Viewers Respond To Question Asked By Portland's CBS Affiliate
At Its Online Forum - "What's Your Opinion? Should Oregon Tighten Up
Its Gun Control Laws? If So, How Restrictive Should They Be? Speak Out
On This Volatile Issue" - In Wake Of Warrantless Break-In
By Marijuana Task Force That Left One Killed, Three Wounded

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion:

Should Oregon tighten up its gun control laws? If so, how restrictive should
they be? Speak out on this volatile issue.

Stricter Gun Control Laws?

The recent fatal shooting of a Portland police officer is opening the eyes of many
local politicians, forcing them to re-evaluate Oregon's gun-control laws.

Less than 24 hours after the shooting, lawmakers on Capitol Hill were already
talking about another push for stronger legislation on weapons of all kinds. For
starters, Governor Kitzhaber says he's interested in tightening restrictions on
weapon sales at gun shows.

But not everybody is pushing for more gun control. Gun advocates say there's
plenty of restrictions on guns, just not enough common sense and law enforcement
to put criminals behind bars before they kill.

What do you think: Are tighter gun laws in order to protect the police and the
public? Or would stricter gun control simply put law-abiding citizens in greater
danger from criminals who could get guns anyway? As we often hear, "Guns don't
kill people. People kill people."

Mike Shatila - 12:11pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#1 of 87)

Here we go again, the rest of us have to pay a price for the actions of one person.
Has anyone thought of the fact that the police officers could have approached the
house with CAUTION and under the assumption that there may be an armed,
drugged out, derraged animal in the house that's capable of anything? That would
have certainly prevented this tragedy. I think before evaluating the possibility of
more gun control, we need to look at the steps police officers take in protecting
themselves and not take away the right to protect ourselves from criminals.

C. Winn - 02:01pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#2 of 87)

It is insulting to say (above) that the cops were naive about the possible risks of
their job. They know the risks and theirs is a dangerous job. All of the laws in the
world don't really affect those people who live a life of total disregard for the law.
Overly restrictive gun control will punish the legal sports enthusiasts foremost and
do little to reduce crime. The "mistake" made in this recent tragic chain of events is
that the criminal wasn't behind bars in the first place for one of his numerous
crimes he's made a lifestyle of commiting in the past. Laws are pointless without
true enforcement and the legislation to fund such incarceration as is necessary to
protect the citizens and police officer from these monsters.

Bob Swetland - 02:01pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#3 of 87)

Bravo Mike Shatila

Allan Schwindt - 02:31pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#4 of 87)

Everyone wants to blame someone else when they screw up and it is no different
with the police force and with the news media. Being accountable has long since
gone away from present day responses to almost any situatioin. Of course, the
politicians have the answer to every problem," just write and pass a new law and it
will go away". The only problem with this thinking is that it doesn't work. This is
mostly due to the fact that decisions are made on the basis of emotion rather than
facts. And with politics being what it is, there is almost never an agreement on what
the facts are.

Simply passing more gun control laws will certainly not make any difference.
Remember, "CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS". When is someone going to
start asking about these guys who believe its OK to blow someone away with very
little reason. This is not only true with adults, but, many youngsters. We can all cite
lots of reasons why they are thinking this way, but, nothing ever gets done about it.
If we just put band-aids on the problem we'll never solve it. Tougher punishment
for those who commit gun related crimes would be a good start. In Corvallis where
I once lived there were lots of cases involving "felons in posession of a firearm"
which were simply dismissed. I know the dreaded NRA has been promoting more
punishment for gun related crimes. Why don't others support the idea?

P.S. I'm not a member of the NRA or a supporter of Assault Weapons, but, I do
support the 2nd amendment.

Rick C. - 02:31pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#5 of 87)

Everyone wants to stop tragedys like this from happening. I think the same
regulations should be enforced at gun shows that are in use at public gun shops.
However, no amount of "gun control" will keep a criminal from having weapons,
just the same as we haven't been able to stop the drug trade. There will always be
ways to smuggle illegal goods. Only the law abiding citizen will be affected by these
laws, robbing them of their rights. Criminals, by definition will just ignore the law,
leaving a vulnerable public.

A free society will always suffer from people testing and abusing the rights afforded
them in the Bill of Rights, whether it be tabloids abusing free speach, criminals with
guns, or bizarre claims of religious expression. We should overhaul our criminal
justice system, punishing firmly for criminal behavior. A sure and strong
punishment will be a deterent.

Many say that the public doesn't need to have those type of guns. This response
usually comes from people that know very little about guns. More people are
assaulted with .22 caliper guns than any other type. I personally don't own a gun of
the type used in this crime, but I know people that do, and they are collectors.
They also like to target practice. They are law-abiding citizens that should not lose
their constitutional rights because of some low-life criminal.

Gladys Labsch - 02:32pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#6 of 87)

Well said C. Winn!!

P.S. Channel 6, What in the world were you doing last night, trying to MAKE
news? Your "victim" was pathetic!

Aletha - 02:32pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#7 of 87)

Once again, law abiding citizens are threatened with losing more of their
Constitutional rights due to the actions of the minority criminal element. When will
we ever learn!! Take away the guns from the citizens at large and the only ones
with weapons will be the criminals (they will get them one way or another,
regardless of the law) and law enforcement personnel. With the way our rights are
continually being eroded, I fear the emerging Police State more than I fear the
criminal element. Our founding fathers invested the citizens of this nation with
certain powers and rights for good reason. Let's not be so quick to give up those
powers just because a few choose not to abide by the laws of the land. If the justice
department would do its job of enforcing the laws already on the books, we
wouldn't need any new laws.

Chris Houston - 02:59pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#8 of 87)

I must say that I have had my own personal safety jeopardized by lack of
enforcement of the current laws. In high school, I had no way of knowing that the
music teacher was a child molester or that the man who murdered one of the
teachers at my school (cutting her heart out with a pair of scissors) was the janitor
whom I and the rest of the students at Rex Putnam High School often brushed
shoulders with nearly every day! Both had been in serious trouble before and
should have been behind bars instead of teaching or working in close proximity to
our children. Perhpse we should instead register scissors or have police escorts for
music teachers?

(79 following messages)

Don Wilfong - 02:59pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#9 of 87)

It is tragic that three police officers were either killed or injured in this confrontation
however I do not see where gun control would have in anyway changed things.

If more strict gun control laws were passed, do you thing the crooks would turn in
their guns? Disarming the honest citizens of this country would only serve to give
the crooks a free rein knowing full well the unarmed citizens could not defend
themselves.

We do not recommend that everyone turn in their drivers licenses just because
some people drink and drive. That would make no sense at all, yet this is the
approach to the fact that some people use guns to commit crimes. We have
strengthened our laws and penalties to try to eliminate the use of a motor vehicle as
a weapon by these drunk drivers. I feel we should go to the sourse and make the
penalties very severe for any crime committed while in the possession of a fire arm.
This would go after the criminal and not penalize the law abiding gun owners. The
normal protective vest worn by our police officers will normally stop a pistol bullet
but will not, in most cases, stop a rifle bullet whether that bullet was fired from a
military rifle or from a sporting rifle. I understand that vests that will generally stop
a rifle bullet are available but they weigh some 40 pounds each.

The gun control believers say "lets get the assult rifles off the street" That is only
the beginning, when they find out that the crooks still have their weapons they will
then want to have the rest of the weapons banned. All they will have succeeded in
doing is disarming the honest citizen.

Don Wilfong

Ted Mears - 03:49pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#10 of 87)

I think we should have strict gun laws.I believe that no citizen has a need to own an
assault weapon,armor piercing ammuntion or the like.Police and Military should
have access to these weapons to protect and serve the people.The Congress must
vote to remove these weapons from the general market and not worry so much
about losing support from the NRA and like groups.

John B. D'Angelo - 04:44pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#11 of 87)

In regard to "Gun Control," I am a firm believer that as citizens (in good standing)
we should always have the "right to bear arms." The politicians in Washington
should restrict the availability of the assult weapons and all types of automatic
weapons. Restrictions should, also, be put of the purchase of armor piercing
ammunition. We as citizens do not have the need to be armed with these types of
weapons and amunition. I have been a Life Member of the National Rifle
Association for almost 40 years, and in some respects I do not agree with what they
say about keeping all types of weapons available to the public. The availability of all
weapons should be banned from sales through the mail or any other delivery outfit.
Weapons should only be sold through an authorized storefront outlet.

PETE CURRIER - 08:14pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#12 of 87)

As I have seen in many articles in the news,most of the fatal shootings,especially
when drug connected are happening with either guns or ammunition that are not
used by most of gun enthusiasts. I do feel that there should be tighter restrictions on
the types of both, auto-matic guns and also some of the ammunition that is not used
for say hunting or normal use in target shooting. These need more restriction,not
necessarly the type of guns we normally use, for hunting or target shooting.

Daniel Kuwahara - 10:18pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#13 of 87)

I think the problem is we are not doing something about the heart of the matter.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It takes a cold hearted evil criminal to
pick up a gun and shoot somebody. Sure getting rid of all guns might solve one
problem, but people will find other ways of killing other people. We need tougher
criminal laws, better screening for buying weapons, more police on the street to find
these criminals and put them behind bars.

David Atwood - 10:22pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#14 of 87)

This accused could not legally touch a gun as a convicted felon. The gun is alleged
to have be purchased in California, how would Portland gun laws help? The
accused appears to ignore many laws, why would he not ignore a new one banning
the gun or bullet? The most popular hunting rifle bullets will penetrate the police
vest better than the one used, but responsible hunters are never a threat to good
police officers. These hunters usually help whenever possible. The real issue I see
is the lack of respect for laws and life. When a life has no value, any weapon will
do. Will we ban baseball bats like some what to ban guns?

earl bennett - 10:30pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#15 of 87)

It is stupid beyond belief to think that taking away rights of law-abiding citizens is
going to solve problems that are rooted much deeper in society than gun ownership.
Mayor Katz should be reminded of the thousands of lives that have been willingly
given to protect our rights and way of life as citizens of the greatest society in
history. Not the least of those rights is represented in the second ammendment. One
sometimes gets the feeling she would take pleasure in having the title of Commisar
instead of Mayor. If one wants to see extreme gun control in action, take a look at
the Washington DC statictics; the most restrictive gun laws in the US, the highest
per-capita crimes-with-guns in the US. New York City is a very close second in
both categories. Gun control is obviously not working there and it will not work
here either. As a positive alternative, perhaps we should look at reforming our
criminal justice system, a system that would permit a career criminal, like the
shooter, to return to society where he can repeat and escalate his crimes to the
tragic extent he has. I urge Mayor Katz and Governor Kitzhaber to tread lightly on
the rights of the individual citizens of Oregon. Perhaps we should also take a close
look at our left-leaning liberal Judicial, where the rights of the criminial seems to
always prevail over the rights of the victim. It would seem that we have many
courses of action to take before considering the removal of any more rights of
law-abiding citizens.

(72 following messages)

Stricter Gun Control Laws?

The recent fatal shooting of a Portland police officer is opening the eyes of many
local politicians, forcing them to re-evaluate Oregon's gun-control laws.

Less than 24 hours after the shooting, lawmakers on Capitol Hill were already
talking about another push for stronger legislation on weapons of all kinds. For
starters, Governor Kitzhaber says he's interested in tightening restrictions on
weapon sales at gun shows.

But not everybody is pushing for more gun control. Gun advocates say there's
plenty of restrictions on guns, just not enough common sense and law enforcement
to put criminals behind bars before they kill.

What do you think: Are tighter gun laws in order to protect the police and the
public? Or would stricter gun control simply put law-abiding citizens in greater
danger from criminals who could get guns anyway? As we often hear, "Guns don't
kill people. People kill people."

(15 previous messages)

Dan Brown - 10:34pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#16 of 87)

I am very disappointed in the media, the governor, Ms. Furse, Chief Moose, and
anyone else that seems to think more gun control is the answer. I too feel
compassion and heartbreak in the shooting death of the Portland Police Officer
slain Tuesday. I feel sorrow and pain for her friends and family as well as the great
loss to the Portland Police Department. I am disappointed because the first words
out of all of these peoples mouths are we need stricter gun control. When is it ever
going to sink in that gun control will never stop this kind of violence? Why not
exercise criminal control instead? It became very obvious to me as I watched the
newscast Wednesday evening that this man could or should not have been legally
able to have legally posessed a firearm of any kind under state and federal laws
already in effect. Yet the laws already in place that pertained to him did not stop his
posession of this rifle did they? The laws already in effect did not stop him from
pulling the trigger and killing one police officer, wounding 2 others. It was very
obvious by his record that the real killer is our lack of a true justice system. He was
released of all of his previous crimes, (and they were numerous) without serving a
full sentence and very little jail time. the real deterrent to these crimes is not gun
control, but to keep people like this locked up for the full sentence. He is now
facing the death penalty, a trial that will take 2 to 3 years to complete. Then the
appeals, and an average wait time on death row of 9 years. All of this before even
the remotest possibility of executing him begins. This is not justice.... It is not gun
control this country needs, it is a strict and swift justice system, where sentences
will be carried out to the full extent. Not the restrictions of guns for law abiding
citizens, who will obey these laws, but the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and
other criminals who do not obey the ones we already have in effect. The criminal
will be free to carry out their crimes in an unarmed society, made that way by our
elected officials. I would ask that anyone concerned with these suggestions of
stricter gun control contact there senator, congressman, and all other elected
officials.

Sincerely, Dan Brown

Boyle Barry - 10:35pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#17 of 87)

Once upon a time, Americans were a civilized lot. Violence and crime were the
exception. And most people lived in homes with both a mother and a father.
Parents taught their kids right from wrong. That's what most of us over 50 know
about the past. How did we get off the track? As a gun lover, I am appalled at all
the gun violence in this country, generated for the most part by a growing
underclass. Generally, these people come from broken homes where they may have
been abused. They're poorly educated and have few prospects in life. If we don't
do something to curb the growth of the underclass, stricter gun laws surely will be
imposed thus cutting off supply to legitimite gun owners. Yet street violence will
continue to esculate. Decent people everywhere have got to unite and deal with the
problem right now, because the future of our country is at stake. We've been
politically correct for too long.

David Brown - 10:36pm Jan 29, 1998 PST (#18 of 87)

More gun control laws will not help. We already have laws against criminals owning
guns. No armor piercing handgun ammunition is sold to the public. Many of the
protective vests used by police agencies will not stop any bullet fired from a rifle.
(The media incorrectly calls the protective vests Bullet Proof -- they are not! A
better way to refer to them is Bullet Resistant.) The type of rifle used in the recent
shooting of the Police Officer is NOT particularly high powered. Most hunting rifles
are much higher powered than the 7.63x39 round used in the SKS. The same laws
apply at gun show that apply in gun shops. Most armed criminals use handguns that
are stolen not bought through gun shops or shows. The real issue we need to
address is shore up our criminal justice system and not let the criminals out on the
street to continue their career. More gun control laws will only impact the law
abiding. The criminal will still do their dirty work and the law abiding will be more
vulnerable.

Lynn Allen - 06:01am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#19 of 87)

So how about this idea? Laws have been passed adding a significant tax on
cigarettes and other tobacco products to help cover some of the expenses incurred
when smokers become ill as a result of their addiction to nicotine. How about we
put a huge tax on the guns that are not typically used in recreation (hunting) for
keeping people who commit crimes with guns in jail longer? Make a mandatory five
year sentence without exception for those who are convicted of crimes where they
had a gun on their person? Then add to that five years whatever the books say the
sentence should be for what the criminal did. If we boosted the price of the assault
weapons, etc. by a couple hundred dollars, maybe it would cut back some on their
illegal usage.

I would definitely vote for a mandatory deadly weapon sentence. What do you
suggest?

Michael Wills - 06:02am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#20 of 87)

Why do we always attack the problem from the back door? We need laws with
teeth that put the criminals behind bars to stay! Laws that protect the inocent and
reimburse the victims. Criminals should not be allowed to idile away years in
prison, but should be forced to work and pay restitution for their crimes to those
the crimes were committed against! Additional gun laws are a ridiculous backdoor
approach and will achieve nothing since most criminals have no problem getting the
already illegal weapons they want on the open black market. We need to wake up
and take a head on approach to drug control with severe penalties for use and
posession and even more severe penalties for the making and selling of illegal drugs
throughout the USA.

(67 following messages)

(20 previous messages)

Mike Utley - 06:39am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#21 of 87)

All the laws and bans on assault weapons in the world will not bring back the slain
officer or save one. What is needed is to get the police up to speed with the
criminals on firepower. If anybody other than those fools shooting at the cops are
to blame, it is us for sending them out without the proper armament. It is the same
as the troops who were sent to Somalia without proper equipment. We saw what
happened to them, and unfortunately, what happened to the officers on Monday.
Same difference. They were, in both situations, totally under-equipped. Some say,
gun fire is the last resort for law enforcement. I believe that too, However, when
the last resort is all that's left it should be an all-powerful option. So what if they
blow up a house or a car or several houses or cars. These are replaceable. not so
with human life. And what of the criminal's rights?? What rights? I'm sure they
were given the chance to surrender, so beyond that they have no rights.

Paul T. Christoferson - 07:24am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#22 of 87)

#1 is I am trying to forgive myself for being part of your little media game show,
but you so called reporters really have absolutley no idea what you are talking about
on any story. As for new gun control legislation? every time some cop gets his butt
blown away by a citizen of the USA this is what we hear everytime. How about
people control legislation? is it right for teen agers to go out and beat someone
within inches of their lives? Is it right for parents to say "they're good kids"? Is it
right for the media to blatantly slander innocent people before the facts are known?
Why doesn't the media take a step back and look at themselves for just a moment,
if you could see yourselves on TV , I'm sure that you could see it too. In this
country we need licenses and registrations on just about everything we do. How
come people that breed the human race aren't controlled? That is the problem that
we all need to look at.

I hope you media folks listen better than you report. I think your next opinion poll
should be about what people think about the media. Get "A DOSE" of your own
medicine.

David W. Rush - 07:24am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#23 of 87)

RE: Lynn Allen, post # 19:

Do you really think a higher tax or price tag would help? I paid $1000 for just one
of the firearms I own. Do you believe that any criminal would spend that kind of
money on a weapon they are planning to use in a crime just to throw it away? They
buy the same type of weapon, hot off the street for about $200. I already pay a
higher price to excercise my rights as an American. By adding more taxes to
weapons to keep criminals behind bars, law abiding citezens would be footing the
bill for something that will not happen unless the courts keep them there like they
should. And on that note, why should Law Abiding Gun Owners be the ONLY
ones paying for this??

If these pencil pushing polititions around here really believe stricter gun laws will
have any effect on crime, then they are less educated then my 2nd grade kid.
Someone already stated it here, That Washington DC has the most strict gun laws
in the nation, but they also have the highest crime rate. It doesn't work there, what
makes people think it will work here?

As it stands right now, the criminals know that they will be going up against un
armed civilians and maybe a few armed officers. If ALL the law abiding civilians
were armed, the criminals would know they wouldn't stand a chance, and move to
DC or New York where they know they have the upper hand.

David W. Rush

Ron Baugher - 10:00am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#24 of 87)

There is no amount of legislation that will fix this problem. There are billions of
guns in this world and if we stopped manufacture totally there would weapons
available for the next few hundred years. All you would accomplish is you would
make the 99% of American people who are responsible with firearms into criminals.
I am totally ashamed that this country has a certain amount of lawmakers that are
that ignorant to punish the innocent while at the same time preaching leniency for
criminals because they were abused or lived in a bad environment when growing
up. When are you people going to realize we each need to be accountable for our
actions and when we err we need to stand up to swift and sure punishment. You
may not believe capital punishment deters offenses but I will gaurantee it deters
second offenses. If you will look at statistics a vast majority of these crimes would
never happened if punishment was handed out as it should be. I may be harsh but
there are alot of people walking around this country that are just wasting the oxygen
that productive people could be breathing so they should be eliminated if they are of
no use to society. You want a good and safe world but you are not willing to do
what is necessary to accomplish this. So you are not a solution in which case you
are part of the problem so you should shut up and stay out if the way and let
someone else who has solutions to the problem fix it.

Lori Buckwalter - 10:00am Jan 30, 1998 PST (#25 of 87)

First it was making nuclear technology illegal, next it was limiting our God-given
right to stockpile chemical and biological weapons in OUR OWN HOMES!!

Then they want to stop us from having plastic explosives or fragmentation
grenades. They even wanted to limit our use of light artillery or automatic
weapons... now handgun control... My God!! Where does it end??

Don't those liberal looneys realize that we have a constitutional right, a moral
obligation, and a personal mandate to keep weapons, capable of tearing gaping
holes in each other, where they're handy to us and our families? What do they
mean we should register them?

What is wrong with these people?

Mike Shatila - 02:01pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#26 of 87)

This is a respone to Ted Mears' opinion. Ted, I think you missed something here,
there is a difference between a "citizen" and animals like Steven Dons. Someone
with a past criminal history like that should be classified as "an inmate" in a prison,
not a "citizen" living among us.

James T. Leist - 02:01pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#27 of 87)

If the police, paroll officers, and courts would do their jobs; and keep weapons of
every kind out of the hand of convicted fellons, there would not be these problems.
The right of responsible people should not be violated because of people not
correctly doing there jobs. The Portland Police new who Don was and his record
before the even went close to his house. If they had better communication, along
with foresight this event could have been prevented!! James T. Leist

(60 following messages)

(27 previous messages)

Brad Orahood - 02:01pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#28 of 87)

I normally don't repsond to these sorts of questions, but when the link you try to
make is such a -stupid- one, it's hard not to get involved.

A police officer was killed in Portland. Shot to death while on the job. This is a
horrible thing, and if possible, it would be worth great pains to see that it did not
happen again.

So you propose that we consider stricter gun control laws. Some people say that if
only we could make these things harder to obtain, or make them illegal altogether,
we can avoid this sort of horrible thing from happening again.

Guess what? More laws would not have saved that poor officer. Why? BECAUSE
THE GUNS USED IN THE INCIDENT WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL. All you
will do by making more guns illegal is take more guns away from responsible gun
owners. Such a law will -not- take them away from people who use them
irresponsibly, and will -not- take them away from those who wish to obtain them
illegally.

How can I say that with such authority? Because current laws, strict as they are,
did not prevent a person from obtaining automatic weapons in our own
neighborhoods, and using those guns that were ALREADY ILLEGAL and kill an
officer of the law.

For or against gun control, only an idiot would think that more laws would have
saved that officer.

Herb Williamson - 02:02pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#29 of 87)

Tighter gun control laws to prevent the deaths of Police Officers and members of
the community are not the answer. The crime of murder carries the risk of the
death penalty in most States. If an individual, for whatever reason, is willing to risk
capital punishment by committing murder it seems ridiculous to me anyone would
believe that they would be deterred by some additional penalty for having possessed
or used a firearm during the commission of the crime.

Many Politicians love to get on their soap box and advocate gun control, it allows
them to be viewed as proactive, as working to solve the problem. Unfortunately the
real problem is the people who commit the crimes and their motivations, not the
methods and tools used to commit them. The solutions to the problem are not
simple, will involve vast amounts of money, social change on a basic level and may
take generations.

The first step is to elect representatives oncerned with doing the right thing, not
politicians only concerned with what is popular in the short term, provides them the
best media coverage and gives them the best shot at getting re-elected.

Dancing Trout - 08:59pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#30 of 87)

I seem to remember from my youth there was something called a "zip" gun.
Homemade, able to fire a 22 calibre bullet. Be kinda hard to control a homemade
gun. Ahh, but then I suppose a 22 round from some punk, to the throat, is no
danger to Portland's finest. As long as it's not legal. That is what they have to watch
out for. Those legal guns. Yep.

Lara Smith - 09:00pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#31 of 87)

I have to agree with the majority when I say that stricter gun control laws are not
the answer, as one gentleman stated, the guns used in this shooting were obtained
illegally anyway, so stricter control laws wouldn't have helped. What I have to
stress is that I think it's time to "dim the lights in Georgia" persay and start
executing those on death row. Make the "death" penalty just that - death, NOT life
in prison waiting for an appeal to come through or some motion that was filed years
ago. Quit making tax payers pay for those who committ terrible crimes only to find
themselves in prison where they'll receive food, shelter and security for the rest of
their lives. They are treated better than the homeless of this country. I'm sick of
hearing about how all the prisons are full and the number of people on death row. I
say get it over with - if you're sentanced to die - then die. Make the death penalty
something to be afraid of. If you kill, you're caught, you die. Simple and easy. It's
not gun control we need, it's the enforcement of the laws that we already have.

Ron Baugher - 09:01pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#32 of 87)

II amendment 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 will
notice that this amendment does not say keep and bear arms at the discretion of the
government. It also does not say shall not be infringed except in such and such
cases. This amendment was included so as to protect the freedom of each and
every citizen of this country from an overbearing government or an enemy outside
this country. The fact that people in the past were in possession of firearms is the
only reason you have the freedom to call for gun control. I feel that this country is
coming under the mentality that precluded the revolutionary war and that might be
the direction we are again headed in the future and frankly that scares me. There
are too many people that have forgotten what our constitution stands for and are
willing to change the values of this country so as to bring us down to the values of
the rest of the world which scares me even more than another revolutionary war.
There are too many liberal minded people who wish to dilute the moral and
patriotic fiber of this country because they are afraid of hurting anyones feelings,
well that attitude does not make for a stronger country as it will not make for
stronger family if you use that theory in raising children. You must realize that there
are leaders and followers so not everyone is created equal in all ideals. The liberal
idiology is based on the fact that there should be no classes of people in society
everyone should be the same. Well this country was founded on free enterprise and
in this type of society there has to be working class and upper class to be
successful.

Ron Manous - 09:04pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#33 of 87)

If firearms don't kill people, but people kill people, then American society should
change . What is needed, in my opion, is for the Bill of Rights and the U.S.
Constitution to be torn up and more up to date documents be written to better
reflect the needs of modern American soceity. These new documents would reflect
qaulified freedoms and create a more regimented soceity that would ensure that no
one person will have any significant impact upon the whole of soceity. I further
think that if rogues in our modern soceity step outside the rules of regimented
conduct then those rogues should be permanately removed from our modern
soceity. I say this tongue in cheek because short of an iron fisted regimentation no
amount of legislation will curtail the human impulse to be human.

(54 following messages)

(33 previous messages)

James Read - 09:04pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#34 of 87)

There are to many laws on the books now. The guns can't be controled,now. there
are too many of them.

And as long as there are people with opinons like Lori Buckwalter, you will never
have any control of firearms.

Ben Melquist - 09:06pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#35 of 87)

There are about 96,000 gun laws in the US yet every time a spectacular death hits
the news all you can hear is ---"We need more gun laws" What the heck 96k laws
didn't do the trick but I'm sure that this next one will bring the end of all that ails us.
Now the part I don't understand is ? What part of "Shall not be Infringed" did I
miss here? I think that maybe each and every state should limit the context of the
media broadcasts so as not to frighten the people into ridiculous and
unconstitutional gun laws.And by the way it is our "War on Drugs" that killed
Officer Waibel. I surely hope that her life was worth a little pot. We should be
ashamed. Ashamed that we sent her out there to put her life on the line, conduct
unconstitutional search and seizure, and be killed in the interest of a pot free house.
Absoulutely ridiculous. Please people, lets rethink our policy on the War on Drugs.
That would save more lives than any amount of gun control.

Allan Schwindt - 09:07pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#36 of 87)

Given that the news media and politicians are always the first to propose and
campaign for stronger gun control legislation without the benefit of a sound
understanding of firearms. Perhaps this issue needs to be put into a perspective that
would make it more understandable to them.

After hearing comments from both, politicians and news-casters following the
recent police shooting incident that were totally unfounded and premature, lets
consider some new legislation to control the news media and local government.
First, we should assemble a group of highly emotioinal people to draft new
legislation to reign in the news media. They could also develop some new guidelines
for politicians that would ensure more sound and wiser decisions governing police
raids. An understanding of journalism, news reporting or running a bureaucracy
would NOT BE A PREREQUISITE for anyone in this group because that might
unduly restrict their thinking. Then, a one-sided ballot measure could be drafted
that would surely pass the next election.

Ridiculous, you say? Well, its just as rediculous when when you call for gun control
legislation without facts to support your position. Think about it, would you like
someone puting controls on your activities without any knowledge?

Dee Hawes - 09:07pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#37 of 87)

The suspect should not have had a weapon in the first place if the accounts are true
that he was a felon. Like the others who have posted here I agree that no more
laws on the face of the earth would have saved that officer's life.

I am upset that the mayor has jumped on her soap box of gun control in the
aftermath of the officers death. I was blasted for my oppinion on another related
subject for not having respect for the officer's family. Well the mayor is using the
incident to grand stand an issue.

The police, in my humble opinion, had no buisness being at the residence without a
warrant. I do not believe the media is reporting the whole story or the police are
giving out the whole story. If there was marijuana present in the residence, why
was not the renter, Jeff Moore, arrested or charged?

I do not think I would allow anyone into my home without a warrant. The officers
involved in the shooting have not given their statements yet because they get
lawyers first. We, as citizens, should do the same when the police come knocking
at our door; i.e., no warrant, no entry. Come back with a warrant or speak to my
attorney.

I am also tired of the rehtoric of "police putting thier lives on the line." Our
thirteenth amendment of the constitution allows us freedom to chose our careers or
to change them. No one is holding the men and women who are police officers to
be police offiers. If it is too dangerous, then find another field of work. Do not play
on public sympathy or guilt to make us appreciate you or to worship you.

One person asked me how I would feel if no one wanted to be a police officer
(which would not happen because there are plenty of individuals out there who
want to be police officers). I would find this acceptable because I can protect
myself and my family, for the moment, with my legal firearms. Once my firearms
are considered illegal, then I am not only at risk from criminals but at risk from my
government as well.

Jig Dog - 09:08pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#38 of 87)

I was sad when i heard the shooting news on 1/27 of the portland policewoman.I
grieved as many of the people in this area did.I was proud of the mayor as she went
from station to station consouling the officers left behinh in their grief. I was
however disappointed to hear the talk of more gun laws. We have plenty of gun
laws and they need to be inforced.The greater question is should the police have
been better armed before they went into this home and had better information on
the occupants before risking their lives. The smell of burning mariquana and the
possible distruction of evidence of a crime that would not have brought that much
time in jail anyway seems hardly worth the risk of life and limb given the current
judicial climate.Why was this guy on the loose and how did a felon get possession
of this gun that he could not own legally.

CR Jensen - 09:08pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#39 of 87)

In response to Mr. Leist. It is apparent that he has no idea what police officers do
in their day to day tasks and of the continued restraints that grow everytime a
politition (liberal)opens his mouth. Take a couple of days and sit in on some of the
court proceedings and see the real world! Then remember what you have observed
next time the ballot box has to be filled.

(48 following messages)

(39 previous messages)

rather not - 09:10pm Jan 30, 1998 PST (#40 of 87)

A person runs down an ex whoever with a car and commits a homicide. A person
under the influence of a substance gets in a fight with another and fatally stabs them
with a knife. A group plots a bombing and blows up a building and kills innocent
people. A person throws their child off a bridge and is convicted of murder. A
person pushes a car into a lake with their kids inside and they drown. A person
decides on suicide but can't get a gun so they jump off a building. WHAT IS THE
COMMON DENOMINATOR OF ALL THESE SCENARIOS...PEOPLE,
PEOPLE, PEOPLE. With the mentality of the gun control jerks, I think they totally
miss the boat (oh that's another one) we should be legislating against cars, they kill.
We should be making it illegal to own a knife, it should be illegal to have fertilizer, it
should be illegal to build bridges (somebody might jump off), there should be no
lakes, etc etc etc. Get a life, its not the TOOL, its the improper use of them.

Curt Wagoner - 07:48am Jan 31, 1998 PST (#41 of 87)

Tighter gun control laws will not have anymore of an effect on the availability of
guns than drug control laws have on the availability of drugs.The root problem is
prohibition.

Albert Einstein on prohibition...1921

" The prestige of government has undoutbtedly been lowered considerably by the
prohibition law.For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and
the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced.It is an open secret
that the DANGEROUS INCREASE IN CRIME in this country is closely connected
with this ".

Einstein is telling us that prohibition creates crime and violence.More gun control
would mean more violence.In states like Oregon that have concealed handgun carry
laws, the crime rate is lower than in states that refuse that right. As long as we
continue the War On Drugs which causes more death and social destruction than
the drug use itself,we can expect to lose more police officers and more citizens to
it's insanity.In 5,000 years of human association with marijuana there has not been
one proven,documented case of a marijuana induced death.Yet,we spend billions of
dollars and sacrafice life after life to prohibit a plant that has never been shown to
kill anybody. Was Officer Colleen Waible's life worth it? Absolutely NOT!! More
gun control is not the answer.Ending prohibition is something that needs to be
considered. Curt Wagoner

john cannon - 07:48am Jan 31, 1998 PST (#42 of 87)

The first thing we need to think about is why is a FELON in possesion of a
firearm.Take away my rights to own a gun and that felon will come into my house
and be able to do wahtever he wants and i guess i will be forced to just set there
and pray that he is going to only rob me and not kill me or my family. Because he
still has a gun and now i don,t because of the gun conrtol.

Carol Hansen - 10:20am Jan 31, 1998 PST (#43 of 87)

In Response to Ron Manous Post #33.

You want to take the documents which form the foundation of our government and
our individual freedoms and which have served us perfectly well for over 200 years
and you want to rip them up and turn the task of forming something that will work
in today's society over to the greedy, self-serving, media-sucking legislator's that we
have today? Now there is a really scary thought! As for gun control . . . it's been
said and said and very well said. Making guns illegal will only make criminals out of
law-abiding citizens and will in no way hamper the ability or propensity of those
who are already breaking the law to have guns and use them against whomever
they please. I'd like to add that I don't own a gun and I don't particularly want to
own a gun, but I will "defend to the death" the right of citizens to keep and bear
arms, as guaranteed by our Constitution. And I resent the attitude expressed by
some in power that believing in the rights that we are guaranteed by ou

Duane I. Griffith - 10:20am Jan 31, 1998 PST (#44 of 87)

These law enforcement people put their lives on the line every day. When
something like this happens the first thing we hear is "we must have more gun
control." I guess it must be the politically correct thing to say. I never cease to be
amazed at the indignation at the guns. Why in hell don't we hear, "how come that
felon was out on the street?" or "who let that happen?" The officer makes an arrest
and hauls some gun toting jerk into the jail and before the officer can complete their
paper work, this jerk has an attorney and is back out on the street. If there was as
much effort put into punishing these criminals for their crime as there is put into
protecting the criminals rights there would be a lot fewer crimes. The question
seems to be "How can we take some more rights away from the law-abiding people
and protect the criminal's rights?"

Dave - 12:36pm Jan 31, 1998 PST (#45 of 87)

Stricter gun laws? Sure, take them away from the cops who bust into peoples
homes. I find it fascinating that people are saying "see what those bad guns are
doing!" yet where is the outrage, the indignation and concern that a group of gun
wielding thugs can kick in your door, point a loaded pistol to your head, and go
through every possession because you have a weed that our government
disapproves of? I mean, who's life was in danger? The cops or the so called
"criminal". Why the no knock Nazi tactics? For a pot smoker? Is this what this
hideous, immoral, and totally out of control drug war has gotten us? If so, you are
asking the right question, but expecting a different answer than this one. Anyone
who has supported the drug war can now look at how you have ruined this country.
It's war you wanted, and now it's war you have to live with. Those guns have kept
us from becoming a nation of serfs, restrict them further or give them up and you
will see this scenario played out over and over again but this time it may be because
they are after your cigarettes

(42 following messages)

(45 previous messages)

Rod Jones - 06:15pm Jan 31, 1998 PST (#46 of 87)

When are people going to learn? It is not the gun that kills the police officer or the
civilian but the person holding it? Making guns illegal would accomplish nothing
because the "person" who wants to kill someone will find a way to do so...no
matter what...he will find a gun. I believe we should have stricter prison terms and
tougher laws ...how many of these offenders are "repeat" offenders of some kind?
Change the laws that allow these people to run free. Whether it be drugs or
domestic violence it matters not...the person who is doing the crime will
shoot...stab...beat with a bat...whatever it takes to get what he wants. People like
me who own a gun...who have never broken a law are the ones being targeted and
it's not fair...I have done nothing wrong...why should the guns I choose to have be
made illegal? What will it be next? My Religious Beliefs? I am truly sorry and offer
my prayers for the families of those people who have died as a result of gunfire
...but making guns illegal will not fix the problem...go after the lawmakers that allow
these kooks to run free...not the truly law abiding citizens who will suffer if these
laws are passed.

Trent - 06:16pm Jan 31, 1998 PST (#47 of 87)

After auditing the 45 current responses to this question I find 4 that can be seen as
for stricter gun control, I wonder how the Channel 6000 people will report this. ie. "
the overwhelming response is for more gun control" or "the vast majority think gun
control is not the answer" What do you think?

Lea Wright - 03:17pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#48 of 87)

The gun contoll laws a stridt enuf we dont need to make it harder to get a gun most
gun owners are hunters and by making it harder to by a gun is unfare to them
becouse of a few dumb people out there I feel that all schools should have a
required class on gun safety if people are so worried about guns I've been around
guns all my life there is nothing wrong with having them in the house if the kids
have seen and know what guns can and will do if use unsafely my dad always left
loaded handguns and rifles laying around but I never touched them becouse I knew
just hoe much damage a gun could cause and if every little child seen that they
wouldnt ever pick up a gun that was lying around unless their mom or dad told
them to I aslo think every child should know how to use fire arm this would also
give them a better understanding of how powerful guns are and it would make them
a lot less cirious of guns

Dave Sullivan - 03:17pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#49 of 87)

One way to begin to eliminate the proliferation of firearms is to outlaw gun shows.
A person wishing to sell a gun of any kind can walk among the people carrying the
gun and sell it to anyone in the crowd. No paper work is required. Many of the
rifles are SKS which are surplus foreign army weapons. These weapons were sent
to this country as cheap to acquire semiauto. weapons. They are not target practice
rifles. They are meant for killing humans. Our policewoman was killed with this
weapon. Lets ban gunshows. It would be a start.

Coleen Hardman - 03:17pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#50 of 87)

Gun advocate Bozo's are way off again as usual. Europe doesn't have a fraction of
the murders and mamings we have because they have strict gun controls. There
arn't any gun collector arsenals in homes for criminals to break into and steal. 200
years ago people in the frontier needed weapons. We're not in the frontier anymore.
Our walls are paper thin, and children are shot dead as they sleep. Don't think guns
will save you if there is a revolution-- we don't have nerve gas, nuclear war heads,
tanks or the stealth bomber. To use the threat of invasion as an excuse to need guns
is to live in a fantasy world.

James Enyeart - 03:18pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#51 of 87)

Without reading the previous 40 odd opinions I have one of my own. Even if these
laws had been effect last week, month or year would they have made a difference.
Only the law abiding people are going to comply with these laws! We have strong
laws now that should deter these acts , but they don't. The courts must make sure
that these laws are inforced. Mandatory sentence guide-lines. NO SECOND
CHANCES!!! If these laws for tighter gun control are passed, Who is going to
inforce them? We have all heard it before..."guns don't kill people, people kill
people"

(36 following messages)

(51 previous messages)

Dan Brown - 03:19pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#52 of 87)

I am totally confused as to this HIGH power rifle? Maybe someone can tell me
how this cheap, small cartridge Chinese made semi-automatic rifle has turned into a
high caliber automatic weapon?

Were these indeed armour piercing bullets? Or was it due to the fact a bulletproof
vest does not stop bullets fired from a rifle? Any rifle. I do not own one of these
rifles, never had a use for them. But it is very obvious to me that gun control on
these weapons did not stop this death. I would never support guncontrol on any
weapon as it is not the weapon that killed, it was the individual. The same is true
for a drunk driver, however we have not banned a certain make of automobile for
the death of innocent victims, we have no control at all, yet people die everyday
from a drunk driver. Why is it you never hear for these tougher controls on a Ford,
a Chevy, a Dodge?

I would also like to comment on a couple of other opinions in here. One is putting
high taxes on firearms. Ridiculous, why? Because 99% of firearms used in crime
were not bought from a dealer, they were stolen, or bought on the street. No taxes,
were paid by the criminal or ever would be, they would be paid by the lawabiding
citizen.

The other is the changing of the constitution, I am outraged that this is suggested.
All of our soldiers that have fought in all of our wars to protect these laws
guaranteeing our rights would have died for nothing. These were written to preserve
our freedom, now it is being suggested we rewrite them just to take away the
freedom men have died for. This person with this suggestion needs to move to a
communist country where evidently he would feel more comfortable.

I for one believe in the United States, I believe in our individual freedoms, I also
believe that in order for there to be justice the time for these crimes should be swift
and just, carried out to the full extent of the law. Death penalties, especially in a
case like this one, where guilt is unquestionable, should be carried out immediately.
No waiting for appeals, no free rides, i.e. meals, clothing, lodging. I believe the
money we spend to house, feed, lodge and pay medical expenses for these animals
would be much better used to care for our nations lawabiding homeless.

Why it never comes out of the media's mouths "We need to pass stricter crime
laws" I will never know. I own more than one gun, I have never pulled a gun in
anger. I would however use one to defend my home, my family, or myself. Take
away these rights, either by stricter laws, rewriting the constitution, or too high a
taxes on firearms, and the right to protect yourself has just been violated. The
criminal, who cares nothing for these "Stricter gun control Laws" will be free to run
rampant.

We all need to write our lawmakers and make them see the feelings of the people
that they work for. Letting them know we will be watching their votes and voting
accordingly. I for one have written my representatives. I would ask you to do the
same.

David W. Rush - 03:20pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#53 of 87)

To Trent post #47:

It has been 5 days since the shooting. And 5 days since people started sending email
to channel 6. Have you heard any reports as of yet about what is written here? I
know I haven't. I have not even heard the news mention Channel 6000 since these
messages started. In my opinion, no one will EVER know whats posted here unless
the come and read for themselves. It's a total shame that no one will hear what the
public is REALLY saying about this. Just goes to prove my wifes opinion, the news
stations ARE ANTI GUN!!

David W. Rush

Sally Karo - 03:21pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#54 of 87)

I also feel that tighter gun control laws would be of no matter in a case such as the
one we are discussing. I do not agree with "knock and talks", I do not want anyone,
criminal or the police, battering down my door. I can understand it, in a life
threatening situation, hostage, etc. But the smell of marijuana smoke is not a reason
to break into a citizens home. This is the mode of the KGB, and we are in America.
I feel that the legal purchase of firearms is done by law abiding citizens. This felon
should not have had any weapons. Police should therefore concentrate on locking
up the dangerous, violent criminals, and keeping them locked up. Marijuana has
been made bad by scare tactics and does not make people violent. I feel this part of
the drug war is because the pharmaceutical companies cannot patent it, and the
drug enforcement agencies can take everything the "grower" has in a forfiture
action, to make money. Why aren't they looking for the "crack", heroin, and
"meth" dealers? That's where the violence comes in, but it's not profitable. The
public needs the protection of ridding the community of these type of drugs. Stricter
gun control, therefore, would not stop the criminal.

Ken Arck - 03:22pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#55 of 87)

As usual, certain Politicians are just chomping at the bit to hop on the bandwagon
again without having a clue as to the facts. Gun control in ANY form does not
involve logic however, it deals in emotion. I wonder if anyone has considered trying
to track the serial number of the particular SKS involved to see if it was purchased
legitimately or "on the streets".

Of course, I also knew the the buzzword "cop killer bullets" would rear it's ugly
head again. It's unfortunate that our Politicians don't realize that a) there is no such
thing as a "cop killer bullet" that has EVER been marketed and b) The average
hunting rifle is immensely more powerful than a so-called "assault weapon".
Anyway, I have no real problem with requiring the same background check for a
long gun buyer as is required for a handgun buyer. The only problem is our
legislators never seem to stop at the logical place to stop.

Rod Jones - 03:23pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#56 of 87)

Well Trent? Is there really any question? We all know that the "Liberal Media" will
rewrite our comments saying we all support gun control regard- less of what they
read here. Our Local politicians don't listen to us...Oregon's governor wants to
tighten the noose as does Elizabeth Furse and Earl what's his name...The
Constitution guarantees me my right to own a gun...and I will defend that right. I
will not stand for people abusing that right...especially those who have sworn to
uphold that same Constitution and those who use guns for evil purposes. The gun
does not fire itself...it requires thought and effort. We need tougher criminal
laws...not more criminals.

(31 following messages)

(56 previous messages)

Ken Arck - 03:23pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#57 of 87)

On the subject of more control being needed:

Why don't all responsible Citizens of the United States lobby their respective
legislatures to ban trees? After all, it can be proven that trees have been used to kill
honest Citizens at every turn! Especially the dreaded "Ski slope" tree which is
particulary onerous. These can be identified by their appearance - snow and ice
being the most distiguishing feature. It shouldn't make one iota of difference that
these trees are made of wood, have a trunk and branches just like any other tree.
Get rid of 'em because our Politicians *know* they are are more deadly

When will our "Leaders" get a clue?

Tracy Pringle - 08:13pm Feb 1, 1998 PST (#58 of 87)

Well now, stinkin gun control issue again. True, guns don't kill people, PEOPLE
kill PEOPLE. People do all kinds of things. They/we kill each other every day over
such atrossities as looking at your or my girlfriend while driving on the highway or
wearing the wrong color of clothes. We stab each other in bar fights or domestic
disputes, not only with knives, but with anything that is in reach in the heat of the
moment. Broken bottles, screwdrivers, forks, steak knife, pencils the list goes on.
Remember we are the only critter on earth that kills for the hell of it or sport. Gun
control to me is, hitting the target you are aiming for with well grouped rounds. As
long as the politicians keep cutting police department, EMS and fire budgets, we
will have to worry about who is going to do what. I wonder why they don't cut
planners,engineers or zoning staff jobs? Why do they always cut police fire and
EMS? So now the political faction is frantic trying to beat out this brushfire it is
called crisis management, actually very poor management practice It will continue
UNLESS WE turn these do nothings out in the cold and get people in there that will
take the bull by the horns. Anybody remember the words, "We The People"? I also
wonder how many of them politicians own guns let alone understand any of the
functions of one. Yes you will be the first to vote for taking our rights away and the
first to cry foul when the do do hits the fan like now. Instead of doing what is right
they seem to do what is political what will my fellow politicians think if I voted
against or for. Then they go preach to just say no or take a stand for what you
believe. It is allowed by us. Incredible. Then people have to get hurt or killed before
anything is done. So they try to take more of our constitutional rights away via gun
control bans and other wild fur ball ideas that don't work. Why not take the plea
bargain out for crimes involving weapons not just guns.Or why not let the police the
right to defend themselves and us without shooting someone with a stupid bean
bag. Give the police their power back let them handle the situations with out the
fear of being sued. The exception would be negligence. This is kind of like, If
arsonist use matches to start fires then you better ban matches right? But the
commies are not afraid of matches, it is not a constitutional right to own and bear
matches. Get to your political faction and start twisting there undies. Get off the
haunch and pass laws that will bite and bite hard. Give mandatory minimum
sentences. I have said this before, sure, swift justice. No muss no fuss. Put a
maximum dollar amount for bid to build a prison facility and make it a million
bucks, then you could build fifteen instead of one. Or Mexico said they would take
our prisoners for it was either 5 or 7 bucks a day. See ya. Money for schools and
anything else that was needed. Coming back from a mexican prison might deter
some folks from repeat offender. Bring back the firing squad. Then follow thru
with it..Don't let them sit in jail for 10 years take them out and it is a done deal.
The criminal element does not think like you or I folks, they think for themselves.
They don't follow any rules or laws other than force whether it is by fist or
otherwise. It is a shame. These Beloved United States we live in are in trouble. The
commies have always said they would get us from within our own ranks. I will not
give in or up, this is my country, they can't have it. I would rather be tried by
twelve than buried by six.

Doug Elbon - 08:23am Feb 2, 1998 PST (#59 of 87)

It is absurd to think that gun control is a "fix-all" for crime. The only thing that is
keeping the hard-core criminals from taking over whole neighborhoods is fear---fear
of retaliation, and fear of their own lives. Even if firearms were the be banned,
AND effectively taken away, it would be the law-abiding citizen, the people that
have the most to lose, that would be harmed. I would be willing to bet that within a
five mile radius of my home, there are at least 3 "homes" a firearm can illegally be
purchased. I do not live in what could be considered a "bad" neighborhood, either.
Bearing that in mind, please consider what it is like in neighborhoods where there is
a greater problem with crime. Criminals will always have guns, period. It would
make absolutely no difference whether they are banned or not. Anyone who
believes different, MUST consider the consequences of any actions against the
law-abiding citizen that wants to protect their home, property, and, above all, their
family, against those that would do them harm.

Ken Arck - 09:07am Feb 2, 1998 PST (#60 of 87)

To Tracy Pringle: Not being one for finding insidious reasons behind the things
people do, I've generally ignored most of what I consider to be extremeism in the
Gun Control debate on both sides. But it is becoming more and more apparent to
me that perhaps there *is* some truth afterall. To address your comment about "I
also wonder how many of them politicians own guns let alone understand any of
the functions of one.", I can only say the Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is one of the
loudest and most radical of Gun Control zealots around, yet she has a concealed
handgun license and does carry. Of course, she says publically that no private
citizen should own a gun. This is the typical hypocrasy of the elitist Politico that
"knows" what it best for us. Bottom line? Until we vote these "We are better than
you" and hypocritical career Politicians out of office, things will NEVER get better.
But I suppose that is another story.....

(27 following messages)

(60 previous messages)

Mike Shatila - 05:53pm Feb 2, 1998 PST (#61 of 87)

Before our politicians consider any more gun control schemes, may be they should
look at the number of people that have used guns, including "assault weapons" , in
defense situations. The mere presense of a firearm, doesn't matter what type, will
act as a deterrant to any criminal. Let's face it, if you were a criminal looking for
your next victim, would you prefer someone who's armed and ready to defend
him/herself or would you pick someone who will easily give in to you demands
without resistance? Guns are often used in defense situations by law-abiding
citizens far more often than they are used by criminals, and often without firing any
shots. That's one of the facts the news media will not reveal about guns.

Shannan Bramwell - 05:54pm Feb 2, 1998 PST (#62 of 87)

Having moved from a state with 'strict gun control laws' to one that doesn't, I can
honestly say that few things ring truer than a saying I heard years ago, "If you
out-law guns, only outlaws will have guns!" Guns don't kill, people do! Making it
harder to get and keep guns is not the solution. California has strict gun control
laws, and it doesn't work. Take a look at the violent crime there. What is needed is
harsher punishment. Instead of wasting time, money and other resources on
keeping, and feeding these jerks, not to mention all the time and money lost in the
appeals process, just abolish the court of appeals, and the prisoners bill of rights! If
you have committed a crime, you have no rights!!! When a criminal goes through
the court process, and is found guilt by a jury of his/her peers, and is sentenced,
that sentence should be carried out. Period. Death sentences should be carried out
no more than 48 hours after sentencing. Life sentences should be few and far
between. Child molesters and rapests should be casterated. And so on. This country
was founded on the principals of the Bible, 'an eye for an eye'. And we can pin
point the rise in crime, drugs, and a general disrespect for family, home and nation
when the harsh, swift justice meted out years ago was undermined by the bleeding
heart liberalists just about 30 years ago. Until WE, as a nation, have decided that
enough is enough, and we start saying NO! Nothing will change. Gangs will grow
bigger and meaner. Rapists will continue their violence. Child molesters will prey on
our children. And no one (criminally minded)will respect the police officers who
work so diligently to protect and serve. We will continue to be prisoneers in our
own society until we stand up and do something to change the 'system'. Only WE
as a nation can bring about these changes!

Shannan Bramwell - 05:55pm Feb 2, 1998 PST (#63 of 87)

(RE:Ron Manous#33 - First, you can't re-write history. Second, you should spend
some time actually reading that which you wish to destroy. Last, but not least,
Reflect on what the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution really say, and you will
realize that it doesn't need to be re-written, just studied, and applied.) The
comments here are great! There are so many of them. Personally, I plan on writing
to all the so called 'elected officials' that represent me, and the area I live in. Since it
appears that no one other than those of us who wish to make a comment will ever
read these comments, it is time to take them to the Senators, and Congressmen,
and Representatives, and State Govenors and Legislators, and who ever else I can
think of. Care to join me?

(24 following messages)

(63 previous messages)

Jack Michael Hammer - 05:59pm Feb 2, 1998 PST (#64 of 87)
Phoenix Performance

Excuses for lack of gun control (and responses):

"Without gun control, we'd begin to lose our other rights, as they all depend upon
the Right to Bear Arms". I'd almost believe this, except for the fact that these same
folks are always telling us that we're losing our rights WITHOUT gun control. And
they think that gun ownership opponents are confused?

"Dictatorships eventually arise where gun control is enacted". Yes, having traveled
here and abroad for years, I've noticed the harsh police states that exist in Canada,
England, France, Sweden, Germany, etc., etc., etc. Also, I've seen how freedom is
elegantly preserved in countries where private possession of firearms is common,
such as Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., etc., etc. On a more personal note,
my forefathers came from Lithuania, and were active in the armed resistance there.
Though guns were easily obtained, they did nothing to prevent or overturn
enslavement. They really weren't that effective against carpet bombing and tanks.

"Gun Control has nothing to do with Crime Control". Again my personal experience
as a resident of Portland, Oregon (gun-ridden), Boston, Massachusetts (limited gun
control), Montreal, and London, England (strict gun control), as well as statistical
reading indicates that Portland has the highest felony death rate, Boston's is lower,
and the last two are much, much lower. This is spite of the fact that all four cities
share similar ethnic makeup and cultural background.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well, apart from being tempted to
argue that those who kill people may not be entirely human, I somewhat agree.
This argument does fall short when the issue is regulation and licensing, however.
Given that firearms are the cause of far more fatalities (criminal and accidental)
than automobiles, we at least ought to regulate their possession and use far more
strictly than cars and driving licenses. Minimally, this should include mandatory
licensed training and testing, Which, of course, brings us to:

"The Second Amendment enshrines my right forever to keep and bear arms". The
Second Amendment is vague on this point, indicating only that "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". Thus, when state militias were made a
standing force, part of the state government, and subject to both gubernatorial and
presidential control, the rationale and argument both vanished into thin air. As these
changes were both adjudicated as Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, no
reason nor right for private firearm possession exists. But this Second Amendment
argument is really irrelevant on a practical gun control level. The Supreme Court
has already decided that it is both legal and proper to restrict both the class of gun
owner and type of firearm they might posses. In effect, they have set firm
precedent that logically can preclude the ownership of firearms to the single-shot
.22 rifle. In fact, total gun bans are probably legal, also.

I suppose having seen numerous innocent bystanders, spouses and children brought
into hospitals with crippling, disfiguring or fatal gunshot wounds tends to prejudice
my stand. Obviously, gun rights advocates have never seen nor do they care about
this carnage, at least not until one of these tragedies happens to them. But, as we
understand that the Constitution was designed as a living, evolving document, to fit
a growing and evolving nation, there really is no legal impediment to civilizing our
society by banning all handgun possession and strictly limiting long-arm owners. It's
time for the juvenile, irresponsible, paranoid, and just plain insensitive of us who
insist on their right to continue this violence to grow also. Don't be afraid, little boys
and girls.

Sooner or later, we all have to grow up.

John Mobley - 06:14am Feb 3, 1998 PST (#65 of 87)

I think strictler laws may help but are not the answere, I think the answere would
be to let a cop carry any weopen he could qualify for. If this ment he wanted to
carry a machine gun, or a fully autamitc pistol, let him. If they could pass a user
test, similar to what they already a required to do for the 9 m.m. I think this would
make crininals think twice about what there doing

Kraig Kirkaldie - 06:14am Feb 3, 1998 PST (#66 of 87)

An armed citizenry was included in the constitution to provide a last resort against
tyrannical, oppressive rule. Those who wrote the constitution had only just recently
exercised that last resort to overthrow the government of England. I hope never to
see the day where the citizens of this country again need to take up arms against
their government, but it is an option that aught to be jealously guarded by all who
value their freedom.

(21 following messages)

(66 previous messages)

Tom Wilson - 06:15am Feb 3, 1998 PST (#67 of 87)

The answer to any problem in our society seems to have become "pass another
law." We have plenty of laws,more than the police can ever enforce. The man who
shot the three police officers was probably already a felon,and would be breaking
the current laws by his gun ownership.Obviously he didn't have any problem with
that and most certainly wouldn't with any new laws.Washington D.C. has the most
restrictive gun law in the U.S. and also the worst crime problem.People who live
there acknowledge that there are places where one simply does not go after dark,or
maybe even at noon.Criminals or those who elect to break the law have guns
there,and the law abiding citizen is guaranteed to be unarmed.Does anyone see a
problem with this. Colon Ferguson walked down the aisle of a train in New York
and shot people at will,stopping to reload as necessary. He didn't have much to
worry about,rhe train was filled with law-abiding commuters,who were guaranteed
to be unarmed. Had he tried a similar stunt on a bus between Pendleton and
Klamath Falls,there is a pretty good chance that some law-abiding Oregonian with a
concealed weapons permit would have given him cause to reconsider his acts,albet
for a fairly short time. In any discussion of firearms control,the second amendment
always pops up.Those who propose stricter gun control,all the way to those
advocating complete firearms bans,state that the second amendment only applies to
"militias." Militias were the people.The founding fathers wanted armed citizens to
protect against a runaway government. They felt,it appears, that they needed a
second amentment to insure the continued existance of the rest. If the typical pro
gun control individual is asked ,do you believe your constitutional right to free
speech should be limited because things you say cause hurt, it is clear that this is the
most sacred cow. No natter thet the first amendment has been used to define rights
relating to everything from flag burning to nude dancing,it is their right.FIREARMS
HOWEVER ARE A DIFFERENT STORY. The writers of the constitution never
meant that ordinary people could own military type weapons 'say the gun
regulators,oh no. The short barreled musket was the assault weapon of its day,and
was very instrumental in giving those folks their right to wish them banned. There
are those who seem to believe that gun owners are a monolithic mass of juvenile
minded individuals to whom the ownership of a firearm is an extension of
manhood.This is as foolish as saying all firearms regulation is bad. Almost all
responsible gun owners support reasonable restraints on gun ownership and
use.most gun owners are law-abiding citizens who activly support law enforcement
and the people saddled with this thankless job.Passing more new laws serves only
to make potential law-breakers out of honest people.Enforcement of existing laws
and demanding real punishment for those who break those laws will reduce
crime,or at least reduce the repetition of crimes by the exceedingly small percentage
of citizens who commit them.

Ron Baugher - 07:17am Feb 3, 1998 PST (#68 of 87)

re: #64 by Jack

Your referencing to the fact that guns kill more people than automobiles both
intentional and accidental is a normal falsehood like alot of others that gun control
fanatics use to justify there beliefs. Where in the hell do you people come up with
this garbage.

Ken Arck - 08:59am Feb 3, 1998 PST (#69 of 87)

Mr Hammer drives home the point EXACTLY about pro gun control advocates -
they can't win their argument with logic, instead they play on peoples emotions in
an effort to forward their agenda. They quote statistics that all the experts in the
field called flawed, they tell us over and over how innocent people are killed
because of "evil" guns. They say that anyone who is pro gun is anti child. Mr
Hammer, you obviously are a well educated man. I wonder if that education is in
Psychology, since you, as all other gun control fanatics, to use emotion to
overcome logic and the indisputable facts that guns are not the cause of crime.

John Gruff - 02:14am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#70 of 87)

I say we just shoot more reporters.They spread half truths and dont have the guts
to say how they really feel.Use em or lose em.Guess who is next.

(17 following messages)

(70 previous messages)

MICHAEL DRESSLER - 02:16am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#71 of 87)

I just read over some of the opinions of this discussion, and will be sending some of
you email. I will be sending an email to Jack Michael Hammer. I thought that I
would share with all of you what I will be writting to him. So here it goes.

Mr. Hammer. You abviously have read the 2nd ammendment to the bill of rights.
And it is also obvious to me that you don't know anything about the history of our
nation or of England before the founding fathers got here. Let me Refresh your
clogged and clouded memory. In england when my ancestors were over there, they
were not aloud to have weapons of any sort. That is because England did not want
anyone fighting the parliment against the tyranny they would create on the people
of that nation. So people came over here to get away from that. To help guarantee
that it would not happen over here a Man named Thomas Jefferson wrote the bill
of rights. That is a document that you obviously have a misunderstanding about.
Amongst the ammendments to the constitution that was written on that document,
was the Second ammendment which reads:

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.

Now some of my ancestors who came here from Scotland gave their lives during
the Revolution, fighting in the 5th and 13th Albany MILITIAS in New York State.
Now suppose those militias did not exsist. What kind of freedoms do you think you
would enjoy under the rule of the English Parliment? Furthermore, the
ammendment says "the right of the PEOPLE," it does not say MILITARY. Guns,
weapons, or Arms, what ever you chose to call them, that right shall not be
infringed. I would like you,(even though I know you will not), would like you to go
get a dictionary and look up the words: People, Not, Infringed and Freedom. After
you have done that I would invite you to sit and think about the freedom that you
enjoy because so many Men and Women gave there lives, so that you may have
yours. Then, next time you are out watching fireworks on the 4th of July, you
might acctually have a clue as to what it all means and is about. I don't know if you
will ever change your opinion on this issue. But I would encourage you to read
some history, and history of why the constitution and the bill of rights was written.

I do not beleive in gun control. I beleive in criminal control, and capitol punishment.
I do beleive that all of us should take the same oath that thousands of men and
women do every day when they join the Military. Part of it says:

I DO SOLEMLY SWEAR TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND
DOMESTIC...............

May be then we can all know the true meaning of Patriotism.

MICHAEL DRESSLER - 02:17am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#72 of 87)

How about this news media. Lets say we cut the crap and cut to the chase. Lets
have discussion on the ILLEGAL way the Police entered the house that day. OH, I
am so sorry, I forgot, the media does not want THE PEOPLE to know what is
really at issue here.

Lets quit talking about the illegal use of weapons, we all know that happens, lets
talk about the illegal use of a police badge, and uniform and the abuse of power. If
we do not get control of that soon, it will only get worse. And baby, there ain't no
other counties to run to, as the ancestors did years ago.

Craig Benc - 02:19am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#73 of 87)

No, we don't need stricter gun control laws, there are plenty of laws on the books
as it is, if somone would just get off their "duff" and enforce these laws we might
see less of this kind of incedent. The "revolving door" justice system we have does
not help the situation, it turns criminals back out on the street and assures them
they have nothing to worry about. Additionally, it sounds to me as if the officers
that got hurt were mabey a little careless/wreckless?

Albert Ritter - 02:19am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#74 of 87)

If we're REALLY SERIOUS about saving lives, let's ban automobiles. "Jack
Hammer" (yeah, right) spouts peurile pablum in diametric opposition to the fact that
the roads in America are the REAL slaughterhouse. Are we to also ban physicians?
Fascinatingly, more Americans lose their lives through (you have to LOVE how the
AMA words this) "Medical Mischance" than all types of firearms deaths combined,
including justifiable homicide and suicide. Firearms, automobiles and physicians are
already highly regulated. Responsibility saves lives, and when a person is
irresponsible, they are held up to society for extraction of just retribution. Don't
take my automobile because my drunken neighbor killed a child with his. I may
need to take you to the hospital with it. Don't take my surgeon's scalpel because
one of his peers made a mistake and a patient died. He may need it to save your life
when some drunk runs you over. Don't take my firearm because some punk killed
a man while robbing him. I may need it to defend your wife when he attacks her. I
am alive today because I had a firearm when I needed one.

D Szatkowski - 07:19am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#75 of 87)

We need fewer paramilitary police "Rambo" games, stricter parole, truth in
sentencing, and less partisan, inflamitory rhetoric by tax-and-spend political hacks.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are clear to all but lawyers; illegal search and
seizure is just that. Criminals and outlaws live outside the law; they don't play by
the rules of society. Fools who yield their rights to laws that constrain only
law-abiding citizens will find their countries overrun by barbarians.

It happened in Nazi Germany, by popular vote, and it can happen here. My family
is not encumbered by large numbers of European relatives. After the Katyn
massacre, gun control ala Hitler and Stalin, and the disarming of the Polish middle
class, a FINAL SOLUTION was reached.

Control the cops, imprison the criminals, ignore the demagogues. Gun control laws
cannot address the problems of moral bankruptcy and rampant personal amorality.

Chris LaFrance - 07:23am Feb 5, 1998 PST (#76 of 87)

You media types are the first to jump on infringing upon the 2nd amendment, but
yell and scream whenever someone hints at cencoring what junk, half-truthed trash
you print. When are you going to wake up and realize that the 2nd amendment
guarantees the rest?

Gun control never works, ask the people of Washington DC, the murder capital of
the nation, where if you are found with an empty piece of brass from a spent
cartridge in your pocket, they arrest you.

Build more jails, put criminals in jail, and use capital punishment. This will deter
crime, not gun control.

As it has be said, "gun control is hitting your target". Any other forms are not
accceptable.

(11 following messages)

(76 previous messages)

Jack Michael Hammer - 05:35am Feb 6, 1998 PST (#77 of 87)
Phoenix Performance

I love it when a plan works out!

There's nothing like an arrogant presentation to bring out the gun owner's true
mentality. Insecure, fearful, angry, unstable, and immature. Obviously, there were
many thoughtful, erudite responses with perspectives worthy of serious
consideration. But take careful note of both the content and expression of the
others. Remember fellow readers, these are the folks that have guns in your
neighborhood, next to your wives, family, and children. They go to work with you,
shop with you and might well bring their lethal toys with them. What fun, eh? Like
living in a shooting gallery. It may not be safe, but it sure isn't dull, and you have
the security of knowing that, sooner or later, the odds will catch up with you.

Remember them when you read about the next child shot with his freedom-loving,
patriotic parents' handgun, when the next battered wife is either killed or crippled
by her gun-fancier spouse, with more lead than manhood, when, God forbid, a
loved one or acquaintance is the victim of some dim-witted self-described "patriot"
exercising their Second Amendment right to shed American blood to preserve
"freedom". No wonder we have a society that's beginning to resemble a Chuck
Norris flick. No need to worry; clearly the local militia is well supported.

As for guns killing more people than cars, as Tim Allen says, "Think about that...

Al Cross - 05:37am Feb 6, 1998 PST (#78 of 87)

I vote NO! No more gun control laws, we have too many now. Gun laws only hurt
law-abiding citizens. Does anyone think that your local crack dealer is going to walk
into his CLEO and register his handgun, or be fingerprinted for his Title 2 firearm?
I don't think so. Its the same old story, we need to slam criminals! We need
updated prisons (larger and more secure), no plea bargaining, you do the crime, you
do the time, every day of it. Yes, I know, it cost money. Thats another problem we
have in this country.

Julie Tanner - 05:50am Feb 6, 1998 PST (#79 of 87)

On stricter gun control.. I believe that if the penalty for comitting crimes were 1.
enforced as they are written. 2. not disregarded by judges, ( such as the case in
Hillsboro where the teens beat the tree farmer with a bat and then the judge decided
that the crime bill, voted on by the people, was unconstitutional) 3. increasing the
penalty for crimes resulting in death. If through the trial process found guilty of
comitting murder, the result is an automatic death penalty no plea, no apeals. This
penalty is carried out within the month. The accomplises' in these crimes resulting
in death should, after a trial by their peers, get automatic life, no chance of parole,
no appeal, no plea bargining. The voters approved several prisons. Lets build them
and fill them. If we don't take a hardened line with criminals, they will win this war.
Taking an extreme line on this WILL reduce crime. (I have been told that in Islamic
countries it is manditory that each citizen must watch an execution by their (his)
14th birthday. There is virtually NO crime there) Its not the law abiding citizens
that are comitting crimes with guns. Its the criminal element that do not register
their guns or get permits. Guns are not the problem.
Unaccountability,permissiveness, and a legal system that does not enforce its own
laws are the problem.

Stanley Buck - 06:14pm Feb 25, 1998 PST (#80 of 87)

Automatic weapons have been illegal for 60 or more years. For cash, Clinton's
"Secret Asian Man" was allowed to import illegal automatic weapons. The
automatic assault weapons were sold on the street to criminals. The criminals got
the weapons, and the Chinese bought the best president that money can buy. Every
gun incident is used by the media to stampede the people into trashing their own
Constitution. The news media is in partnership with gun grabbers to kill our 2nd
Amendment rights. If the 2nd goes, the 1st is sure to follow. It's like, "I'll fix those
murderous criminals, I'll get rid of my gun and make me and my family
defenseless!"

David W. Rush - 06:39am Feb 27, 1998 PST (#81 of 87)

I am very happy to see this topic back. For I feel this issue is far from being over. I
just wish the other 2 topics on this subject would be re-posted, and the contents
aired on the news like every other subject. Broadcast the story on all news shows,
not just the early morning or late night shows. That way everyone will get a chance
to hear what people are really saying.

I stated on another opinion board once, that there are no actual gun bans. If you are
willing to pay the high price and federal transfer fee, you may own any weapon you
wish. The government just uses gun bans to up their revenue on them.

Any politician who willfully tries to change the Constitution should be immediately
impeached and brought up on treason charges. They all took an oath to "Uphold
and defend the Constitution of the United States". If they try to change it, they are
not only NOT during their jobs, but they are endangering the American people with
their communistic ideas.

Rather then outlawing guns, outlaw un-patriotic politicians. And enforce the death
penalty for treason.

David W. Rush

David W. Rush - 11:15am Feb 27, 1998 PST (#82 of 87)

On a related matter that started this whole topic:

Isn't it just a little coincidental that the surveillance camera that should have
recorded the police raid at Dons house was not recording at the time, and now the
security camera in the cell Dons was in was not working when he allegedly
committed suicide?

Now since there is no video of either, the public will never know the truth.

Did the police enter the house lawfully??

Did Dons commit suicide?? Or was it the result of some police officers "Gestapo"
mentality?

David W. Rush

Kyle Hodnett - 02:20pm Mar 1, 1998 PST (#83 of 87)

Yes I do feel that we should have stricter gun control laws. I know that this
dampers the rights of responsible gun owners, but for the safety of all people, the
laws should tighten down on those who can't handle being a responsible owner of
guns!

(79 previous messages)

Stanley Buck - 06:14pm Feb 25, 1998 PST (#80 of 87)

Automatic weapons have been illegal for 60 or more years. For cash, Clinton's
"Secret Asian Man" was allowed to import illegal automatic weapons. The
automatic assault weapons were sold on the street to criminals. The criminals got
the weapons, and the Chinese bought the best president that money can buy. Every
gun incident is used by the media to stampede the people into trashing their own
Constitution. The news media is in partnership with gun grabbers to kill our 2nd
Amendment rights. If the 2nd goes, the 1st is sure to follow. It's like, "I'll fix those
murderous criminals, I'll get rid of my gun and make me and my family
defenseless!"

David W. Rush - 06:39am Feb 27, 1998 PST (#81 of 87)

I am very happy to see this topic back. For I feel this issue is far from being over. I
just wish the other 2 topics on this subject would be re-posted, and the contents
aired on the news like every other subject. Broadcast the story on all news shows,
not just the early morning or late night shows. That way everyone will get a chance
to hear what people are really saying.

I stated on another opinion board once, that there are no actual gun bans. If you are
willing to pay the high price and federal transfer fee, you may own any weapon you
wish. The government just uses gun bans to up their revenue on them.

Any politician who willfully tries to change the Constitution should be immediately
impeached and brought up on treason charges. They all took an oath to "Uphold
and defend the Constitution of the United States". If they try to change it, they are
not only NOT during their jobs, but they are endangering the American people with
their communistic ideas.

Rather then outlawing guns, outlaw un-patriotic politicians. And enforce the death
penalty for treason.

David W. Rush

David W. Rush - 11:15am Feb 27, 1998 PST (#82 of 87)

On a related matter that started this whole topic:

Isn't it just a little coincidental that the surveillance camera that should have
recorded the police raid at Dons house was not recording at the time, and now the
security camera in the cell Dons was in was not working when he allegedly
committed suicide?

Now since there is no video of either, the public will never know the truth.

Did the police enter the house lawfully??

Did Dons commit suicide?? Or was it the result of some police officers "Gestapo"
mentality?

David W. Rush

Kyle Hodnett - 02:20pm Mar 1, 1998 PST (#83 of 87)

Yes I do feel that we should have stricter gun control laws. I know that this
dampers the rights of responsible gun owners, but for the safety of all people, the
laws should tighten down on those who can't handle being a responsible owner of
guns!

Kevan Coleman - 05:22am Mar 2, 1998 PST (#84 of 87)

The whole concept of gun control is a major joke. The citizens of this country from
it's inception have given the raspberry to unjust legislation. Do the gun control
advocates really believe that in these times of violent crime law abiding citizens will
turn in what they consider protection? They know full well that the criminal
element will not. Besides, there are so many firearms out there that you can't get
them all. Banning them would only create a black market fueling more violence.

David W. Rush - 05:22am Mar 2, 1998 PST (#85 of 87)

But Kyle,

If they can't be responsible gun owners, how can you expect them to be responsible
when it comes to abiding by the laws?

Everyone knows the laws about guns and their uses. If they choose not to abide by
the laws we have now, what makes you think they will abide by any new ones that
might come along?

thomas thomas - 07:42pm Mar 2, 1998 PST (#86 of 87)

Can anyone really believe that more laws will make it better? We have too many
already. They dont seem to deter the criminals now, why would more help?
Enforcement of the laws in place, would change the mentality of would be
criminals, more than another law for them to break. Amen, Mr. Rush .I echo your
sentiments completely.

Derald Yancey - 07:42pm Mar 2, 1998 PST (#87 of 87)

Now this is a subject dear to my heart! I've had guns around me ever since I was
three years old. My dad kept a loaded rifle next to the front door just in case a
pheasant or deer might happen to show up. He was a much better shot than I ever
was or hope to be. But I think that's why so many people now think guns are such
evil things. People don't keep loaded weapons around the house anymore for fear
of being sued or charged in criminal court. Since 1934 when the National Firearms
Act was passed, the government has been slowly extending its reach to cover all
sorts of guns. It always has a good reason for depriving us of our rights, 'the
common good.' When the next bill comes up, the same reasons are hauled out
again.Doesn't anyone read or remember history? Every government that has ever
began as a democracy has devolved into tyranny. In every case, one of the first
steps down that slippery road was the disarming of the citizens. Over the years we
have given our government the power to declare martial law with only a simple
declaration of national emergency by the President. There is no definition of just
what that national emergency must be. People sit back now, watching the 'Soaps'
or ball games, and assure me that our government won't really use all the power we
have given it. But all those other governments have and if we didn't want ours to
use those powers then why did we give them? Folks, we all carry fire insurance on
our homes and liability or collision insurance on our cars. I don't think many of us
are planning to have a fire or car wreck. I truly believe my rifle and those of
millions of other Americans, is insurance against an even greater calamity, one that
could effect my children and grandchildren. I will not let it happen easily!

-------------------------------------------------------------------

[End]

The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.

Comments, questions and suggestions.

Next day's news
January 28 news page
Previous day's news

to 1998 Daily News index for January 22-29

to Portland NORML news archive directory

to 1998 Daily News index (long)

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980128_KOIN_comment.html