or proposed do not effect criminals or wackos.
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 11:25 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
14 up | 2 down


Dear Mooseberry,

You said that “But… I believe it has been well documented that the guns used for criminal activity
were obtained from “black-market” sources, and/or simply stolen.”

You are factually incorrect, at least so far as New York State is concerned. New York has very
strict gun laws. So where do the guns come from? Studies and investigations by NYC’s Mayor
Bloomberg have demonstrated beyond any serious doubt that bad people drive down to Texas,
Mississippi, Alabama; buy guns legally there; and then bring them back to New York, selling them
on the black market. Our point is that if these states had universal background checks and
limitations on how many guns could be bought at one time, many if not most of these purchases
could not have been made;  the guns would not have been sold in NYC; and a lot of lives would
have been saved.

This is fact.
By pik20e4me on 02-21-13 @ 12:51 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 2 down


Dear Mr. Morris;

Thank you for your coherent, cogent posts.  Too often, facts get in the way of ideology.
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 1:19 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 16 down


“Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crime in New York in
2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies. Blacks and Hispanics together
accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. And the vast majority of the victims of violent
crime were also members of minority groups.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/opinion/26macdonald.html?_r=1&

I don’t understand why the rest of law abiding America needs to pay for this problem.  The
statistics show we have a minority problem, not a gun problem.  Facts.
By pik20e4me on 02-21-13 @ 3:02 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
13 up | 1 down


Mr. Morris observed that without universal background checks of uniform stringency, firearms
available from less constrained states and localities will flow (effectively illegally, obviously) to
states and localities with more rigid laws.  Another example of this, of course, is the flow of
firearms from the US to Mexico.  As a consequence, an application of universal background
checks demands fairly universal application to attain maximum effectiveness.  It is my
understanding that a significant majority of NRA members, as well as 8o% or so of the
population is supportive of universal background checks.  Would they perfectly eliminate
crime?  Obviously not, but we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

In the Supreme Court Heller decision affirming the individual right to possess firearms, Justice
Scalia noted that that right is also subject to some constraints and legislation.  We seem to be
at a focal point regarding those constraints now after the Newtown tragedy. 

It is my understanding that current background checks by licensed firearms dealers can usually
be accomplished within ten or twenty minutes.  As many firearms are now being sold to law-
abiding persons without complaint about the associated background checks, it appears that
those persons don’t seem too bent out of shape over their “rights” being abridged.  If they are
not now being punished, I am not sure how extending background checks to other markets
such as gun shows can be construed as punishment.
So, for law-abiding persons, are background checks an inconvenience?  I suspect the minutes
I spend inconvenienced at stop lights each day are greater than those required for a
background check.  I deal with stop lights on a daily basis.

A previous poster cites statistics for crime rates in New York (I don’t know if they are for the city
or the state), and asserts that “the statistics show we have a minority problem, not a gun
problem.”  Rejecting any possible taint of bigotry, I submit that if—by that reasoning—the
majority (as I surmise it is being identified by the poster) are the law abiding, the law abiding
have a choice:  they can find ways to limit the minority’s access to firearms in order to protect
themselves from the minority, or they can risk being victimized or being caught in the crossfire
as collateral damage.  It should follow that the law-abiding (who by Heller can possess
weapons) would be highly in favor of whatever measures are available to limit weapons access
for those “others.” 

This looks like one more conflict between self-preservation and ideology to me. 
By Craig moore on 02-21-13 @ 4:14 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 10 down


What’s the point of universal background checks?  To catch criminals that don’t bother
following any other firearm laws and would continue to acquire firearms on the street?  Today,
it is against the law for felons to possess a firearm.  Is to catch the metally ill before
they acquire a firearm?  If so,  are mental health professionals going to be required to
disclose the identities of all patients to a national data base?  That would be similar to a law
requiring AIDS people to be disclosed so that potential partners could check on their status
possibly a link from Facebook.  Somehow this would have a chilling effect on seeking treatment
let alone privacy rights issues. 

Apart from constutional issues,  what is the efficacy in stopping criminal attacks of such a
requirement?  There needs to be some real data in justifying such remedies.
By Craig moore on 02-21-13 @ 4:40 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 8 down


Further to my last comment, here is an informative article on the matter.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24070/gun-control-policy-universal-background-checks-aren-t-the-cure-all-people-think-they-are

Also, professor David Koppel provided a letter to the Senate Judiciary where he laid out the
problems with the current legislative anti-gun efforts. 
http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/11/letter-to-senator-cruz-on-constitutional-issues-in-federal-gun-control-proposals/
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 4:54 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 1 down


Dear Mr. Moore,

Let’s take your questions one by one:

1. “What’s the point of universal background checks?”

Criminals have records. If they go into a gun shop and or gun show, or, as you say, try to acquire
them on the street, law-abiding gun owners will take a few minutes to see if they have a record, and
won’t sell to them if they have one. They wouldn’t want the victims’ blood on their hands. If felons
today have a gun, most likely they got it privately or at a show, where the law doesn’t—yet—
require background checks. If they did require such checks, it would be a lot harder to “pick them
up on the street.”

2. You ask, “Is to catch the metally [sic] ill before they acquire a firearm?  If so, are mental health
professionals going to be required to disclose the identities of all patients to a national data base?”

When a health professional finds that his patient is a danger to the public, he has an obligation
under present law to disclose his identity to the police. This requires a serious degree of instability,
as doctors and sociao workers care as much about their patients’ privacy as you do. In other
words, they would not report ALL patients. On the other hand, if an emotionally unstable person is
seeking to buy a gun, one must ask why he is doing so, and if he may become a danger to others.
This danger to human life outweighs all other considerations, whether it’s “seeking treatment”
or “privacy rights.” I don’t think anyone seriously questions this.

3. Finally, you ask, “Apart from constutional [sic] issues,  what is the efficacy in stopping criminal
attacks of such a requirement?  There needs to be some real data in justifying such remedies. “

I don’t think one needs “real data” to justify “such a remedy” as background checks. If a health
professional, specializing in this area of medicine, states that a person has enough of a streak of
irrationality that he, the doctor, must publicly deem him emotionally unstable, what more or better
data does one need? And if a would-be purchaser of a weapon has a police record for felonies
involving violence, again, what more or better data would one need?

Thank you.
By Craig moore on 02-21-13 @ 5:33 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
3 up | 7 down


Robert, it is a pleasure to have this discussion with you.  Rarely have I seen such a display of
respect and civility on the internet.  Thank you.  In no particular order I will respond.

You say, “... danger to human life outweighs all other considerations…”  If that were true
all vehicles would be built like NASCAR vehicles that can survive a 200 mph crash.  And people
inside would be required to wear firesuits and full faceshield helmets.  That would save more
than half the deaths per year.  Just not going to happen,  and there are no constitutional
rights at play with such an effort. 

As to the mentally ill, there is both HIPAA and the ACLU to contend with.  The ACLU is strongly
against such a data base.  See again
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24070/gun-control-policy-universal-background-checks-aren-t-the-cure-all-people-think-they-are

It is a felony for anyone to knowingly provide a firearm to a convicted felon.  What goes on in
the black market street transfers needs attention that mere paperwork won’t even begin to solve.
I have read that for 2010 out of 72,659 denied purchasers who fail qualification, only 44 were
prosecuted nationwide for illegally attempting to purchase a gun.  Even VP Biden said, “And to
your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply
don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong
box, that answers a question inaccurately.”  Again what is the efficacy of removing the
criminal element that flaunts the law or otherwise use street sources?

I strongly object to legislation that is a mere symbolic gesture while giving the appearance
that politicians are earning their pay while avoiding real work.

BTW,  you comment about the mentally ill highlights that universal background checks ain’t
universal if there are barriers. 

 
By Gators on 02-21-13 @ 5:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
3 up | 10 down


USA downfall:  If we continue to go like the Greece’s of the world with the gov’t spending our
money VERY unwisely….then yes we will all need guns to protect what we have if the finanicial
markets tumble.  We can thank the many citizens of this country..who have not paid attention
in school, done the least to get by…and have kids you cannot afford and maybe don’t want to
take care of..and the people who spend ALL their money and then some…then we have bail
out.  We can the gov’t for getting us into wars we CAN win but we tap dance around the enemy
because we may hurt…THEIR ITTY BIITY FEELINGS…then the people who don’t try and eat
right and get some type of exercise so they don’t have to visit the doctors and hospitals as
much and create the burden on us who do the right thing..THE END!
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 5:44 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 12 down


Bob, should we agree to greater background checks, what do you offer in return to deal with the obvious pathologies
in the minority communities in New York?  I need substantive answers here.
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 5:55 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
11 up | 1 down


Dear Craig,

You now owe me a new hat—my head swelled so much from your compliments that none of my
hats fit any more.

Just a few words of argument:

With regard to danger to human life, the NASCAR drivers risk their lives voluntarily, knowing what
they’re getting into. When a gun-owner sells a weapon without a background check, he’s running
the risk of endangering a bunch of people who made no such choice.

The ACLU can take whatever position it likes, but what they are saying applies to the general
public, not to someone who has been found to possibly be danger to himself or others. There
should be some way in computer programming of sorting out the sheep from the dangerous or
unstable goats.l

As for black market transfers, which of course includes gun shows and private sales, getting rid of
the black market for guns is the whole point of instituting background checks. If they were required
for shows and private sales, the black market would shrink drastically.

Between 1975 and 1990, I was assaulted six times by would-be muggers. I fought back each time,
and they never got anything off of me. One reason I am such an advocate of background checks is
that if any of those sons-of-guns had had a firearm, I wouldn’t be sitting here screaming at you
(metaphorically, of course). And don’t tell me about how this is really an argument for everybody
being armed, as the NRA likes to argue—firstly, I think it would be better not to have to go armed
24/7, and secondly, if I had a gun, I might not have had it on me when I needed it, or it might have
been in my glove compartment, or another room in my house, or whatever. By far and away, the
solution for which we should push—HARD!!—is to minimize the necessity of going armed in my own
bedroom!

Thank you.

 
By Craig moore on 02-21-13 @ 6:38 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 0 down


Robert, I find when I get a close haircut, my hats fit again.  ;>)

I too have faced a gun in the face and have been shot at.  My friend standing next to me was
shot.  Not fun.  Aside from that, I assume your experience stems from NYC.  Be it as it may,
when I have visited there on business I have witnessed the most incredible acts of kindness and
humanity.  It is a city of contrasts.

Take care.  Please visit these pages in the future and contribute.  You have much to add.
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 7:14 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
9 up | 0 down


Dear Mark W.,

You ask: ” . . .  should we agree to greater background checks, what do you offer in return to deal
with the obvious pathologies in the minority communities in New York?  I need substantive answers
here.”

I’m not sure how correct or valid your statistics are, but I’ll accept them for the sake of this
discussion.

A couple of points. Firstly, regardless of the percentage of Black and/or Hispanic crimials, keep in
mind that most of their victims are also Black and Hispanic.

Secondly, accepting your stats at face value, enough white people are murdered in such crimes
that it’s definitely worth it to stop them by instituting background checks and limitations on how
many weapons one can buy at one time. The overwhelming majority of Afro-Americans here
support background checks and gun control, and most definitely are NOT in favor of coddling
criminals of any race or background, because, again, regardless of who the perpetrators are, they
are the victims, and they know it.

Thank you.
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 8:14 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 11 down


Bob,

Heather McDonald is a respected academician, married to a black man, and I believe she was fired
from her job for that piece.

But accepting the stats at face value, let’s talk about what this is really about.  This is about Blue
State politicians unable to stop giving license to their favorite voting block, and blaming Red States
for their problems. 

All we’re saying is that if you want to take the last sliver of presumption of innocence regarding
transfer of firearms in order to bail you out of your self-created problems, we want it to count.  So if
you’re going to take a remaining Constitutional right of innocent transfer from 100% of law abiding
citizens, you should take 100% of the remaining Fourth Amendment rights to be free from stop and
frisk without probable cause from 100% of blacks and latinos.  We only want you to be safe from
the remaining guns that may have snuck through.  And heck, what remaining respect would you
have for us if we gave it up like a cheap whore? 

Or are Republicans the only ones that are supposed to engage in a serious talk about gun control?
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 8:14 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 0 down


Dear Craig,

If I wanted to conatct you personally, how would I go about it?

You8rs from Bob Morris
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 8:27 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
4 up | 0 down


Dear Mark W.,

Firstly, with regard to Heather McDonald, I don’t know what you’re talking about. What I said in my
last E-mail is seen here as established fact. Many Blacks are criminals, but the overwhelming
majority of their victims are also Black.

Secondly, you say that “All we’re saying is that if you want to take the last sliver of presumption of
innocence regarding transfer of firearms in order to bail you out of your self-created problems, we
want it to count.” I don’t follow your reasoning—really.

In New York State, if a man is a convicted felon who has served his time, he must still go through a
10-year period of good behavior before he can shed the limits placed on him as an ex-convict by
State Law. If he was convicted (say) of assault, mightn’t he do it again? Mightn’t he be buying a
weapon to do a more thorough job, the second time around? It doesn’t matter if he’s Black, White,
or orange-and-purple striped. He’s still a danger.

The same principle applies to someone who has a history of mental instability.

Such people have demonstrated hostility or lack of caring towards their fellows, and their recent
behavior—THEIR behavior—makes them a risk, by definition. How is that a violation of anyone’s
freedom? If they hadn’t committed the crime, or become mentally unstable, how would any issue
arise?
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 8:39 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 8 down


Bob, Heather McDonald wrote the NYT piece I quoted above.

It’s a violation of freedom in the same way being presumed guilty before boarding an airplane is a
violation of freedom.  It’s unreasonable search.  Indeed, search all you want after probably cause. 
But that’s not what you want from us.  You want search incident to private purchase.  Private
purchase of a firearm is not probable cause. 

If you’re going to take the remaining presumption of innocence regarding purchasing tools to
exercise Second Amendment rights from law abiding citizens for the behavior of blacks and latinos
in your state (if we take the stats at face value), then take some black and latino Fourth
Amendment rights for making us do it. 
By Bob Morris on 02-21-13 @ 9:03 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
9 up | 0 down


Well, Mark W., I guess we’ll have to argee to disagree. I don’t see it as a matter of presumption of
innocence. I stand by my prior E-mail.
Yours from Bob Morris
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 9:06 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 11 down


But you can’t and won’t do that, even though all the rage on the left now is “evidence based”
regulation—no more broad brushes.  Well here we have your guaranteed voting block committing
98% of gun crime in your state and the solution is—better get Texas and Montana to tighten up.

You see the absurdity of your request, Bob?  We tighten up for you so you don’t lose your voting
block?  Tighten up yourself first.  And when that’s done, we’ll talk about giving you a hand.  Until
then, you made your bed.  Now sleep in it.
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 9:08 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 8 down


Bob, how is a background check anything other than a diminution of presumed innocence?  If you’re
checked to see if you’re innocent, that means you’re presumed GUILTY. 

Hey, pleasure chatting Bob.  Have a good one.
By mooseberryinn on 02-21-13 @ 9:30 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 8 down


Well, great discussion.  Does anyone have an explanation to the often cited statistic of more “gun
crimes” taking place in states with the more stringent gun laws?  And one question - I would guess
that criminals faced with “background checks” would easily work around this by obtaining a false
ID. (or stealing one).  Would we then see an ever escalating information gathering effort to identify,
(and re-identify) present gun owners?  Given the present federal administration, I’m very sure most
gun owners would simply ignore gun laws like N.Y. and not volunteer gun info to any one.
By Craig moore on 02-21-13 @ 9:36 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 0 down


Robert, provide an e-mail, suggest one and done gmail for this purpose,  and I will contact you.
By pik20e4me on 02-21-13 @ 10:07 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
10 up | 1 down


I suspect that the passengers and flight crewmembers of three airliners as well as several
thousand occupants of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, would
have readily disagreed with the premise that it is a “violation of freedom” and “an unreasonable
search” to search passengers for weapons. 

I wasn’t aware that as a society we brokered quid pro quo tradeoffs among the amendments in
the bill of rights, as one poster has suggested.  Passing laws such as universal background
checks, according to Heller, is not necessarily excluded by the second amendment, and doing
so is supported by the majority of our population.  The second amendment does not supersede
the first amendment, nor does it—in my estimation—supersede the right of all of us to the
pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.  Victims of firearms violence, including the children at
Sandy Hook and the many others, simply cannot be written off as collateral damage so that a
few can have unfettered possession of weapons.  Not even Justice Scalia buys in to that.

Any felon, as Mr. Morris kindly observed, should have access to firearms constrained until they
fulfill the requirements of their sentencing and parole stipulations.  I see nowhere in his
arguments or those of other supporters of universal background checks that minority
populations should be singled out for any limitations to their rights as a sop to the small
percentage of our population that thinks they are owed one for “making us do it.”  Who exactly
are the “us” in that argument?
By Mark W. on 02-21-13 @ 11:32 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 10 down


Someone here is really reaching in taking the victims of 9/11 as their allies.  I would have enough
respect for them to venture they would consider what happens at American airports a victory for the
hijackers.  As for every other class of gun crime victims, there are people who fall on both sides. 
So this person should drop the ridiculous facade that they are standing up for victims. 

As for brokering tradeoffs to amendments, I suspect it’s better than giving them away wholesale. 
As for what Heller says, or a majority of the American people believe, it’s irrelevant to the current
discourse.  If everyone going along with what everyone believes is the measure of the breadth of
political argument in America, I don’t suppose the First Amendment is worth much. 

Nobody is arguing for unfettered possession of weapons.  The issue at stake here is whether
private transfer of ownership between individuals needs to be background checked.  The argument
given in favor of relinquishing said right comes from Bob, whose state has a 98% rate of black and
hispanic gun crime and is rabidly democratic.  New York is a crime ridden hell hole compared to
Montana.  So holding US to a standard witnessed by THEM is ridiculous.  If we’re all just going to
govern ourselves according to the lowest common denominator, what’s the point?
By mooseberryinn on 02-22-13 @ 7:25 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
5 up | 10 down


Mark W. - well done.  Your last line is telling.  I think this is where many “legislators” and
democrats are making a large error.  Their assumption seems to be that anyone owning a gun is
potentially a mass murderer.  Given the stats in states like N.Y. & CA. it is easy to fall into that
mistake.  If, like Chicago, there’s gun battles in progress nearly every day, a desire to “control”
these weapons seems reasonable.  Out here in Montana, where so many own and control their
weapons, such unconstitutional laws are easily seen as absurd.  So let Chicago and/or N.Y. make
their laws, but leave Montana out of that circus.
By pik20e4me on 02-22-13 @ 10:35 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
8 up | 3 down


Perhaps Mark W. is right.  Having asserted that “It’s a violation of freedom in the same way
being presumed guilty before boarding an airplane is a violation of freedom. It’s unreasonable
search,” perhaps no reference to the event that precipitated that action or its victims is
appropriate.  I may be out of line by pretending to speak for them by suggesting that they may
have been tolerant of such pre-boarding searches.  And, of course, Mark may be right in
proffering his respect for those who retained their ideological purity on the way to their graves.

My façade would be ridiculous only if I stood up for those who commit crimes or use firearms to
create atrocities instead standing up for the victims.  Please spare me.

Heller is salient to the current discourse as it acknowledges the authority to regulate firearms to
a greater or lesser degree, notwithstanding the interpretation of some of the second
amendment.  Some here often assert that the second amendment permits no such
mechanism, so citing Heller is a clarifying statement.  By Mark’s statement, I see that he
acknowledges that the legislative branch does have that authority, and unfettered possession
of weapons is not a right.  I am comforted that we find common ground here. 

Mr. Morris noted in his earliest posts that background checks are unworkable unless they are
universally applied.  He noted that firearms move from geographic areas of less stringent
purchase requirements to locations where requirements are more stringent.  We already have
background checks.  He, and I, are advocating expanding the requirement of background
checks to close the “gun show loophole,” further criminalize straw buyers, and provide a more
robust background check mechanism, including—in the manner he described—arriving at an
appropriate mechanism to deal with potentially violent mental cases. The objective of our
desire is to rectify the issue he brought forth.

Think of regions that vote differently as cesspools if you wish, and do what you can to deny
them the ability and tools to make their circumstances better.  The US versus THEM dichotomy
was pretty much refuted in the 1860’s.
By Mark W. on 02-22-13 @ 12:34 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
3 up | 9 down


No Pik, I’m pretty sure the US vs. THEM dichotomy was not refuted in 1860.  Nor was it refuted in 1973
or in 2012.  Obviously, it continues to right here and now.  I am US and you are THEM.  So instead of
arguing about who represents victims, let’s clearly delineate the sides, and agree that both sides would
be represented among any victim class.

US: Those members of every community, black, latino, white, Chinese, Japanese, whatever, who
believe that the entire country should not be held accountable for whatever tragedy befalls them.  They
recognize that if everyone is presumed guilty for every malfeasance perpetrated by the worst members
of their community, it lessens the presumption of innocence for everyone, and they would prefer their
community not be cause of such diminution.  For US, the fewer number of people a particular bad act
effects, the greater the presumption of innocence remains, and the less the perpetrator succeeds. 

THEM: Those members of every community of every color who believe that everyone in the country
must be guilty for the tragedies that befall other members of the community.  They believe that the
greater number of innocent people that can be convicted of said tragedies and sentenced to reduced
Constitutional rights, the greater the safety of their community.  For THEM, the greater number of
innocent people a bad act can be forced to effect, the wider the sentence of loss of individual rights, the
greater the world bends toward their utopian perfection. 

I care as much about precedent as Roosevelt cared about precedent when he threatened to pack the
court, as much as the Roe court cared about precedent, and as much as every progressive cares
about precedent.  That is, I care none for it.  If the people decide, the people will demand changes, and
the changes will come. 
By pik20e4me on 02-22-13 @ 4:07 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
6 up | 3 down


Sometimes, Mark, you move the cheese so fast I get whiplash.  In your earlier posts you allude
to an US as states or regions that are being forced to accede to THEM other states.  As I said
before, that was pretty much settled in the 1860s, when we ended up subordinating states’
rights to the feds.

Your new post sets up a different dichotomy, that of dividing our populace into two groups. 
You create a classic straw-man argument (I also know this as the Limbaugh gambit), defining
yourself as US, wherein US are all virtuous and tiptoe through the tulips of life wart-free, and
THEM are a subordinate species.  (You already demonstrated your feelings in your smears
against New York’s populace.)The dog-whistle code is “Liberals think….”, followed by a
concoction of imagined and presumed grievances.  Your THEM resembles no one I know,
least of all me. Do not presume to define me in that manner. 

I am reminded by you of the old saw: “I love my country.  I just hate half the people who live
here.” Instead of that crippled vision, I believe we are all in this together.

I am more interested now in disabusing you of your ignorance on another matter—the whine
about liberties lost by TSA boarding requirements on airliners.  Trust me that I have forgotten
more about what happens on flight decks and airliners than you are likely to learn in the rest of
your lifetime.  After 9/11, TSA practices were implemented.  We can agree that they may be
imperfect.  The best defense measure of all was equipping airliners with reinforced flight deck
doors and making sure that flight crews didn’t have video cameras to see what was going on in
the cabin.  Many other measures were taken.  Unknown to you, after 9/11 bad guys continue to
test these defenses.  Few if any of these incidents are public information.  Likely less frequent
now that AQ has been diminished, we would have had an ongoing series of catastrophes
without screening and other measures.  Feel free to argue individual rights in the vacuum
chambers of think tanks if you like, but I think most here are willing to accept the inconvenience
in lieu of the alternatives.
By Mark W. on 02-22-13 @ 5:27 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 6 down


Pik, seeing as how we wouldn’t be having this dicussion with Bob if it had been resolved in 1860, I took the the
liberty of defining your dichotomy in a way that made sense. 

Yes, liberals bad, conservatives good.  One size fits all bad, state’s rights good. 

I like reinforced flight deck doors.  But I will never become accustomed to being presumed guilty by Government
because of someone else’s sins.  That is a road I prefer not to go down.  But I’ll make a note that Pik’s favorite
argument is anything the majority of people agree with.  Unless of course it’s something you disagree with, in which
case the people are Limbaugh/Beck pawns who don’t know what’s good for them.
By pik20e4me on 02-22-13 @ 5:29 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
6 up | 2 down


Frankly, Mark, I just don’t have the time.
By Mark W. on 02-22-13 @ 5:40 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 5 down


Nor do I.
By Mark W. on 02-23-13 @ 12:27 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 2 down


Sorry Pik, that was a lame response.  I was tired and all I really saw in your comment was “straw
man,” “Limbaugh,” “cheese,” a problem with an us vs. them mentality, “ignorance,” “whine,” 
something about the issue we were discussing was resolved in 1860, and something about flight
decks and 9/11.  On rereading this morning I see you made a genuine attempt to define your
philosophy, and I appreciate that.

You’ll note that I ceded to your superior knowledge about flight decks in agreeing with reinforced
doors. 

I do take issue with all the eebil muzzies trying to mess with aircraft.  The border is wide open. 
Muslims or anyone else could do whatever they wanted with anyone or anything, on an aircraft or
otherwise.  Always has been that way, always will be that way.  In 1789, in 1967, in 2001 or in
2013.  So your argument that we all need to be held guilty for this universal throughout all times
and all places fact doesn’t hold water with me.  Whether guns coming from Arizona or Montana to
New York or guns stolen from parents or drunk drivers or heavy equipment accidents or drowning or
starving to death or crashing to earth on a 787 with a bad battery.  It’s just a fact, bad things
happen and bad things always will happen.  The only thing that has changed is American’s attitude
towards who is responsible for Bad Things.  It’s not bad people anymore.  It’s everyone.  It’s the
society.  So we’ll have checkpoints, numbers, x-rays, databanks, spies, blue gloves, questions,
brain scans.  Basically, any old thing the government can come up with.  Because it’s not the world
that has changed, it’s how people think about the world.  I do not believe it is in the people’s best
interests to think that way about the world.  I think it empowers the wrong elements in society. 
Because there will always and forever be an ongoing series of tragic events.

Social conservatism is my answer to this unpreventable ongoing series of tragic events.  We are
victims because we’ve allowed ourselves to be weak.  We are weak when we allow government to
take other’s sins as our own with the justification of threatening boogeymen.  That way lies
madness.  Or can we get a date, Pik, when it will be over?
By Bob Morris on 02-23-13 @ 7:00 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 0 down


To Craig Moore—
Try niceguy11204@yahoo.com
By Craig moore on 02-24-13 @ 8:58 am
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 0 down


Robert, delievery failed.  This was the message:

554 delivery error: dd Sorry your message to niceguy11204@yahoo.com cannot be delivered. This
account has been disabled or discontinued
By Bob Morris on 02-24-13 @ 2:03 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 0 down


For Craig Moore:

Your letter included the following quotation:

“Part of this new Bill includes:

“(2) No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both of
the following:
(a) A semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting
a detachable magazine; and
(b) Any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of
ammunition.

“5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the
effective date of this section, the person possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the
following:
(a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than
once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection;

“As defined, “assault weapon” also includes any semiautomatic with a fixed magazine capacity of
more than 10 rounds, any firearm with a threaded barrel, shotguns with detachable magazines or
revolving cylinders, and assault weapon conversion kits.

“And when you die your beneficiaries must either render the weapon inoperable, destroy it or
relinquish it. There will be no method or process to pass these commonly owned firearms down to
your children or heirs.
===end quote=== 

What’s wrong with that? This is a good description of safe handling of dangerous firearms. The only
chnage that I would support would be to include a case-by-case exception, to be allowed or not by
the local police.

As I said in a previous E-mail, if the guin handled by that young m,an in Connecticut had been
lcked up, he couldn’t have taken it without permission and murdered his mother, six teachers, and
20 children.
By Bob Morris on 02-24-13 @ 2:08 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 0 down


To Craig Moore—
Try niceguy11204@yahoo.com again. I didn’t know that I had to separately reactiviate it. That’s now
taken care of.
By Bob Morris on 02-24-13 @ 2:15 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
1 up | 0 down


For Mark W:

Back on 2/21, you said this: “Based on reports filed by victims, blacks committed 66 percent of all
violent crime in New York in 2009, including 80 percent of shootings and 71 percent of robberies.
Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of reported gun assaults. And the vast
majority of the victims of violent crime were also members of minority groups. . . . I don’t
understand why the rest of law abiding America needs to pay for this problem.  The
statistics show we have a minority problem, not a gun problem.  Facts. “

Two points. One is that white people get killed, too. As for the other point, doesn’t the Good
Samaritan come into play here? It’s not like all Blacks are criminals—most are law-abiding citizens
who could use our help. What’s wrong with that?
By Mark W. on 02-24-13 @ 2:40 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 1 down


Bob,

I understand whites get killed and do the killing as well.  As for the Good Samaritan, I think that’s a
voluntary endeavor, isn’t it? 

All this smells a bit like shutting the barn door after the horse has fled.  Broken communities and
people commit gun crimes.  What creates broken people and communities?  Well, for one, lack of a
father.  If we consider socially conservative fixes like restrictions on divorce and the selfless moral
imperative in the public square such restrictions create, we could put the horse back in the barn. If
we consider Lanza et al as bombs waiting to go off, I’d say the bomb is the problem, not the lack of
a trigger.  What about putting fathers in homes first, seeing how that works, and then we’ll talk
about guns. 

Taking guns is the easy way out.  I think we need to start looking at hard ways of going things. 
Very unpalatable things.  I’m pretty sure the mess we’ve created here wasn’t caused by guns, and
restricting guns won’t clean it up.  It will, however, make it easier to ignore.  I think we’ve spent
enough time ignoring.
By Mark W. on 02-24-13 @ 3:07 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
0 up | 1 down


And lastly, what is criminality?  Moral selfishness taken to an extreme.  Divorce is also evidence of
moral selfishness, as is abortion and pornography.  When Government relinquishes its fundamental
duty to restrict moral selfishness (criminality), Government itself becomes complicit in criminality. 

I’m not a big gun person.  I understand dislike of guns.  I just have a very visceral negative reaction
to a criminal government looking to put further restrictions on gun ownership.

 
By Bob Morris on 02-24-13 @ 7:26 pm
READERS RATED THIS COMMENT:
2 up | 0 down


For Mark W.:

Firstly, I don’t think the Good Samaritan is exactly voluntary. I researched this and read that Jesus
is described as telling the parable in response to a question regarding the identity of
the “neighbour” which Leviticus 19:18 says should be loved. Isn’t that part of following Jesus?

Secondly, you’ve got your facts completely wrong—and I mean FACTS, not interpretations. You
haven’t done any of homework. These communities aren’t broken, as you’d know if you’d bothered
to read anything about them, so there’s no issue of closing a barn door, etc., or how they became
broken in the first place. Sure, some people in them are broken, but I work with them and see them
every day, and the broken ones are a small minority. Again—I see and talk to them every day:
attorneys, supervisors, doctors, plumbers, electricians, computer repairmen. These are all
educated people with families and children, college graduates. I’ve seen them and dealt with them
daily as part of my job. When you describe them the way you do, you show that you don’t know
what you’re talking about. Period.

As for Lanza, we have crazy people in every society. You talk about eliminating all crazies. That’s
not going to happen completely. What I think we have to do is limit as much the possible the
damage they do when someone like Lanza gets loose.

Thank you
 
Kellyn Brown
Kellyn Brown22h
@kellynbrown
Flathead County may allow political signs to be posted forever http://t.co/gCGk4AZETR No more time restraints http://t.co/p0lQziFxCp
Dillon Tabish
Dillon Tabish13h
@djtabish
Kalispell Annexes 40 Acres Where Rail Park Could Surface http://t.co/POsYcPnh0v
Molly Priddy
Molly Priddy13h
@mollypriddy
@Lubchansky Where are you on this pain scale? http://t.co/U2MDitEdpl
Tristan Scott
Tristan Scott19 Apr
@tristanscott
The Replacements just played with Billy Joe accompaniment! And played an encore! #Coachella2014
Flathead Beacon
FB Headlines3h
@flatheadbeacon
Cooking with Gas http://t.co/NbBrQyQzGu