| | (Gun) ControlMarch 13, 2013 - Rick BurdtI've been trying to figure out the logic behind disarming law abiding citizens to protect them, but I keep coming up short, I just don't get it. Governor Cuomo actually claims his new gun laws are "common sense measures". I'm sure the criminals out there just love him for his new laws, I bet he's got their vote next year. Recently, he went on a passionate rant and stated, to a cheering anti-gun crowd, that it didn't take ten bullets to kill a deer. This is his way to convince people that it's okay to circumvent the second amendment but the second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. What bothers me is that even though I don't agree with many of his policies and actions as governor, I do not doubt that he is smart enough to know exactly what he said and how it does not apply to our rights. The only reason I can think of that he made this statement, and similar others, is that he is, quite literally, hoping to play on the ignorance of the people who elected him. The new requirements for mental health experts to report patients who, they believe, may be exhibiting signs that they wish to hurt themselves or others is absolutely ridiculous and will only cause such incidents to go up. The mental health expert would be required to report these people to authorities, who would then check a database to see if they own a gun. Next, there is a good possibility they could lose their license and their guns. Whatever happened to doctor/patient confidentiality? It's hard enough to get people with mental health issues to consult a professional. If they fear that they may lose their guns, which many consider a source of personal security, the chances that they will actually seek the help they need just reduced drastically. If a therapist did as required by law and reported on a patient which led to them losing both their license and guns, who do you think is going to be high on his list if he decides to acquire an illegal firearm and act out on his frustrations? This is more about government control than it is gun control. If this was about saving lives then why did they not outlaw box cutters after 911? If they really believe that less bullets will save lives, why didn't they limit the amount of diesel fuel you could purchase after the Oklahoma City bombing? It's interesting how there were no firearms used in the two biggest attacks on American soil but anyone can buy thousands gallons of fuel and as many box cutters as they want without fear of government retribution. Accidental deaths caused by firearms. This is yet another banner the anti-gun folks like to wave. I would suggest to them a "common sense measure" that would save more lives, cost less to fight and would not infringe on our constitutional rights; swimming pools. More people die each year in back yard swimming pools than from accidental gun deaths by a wide margin. All it would take is a city/town ordinance to outlaw that dangerous backyard pastime. If stricter gun laws reduced gun crime, then why does Chicago, a city with one of the strictest gun laws, have one of the highest gun crime rates? If we keep allowing elected officials to continue to try to infringe on our rights, what is the next thing they are going to try to control? Maybe, they will try to control how much soda we can drink. Oh, wait........ Article Comments(5)adksmanMar-17-13 1:12 PM Concussion...where exactly did I say that a guns primary purpose was for killing people? It was YOU that went there, not me. Maybe YOU should reflect on that. I regard a gun as a tool..nothing more, nothing less. I do not have the reverence for them that you seem to. I am a gun owner and a hunter because I like venison and other wild game, I like to target shoot sometimes, and I like knowing that my home is protected against nut jobs that think guns are for killing people. I don't see the SAFE act as any problem whatsoever for anyone who is not contemplating using those types of guns and magazines to cause mayhem. I have no need of the items covered under the SAFE act and neither does anyone else, outside of the military and law enforcement, as far as I'm concerned. adkfishermanMar-17-13 11:52 AM This is about government control. berry was slick including the medical field into the equation - deputizing them in the process. The low information obama voters could care less, just don't cancel The Voice (or is it The View?). Fish and Game Clubs are considering a banning AR15's on the club property. Buy berry's health care or pay a fine. Banning smoking INSIDE apartment buildings in California. And that pesky GDP is stuck at 0.8% with 17 Trillion in debt - great! ConcussionMar-15-13 11:36 AM When someone says "the primary use of guns is for killing" I feel they should be reported to the authorities. If you look at a picture of a gun and think it's used to kill people, YOU have problems. I look at my gun collection in wonderment that machinists and designers could make something so beautiful, complex, and aesthetic. It's no wonder guns are so thoroughly appreciated. I teach my children to shoot, safely in the proper environment. Never, ever is there a mention of "killing", anger or prejudice. Apparently those are YOUR words. If you don't like guns, that's fine, don't buy them or support business that sell them. Perhaps your money would be better spent buying anti-gun bumper stickers for your SUV that tells the world how angry you are? Maybe there's something for YOU to get over. GUFFSHENEMar-14-13 4:05 PM You have more things under your sink that can kill you or others than people have guns, get a grip, I agree with reporting mental cases but Let`s not go crazy. What the gun was invented for doesn`t have ONE thing to do with some nutcase hurting and killing other people. A knife was invented for slicing and cutting, let`s outlaw all knives just because people cut and stab other people. Same, same. adksmanMar-14-13 12:50 PM There is quite a difference between a box cutter, a swimming pool (or a ball bat, or a tire iron, or anything else that has ever caused a death) and a gun. Guns were invented for, and remain, a tool for killing as their primary purpose. Those other objects were designed for other uses. As such, guns are rightly targeted for some regulation. That has been done already (owning an automatic weapon is illegal, right?) and the second amendment is still alive and well. You guys should really get over it. Post a Comment | in: News, Blogs & Events Web |