Senators disappoint voters

  • Follow Letters

First let me say how proud I am to be an American – to live in a nation that grants its citizens rights such as the ones spelled out in the U.S. Constitution’s First and Second Amendments. I am proud that we can debate for and against those amendments without fear of retaliation.

It is for that same reason that I write saying, for me, it is a sad day in Georgia when our two U.S. senators voted “no” on a gun bill that would not infringe on the rights of any law-abiding citizen to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights.

Shame on you, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson.

Melvin Lowry

Augusta

Comments (28) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Jon Lester
2440
Points
Jon Lester 05/06/13 - 01:11 am
3
0
carcraft
27886
Points
carcraft 05/06/13 - 04:36 am
11
1
GOD BLESS Saxby Chambliss and

GOD BLESS Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. We need another gun law like we need higher gas prices! Only 4% of violations of gun laws are now prosecuted! Do we really need another law to ignore? n Pleae explain to me how this new gun law would have made me one bit safer!

ymnbde
10396
Points
ymnbde 05/06/13 - 05:06 am
3
2
perfect Newspeak

vague, yet perfectly in line with the goals of the regime
of course, it "would not infringe on the rights of any law-abiding citizen"
after it's a law...
it may feel like a thought crime to temporarily leave your paradigm, but you should try it...

myfather15
55844
Points
myfather15 05/06/13 - 05:46 am
10
1
Yes, of course they want all

Yes, of course they want all of us to believe this bill ONLY addressed background checks at "Gun shows"; and who wouldn't want that? But the truth is, this bill also called for complete registration AND banning of thousands of guns deemed "Assault weapons".

So, the question is; who gets to determine what an "Assault weapon" is exactly? Senators? Congressmen and women? The President? These are the exact people the constitution was designed to RETRICT, not give more power too; would you not agree? So why should THEY be allowed to take more and more rights away from the people? Is this not giving them more power? For the record, I do NOT own any semi-automatic long gun (assault rifle). I do however own several semi-automatic hand guns (Pistols).

I'm also a law enforcement officer and would be exempt from most of this bill. So I have no bias in this case, besides to side with THE PEOPLE. This bill IN THEORY would also make me safer while policing the streets, right? So why would I stand against such a bill? It's quite simple; BECAUSE IT WILL NOT WORK, as even the politicians pushing for it have admitted. It wouldn't have prevented a single mass shooting that has occurred the last few years. I also have the STREET WISDOM to know that if you ban citizens from having certain weapons, only the criminals will have these weapons. History has PROVEN this time and time again. So I will give more credit to PROVEN history, than to theoretical non-sense. Bad guys will still be out there and they WILL be armed, period.

You politicians need to leave the law abiding citizens ALONE; pass serious penalties for those already breaking the law and ENFORCE the laws we already have. Stop giving probation to convicted felons in possession of firearms.

But, as I've said MANY times; this has NOTHING to do with making anyone more safe. It's about slowly and subtly taking away more and more rights of the people to defend themselves. This push for more gun legislation will NEVER end.

RMSHEFF
18026
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 08:08 am
4
0
Sadly, many American seem

Sadly, many American seem willing to surrender their constitutional rights to those in power We are being told to "trust me". Some are ignorant and some know exactly what this would mean to our republic. The low information voter will be the end of us !

burninater
9799
Points
burninater 05/06/13 - 08:59 am
2
2
Jon Lester, California is

Jon Lester, California is taking steps to enforce their EXISTING laws against the ownership of firearms by those with mental illness and violent criminal pasts.

Are you saying that's wrong?

dichotomy
36286
Points
dichotomy 05/06/13 - 09:00 am
3
0
"a gun bill that would not

"a gun bill that would not infringe on the rights of any law-abiding citizen to exercise their First or Second Amendment rights

How about we re-phrase your argument to say that voted "no" on a useless law that would not have prevented ANY mass shooting and that did not include ANY provisions to address the real problem of tracking mentally ill people in such a manner that would show up on a background check. In other words, the law was USELESS and it's only result would have been to FURTHER penalize and inconvenience law abiding citizens.

Little Lamb
47988
Points
Little Lamb 05/06/13 - 09:30 am
2
0
Database

Jon Lester's link led to a Sacramento Bee story that contains this sentence:

The legislation directs $24 million to the state Department of Justice to improve enforcement efforts associated with the state's Armed Prohibited Persons System, a database that helps officials identify people who are no longer allowed to possess guns.

My question is, once the officials identify those persons, what are they going to do next?

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 09:32 am
1
6
The people that want more gun laws

We are the people THAT ARE NOT covinced that stronger gun laws WILL NOT help in cutting gun crimes !! Quite frankly, I don't think the gun owners can absolutely prove us to be wrong. As another thought, people that do not have guns DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS FAIR FOR THE NRA TO HAVE SOOOO MUCH POLITICAL CLOUT !!

Little Lamb
47988
Points
Little Lamb 05/06/13 - 09:39 am
2
0
President Jimmy Carter said,

“Life is not fair.”

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 09:44 am
1
4
LL "life is not fair"

What is fair about being a democracy and yet allowing one ultra-powerful orginization ""BUY SOOOO MANY VOTES"" !!

allhans
24522
Points
allhans 05/06/13 - 10:04 am
5
1
Fair? If the NRA was the

Fair? If the NRA was the only organization that could """BUY SOOOO MANY VOTES"" !!...
Look at how our current president got elected AND re-elected.

myfather15
55844
Points
myfather15 05/06/13 - 11:55 am
4
0
@t3bledsoe

"We are the people THAT ARE NOT covinced that stronger gun laws WILL NOT help in cutting gun crimes !! Quite frankly, I don't think the gun owners can absolutely prove us to be wrong."

So now we must convince YOU it won't work, in order to MAINTAIN OUR rights? So we now must prove "just cause", in order to KEEP our constitutional rights? Is that what you're saying? So, if we can't prove this to you beyond a reasonable doubt; the government can take whatever rights they seem fit? For what? To help make us safe?

Might I remind you of a Ben Franklin quote "Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Enough said!!

myfather15
55844
Points
myfather15 05/06/13 - 11:57 am
3
0
And the left says we aren't

And the left says we aren't moving towards a socialist form of government? With people like this and their rational logic; we are on the fast track. It's very, very sad that people like this would WILLFULLY allow our constitutional rights to be sifted away.

itsanotherday1
47007
Points
itsanotherday1 05/06/13 - 12:02 pm
3
0
Bledsoe

Give me an example of how your gun laws would improve safety for the average citizen. Be precise please, with your opinion.

Little Lamb
47988
Points
Little Lamb 05/06/13 - 12:12 pm
5
0
Wrong

Mr. Lowry starts his letter off on a false premise. It is not the government that GRANTS its citizens rights listed in the first and second amendments. Those rights are granted by our creator God. It is the government's job not to infringe upon our rights.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 01:25 pm
4
0
Who decides what is
Unpublished

Who decides what is considered a mental illness, and what mental illnesses will disqualify you from gun ownership? It sure sounds like common sense to say that we will prevent people with mental illness from owning guns, right? What if you are mentally ill, but never been diagnosed? What's next? Mandatory psychological examination prior to buying a gun? How often will you have to renew?

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard to understand. If the words bother you so, then propose an amendment to abolish the 2nd amendment.

Little Lamb
47988
Points
Little Lamb 05/06/13 - 01:57 pm
3
0
Thanks, HA

I've been wondering about these "universal" background checks to see if a person is mentally ill. Aren't those medical records? Aren't they supposed to be private? If I want to make an individual gun sale to a neighbor who lives down the street, am I going to have access to his medical records?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 02:04 pm
4
0
If I am to do a background
Unpublished

If I am to do a background check before I sell a gun to a neighbor, I need a list of mental illnesses that disqualify gun ownership. Where's the list?

burninater
9799
Points
burninater 05/06/13 - 02:07 pm
0
4
What part of SHALL NOT BE

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is so hard to understand.
-----
Then clearly it is also necessary that violent felons be allowed firearms.

burninater
9799
Points
burninater 05/06/13 - 02:10 pm
0
4
Who decides what is

"Who decides what is considered a mental illness, and what mental illnesses will disqualify you from gun ownership?"
------
Mental health professionals.
---------
"What if you are mentally ill, but never been diagnosed?"
-------
Then you can buy a gun. Just because a system is not perfect doesn't mean it should be completely disregarded.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 02:24 pm
2
0
Which mental health
Unpublished

Which mental health professionals? What if they disagree? What if they define one thing as a mental illness today, but not tomorrow. It's happened before.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 02:25 pm
2
0
If they are still violent
Unpublished

If they are still violent felons, then why aren't they in jail? Why were they released without being rehabilitated?

RMSHEFF
18026
Points
RMSHEFF 05/06/13 - 02:35 pm
4
0
Some say liberalism is a

Some say liberalism is a mental disorder! I agree!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 03:00 pm
0
4
HA your quote

"If they are still violent felons, then why aren't they in jail? Why were they released without being rehabilitated?"

So are you; now; OK with mental ill people and ex-cons owning guns ?? Is this so no one will have their 2nd amendment rights infringed upon ??

Little Lamb
47988
Points
Little Lamb 05/06/13 - 03:23 pm
3
0
Spectrum

We have learned on this forum that they have expanded the autism-asperger's "spectrum" so wide that one in eight males and one in twenty females are now considered "on the spectrum. You can't get off the spectrum once they've put you on it. So would these people be unable to pass the background check once they become eighteen?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 03:52 pm
3
0
I am against the government
Unpublished

I am against the government making decisions as to which people are worthy to exercise their Constitutional rights. If an ex con is rehabilitated, then he/she should have his/her rights. If he/she is not, then he/she should remain in jail.

burninater
9799
Points
burninater 05/06/13 - 04:21 pm
0
2
If an ex con is

If an ex con is rehabilitated, then he/she should have his/her rights. If he/she is not, then he/she should remain in jail.
-----
This would be a sensible and rational sentiment if we had magic brain readers and future-seeing crystal balls. We do not. Instead, we have to live in the reality of probabilistic risk assessment.

We have developed two techniques to manage the risk vs rehabilitation of violent felons: 1) they are not automatically jailed for life in case of rehabilitation; 2) they are not allowed, in many jurisdictions, to possess firearms in case of recidivism.

I would make the observation that if gun rights advocates are going to be so stubborn that they demand and insist that localities allow paranoid schizophrenics and/or violent felons to acquire firearms, they are in severe danger of forcing a disproportionate backlash. Based on years of observation of human behavior, I have grown to believe that "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" has it exactly backwards. Give them an inch and they'll work with you. Refuse an inch and they'll get so PO'ed that you'll be lucky if they only take a mile.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 05/06/13 - 04:29 pm
4
0
Oh...so at least now we have
Unpublished

Oh...so at least now we have named paranoid schizophrenics. Where's the list of mental illnesses that disqualify gun ownership? How long will the mental ill stigma last? For life? Who decides? You can't pass legislation on this until these things are well defined. If you allow it to be all defined after the fact, then you have given the government the very power the founders wanted to keep them from getting.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 05/06/13 - 06:58 pm
0
2
HA this is your comment. Who talks double talk ??

"I am against the government making decisions as to which people are worthy to exercise their Constitutional rights. If an ex con is rehabilitated, then he/she should have his/her rights. If he/she is not, then he/she should remain in jail."

It is about time for you to admit that conservs. talk double talk too !!

Back to Top

Top headlines

Georgia Regents' hospital plan chosen

Georgia Regents Medical Center won a lengthy and hardfought battle over two other Augusta hospitals to build the first hospital in Columbia County, the Georgia Department of Community Health ...
Search Augusta jobs