So, what is the difference between supporting the Second Amendment and being considered a “gun-nut”? Our state legislature has continually loosened gun laws, such as dropping the restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon.
Does anyone really believe that millions of NRA dollars are NOT flowing into legislators pockets? Anyone? Public safety is being compromised under the guise of our “right” to protect ourselves. They sell it; we buy it, hook, line and sinker.
Circus owner P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” SB 1201 is such a bill. Like us with the majority of our legislature, Barnum too was surrounded by clowns — very, very sad clowns.
D.J. Diebold
Scottsdale/Mesa
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:35 am on Wed, Mar 30, 2011.
Well, I don't live in some high-falut'in area of the Valley....just good old Mesa is fine with me.
Now as for calling someone a ...."CLOWN".....or a ....."NUT".....all I can say is that all that Democrat-loser, Liberal, Left-Wing, Progressive........."CIVIL DISCOURSE"....baloney sure evaported pretty quickly.
We, in America, live in a democratic Republic.
Laws are enacted by legally elected representatives of the citizens who vote.
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS................many American voters did not like the way the "Gang of Three" (OBAMA, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI AND SENATE PRESIDENT HARRY REID)...were leading our Nation. So on National Election Day, November 2nd, 2010 they voted out every Democrat and Obama-Libertarian they could get their hands on. The American voters cleaned out the House of Representatives and almost, almost cleaned out the US Senate (we wll finish the job in 2012 = the Senate and the White House).
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAWS.......THEN YOUR ONLY SOLUTION IS TO ELECT POLITICIANS WHO WILL ENACT LAWS THAT YOU DO........LIKE.
YOU CAN CALL POLITICIANS NAMES, RIDICULE AND DEMEAN THEM ON TELEVISION (watch PBS-CHANNEL 8's...KAET.."HORIZON" SHOW AT 7PM EVERY WEEK DAY NIGHT...THE MODERATOR AND GUESTS ARE....EXPERTS...AT RIDICULING, DEMEANING, DENIGRATING, SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, SPEAKER ADAMS, SENATE PRESIDENT RUSSELL PEARCE AND GOVERNOR JAN BREWER [THEY LOVE TO BRING UP HER :15SECONDS OF SILENCE OVER AND OVER AND OVER]...WITH THEIR WAR CRY...."WHAT'S WRONG WITH ARIZONA" ).
THE VOTERS OF ARIZONA DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH ARIZONA.... EXCEPT...................400,000 (+/-) ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM MEXICO AND POINTS SOUTH.
THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS WANT TO ENACT LAWS TO PROTECT EVERY YAHOO'S .."RIGHTS"....BUT LEGAL, EVERY-DAY ..."AMERICAN'S RIGHTS" ARE TAKEN AWAY FROM US.
THE MORE WEIRD AND FAR OUT YOUR RELIGIOUS, ETHNIC, SOCIAL OR SEXUAL GROUP IS = THE MORE LAWS THE DEMOCRATS WILL ENACT IN YOUR FAVOR.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:59 am on Wed, Mar 30, 2011.
D.J. You've asked two questions.
Q. So, what is the difference between supporting the Second Amendment and being considered a “gun-nut”?
A. Gun nuts recognize little if any responsibilities associated with exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. They are extremists.
Q. Does anyone really believe that millions of NRA dollars are NOT flowing into legislators pockets? Anyone?
A. Gun nuts probably do. And so do many others.
Looks like Leon if shouting again. Now his subjects do not even address your piece D.J. It's high time someone institutionalizes this poor guy. Clearly he's lost it!
Leon Ceniceros posted at 1:30 pm on Wed, Mar 30, 2011.
WELL, THE FBI STATISTICS BEAR MY ..."CRAZY SHOUTING OUT".....[beam]
TWO HUNDRED MILLION FIREARMS IN THE USA AND ONLY....9,146 HOMICIDES BY FIREARMS IN 2009.
FIREARM MURDERS BY STATE PER 100,000;
AZ = 3.04, NM = 4.58, KS = 5.05, LA = 10.46, AL = 8.02, MD = 6.06, CA = 3.7, NY = 4.47, MI = 4.49, GA = 4.78, IN = 3.9, SC = 4.63, NC = 4.01, PA = 4.02, DE = 3.51 and the District of Columbia which had the most stringent ..GUN LAWS in AMERICA = 18.84.
SO MAYBE BEING A........."GUN-NUT STATE".........ISN'T SUCH A BAD IDEA....AFTER ALL...........BUT WHAT DOES THESE .....LOONEY-EXTREMIST......KNOW....
[wink]
Slabside posted at 2:18 pm on Wed, Mar 30, 2011.
DJ Diebold writes, "Public safety is being compromised under the guise of our “right” to protect ourselves"
DJ, please post your statistics that back up this statement.
Accuracy posted at 5:18 pm on Wed, Mar 30, 2011.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . .
And the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an American non-profit organization which advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense in the United States.
D.J. Diebold…. Next time, read the Second Amendment before writing any more of your ridiculous and impudent (gun-nut clowns) letters about the Second Amendment Foundation Supporters, Gun Rights and the NRA.
k33j88 posted at 4:29 am on Thu, Mar 31, 2011.
Just a thought-----When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Thank GOD for law-abiding, responsible, NRA members. Yes Dale, the NRA supports responsible, safe gun ownership and programs that support such high ideals.
wdgnas posted at 4:54 am on Thu, Mar 31, 2011.
accuracy: just to clarify, the second amendment states: 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.
Dale Whiting posted at 9:09 am on Thu, Mar 31, 2011.
Who said anything about outlawing fire arms? No one!
Let's have a closer look at the 2nd Amendment. "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."
When interpreting law, judges look to both the practices at the time it was written and "the original intent." Original intent sounds like an easy concept to follow. But seldom is there sufficient record of any debate to see what was discussed and how that discussion may have acted to author and shape the words. But we shall try anyway.
What were the practices in vogue at the time this amendment was passed? Some people maintained rifles, primarily for hunting, a sort of survival on the frontier necessity. Does the amendment state that hunting is justification to not pass laws which infringe on a right to hunt? No.
Some people had pistol sets, "dueling sets" if you will? Did we pass laws to prohibit dueling? Yes we did. So apparently we do not see any right to duel as motivation to bear arms.
No doubt, some people had arms to protect themselves from attacks by Natives motivated by either British or French forces. These people often were organized into a civilian unit called militia. When overseen by a proper authority, they became "well regulated." Armed as they were, for absent arms, they could not act, the 2nd Amendment prohibits infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Our last armed milicias that were anything near being well regulated fought in the Civil War. And where technically we all became citizens of free states after 1865, yet it took another 100 years to make meaningful strides toward universal freedoms in all aspects of life, arguably the 2nd Amendment ought to be more meaningful than ever before. Heck even slaves fought in the Civil War!
We have a constitutionally recognized right to bear arms, based upon a now long since antiquated concept of an organized militia. And the Courts have extended this right to prohibit local and state governments from enacting regulations so strict as to prevent a person from having arms in his house to protect him from invasion.
My old 270 rifle enables me to go hunting. And if I felt insecure in my house, I could have a M1911A1 as does Slabside. I have no problem with Slabside's insecurity which motivates his carrying his pistol with him most of the time [Do you carry in Chruch? In the dentist's chair? In a swimming pool?]. Insecurity is a difficult pshchological thing to treat. Slabside even transfers his insecurity to me. I could do target shooting if I felt a need to keep in practice. But I would not need 30+ round magazines on the target range, the targets being fixed in place. But otherwise, that's it guys!
We can pass gun registration laws to try to weed out the Jared Laughners of our world. We could prohibit 30+ round magazines to make is harder for the Jareds of this world from harming 19 people without reloading. We could require various proofs of responsibility when purchasing ammunition. All of these things do not unreasonably "infring" on our right to keep and bear arms. Remember with each and every right there comes an attendant responsbility to act reasonably. The 2nd Amendment is not exception.