Comments on: The Promises of Feinstein’s Civilian Disarmament Bill

By: shane

shane — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:23:31 +0000

Dianne “mothballs” Frankenstein needs to retire she has become far too unreasonable with her age and the length of time she is been in office is safe to say that her mental state is not one that is acceptable for a legislator the old decrepit and senile I have no place writing walls for our nation

By: roger griggs

roger griggs — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:16:12 +0000

one would better off trying to talk sense to a stop sign that’s in the wrong place. nobody home is right !
you cannot talk sense to these type’s because they have no common sense!

By: Ivan Pistov

Ivan Pistov — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:55:07 +0000

SBeecher, I take offense at your assessment of Feinstein’s proposals as “very limited”. These proposals involve total SACRIFICE of all the types of guns listed, they will not be compensated, and the truth is that an extremely small percentage and number of these guns and those who own them have ever committed any crime. If drunk driving or drowning accidents, or medical mistakes, were comparable numbers, we wouldn’t be talking about guns. Those opposed to gun ownership always seem surprised at how “controversial” the gun issue is, no matter what sub-issue or context. That’s because people who believe in the 2nd Amendment and who own guns and use them are VERY enthusiastic about preserving their rights and they only want to be left alone. But our opposition just won’t quit and we take umbrage at that. We have NEVER treated you that way, i.e. tried to force you to become gun owners or shooters. So back off and get a life!

By: DaveGinOly

DaveGinOly — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:25:12 +0000

I like “~~gun control~~, civilian disarmament.”
I’ve been using “(gun) control.”

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:45:19 +0000

People need to read the Bill of Rights and history in order to understand why the 2nd Ammendment was so important to our Founding Fathers. This country won the Revolutionary War because each man in each household was permitted to own a firearm. They left their homes,many without proper clothing or shoes and fought for our freedom. If we allow this oversized,underproductive government to take this right from us we are defenseless against the very thing that the Founding Fathers were afraid of:Our inability to form a militia to protect ourselves or our country if necessary. This is something we must not let happen.

By: SBeecher

SBeecher — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:36:00 +0000

Mental health issues are definitely real. All too real. The reason that many parents find themselves going with drugs is out of sheer frustration because nothing else works.
I support the very limited approach to regulating guns that is currently being proposed by Feinstein and others because we have got to begin somewhere to act in a constructive way, even if the prospect of gaining majority votes creates a sense of it being little better than nothing.
Most of the comments here read as antagonistic to any thinking that might be an attempt to work towards something constructive. I think what will happen is that all those who simply want to say “no” are going to fail to be taken into account.
We can figure out some pieces that might really be pragmatic and which might work in terms of what we can do. We don’t get there by only being able to carp about what others try to do. We don’t need to buy into panic, but to look at this as something that requires long term commitment.

By: Philip W Martin

Philip W Martin — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:41:37 +0000

Feinstein is a worthless old fool. She only think’s of way’s to disarm this nation. Then she and those other fool’s can take over for good. Someone should put her in her place. That fool is sick.

By: Seanoamericano

Seanoamericano — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:08:53 +0000

sbeecher says: Complex issues can take years and decades. What will it really take to improve the public mental health system? Most people don’t encounter a need to become familiar with how young people fall into serious mental illness, so the basis for intelligent discussion on that is outside the debate.
The problem is simple young people are comitting these acts because big pharma has invented a bunch of imaginary problems and paid off doctors with bonuses for convincing parents to poison their children with dangerous drugs that cause violence and suicide. The blame for these acts and the resulting deaths are big pharmas and their greed. Everyone of the victims need to sue the manufactures of these drugs and The FDA for gross negligence.

By: Jay Cochrane

Jay Cochrane — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:25:42 +0000

I heartily agreed. Although the proposed legislation will do practically nothing to curb gun violence, it does give the appearance that the politicians want to do something even if it’s wrong. I’ve actually seen a few pathetic suggestions that we “alot more money for mental health” (throw money foolishly at the problem. And, that we consider the effects of violent movies, TV, and video games. These are not real solutions, and no one wants to tackle the problem from these directions because they are messy and hard to understand. Knee jerk ideas like take away all the guns get air play from the liberl press because they are “common sense” solutions. (I hate it that keep seeing “common sense” repeated by gun grabbers as there are foolish people out there who actually believe anything they see in print or repeated by hack politicians.) Gun owners are an obvious and easy target. Mental health profession responsibility and the activities of the entertainment industry, not so much. Jay

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 13:08:02 +0000

“More Guns Less Crime.” The simple answer to a complex problem. After all, it is the Bill Of Rights, not the Bill of needs.

By: SBeecher

SBeecher — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 15:15:22 +0000

I have a somewhat different take. I think that Congress needs to increase regulation on a very limited basis to move against gun violence. The way politics works, what matters is any movement at all in some direction.
A big problem in the debate over what to do with outrage over such incidents as Newtown and Aurora and Tucson, is that it is polarized to the extent that the analysis needed to get to real solutions may be impossible. The only way that the political system can work is for this most intensely interested to choose sides and see who can conquer the high ground.
Complex issues can take years and decades. What will it really take to improve the public mental health system? Most people don’t encounter a need to become familiar with how young people fall into serious mental illness, so the basis for intelligent discussion on that is outside the debate.
If we see shooters who kill parents as alienated adolescents, we are going to have to look closely at the quality of education, parenting and the way media can provide violent role models for vulnerable youth. Many books and many careers in education, social work and psychology have been dedicated to searching for answers. That doesn’t mean we should be afraid to go there. It just has to be recognized that it won’t be easy.
Meanwhile, because the focus on root causes boggles the mind, we all turn to something no one thinks is the solution, but is just an identifiable objective. In political terms that is about capturing the hill in a clod fight. I join the clod fight knowing that it is a bit absurd. But I want gun buy backs and I want to limit the availability of mass kill capacity, especially for those who might be identifiably dangerous to others. I think my real reason is that I want the system to take seriously the need to begin to move in a direction against the insanity we are seeing in the news. What I wish I was seeing is more people looking to offer positive proposals that can get momentum going in the right direction, which is address whatever aspects of gun violence that can really be address.