I think it was Obama’s ex-mayor of Chicago that made the famous statement: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” After every shooting the lame brain Democrats run to the nearest microphone and call for gun control. 

I think we should ban automobiles that kill thousands of American’s a year. Several people die from choking on bread every year, let’s ban bread. Many small infants die each year from suffocating in their cribs from blankets, let’s ban blankets and cribs. Many children die each year in hot cars, let’s ban windows in cars. All these examples are about as stupid as banning so called assault rifles. A gun is just a piece of machinery laying there, that takes a deranged human to do harm with it.

 I know, let’s ban deranged humans.

Raymond Martin

Mont Belvieu

 

(3) comments

baytownbert

I have yet to handle a firearm and lick it or dream about the high of killing a human. I've owned firearms since I was 14 and have never committed an act of violence against another human being. Why would anyone want to restrict my 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm? I regularly carry as protection from criminals and have no record of ever behaving in such a manner as to have my permit revoked. In other words, my guns, like everyone else's guns, have committed no crimes. People commit crimes and these are illegal acts we have laws for. We don't need more laws to stop us from shooting each other. Sane people do not shoot other people for sport, but by accident.


Frank

What 2nd amendment right, Bert? The second amendment reads in full “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 Mr. Connealy, Bert Marshall, and others conveniently choose to ignore is that the 2nd amendment is couched in the need for an armed militia. That made sense in 1789 when there were Indian conflicts on the frontier and militias were necessary for the protection of communities. Militias played an important role in the War of 1812 because we did not have a significant standing army. We no longer have Indian wars and we now have one of the largest standing armies in the world, so militias are obsolete. If the founding fathers' intent was to give unfettered access to weapons, why didn’t the founding fathers leave out the first part and simply write “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”? Could it be that they envisioned a day when militias would no longer be needed and the right to bear arms should not be absolute? Any objective reading of the second amendment should conclude that, absent a need for a well-regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms is not a constitutional right. That right might be established by legislation, but it is not guaranteed by the constitution.


Alan H

I have the solution. Instead of banning assault rifles, let's pass a law that limits who has access to them. Only police officers, military personnel and private citizens who must form a militia to protect their homes from Indian raids will have access. That should keep 2nd Amendment hardliners from hyperventilating and gnashing their teeth. As for banning deranged humans, I'd advise Mr Martin and baytownblert to buy a wig and don't answer your doorbells. I understand Mr Martin was voted mayor of Crazytown and baytownblert mayor pro tem.


Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.