Legislation Would Eliminate a Gun-Related Felony in Oklahoma

January 31, 2013

  • January 31, 2013 at 1:30 pm
    Phoenix says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Gun ownership is a right given to us by the Second Amendment” – State Sen. Kyle Loveless

    Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

    The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of anyone (some may choose to call it God-given). The Second Amendment simply states that this right will not be infringed upon.

    • February 1, 2013 at 4:17 pm
      InsGuy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Funny, the only right I’m aware of that God gave us was free will.

      And although I’ve owned a gun in the past (but not currently, as it happens) I was never part of “a well regulated militia” so I’m not sure the 2nd Amendment protected my right to own it. Of course, there’s not much chance of an insurrection by slaves or of British “Loyalists” trying to overthrow the gov’t.

    • February 4, 2013 at 2:12 pm
      CalDude says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      What? Owning a gun is a God given right? C’mon man, get off the crazy pulpit and shake yourself. Wrapping everything in a pseudo-Christian cover does not work! Ever!

    • February 4, 2013 at 2:44 pm
      BJM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Ok this is the defination of infringed : infringement (plural infringements)

      1.a violation or breach – unless Im missing something this means as per the 2nd amendment we do have the right to bear arms and no one has the right to take that away from us. Are you trying to split hairs here.

  • January 31, 2013 at 1:31 pm
    Speedo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “The data has shown again and again that it is rarely law-abiding gun owners who commit crimes.”

    Yes, it would seem to be difficult to be both law-abiding and commit a crime. Best not to misunderesitmate Rep. Wesselhöft.

  • January 31, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    celtica says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This proposed law does not take into account the gun-holder falling or tripping when entering or exiting the bus — or even if the gun-holder is suddenly strong armed and overtaken by a criminal or gang. Having a gun in a public place puts the public needlessly at risk.

    So — is the right of the individual more important than the right of the public not to be at risk?

    • January 31, 2013 at 2:09 pm
      Pete G says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      “This proposed law does not take into account the gun-holder falling or tripping ….gun-holder is suddenly strong armed and overtaken by a criminal or gang….”

      That’s a great point. Years ago, I heard a great Q&A –
      Q. What percentage of police-involved interactions involve a gun?
      A. 100% – as the police officer brings the gun to the situation.

      If a police officer gets on a bus, do you worry them tripping or falling? What about gang overpowering them? You should, as uniformed officers generally wear their guns in plain view (plus hidden ones-gasp!). You are at greater risk from an armed police officer such as the errants shots in the NYC Empire State Building shooting than an armed citizen.

      My guess is Celtica has never carried a gun nor grew up in a family of armed citizens or police officers. The situations she posed are extremely infrequent; forseeable and mitigated; and negligiably affect the public risk, if at all.

      I speak from experience, do you?

    • January 31, 2013 at 2:13 pm
      reader says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      “what if”. Not a valid point on which to base a decision.

      • January 31, 2013 at 2:17 pm
        celtica says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        So the individual gun-holder has more right to carry the gun than the public has a right to safety.

        Guess that means no more vacations in Oklahoma.

        • January 31, 2013 at 2:26 pm
          Pete G says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Safety does not depend on the presence of an inanimate object.

          Remember the US Supreme Court said police have no duty to protect you; the resulting implication that protecting yourself is an individual responsibility.

          • January 31, 2013 at 5:11 pm
            Jon says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Pete–not sure why a factual statement is getting that much hate.

            To whit, the actual court case is Bowers vs. Devito. The Supreme Court determined that police officers have no legal duty to protect citizens from the actions of other citizens.

            Cue anti-gun red-checking in 3…2…1…

        • January 31, 2013 at 3:17 pm
          Perplexed says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Celtica, Oklahoma is probably relieved that you will not be vacationing there any more. Your suggested scenario reveals that you have never been exposed to responsible gun use. It was a bit ridiculous.

          • January 31, 2013 at 5:20 pm
            celtica says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            > Your suggested scenario reveals that you have never been exposed to responsible gun use. It was a bit ridiculous.

            What is ridiculous are all these NRA Pollyannas who cannot think beyond what the extreme element of the NRA tells them to think.

            Guns are wrestled away from police everyday and often used on them. It’s unrealistic to think it would not happen to a mere gun-toting citizen.

            Very unrealistic. But you keep thinking it, and we’ll keep laughing at you for thinking it.

        • January 31, 2013 at 5:09 pm
          Jon says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Your statement presupposes that an individual gun-holder presents a clear and present risk to the public.

          Your argument is fallacious.

      • January 31, 2013 at 5:24 pm
        celtica says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        If “what if” is not a valid point on which to base a decision, then the NRA position that people need firearms to protect themselves is not valid. After all, that is one huge “WHAT IF” situation.

    • February 4, 2013 at 9:20 am
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      @celtica Well based upon SCOTUS decisions it would appear that the rights of the individual do in fact trump the rights of the whole in many cases.

    • February 4, 2013 at 2:36 pm
      BJM says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Well that shows how ignorant people are of guns. New manufacture guns have what’s called a cross-bar safety that stops the hammer from falling unless the trigger is pulled so dropping a gun cannot cause a gun to go off, that’s a Hollywood myth. Plus guns like the one I got for Christmas have triggers too stiff to be pulled if they are dropped, you have to have your finger on the trigger for it to be pulled.

      • February 5, 2013 at 9:34 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Those who are knowledgeable regarding how to discharge a firearm will squeeze a trigger and not pull the trigger.

  • February 4, 2013 at 8:39 am
    Brokie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Gun nut sheeple who repeat ‘2nd amendment’ are clueless as what the other amendments are. They are blind to the fact that LaPierre is a corporate whore on the payroll of the gun industry. Why wasn’t Wayne LaPierre in the military? Why wasn’t Ted Nugent in the military? Aha! When it comes to REAL issues of protecting one’s country and loved ones – i.e. serving in the military – they can’t be bothered with that. Ted Nugent, with his bought and paid for child bride and Hitler like rantings, is mentally unstable. Shrill, stupid and dangerous.

    • February 4, 2013 at 2:12 pm
      Patti Cake in the East says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Why wasn’t our president in the military? Why did he and Hillary do nothing to protect and defend our personnel in Benghazi? Now, go ahead Brokie, and ask this…”What difference, at this point, does it make?” I’m sure you defend her and the rest of the regime in this despicable act of them doing NOTHING to save these men, yet they say they did all they could…BULL S***!! And, one more thing… Adam Lanza was mentally unstable…Hitler was mentally unstable. For all I know, YOU are mentally unstable. Ted Nugent? Not mentally unstable. He is a lover of our country, and lives by our Constitution. You on the other hand, apparently do neither.

      • February 5, 2013 at 9:38 am
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Who was the last President to really serve in the military? Interesting that Ted Nugent never served in the military either. Nice that he loves the country, but was unwilling to pu his own neck on the line and defend her.

    • February 5, 2013 at 9:52 am
      Bob says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Brokie, although I fully respect your right to have the views expressed, I would suggest that you take a little time and evaluate why the second amendment was written. History tells us that the reason for the second amendment was to protect the people from a tyranical government so that we could have all of the other freedoms that we so enjoy. Quoting George Mason one of the authors of the second amendment “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

      Ths quote has nothing to do with a militia or army but rather to protect the rights of the people or as you like to call them the sheple.

      Or how about this quote from George Washington “”Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”

      • February 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm
        Ron says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Bob,

        I agree with your assessment regarding why the 2nd Amendment exists. Therefore, it should not be unconstitutional to ban firearms that will not serve that purpose. Try to stop the U.S. Military with a handgun or hunting rifle. Let’s ask the Iraqis what weapons would be necessary to stop the U.S. Military from taking over.
        Do you really believe that the only thing standing between liberty and tyranny are firearms?

  • February 4, 2013 at 2:06 pm
    Patti Cake in the East says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Will someone please tell me when this president is going to get off the campaign trail?!! Instead of him trying to push yet more regulations down our throats, how about them actually enforcing the laws that are already on the books? We don’t need more laws!! We need enforcement of our laws!!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features