-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Delaware legislature to vote on magazine ban

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Delaware legislature to vote on magazine ban”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , ,

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. FreedomRinging says:

    No Jon I don’t believe we should do away with the laws. The people I mentioned, law abiding citizens of good conscience don’t need the laws anyway. They are put in place to protect us from the criminal vermin. To allow prosecution and punishment of said vermin. The laws we already have in place work… WHEN/IF they are enforced, which aren’t being enforced. Also people like you undermine our justice system, because some punishments are deemed “to harsh” by cry babies like you. I know this because I worked in the justice system for years. When some slime ball gets 10 years for raping 5 or 6 kids, people like you deem that sufficient. I have seen guys get more time for property crimes where no one was hurt, than murderers, and rapists. Prison isn’t scary to criminals anymore. It carries no stigma, and to many of these scum it is a rite of passage, or even a “badge of honor.” Yes, it’s to be avoided if possible, but they gain “street cred” for doing time. They get fed, housed, tv, education, legal assistance etc…at taxpayer expense. All the while “useful idiots” like you champion them, crying that their lot in life is unfair, that they are downtrodden etc.
    Why should criminals fear prosecution, when some liberal whiner says the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and gets it outlawed. I’d bet their victims would say otherwise.
    As for armed citizens of good conscience or police as you call them, just how many are there in this nation? How many cops do we have on a landmass of 3,794,100 square miles? How many cops to protect the decent citizens in a nation of 320,000,000+ people? Well as of 2006 there were approximately 800,000 local, state, and federal law enforcement officers in the USA. Hmm I’d say they are stretched a bit thin. Especially considering how many layoffs and cutbacks there have been in the last few years. I know numerous cops, some of whom have lost their job to cutbacks. None of the cops I know favor these “gun control” laws. Criminals will always find a way to get a weapon, and if not, well they can make 1.

    • Chris says:

      I would like to respond to Jon as well, if I may piggyback on your thread.
      You say that the people of good conscience who should be armed are the police, but it is the same people who want to disarm the public who will not allow police officers (active or retired) on school property to act as a deterrent.
      Also, it seems to me that the areas in our country with the highest crime/murder rate are those where guns are banned outright (Chicago, DC, New York), because the criminals know that the law-abiding citizens are unable to fight back. I, personally, would rather not spread the statistics from those cities nationwide.

      • Jon says:

        “but it is the same people who want to disarm the public who will not allow police officers (active or retired) on school property to act as a deterrent.”

        Most school systems have SROs or School Resource Officers who are police or Sheriff’s deputies. These officers are armed. What I think most people object to is the idea that teachers should be carrying guns.

        Also, when you talk about inner city murder rates, generally the big numbers are not coming from armed criminals attacking law abiding citizens, but rather armed criminals attacking other armed criminals. Of course there are tragic deviations from this, but to suggest that there is some sort of holocaust in the cities that is not centered around poverty and other illegal trades is to misrepresent what is happening in those cities to further an agenda. Quite frankly the statistics I would worry about as a gun owner are the ones that suggest you are more likely to harm a family member or loved one than a criminal or intruder.

        • Chris says:

          The fact that the murder rates are criminal on criminal doesn’t change the fact that criminals tend to settle and congregate in places where the gun restrictions are tighter because they know crime is easier. Who is being killed does not change the fact that the rates are higher in those places. Unless you would like to argue that it is the more liberal mindset and governance in general that is causing the higher rates of crime and poverty. I would have to give you that.

          As far as the schools are concerned, true gun-free zone schools (like the one in Newtown) do not have these officers, and schools that have tried to add them have been picketed by the same people who want more restrictive gun laws. Even here in Texas, school districts are just now adding rules that allow police officers to drop by and check on schools, but not stick around. If Newtown would have had someone armed on campus, the shooter would most likely have not made it to the children.

          The bottom line is that adding more laws to the books only restrict the law-abiding citizens. Having one more thing to throw at the criminal after murder, attempted murder, and all of the other laws they have already broken seems a small consolation for the dent in freedom they cause for the average citizen.

  2. Jon says:

    “Active and retired police officers will still have the ability to purchase the magazines and guns with higher capacities although many firearms manufacturers and retailers no longer sell items to government agencies that the state prevents their citizens from owning.”

    I find it fascinating that an industry which has created a product which has killed 70 children since the Newtown massacre would have such a fine tuned sense of justice.

    • R. Mitchell says:

      I am sure if you got to know the families and community leaders in the firearms industry, you would find much more about them fascinating. Job creators, inventors, engineers, fathers, mothers, daughters, sons – real people.

      They create a product that allows thousands to enjoy the American tradition that is hunting, gives them the ability to defend themselves against stronger or more numerous attackers or enables them to compete in one of the many shooting sports.

      The firearms industry is made up of people that not only have the “fine tuned sense of justice” that you find so fascinating, but also a firm understanding of liberty that may equally trouble you.

      • Jon says:

        Child pornography creates jobs. That does not make it a good thing.

        I hope that the makers of the ‘My First Rifle,’ a gun marketed for small children were able to bathe themselves in the warm glow of liberty when they read about the Kentucky five-year-old who shot and killed his two-year-old sister. Were they humming Lee Greenwood to themselves and pondering what “Well Regulated militia” meant when they sent that off to stores? I wonder.

        • R. Mitchell says:

          If comparing a lawful industry to child pornography is how you choose to respond, your misunderstanding of rights and liberty is enormous.

          Owning a firearm is not a right to kill innocent people. Owning a car is not a right to run people over (although owning a car isn’t a right either.)

          There are already laws that dictate how guns are to be stored and someone in that house broke them.

          A world without accidents would be a wonderful place, but due to human nature, it will never exist. Taking someone’s rights away because of another’s irresponsible actions is the antithesis of liberty.

          Freedom, by nature, allows people to do terrible things. It also allows them the liberty to do great things.

          Tyranny can certainly prevent accidents and evil by removing all means of anyone anywhere from having sharp instruments, vehicles, heavy equipment, baseball bats .. you name it.

          That still does not result in the Utopia many profess.

          • Jon says:

            I’m glad you bring up cars. When there is a spike in fatalities where cars are involved, a study can be done and there is a recall. Tires failing, brakes failing, etc. The CDC does a study and they figure out what can be done to reverse that trend. By law, because of pressure from the NRA, the CDC cannot do any research on gun violence as a matter of public safety. By law, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms cannot compile a database of types of guns used in crime. Why? Is it because liberty is awesome, or is it because if the numbers were made public there would be no WAY the gun lobby would be able to stem public outrage. They had a hard enough time when it was only TWENTY DEAD CHILDREN shot while they were at school.

            Yes, freedom, by nature, allows people to do terrible things. Why are you reveling in that? You seem like a serious and rational human being. At what point will you decide that public safety trumps some weird obsession with a poorly written sentence? (And it truly is a poorly written sentence. I never hear Wayne Lapierre talking about the benefits of a well regulated militia, and until I hear that holistic interpretation I’ll have to assume that the NRA is really protecting gun manufacturers at the expense of public safety.) Also, not for nothing, but your liberty does not trump the safety of me or my family.

          • R. Mitchell says:

            Jon,
            Car recalls are unlikely to apply when someone purposefully plows into a University courtyard. You know.. that whole Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar thing? Or do you?

            While you point to a specific incident where a firearm was accidentally used as a weapon, I give you one where a non-recall-worthy incident with a vehicle did the same.

            Where is your rage? Where is the demand for car control?

            Meh, I know this isn’t actually a discussion. You are cemented in your view of increasing government control while I am just as stuck in a removal of such things.

            It is frustrating to see so many who misunderstand history because they can only lean forward, but I hear where you’re coming from – and vehemently disagree.

          • Jon says:

            Mr. Mitchell, there is car control. There are speed limits. There are emission regulations, there are air bags, there are seat belts. There are DUI checkpoints, and stringent rules that say if you engage in certain behaviors you will no longer be able to use a vehicle. If 5% of the attention given to vehicle safety was focused on gun safety then maybe I wouldn’t be so frustrated. Did you hear any of the stories coming out of the NRA convention in Texas? Did you hear about the NRA speaker who advocated keeping weapons in children’s bedrooms? Sir, this is real. Vehemently oppose me all you want, but at least acknowledge that what the NRA advocates is not freedom but madness.

          • R. Mitchell says:

            Jon,
            And there are already controls on guns. National firearms act of 1968, concealed carry permits, pistol purchase permits, storage restrictions, the 4473 form, NICS checks, regulation on what can be sold where to whom.. but you already knew that.

            As the Los Angeles Times pointed out today, gun violence is actually down over the last 20 years. But that’s not a helpful statistic for you. Sorry (ok, not really).

          • Jon says:

            Mr. Mitchell, it is late and I would love to continue this, but I can’t tonight. I would like to point out that, as encouraging as the LA Times story is, in the past twenty years real gun research and statistics have been effectively banned. The LA Times, and all news agencies have had to depend on numbers that are unofficial.
            By the way, I was not demanding the last word or anything. Goodnight.

  3. FreedomRinging says:

    Idiots… It takes 3 to 5 seconds to change a magazine. In a hostile situation, an untrained person is not going to be clear headed enough to react in the short time frame. Limiting the magazine size is not going to matter in a crowded area, full of panicky sheep that voted for gun bans…

    • Jon says:

      During the Tuscon shooting in which Gabrielle Giffords was shot along with six others who were killed, it was while Jared Laughner was reloading that he was tackled and stopped. I don’t want to say you’re wrong, but, well, you’re wrong. Sorry.

      • FreedomRinging says:

        You might want to dig a little deeper. Try searching for Col. Bill Badger. Note the title, Colonel Bill Badger. As in US Army (retired). A man trained to deal with hostile situations. Now go back re-read my post, and make careful note of what I said.
        This is why we need more law abiding citizens, of good conscience to be armed.
        People like Loughner, whose minds are no longer capable of distinguishing between reality and fantasy will always be a threat, whether it be guns or Molotov cocktails. Criminals won’t obey the laws anyway, and love it when their victims are unarmed.

        • Jon says:

          Criminals won’t obey laws…so that is a reason not to have them? Should we get rid of all laws that make theft a crime since they aren’t stopping criminals? People who speed endanger other drivers but speed anyways, but that doesn’t mean we get rid of speed limits. Also, and this might sound crazy, but maybe the answer to one person shooting in a crowd isn’t two people shooting in a crowd. And when you say you want law abiding citizens of good conscience to be armed…well, we do have that. They are called police.