Home | Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Obituaries | Subscriber Services | Kingman Digital | Contact Us
Kingman Daily Miner | Kingman, Arizona

home : opinion : opinion May 1, 2016


2/14/2013 6:00:00 AM
Kingman Letter: Some weapons only good for crime

I have to wonder why so many of you are against registering your weapons. You have no qualms about registering your cars. The registering of cars has led to the arrest of thousands of people who used their car while in the act of committing a crime. Rapists, bank robbers, hit-and-run drivers, murderers, etc. have been caught thanks to witnesses jotting down the license plate number of the getaway car. The same applies to registering guns. When a certain type of gun has been used in a crime, police can enter that type of gun into the computer and come up with a list of people who own that particular type of gun. It could aid in the capture of the bad guys.

I realize that most of you are afraid that if you register your guns, the government will confiscate them. This will never happen. Your right to bear arms is constitutionally protected. But the type of gun that you own is not protected by the Constitution, and this is how it should be. Why should civilians own the same or similar types of weapons as the military? It doesn't make sense, unless, of course, you plan on using these weapons against the military and your government, as many here have stated, in which case you should have those type of guns confiscated.

In the days of Al Capone and others like him, machine guns were used to mow down hundreds of rival gang members. In the end, most of these gangsters were sent to jail, killed by rival gangsters or killed by law enforcement. The sale of machine guns was banned because the only people who found a use for that much fire power were those mobsters. Regular civilians had no use for them. They weren't used for hunting. They were used solely to kill people. The same applies to today's military-style weapons, which are sold to whoever wants one without a background check or registration. It's time to fix this.

Lori Gabriel-Dane

Kingman


    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   MCSO: Man linked to missing woman is arrested (2243 views)

•   Fun Run forecast: It's gonna be a good weekend (1332 views)

•   Desperate for some help (Letter) (800 views)

•   Brit's fixation on Route 66 par for this traveler's course (726 views)

•   Obituary: Merlin Carl Gulbranson (532 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

Bad news today for gun grabbers in CO. In response to CO democrats pushing laws to outlaw 10. 20. and 30 round magazines, one of the leading producers of them, Magpul, has announced a new program to ensure CO residents can stock up before a ban on sales of new ones is signed into law'

"We are proud to announce that within a matter of days we will be going live with a new program. Due to a bill currently moving through the Colorado legislature, there is the possibility that Colorado residents’ ability to purchase standard capacity magazines will soon be infringed. Before that happens, and Magpul is forced to leave the state in order to keep to our principles, we will be doing our best to get standard capacity PMAGs into the hands of any Colorado resident that wants them."

"Verified Colorado residents will be able to purchase up to ten (10) standard capacity AR/M4 magazines directly from Magpul, and will be given immediate flat-rate $5 shipping, bypassing our current order queue."

"Our customers outside of Colorado, please know that our PMAG production will continue at an ever-increasing rate until we do relocate, shipments to our distributors in other states will continue, and that we do not expect relocation to significantly impact PMAG production. We are also aware that Colorado is not the only state with existing or pending magazine capacity restrictions we are working on programs for other affected states as well."

Keep up the good work gun grabbers.

LOL


Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

"... you're going to have to pull on your adult pants ..."

And another rightie shows up here with some weird obsession with my pants. What is up with that?


Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Bobby

"Thats all you can do is chuckle because everything you put on here, and respond to is a joke."

I agree, what I respond to here is very often a joke. Especially people who use incomplete or creatively edited quotes they got from chain emails and internet memes. Thanks for the laugh.

LOL


Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013
Article comment by: Bobby jay

@ Nice Chuckle "Thats all you can do is chuckle because everything you put on here, and respond to is a joke.

Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“@ansons nephew - Bought any 100 dollar photos lately?”

I have to admit that your overall fascination with every facet of my life is … well, kind of creepy, but since you asked I will answer.

Yes, over the past 30 years I have purchased many photographs and other pieces of artwork varying in cost from $50 to $300 from some of the preeminent photographers and artists of not only Route 66 fame but in the field of Southwestern art as well.

What this has to do with anything on this thread is a puzzle to me, but then you rarely seem to post anything that makes sense or has any substance.


Posted: Monday, February 25, 2013
Article comment by: No One No Where

@AN

"What is important is the reference to the STATE (i.e. the government) with the weapons of the populace being necessary to protect the government against those who would attempt a coup."

And what you fail to acknowledge is that ours is supposed to be a government "of the People, for the People and by the People." Therefore the "STATE" is the People and when the People believe that the government is no longer "their" government than it is the Peoples obligation and duty to return it to a government "of the People, for the People and by the People." So when the 2nd Amendment references the "STATE" it is in fact referencing the PEOPLE.

Once again you refuse to acknowledge that no one is saying that the Constitution says "Tyrannical Government" in it. The Constitution sets forth how our government, of the People, is to work. But if you bother to read the Declaration of Independence or The Federalist Papers then there will be numerous references of "Tyrannical Government" for you to peruse. But I'm sure you won't be bothered to do that since it would interfere with your Obamist worldview and you can't have that, can you?


Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

@Lori Hyphenated

"
I AM thankful that there are still people who hold the Constitution at the "VERY highest VALUE." But it's quite obvious that you and Frank Lee Speaking are not among those people. You tend to interpret the Constitution to legitimize your own personal way of thinking. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The courts will do that for us, thank you."

Hey Lori, have you made that phone call to the authorities to inform them that you believe I have "threatened public officials" yet? I have been waiting patiently for the swat team to show up and it has not happened yet. Let me know when you do so I can pack a bag

LOL



Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

@ansons nephew

"I must offer a correction to the above, it is FLS who makes stuff up and never posts anything of substance. Just wanted to clear that up."

Get back to me when i post on here embellishing MY military service, Rambo.

Bought any 100 dollar photos lately?

LOL


Posted: Sunday, February 24, 2013
Article comment by: the conservative

@Anson
Hence why all that was preceded with " Read a bit of history on the subject before you respond with typical rantings on any of the language in the 2nd amendment.". So go ahead and read the whole comment, then actually educate yourself on the subject not everything can be gleamed from huffington so you're going to have to pull on your adult pants and do your homework. After that homework is complete, there is no logical way you could disagree with my assertion.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“…only an Obamist could come away believing that the 2nd Amendment was written without the intention of the people being able to defend themselves from the tyranny of government.”

You honestly have to love all of the people who know the “intent” of the Founding Fathers. Makes one wonder where they garnered that knowledge – séance, Ouija board, voices in the head?

The Founders were pretty precise in their language and yet no-where in the Constitution are the words “tyrannical government.”


“I would love to respond to your articles, but all of your facts are wrong, …”

And yet you cannot provide even one point of disputation. Curious.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Bobby

"All you do is disagree you dont think for yourself you dont stand for anything and all you do is make stuff up."

So, calling you out for using incorrect and creatively edited quotes that push your ideas is arguing? Keep trying though, at least I am chuckling.

LoLoL


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“… there is no logical way that you may come to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment is anything but a restriction imposed on the government to prevent that government from limiting the pre-existing right of the individual to keep and bear arms.”

Second 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.”

What is important is the reference to the STATE (i.e. the government) with the weapons of the populace being necessary to protect the government against those who would attempt a coup.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Anson's Nephew

“@ nice chuckles All you do is disagree you dont think for yourself you dont stand for anything and all you do is make stuff up.”

I must offer a correction to the above, it is FLS who makes stuff up and never posts anything of substance. Just wanted to clear that up.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Lori Gabriel-Dane

To Give Me a Break:

"All speech is not equal under the First Amendment. The high court has identified five areas of expression that the government may legitimately restrict under certain circumstances. These areas are speech that incites illegal activity and subversive speech, fighting words, Obscenity and Pornography, commercial speech, and symbolic expression."

"Speakers that encourage others to take illegal and subversive measures to change the status quo are not Constitutionally protected. Such measures include resisting the draft during wartime, THREATENING PUBLIC OFFICIALS, and joining political organizations aimed at overthrowing the U.S. government."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/firstamendment

I AM thankful that there are still people who hold the Constitution at the "VERY highest VALUE." But it's quite obvious that you and Frank Lee Speaking are not among those people. You tend to interpret the Constitution to legitimize your own personal way of thinking. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The courts will do that for us, thank you.

(11)





Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Patriot WES

Lori, why do you hate the constitution? Why do liberals hate everything it stands for. I would love to respond to your articles, but all of your facts are wrong, so it will be hard to respond when everything you say is based on a false pretense!.

Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: No One No Where

Obamist's also tend to argue, as LGD has done, that because the 2nd Amendment was written in the time of muskets and black powder that it was the intent of our founders for the people to be able to own these types of weapons. But if you expand on that logic then it would mean that every law passed since the ratification of our Constitution that has in regulated a piece of technology invented after the ratification is null and void because the founders would have only applied the Constitution to those things that existed at that time and place in history. Obviously this is not so or we otherwise would not have agencies such as the Dept. of Homeland Security(pronounced Schutzstaffel in German), the Dept. of Energy, the EPA or most any of the numerous agencies of the government because they all regulate technologies that didn't exist at the time of the Constitutions ratification.

So when Obamists, like LGD, use such silly arguments to try to get their gun banning points across you should also remember that the economic principles of Fascism are one of the core tenets of Obamism, they being:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
"Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests."

So when the Obamists use these types of arguments you have to keep in mind that it is really nothing more than smoke and mirrors and that they will always ignore the facts, misdirect your attention and do whatever they can to pummel you into surrendering to their whims.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: No One No Where

It always amuses me how Obamist's can pick and choose what facts they want to pay attention to and what they prefer to ignore because it doesn't fit into their ideological worldview. Take AN's constant harping about how the 2nd Amendment (paraphrasing here) doesn't say anything about the people defending themselves from a tyrannical government. Yet when you point out to him that if you read the the published words of our founders in tomes such as The Federalist Papers that only an Obamist could come away believing that the 2nd Amendment was written without the intention of the people being able to defend themselves from the tyranny of government. Because those historical documents do not fit into the preconceived worldview of Obamism they tend to ignore these facts when you point them out to them, or they will try to distract you from it by asking you for proof even though you've already provided it.


Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013
Article comment by: Who Has The Right?

@ Anson's Nephew - where you wrote "... Second Amendment proves that it was designed to protect the State (i.e. the government, not Arizona) and not the individual.", pay attention to Nice Chuckle's comment here, specifically the part about "... and to facilitate the natural right to self defense." I understand it to mean the natural right to self defense is applicable to the citizens of the United States (i.e., the government) as a whole, to citizens of each state, county, or city government within the U.S., and to each citizen within those governmental units. Does your comment reflect that you do not believe you have a natural right to defend yourself or your family from being murdered?

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: the conservative

Too many people in these comments are either blissfully or willfully ignorant. As has been cited far too many times the 2nd amendment which stands today is the result of three different state proposals as well as the English bill of rights was included to explicitly remove the governments ability to disarm its people. Read a bit of history on the subject before you respond with typical rantings on any of the language in the 2nd amendment. Once you have done so there is no logical way that you may come to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment is anything but a restriction imposed on the government to prevent that government from limiting the pre-existing right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: bobby jay

@ nice chuckles All you do is disagree you dont think for yourself you dont stand for anything and all you do is make stuff up.

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: Frank Lee Speaking

@Give Me A Break

"Do you really think they'll stop at the 2nd Ammendment????"

You have to keep in mind who you are talking to and about. Lori H has stated recently at this website that she would be willing to give up all of her "rights and freedoms for a less violent world". Oh she did say that it would not include her right to vote. She actually believes that once she lost all the others she would still be allowed to vote. Her thinking is mind boggling.

LOL



Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Bobby Jay

"both statements were taking out thier books so have no idea were your chain mail is coming from"

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to say that both quotes came from a book? If so, then the author of the book you plagarized from did not put the correct quotes.

I will stand by my thinking of internet chain emails and memes. Everybody has seen them.


Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: Bobby jay

@ nice chuckles both statements were taking out thier books so have no idea were your chain mail is coming from

Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: Three Reasons

@ Frank Lee Speaking

"Can we expect you to apologize any time soon for stupidly saying that people advertise to sell guns on Ebay and Craigs list?"

I didn't expect an apology from Lori D but I understand why though. When you speak about something you don't have a clue about to begin with then you hindered from speaking anymore because your mouth is full of crow, it's hard to chew and harder to swallow.


Posted: Friday, February 22, 2013
Article comment by: Nice Chuckle

@Someone

"If you read into the 2nd amendment it was not created to so you keep firearms as a decoration.It was created to defend yourself against a tyrannical government"

We have been through this before, please show where in the 2nd Amendment the words "tyrannical government" appear?



  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

Find more about Weather in Kingman, AZ
Click for weather forecast



Find it Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Local Listings
Real Estate Search | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Find Kingman Jobs | Kingman Chamber | e-News | Contact Us | RSS | Site Map
© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Kingman Daily Miner is the information source for Kingman and surrounding area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Kingman Daily Miner Online is a service of WNI. By using the Site, kdminer.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to email your questions, comments or suggestions. Kingman Daily Miner Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.


Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved