Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Heitkamp isn't alone in opinion

January 11, 2013

Welcome to Washington, Heidi Heitkamp....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(168)

ProgressiveLiberal

Jan-11-13 1:01 AM

Banning useless mass murder assault weapons and mega round clips is not extreme. It's no different than banning Thompson sub machine guns.

Why aren't you NRA gun nuts demanding the right to own and carry fully automatic guns.

2 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Jan-11-13 2:20 AM

I hate to break it to you liberals out there, but there are approximately 150,000 fully automatic firearms out there legally owned by private US citizens.

So here's the history lesson. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required that in order for a private citizen to own a fully automatic firearm, the individual must pay a $200 tax to the IRS (no the dollar amount has not changed since), the individual must be approved to own that firearm by the US Treasury, and the weapon must be registered with the US Government.

The 1968 Gun Control Act prohibited the importation of any fully automatic to private citizens.

Finally the 1986 Firearms Owners' Protection Act effectively prevented civilian ownership of all fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986.

The combined effect of all three laws restricted civilian ownership to a fixed supply of fully-automatic weapons already in civilian hands.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

angeR69

Jan-11-13 2:47 AM

So what does this mean for all you libs out there? Because of all this well-intentioned gun control legislation spanning the many years, supply is fixed, and therefore demand will determine price. For $15K to $20K you may legally buy a machine gun. That kind of puts it out of reach for most of us po folk (although not completely, if you're enthusiastic, willing to pay, and able to talk your spouse into it, you can buy one for less than the cost of a used Suburban).

This can't sit too well with the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Something to think about the next time you decide to occupy your local banks, and seize power from the one percent, beware of the machine gun nests.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mcwings

Jan-11-13 8:57 AM

I can hardly believe what I read. The ******* republicans that run the MDN actually sided with a democrat.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Jan-11-13 9:16 AM

Banning guns will just cause a black market in an instant. If the gov takes your guns, you will find a way to have another gun, unregistered and bought through a black market dealing in pistols and rifles. The gov with all the guns will be faced with just as many or more because people will arm themselves to protect themselves.

A civilian population with no guns and the gov with all the guns is the real threat. A 'well-armed militia' is to prevent tyranny, government style.

No amount of legislation in the banning of guns is going to prevent people from obtaining them.

A car can be a weapon, and without guns, they'll be used more as weapons.

Will the gov confiscate all cars then?

Trying to ban guns is absurd. It will never work.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JackAaah

Jan-11-13 9:16 AM

I just feel these fully automatic machine guns are living vicariously thru these assault rifles. Somehow projecting their killing-mentality to the assault rifles. I feel if we confiscated ALL the machine guns, and melted them down, the problems would end. I feel I know this to be true....

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-11-13 9:23 AM

I thought I heard all those loud mouth republicans on this post say something like "Heidi was just going to do what ever Harry Reid and President Obama tells her to do." Sounds like she has a few individual ideas if her own don't you think! Even the MDN thinks so and that is scary!!

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SickOfItAll

Jan-11-13 9:30 AM

"Banning useless mass murder assault weapons and mega round clips is not extreme. It's no different than banning Thompson sub machine guns."

Would it be extreme to ban vehicles because they will be used in an illegal manner that would result in people being killed? What do you think is more common? Someone being killed by the illegal use of a firearm, or illegal use of a vehcile? Also, you need to include knives, bats, and fists in your ban as well, given that they kill far more people than guns do every year. And truth be told, you're going to have an easier time banning cars, knives, and bats (fists might prove problematic.) They don't enjoy constitutional protection.

For those that want to ban guns, there is a framework to repeal the second amendment. The problem, and every anti-gun actvitst knows this, is that there isn't nearly enough public support to make this happen. Which means that almost any anti-gun legislaiton is going to be tested on its constitutionality

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Jan-11-13 9:45 AM

Didn't the Weimar Republic have gun legislation, gun registration, supported by a liberal agenda?

Then Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany and those without guns suffered immensely. Let some history do the talking here.

Today's history lesson, cliff note version 1.0, an easy one to learn quickly.

Gun legislation, gun registration, etc. is not a healthy prospect for the general population.

You would think the US gov would know and understand this, they warred against Germany, ergo, today's lesson in history is for them. It didn't work out that great for Germany. That's the lesson to be learned.

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Jan-11-13 11:24 AM

Heidi Heitkamp belongs to the NRA. I hope they don't give Obama an inch on this. He, again, is overstepping his boundries. Executive order on this - executive order on that.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-11-13 11:25 AM

Heidi is correct, their is more to it than just gun control, these violent movies, video games, and mental health issues all need to be addressed together to come up with a solution to end these mass shootings once and for all.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WorriedAmerican

Jan-11-13 11:27 AM

Missy1 get off your "high horse" GW has signed more EO's than President Obama has!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Missy1

Jan-11-13 11:32 AM

Bush isn't President. Obama has another 4 years to mess with our "rights".

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SickOfItAll

Jan-11-13 11:32 AM

You don't even have to bring up the oft mentioned tyrranical governments. Over the course of about a century, the UK enacted legislation that placed small restrictions on the ownership of firearms, inlcuding complete registration. After a rash of mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s, the government, having registration certificates for all weapons, simply demanded (at different points) that they all be surrendured. Today, a resident of the UK can legally only posess a shotgun capable of less than two rounds, or .22 caliber rifles, these with a permit Handguns are completely banned. The Olympic shooting team can't even train with them in the UK.

So, if the government requests the people to register their firearms, what do we expect them to do with that information if the next mass killing is carried out with a six shot revolver or a hunting rifle. Couldn't we reasonably expect the same outcry we are currently seeing against semi-automatic handguns and rifles?

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SickOfItAll

Jan-11-13 11:39 AM

"When people compare assault weapons and extended magazines to Nazi Germany you know that they have lost the debate on facts and ideas."

There really isn't any argument to be had. The second amendment is specific in its meaning. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If there is an argument, it will be on the part of anti-gun activists, and would require either altering or repealing the second amendment.

When the constitution was written, the arms being carried by the Colonial militias were virtually identical to those being carried by the British Army. The intent was to provide the people with the right to stand up to a tyrranical government. And if you want to control the population of a given country, you better first make sure that they lack the ability to resist you.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

locomotive

Jan-11-13 11:56 AM

SickOfItAll, your posts contain logic and reason.

Anathema to emotionalism and feelings.

Ask Jack. Your postings must be his kryptonite today.

Remember, Jack. Kryptonite is GREEN...

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Jan-11-13 12:10 PM

I guess if you want to discount the example of Nazi Germany, be my guest.

You're lost and need to find your way home.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reality

Jan-11-13 12:19 PM

First i give credit to Heitkamp for being independent from big washington democrat/republican partisanship. She is truely representing the public that voted for her despite political party non-sense, since after all lets face it an overwhelming amount of North Dakotan's do not support gun control. We didn't even support felony animal cruelty laws.

However, I think that something must be done. Times have changed. Firearms can be necessary for protection but i dont think that an AR-15 is burglar protection. A semi-auto handgun with 15 round magazines would probably be preferred. One it's bullets will not be near as deadly when they continue on out into the public/neighbors house when you miss. Two a handgun is an easy point and shoot weapon that can easily be fired repeatedly from any position and kept away from an intruder and aimed/fired if fighting for your weapon much easier than a rifle. Three AR-15 ownership is not a big deal in ND, but buying one at walmart?!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reality

Jan-11-13 12:27 PM

Walmart!?! walmart can hardly keep someone at the check out's, and other issues I know we have all experienced and they are screening people to purchase assault rifles?? Really that is quite odd. If anyone has gone to walmart late at night around here lately it is quite interesting and not what it used to be, but then let's sell assault rifles there as well! Maybe I am off on a tangent but wow.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

centerfield

Jan-11-13 1:06 PM

Does it violate the 2nd amendment to do the following? 1. Require a background search and waiting period before selling a gun to an individual?(gun shows-internet too). 2. Limit the size of an ammunition clip to 10 shells? 3. Require guns to be registered? Do these items violate the amendment and if so, how?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reality

Jan-11-13 1:09 PM

We register vehicles and the governement is not coming to take them away.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

muleskinner

Jan-11-13 2:22 PM

Annie Oakley would be very proud of Heidi.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SickOfItAll

Jan-11-13 2:33 PM

"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."

You don't seem to understand the language of the second amendment. It is the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. Let me reiterate, "the people." These same people are mentioned elsewhere in the constitution as well, where they are granted the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to privacy, the freedom to not house troops, etc. So if the right to keep and bear amrms doesn't apply to these "people," why would we expect any of the other amendments to. Furthermore, if your argument regarding militias is that the term "the people" applies exclusively to members of "a well regulated militia," then it would be they and they alone who had confirmed confirmed constitutional rights to speech, religion, etc. But don't take my word for it, go read the bill of r

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SickOfItAll

Jan-11-13 2:43 PM

"It was brutal back then but hunting for sport developed much later and certainly killing 20 people in under a minute didn't evolve until 1862 so for those stuck in the constitutional past....you need to move on!"

It's actually those not "stuck" in the past that need to move on, if that's the course they choose. And they would do so by putting together legislation that would affect some change to the second amendment. Simple.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SickOfItAll

Jan-11-13 2:50 PM

"Only an idiot wouldn't understand that the second admendmnet was written before we had a NAVY.ARMY,MARINES,COAST GUARD and NATINAL GUARD and was intended for the private citizen to be ARMED to serve in a regulated militia to protect the State and Country. You gun-nuts think it was written for you sorry excuses to carry around your pacifiers and AK47's."

The establishment of the Continental Navy (including the Marines)and Army occurred in 1775, 14 years prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights. The Continental Army was approved that same year as well. There was no Air Force, because aircraft had not been invented. (It was a really, really long time ago).

6 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 168 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web