- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
2,563
1,216
Why not restrict gun ownership, too?
Throughout history, we have had to impose limitations on certain rights enumerated in the Constitution or codified by law. For example, we have the right of free speech, but we also have restrictions in the form of slander, libel and defamation of character laws. We cannot falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater and in many states it is illegal to post threats on our Facebook page.
We have the right to own a car, but we also have laws about which side of the road to use and how fast we can drive. We are required to carry insurance and children must be restrained in car seats. We cannot use a car as a weapon to do harm to a person or his property, nor can we drive a car while intoxicated. We have such laws and restrictions in order to protect the lives and for the safety of the public.
We have the right to buy and consume drugs, but only those approved by the Food and Drug Administration and only those considered “legal.” Many drugs must be prescribed by a doctor. Why? If used incorrectly, they could pose a threat to a person’s life or health. Most of us accept that such safeguards must be in place in order to protect the public’s health and safety.
So, here’s my question. If we accept that restrictions on certain rights are necessary in order to protect our health, character and safety, then why is it so difficult to accept that there must be restrictions on gun ownership as well?
If we accept that certain drugs must be banned or restricted, if we accept that there are limits to free speech, and if we accept that certain laws must be maintained for automobile safety, then why is it so difficult to accept that we must also place restrictions on a class of weapons and ammunition that were designed for the sole purpose of killing the highest number of people in the shortest amount of time?
Betty Catania
Fairfield
Discussion | 21 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
G-ManFebruary 19, 2013 - 3:11 pm
And yet Betty still lives...on what planet though is anyone's guess...Betty after the Nyquil wears off you should know that this country has hundreds if not thousands of laws that restrict, control and monitor guns..just one problem..just as obalama flaunts the Constitution like it's an errant Post It Note they're NOT enforced..no the lubes in Washington want MORE laws..that they won't enforce and then moan and groan when a Lanza falls thru the cracks..and try to use their own short comings to try and dis-arm America...
Reply |FibberFebruary 20, 2013 - 6:45 am
G-man: I guess this poor misguided woman doesn't know that there are more than TEN THOUSAND, thats 10,000 guns laws in our country already and the government and courts fail almost universally to enforce them. Mrs. Catania is another of the "me too" crowd seeking to get on the popular side of an issue. Humbug!
Reply |G-ManFebruary 25, 2013 - 3:53 am
@Fibber..Even I didn't know they're were THAT many..Yowza..You ain't Fibbin are ya?..Keep your powder dry patriot..we got some "black ops" to wrap up!
Reply |BobdawgFebruary 25, 2013 - 1:16 pm
There are more than 950 gun laws on the books in California. We also have laws that say you have to have insurance to drive on the streets. I have been hit 3 different times by people that didn't have insurance. The last one was also drunk and I was in the hospital for 3 months.
Reply |G-ManFebruary 25, 2013 - 2:28 pm
I'm a glass is half full guy..none of these encounters involved a nut w/ a gun
Reply |CD BrooksFebruary 20, 2013 - 7:15 am
If we cannot (or will not) enforce simple traffic and drug laws, how in the world are we going to enforce gun laws? It's a great argument and I agree whole-heartedly. But without the funding and manpower, this will be a tough road. Mix in the honest citizen's rights and desire to have their weapons of choice, then those willing to skirt the law and you have a real mess. Then of course the bad guys will always have their own set of rules. I’d settle for a few stop sign and red light violators getting cited for now…
Reply |StRFebruary 20, 2013 - 9:31 am
Everyone is still missing the Big Picture, the most important aspect of all this......That the major shootings Aurora, Newtown ect were staged PSYOPs to utilize the Illuminati tool, the Hegelian Dialectic....Create a Problem (stage the PSYOPs shootings)..Which Creates a Reaction (Public fear and outrage against guns, gives the Corporate controlled NWO propaganda something to hype, while not searching out the real facts)....and then THEY propose their Solution (limit Americans' 2nd ammendment rights to self defense, against an increasingly tyrannical NWO government)....The HEGELAIN DIALECTIC...PROBLEM _ REACTION _ SOLUTION... JOIN THE NEW WORLD ORDER MILK THE SHEEPLE!
Reply |G-ManFebruary 25, 2013 - 3:45 am
And yet STR still lives..I wouldn't fear the Illuminati..if their "Wet Ops" team is that incompetent
Reply |Sally ChaneyFebruary 25, 2013 - 10:41 pm
Typical. Misguided. I keep hearing about what to do about law abiding gun owners. It is just political spin. The real problem is what are we going to do about CRIMINALS who own guns? (notice in the current "don't blame me for my actions" society we live in, everyone except the criminal is blamed!)
Reply |rlw895February 26, 2013 - 11:43 am
But wouldn't it be good if we could nail criminals for possession of a banned gun? Say some guy stopped for a misdemeanor and there is an illegal gun in his car. Then we can confiscate the gun and charge the guy BEFORE the gun is used in a crime. I don't object to guns stored at home or in some other defined legal place, or taken of home in an emergency, but they should not be on the streets otherwise except by permit. Law-abiding citizens would obey that, so whenever a gun is found on the streets illegally, we have a criminal before there is a bigger crime.
Reply |G-ManFebruary 26, 2013 - 12:04 pm
I can see why you don't practice law..My reading comprehension is just fine..if only YOU would write something worth reading..once again for the bleechers...there are over 300million registered guns in this country and probably twice as many more illegal ones..what your saying is just ridiculous..have the government you fawn over so much go get the 1300 or so..big bad assault weapons that they stupidly lost in Mexico...
Reply |The SugarJarFebruary 26, 2013 - 12:19 pm
Reading comprehension just fine when there's something worth reading? Handy excuse, no? Understanding and agreeing are different. If you want to insult rlw895 (who, btw, should consider the source), you'll need to do better. Instead you kinda insult anyone who still reads your " vinegary" posts. Please, if you must be insulting, think it through, something more logical would be appreciated. I'd like to give you more pointers, G-Man, but I used most of my computer time here laughing about how useful that comprehending stuff only when its worth reading was. I find comprehending stuff when it is not worth reading pretty darn useful.
Reply |G-ManFebruary 27, 2013 - 3:23 am
Everyone reads my posts..though few take the time w/them that you do..and I DON'T Insult everyone..btw..why would I use my brain's comprehension ability to even try and make sense out of nonsense?
Reply |SavetheRepublicFebruary 26, 2013 - 3:24 pm
This showed up on the recent comments but not here so I put it here for Gary......And yes I get your message...it does bug me that you bug our house....And yes my kid is afraid of Bugs...(the creepy crawly kind)..........Why not restrict gun ownership, too?..... February 26, 2013 - 1:46 pm Put a bug down her shirt for me..did she write "I find comprehending stuff I can't understand useful?..DidRLW write.."They(guns) shouldn't be on the street w/o a permit..law abiding citizens would ob ey this"..how do you even REASON with such dullards.............. - G-ManReply | Report abusive comment...........
Reply |The SugarJarFebruary 26, 2013 - 5:12 pm
Thank you STR for placing G-Man's post here. I'd like to reply to both G-Man and laffsatliers (his post is not showing here either). First, laffsatliers, as his post came first. Laffsatliers, you've brought up a number of issues. I'll attempt to address them in reverse order: Could I be a hypocrite, you ask --yes I could. But I'm not one based on any of the issues you mention. You state that I attacked G-Man and fawned over certain other posters. You identify those posters using some seemingly insulting terms, not sure why. My reply, I've not attacked G-Man recently. I've pointed out his use of racially-charged terms. I've (in the past) pointed out the use of sexually (and religiously) derogatory terms. I do not favor those, nothing feigned there. When G-Man stated his reading comprehension was fine when someone wrote something worth reading, really, did you find that an insult to rlw895 or to G-Man. I'd vote it insulted G-Man and suggested he do better. He has considerable abilities to insult--why that one? A very sad insult indeed. Now calling me a real conundrum. I am real. I may seem a conundrum to those who don't understand. I try to let most of the posts roll on by--and I don't agree with everything that all frequent posters say. However, most of the frequent posters, both liberal and conservative, don't throw personal attacks at me, nor do they make a habit using of sexist, racist, etc., terminology. I cut them slack if they don't attack me or make a habit of speaking the language of racism.... I hope my expanation helps make the problem that's The SugarJar less complicated for you. Not really a conundrum if you work it through.
Reply |G-ManFebruary 27, 2013 - 3:19 am
I swear to GOD thought she was black..and all those jousts we did..she never caught on and neither did I I guess..till she told me days ago...so that's Marcy Sugar??..gotta pay more attention to her articles...
Reply |The SugarJarFebruary 26, 2013 - 5:18 pm
Now to G-Man, you wrote "..did she write 'I find comprehending stuff I can't understand useful?.." So I looked back at what I wrote, ready to apologize for an incredibly dumb typo. But, oddly enough, that's not what I said. My message was that even stuff "not worth" reading was kind of important to understand. You either misremembered, misunderstood, or deliberately attempted to edit what I said. Then to say "...how do you even REASON with such dullards..." kinda ironic, eh?
Reply |G-ManFebruary 27, 2013 - 3:26 am
Welcome to Washington DC..if a "nice" gov't appt would open up would you take it?
Reply |G-ManFebruary 27, 2013 - 3:30 am
Don't see any significant diff in my paraphrase and your quote...can wwe end this particular conversation?..I'm getting intense pains behind my right eye.
Reply |