[Spencer Daily Reporter nameplate] Fair ~ 45°F  
High: 67°F ~ Low: 43°F
Monday, Sep. 26, 2016

Gun Control

Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2013, at 9:54 AM

Since the shooting tragedy which claimed the life of children and adults alike at Sandy Hook Elementary school, both sides of the gun control and 2nd Amendment issues have been turning up the rhetoric.

President Obama has suggested there must be some changes he can make using his Presidential power.

Gun rights advocates are urging law makers to expose what they're calling the "real issues" behind these gun massacres -- suggesting better mental health care is a bigger component.

Personally, I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, but at the same time believe gun regulation in the form of mandatory background checks and stricter restrictions on access to gun sales are reasonable expectations. There is also a need for proper safety training and a need to enforce the laws which are already on the books.

That's my two cents -- what do you think?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Isn't a well regulated Militia the National Guard?? No one needs an assault rifle with large ammo clips. People who own them have some kind of underlying manly man issue. Also all gun sales should be regulated reguardless of private, gun show or guns bought at a gun shop. My two cents.

-- Posted by CITIZEN SAM on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 4:50 PM

So according to sam's post, not only men but also women have an issue. If they like target shooting with semi-auto weapons and not changing clips every 30 seconds they have "underlying manly man issues"? Are women that drive big trucks and own speed boat suffering from this medical condition as well? It sounds more like someone else is suffering from low self esteem and needs to lash out at others, who have dis-similar interests, to feel better about themselves. I probably should not respond so callously like that. Thoughts such as this could possibly be caused my a medical condition such as Low-T and I apologize for any assumptions on my part.

-- Posted by deweyh on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 8:28 AM

1. Background checks should be required everywhere. I think that is just common sense, and I back it 100%. However, do we deny people with simpler, less violent felonies too? How far do we go? I heard on the radio that people who try to buy weapons with previous felonies could be fined or taken to court. Sounds good to me!

2. Banning assault weapons to the public. This one is iffy. I, for one, would love to have the option of going to a shooting range and blasting away at little plastic targets with any sort of automatic weapon. How fun! (Hunting and shooting is a great stress reliever and hobby.) But then, I do not have any enemies or mental states where I'd use it for mass killings of any sort of living thing. So I wouldn't have any problem with these weapons being banned to the public. (Although, you'd hear lots of whining from many stubborn people that just can't wrap their heads around the idea. Instead of, "THEY TOOK ERR JOBS!", it'll be, "THEY TOOK ERR GUUNNNS!")

3. NRA suggested arming teachers. I couldn't help but laugh at this. Could you imagine hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country, from preschool teachers to college professors, teaching how to tie shoes or leading intelligent discussions, with a gun hanging at their hip? Amazing.

4. Mental health. This is the kicker. We live in America. We're free. Proud. Innovative. But we're also stubborn. Obese. Sugar-crazed. Many kids are raised in great environments. Many kids are raised in horrible environments. No matter what you do to gun laws, there will always be someone out there with the intent to harm others, and believe me, they'll find a way. What causes these people to act this way? Well, it's really right in front of our faces. Look at our diets. Look at the way kids are raised. Look at the completely mind-retarding, drama-infused reality TV shows we watch. What it comes down to is becoming happier, healthier human beings. What the government wants to do is spend tons of money (that they don't have) on mental health programs and blah, blah, blah. Why should the government do this for us? It's time to take personal responsibility. Become better neighbors, friends, peers, idols, coworkers, relatives. Smile a bit more. Help each other out. Improve your diet and exercise. Stop cyber-bullying! Respect everyone around you. I don't really know what else to say. I've got one book that should be required for every person in America. It's a book by Mark Sisson called The Primal Connection: Follow Your Genetic Blueprint to Health and Happiness. Buy it, you'll thank yourself.

That's all. If there are any inconsistencies in anything I wrote, I apologize. There are lots of you out there that are a lot more opinionated and educated about this issue than I am. I don't really even know why I decided to take the time to type this all out (I'm going to be late for work!). This is just random stuff that I've heard (or think I've heard) over the last few months. You understand. Good day.

-- Posted by qMarq19 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 9:15 AM

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Lets reread the last half of that statement. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The National Guard is a very well regulated militia of citizen soldiers controlled by it's own state's governor. It is also a federal reserve force to be called to duty by the president. If the the president send my militia somewhere to some foreign land.

Who can I depend upon to defend my family, my property. It is my right to keep and bear arms even if it is an AR-15.

-- Posted by retiredarmysarge on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 10:12 AM

i'm just posing a question to play advocate here. If you dissect the phrase "the right to keep and bear arms" how does one define arms? What does this encompass? When this phrase was penned the arms of the day had not yet advanced to modern forms. Who decides what types of arms are suitable? We don't allow flame throwers or bazookas, but they are arms. We don't allow certain types of ammo that are especially dangerous. I don't have any issue with an AR-15 or other high power rifles. I own several types of guns. I don't feel the need to stock up or buy more though. Just asking what the thoughts are. How do we draw a line on what types of arms the public should have. We already don't allow fully automatics. Was that an infringement when that decision was made?

-- Posted by Steelerfan100 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 10:27 AM

So ban guns and no one will use them. It worked for illegal drugs right?!?! No one is using crystal meth, pot or heroine in this country. Amazing idea!

-- Posted by mybloodrunsgreen on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 10:29 AM

Assault rifles are already illegal, as they are automatic weapons. Assault WEAPONS are a different class of weapons, as defined by lawmakers the first time they banned them. Assault rifles (the illegal ones) are fully automatic and are carried by our military. Assault WEAPONS are semi-automatic, like any other weapon. Please read the following, it explains things much better than I can (its a slideshow explaining the difference between the two)


-- Posted by notinia on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 11:42 AM

I dont think the tragedy at Sandy Hook or the tragedy at the movie theatre prior have anything to do with guns. No one was there with a weapon to protect those children at Sandy Hook from ANY WEAPON. The same massacre could have happened with a sword in the hands of that sick psycho puke. Its simple. Arm the good people to protect from the bad people. Come on! Do you really think a person bent on murder is going to obey any gun laws? Evil will find a way to commit evil. Best bet is to be prepared.

-- Posted by brian48 on Sun, Feb 10, 2013, at 2:17 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

A Little to the Right
By Randy M. Cauthron
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Send email to By Randy M. Cauthron
Randy Cauthron is the managing editor of the Daily Reporter. He has been with the paper since 2003 and has worked in the newspaper business since 1993. Randy enjoys entertainment and sports. He has wife, Leah and six children living in Spencer. Randy enjoys sharing his opinion on everything from entertainment, pop culture, politics and sports.
Hot topics
Coincidence or Bad Idea?
(0 ~ 10:13 AM, Jul 5)

(1 ~ 6:55 PM, May 6)

Wonder how 'affluency' plays in Mexico
(0 ~ 11:54 AM, Dec 29)

Keeping the holiday budget in perspective
(0 ~ 8:55 AM, Dec 2)

Cracking down of sex crimes
(0 ~ 12:00 PM, Nov 24)