Gun control support

To the Editor: When 90 percent of the American people are in favor of gun control and Congress fails to act accordingly, we, the people, have to act.
Apr 8, 2013


Congress is broken. In a democracy, it's up to us to fix it.

The answer to gun violence in schools is not to put more guns in schools, as the NRA and Congressman Bill Huizenga suggest. "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost three times more likely to occur than in homes without guns" ( The same is likely to be true of guns in schools.

Bill Huizenga is opposed to all gun control. We don't need more killings like the children at Sandy Hook. We have more than 30,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries each year in the U.S. Are we at war with ourselves? That's more deaths than in Iraq and Afghanistan together!

We need to vote Bill Huizenga out of office to do our share to fix Congress and make it responsive to the will of the people.

— Tom Donahue, Grand Haven


The Voice

So your basically admitting your not willing to have a conversation with people who do not agree with your emotion oriented point of view...congrats!


I'm not basically admitting, I'm outright saying that a conversation with people who do not respect the true, eternal spirit of the 2nd and our Founding Fathers, and acknowledge that their emotion-based arguments are self-serving, destructive, and potentially harmful to their families, neighbors, and friends, is not going to be productive, positive, meaningful, or factual.

And, btw, the topic of gun control is perhaps one of the most emotional issues facing our society today. Death and destruction has a way of doing that.


We don't need to respect the "true, eternal spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, whatever that means (I have an inkling, like the Constitution being a living document, subject to change at the will of liberals) we need to respect the Second Amendment as written - a simple expression of the right of free Americans to defend themselves against tyranny - foreign and domestic.


Pretty simple and basic when you get down to it.


Actually not. The writers argued vociferously for a very long time over the 2nd. Opinions were all over the place. George Washington was very much opposed to the idea of well-armed militias that were not well-trained, having had some nasty military experiences.

It took a lot of heated discussion and compromise. Although simple in form and content, the creative process was not.


so, since you think that you're a direct descendent of a founding father you know what they were thinking? brilliant! you must have been a bast@rd child


No - I'm legal. I threw that in to get the goat of you old coots.


This should warm the cockles of your liberal heart, Lanivan,

ACLU understands that the bill before the Senate next week is essentially a gun registration system

Also, what you can achieve with your limited win:

Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr . Please e-mail questions to

ACLU understands that the bill before the Senate next week is essentially a gun registration system
Harry Ried's bill that will be before the Senate this next week reads in part:

. . . shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph . . . .

A top lobbyist for the ACLU describes the bill to the Daily Caller this way:

“The first is that it treats the records for private purchases very differently than purchases made through licensed sellers. Under existing law, most information regarding an approved purchase is destroyed within 24 hours when a licensed seller does a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check now,” Calabrese said, “and almost all of it is destroyed within 90 days.”

Calabrese wouldn’t characterize the current legislation’s record-keeping provision as a “national gun registry” — which the White House has denied pursuing — but he did say that such a registry could be “a second step.” . . .

The point is that over time the bill will record a larger and larger percentage of who owns guns in America. It will be a gradual gun registration bill. As the ACLU lobbyist warns:

“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”
“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.” . . .

He comes to the same conclusion that I have come to reading the bill.

“Contrast this with what the existing [Reid] legislation says, which is simply that a record has to be kept of a private transfer,” Calabrese highlighted, “and it doesn’t have any of the protections that we have in current law for existing licensees.” . . .

Yet, Obama denies that the bill involves registration:

"We're not proposing a gun registration system; we're proposing background checks for criminals," he said Wednesday in Denver. . . .

Though his own Justice Department claims that background checks won't work without registration.

the NRA says the memo proves that the administration “believes that a gun ban will not work without mandatory gun confiscation” and thinks universal background checks “won't work without requiring national gun registration,” according to the AP. . . .

The problem with this information is that it means the polls on background checks are pretty useless. 91 percent may claim that they are in favor of some idealized version of background checks (partly because of the false claims the president has made about 40 percent of gun sales being made without background checks and 2 million prohibited people supposedly being denied from buying guns because of background checks), but how many people support gun registration? Some news stories note: "Opponents says they fear that universal background checks will eventually lead to gun registration." But that is wrong. You don't have to wait for eventually. The would begin the registration process immediately.

Of course, registration could never lead to confiscation of guns in the US, right? Well, it has already done so in California.

Anyone who wanted to keep one of the named firearms must have owned it prior to June 1, 1989, and had to register it by March 30, 1992. Registration gave the state a list of owners. . . .

In August 1998, however, a California appellate court held the Attorney General could not legally allow the gun owners to register their weapons after the March 1992 deadline. That ruling came after many owners had already identified themselves by registering late. The Attorney General had led the law- fearing lambs into a trap: citizens had voluntarily informed the state that they were felons. . . .

Then California lawmakers passed SB 23. On January 1, 2000, any Californian who possesses a magazine-fed centerfire rifle or carbine may be guilty of a felony. The 1989 law banned weapons only by their names -- the 1999 law bans all such firearms by their features (e.g. pistol grip, thumbhole stock, flash suppressor). . . .

Other examples of registration being used to confiscate guns include:

(1921) New Zealand, registration of revolvers required -- ownership allowed in the name of personal defense. In 1974, this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
(1921) The United Kingdom instituted handgun registration. About every 10 years or so, they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
(1967) In New York City, a registration system enacted for long guns was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons."
(1989) California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and prohibited certain semiautomatic long-rifles and pistols. Upon the death of the owner, they are either to be surrendered or moved out of state.
(1990) Chicago enacted registration of long guns and used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns.
(1995) Canada prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. The guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner with no compensation to the estate.
(1996) Australia banned most semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump shotguns, then used its list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons. . . .


Sorry, didn't mean to copy the whole article - trigger finger just getting itchy, I guess.


Wow Vlad, you are living up to your Impaler name today. Ole Lan must be patching her wounds, she has fallen silent!


Sorry - I'm working on my rebuttal, but it takes time when one attempts to back everything up with facts....


You can't get on a plane these days without a background check. Background checks are routinely done on prospective employees, nannys, babysitters, and other home staff. If you have purchased a gun legally, are properly licensed, have undergone firearm training, and are a responsible individual of right mind, why would you feel threatened by background checks, regardless of whether they would lead to a gun registry?

We are on all sorts of "registries", whether they be state or federal. Why has the collective psyche of a minority managed to link the ability to own instruments of death with freedom, and that opposition to something as basic as background checks/ gun registry infers that gun rights are more important than life?

The vast majority of Americans support background checks. About 30% of US citizens are gun owners. One can not avoid this conclusion: we are facing tyranny by the minority.


Should we have background checks to exercise our first amendment rights. I'm sure you and a few others would consider my opinions dangerous. Shouldn't we have to background check my intentions.

Minority opinions are driving discussions in this country all the time Lan. This time the "supposed minority" (I disagree with that) is on the opposite side of your opinion and you don't like it. So much for that centrist position you so fancy yourself in having. You seem to like the argument more then the convictions you have.

Minority and majority opinions change all the time in this country. You Lan, being so middle of the road should understand sometimes your for something before your against something, before your for something!


Although your comments have cut at times, or left one breathless from laughter, your or any speech does not have the ability to kill (although speech can be used as a method of protection). The 1st has plenty of restrictions in terms of obscenity/indecency, and time/place/manner of speech.

You are right in pointing out the opinions of both the minority/majority drive discussions, and people change their minds all the time (same sex marriage is one for me). But this particular issue, one of life and death, public safety, crime prevention, and especially the protection of our children from gun violence, that affects society universally, should not be left to a minority to make the ultimate decision.

As a centrist, I'm all for the ownership of firearms for hunting, sport, protection. But that's it. Non-military or law enforcement citizens have no earthly reason why they need magazines that can fire 30-50-100 rounds. Eleven children ran past Adam Lanza while he reloaded, saving themselves. Adam left his handguns at home, bringing his Bushmaster into the school - why?

When policy that affect all of society is driven by the NRA, a gun manufacturer lobby, and, yes, a minority, I repeat - it's tyranny by the minority.


None, I repeat NONE of what is being proposed right now would change what happened there. How dare you decide to limit my constitutional right based on the actions of an even smaller minority of criminals and mental patients in the country. Stiffen up and enforce the all ready existing laws that deal with these warts. Good lord why is this so hard for liberals to understand?

Legislation driven by the actions of an even smaller minority is tyranny by the minority.


Adam Lanza took his Bushmaster with several 30+ magazines, from an large firearm arsenal left at home, into that school because he knew it would do the most damage in the shortest period of time. Ammunition limits might have slowed down the process and limited the damage. This is true in almost every mass killing event.

Nobody is arguing that this is not a deep, complex problem that requires a multi-pronged approach, including enforcing existing laws, but it's not conducive to turn every discussion into a liberal/conservative thing. I wonder what the Founding Fathers who wrote your constitutional right would have made of all this.


Every mass killing was done by a mental ill, unstable idiot that was not properly addressed by the system. You want to limit my constitution right because of the actions of a extreme minority of warts in society. If tough, extreme gun restrictions are so effective, why is Chicago having the crime they are having?

You are scaring my Lan, the constitutional right the Founding Fathers wrote is for ALL of us not just me. ("your constitutional right") Wholly crap, your ancestors would be flipping to see what you just wrote!

Here is what one of our Founding Fathers thought: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." –Thomas Jefferson


No one is saying all guns must be banned.

Please don't.....Twist and Shout, Beatles. :>


"Revolution" - Beatles :-0 because we all want to change your head!


Ah, Wing - the guy who will....Never Say Yes, Elvis Presley.


Ooooh boy, here we go with the name calling. Gosh, Andy I remember when we use to respect the elderly for their wisdom.

Guess when I get to be an old coot I'm in trouble!


You'll never be an old coot, Wing - an old cootie, perhaps...time will tell...


Cootie and the blow fish! Oh, I know that was bad but maybe it helps nurse your wounds today with a little laughter.


"Old Man and Me"...Hootie and the Blowfish. I have no wounds but you did get me laughing....


There is so much left and right on these comments, and on this site.
I am a registered republican. I do enjoy hunting and fishing.
I believe in a moderate federal government, and a stronger local and state government.
I think gay marriage is fine. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.
(And this is off topic, but the constitution clearly calls for a separation of church and state, your religion should have no effect on the laws of my country, ever!)

I believe the current gun laws are a joke, and the ability or inability of our government to enforce them is even more so.
I believe the whole system should be overhauled. I believe licensing and training enforcement should be the basis for a solid gun control system. (without this it’s all for not)
I believe a trained and licensed gun holding public would be far more effective in holding the value of the 2nd amendment as intended, rather than anyone who wants a gun can get a gun!

There is a problem with gun control in this country. If you cannot see that you are blind.
If we are ever going to improve the process we have to ALL agree that the system is flawed and needs to be improved.
Removing guns from the general populous will never happen in my life time. I’m not convinced that is the answer.
Regulating guns to the general populous is something I think can happen. I don’t care if you want an M61 Vulcan.
But you need to be licensed & trained to have it, and you need to have that licensed checked and reviewed at regular intervals.

And yes, you’re going to pay for all of it.


Hmmm, Truly open minded statement. Not sure I'm sold but I am listening with caution. Some of your statements make me itch but I'll take it as an honest olive branch to the left. Let's see what happens!


I'm not reaching out to the left or right. This is common sense stuff.
(and both republicans and democrats have the ability to lack it)

People need to stop listening to parties and focus on facts.
Cable news is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to this country.
You get news channels that lean to the left and the right overreacts with Fox News. Both sides loose credibility and those with common sense are stuck in the middle just listening to rabble rousing about extremes that do not exist.

I like John Stuart and hate Bill Maher. I used to like Bill O'Reilly but he's been sucked into the machine and just spits out party line crap. I voted for Obama for crying out loud. I had no choice, Romney was another wasted shot by the republicans that pushed so far to one side they were unapproachable.

This left and right crap needs to stop. Last time I checked we were Americans. I'm all for a good debate and I'm the first to concede if wrong.
I just wish the rest of this country and the people on this website would pull their heads out of their butts and focus on issues and facts. Leave the politics, religion and feelings out of it. It's a lot less messy that way.


Would you consider a primary challenge to Bill Huizenga?


Your losing me. We are not robots. We have passion, were human. In the arena of ideals passion is needed. Opinions and passion are the food for the debate. When the ideals, passion, and opinions align and resonate, we get the great leaders of history.

Romney was far far from a far right guy if thats what your implying. His message lost passion and conviction. Obama is the farthest left a President has been.

So even though I believe your a closet Dem acting Republican, I'll still listen because I can unite with you on your distrust of the political machines on both sides. These robotic political machines are churning out hollow candidates that they control like Oz from behind the curtain.

Kudos to you for trying to cut thru the crap.


I did not vote for Obama because of his ideals, I voted for him because they were at least his. Romney was all over the shop and followed the machine.

Debate is great, and healthy, but a debate that does not end in a unified vision or at the very least compromise, means those participating in the debate are incapable of rational logic or common sense.

Debate is a great means of communication and a brilliant means of education.
When we are talking about our nation, non-changing, non-compromising opinions only causes friction, discourse, and a lack of faith in our process and systems. You, having never met me, and only seeing a fraction of my political views dub me to be a closet democrat.

That is an arrogant and wholly unjustified assumption that you are not qualified to make, and is a prime example of the right vs left problem we have in this country. This is a problem that need not exist.

We should unite on our common beliefs. Be open to new ideals and never believe that we have the correct answer. If history has proven anything, nothing is forever, and nothing is beyond reproach.


Now see here it comes. I'm trying to have a civil conversation and you want to level an "arrogant" charge on me. The closest I got to making a derogatory statement towards you was saying your a closet Democrat. (you said you voted for Obama) Even then I tried to remain open and listen.

Just too bad as I was looking forward to an interesting discussion. So much for a healthy debate. I just learned another lesson, have a good night.



Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on Create a new account today to get started.