The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

Gazette Editorial

Buying a gun to defend freedom

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • LINKEDIN
  • PRINT
  • E-MAIL
Text Size: A | A

I’m certainly glad I live in a free country, a country where I can walk into a gun store and buy a semi-automatic rifle if I feel like it, without anyone hassling me. This occurred to me the other day when I visited Taylor & Vadney Sporting Goods at Five Corners in Rotterdam, with the large “Cash for Guns” sign facing its parking lot. I was browsing the selection of handguns — Colt .45s, Smith ...


You Must Log-In or Subscribe to Continue Subscription Offer Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Advertisement

comments

Gsquare
July 29, 2012
6:57 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

What? No hying over to Vermont or New Hampshire?

ed186
July 29, 2012
10:30 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Very informative, but what is your point? Are you suggesting a national restriction such as New York? Each state have it's own laws do they not. The federal government need not interfere with states rights. Just because a guy speaks broken english is no reason to spotlight him. He was cleared to purchase a firearm by the FEDS was he not.

ThePhilistine
July 29, 2012
9:55 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

First of all it is a 10 round magazine not a "clip" and the range is not 1/5 mile.

It must have been hard for your to watch someone exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights without being able to stop them and tell them how they should live.

Also sounds like your were racially profiling this guy...

steveg
July 29, 2012
11:15 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I agree with Carl that it's wonderful to be able to exercise such freedoms as owning a semi-automatic rifle and stocking up on ammunition. It's too bad New York impinges somewhat on our full ability to exercise the freedom of buying more than ten rounds at a time. Too many liberals in this damn state! It's a small price to pay, after all, that mentally disturbed people can legally arm themselves to become mass killers. I can't understand the wimpy attitude that sees anything wrong in that. Our founding fathers were tough realists who would hardly have let themselves be swayed by specious arguments concerning the public good, with their pathetic whimpering about the lives of innocent children, etc. Thanks again, Carl. Some of your readers apparently thought you were being ironic.

JIMOCONNOR
July 30, 2012
8:31 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

poor job. no point . trying to cover too many bases resulted in uninfomative banality. AND your titilation was ungrounded and noncontributory. your effite side really shines here

twohands
July 30, 2012
12:59 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

IMHO, the founders would be *appalled* at the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What part of 'A well regulated militia' is hard to fathom?

robbump
July 30, 2012
3:26 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I wonder what "well regulated militia" that Mr. Lee, the buyer, is a member of? National Guard?

wbuell
July 30, 2012
4:05 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I think the easy availability of firearms in this country is amazing, and even more amazing is that some people, including many of those leaving comments here, don't have a problem with it. They just don't get it.

wanda1948
July 30, 2012
4:25 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

The founding fathers had no idea of the kind of technology that would be available vis-a-vis firearms. I agree, twohands, when they wrote the Second Amendment, I'm not sure this is what they meant by "a well-regulated militia." No one is asking you to give up your guns and stop hunting for recreation, or for having your guns for protection. But there is no reason whatsoever for a private citizen to have the kind of weapon that the Colorado shooter had--and the plethora of ammunition as well--unless he or she is going into military action (as in "a well-regulated militia"). Where's the "regulated" part?

wmarincic
July 30, 2012
4:31 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Wanda,
I went shooting yesterday and I went though almost 300 rounds of ammunition so what do you think a person should have for a proper amount of ammunition?

I shoot about three times per month and that is 1000 rounds, must I go to a store and buy ammunition five times per week to shoot once every week or so?

ed186
July 31, 2012
10:28 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Will people get off the well regulated militia kick. What they meant is a person of certain age MUST be in the militia and had to supply and keep a supply of ammo,powder,flint and other equipment on hand at all times and show up for practice when requided. That is what was meant be WELL REGULATED MILITIA. It had nothing to do with gun ownership which said the (,) RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFINGED.

wbuell
July 31, 2012
12:32 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Ed,
I know the wording of the second amendment is a little bit awkward, but how do you read it and then suggest to people that they "get off the well regulated militia kick." That is exactly what the Founding Fathers were referring to. People should have firearms in order to form a well-regulated militia.
I think it comes down to where people want to draw the line. I don't care if somebody has a hunting rifle or a pistol. But I don't think they should be able to arm themselves and go out in public like the guy did in Colorado. Where do you draw the line? A Gatling Gun? A bazooka, a missile launcher? Sorry, my precise knowledge of gunnery is not so good.

wmarincic
July 31, 2012
1:41 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Bill,
Had other people with firearms been at that theater the outcome would have been much different.

wbuell
July 31, 2012
3:40 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

What?
Maybe he would have killed only 6 and wounded 20, instead of 12 and 56 (or whatever the exact figure is). It seems like there has to be a better way than to arm everyone again and return to the days of the old Wild West. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is walking around carrying a gun.

mlyle
July 31, 2012
3:44 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

I support the right to bare arms, especially in the summertime.

miketomm
July 31, 2012
4:52 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" IS UNCLEAR?

WE ARE NOT ARMED BECAUSE WE ARE FREE!!
WE ARE FREE BECAUSE WE ARE ARMED!!!!!!!!!!!

TAKE AWAY THE ARMS AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO FREEDOM.

ed186
July 31, 2012
7:36 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Bill, Gatling gun, Bazooka, Missile launcher, and those types of weapons can't be owned by a person without a FEDERAL license while is very very difficult to obtain,IF AT ALL. These types of wepons are for police and military period. If you don't want to live in a world such which is the best in the world, you could move to a place where you would feel more comfortable. I perfer the FREE U.S.A.

wbuell
August 1, 2012
1:42 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Mike,
"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."
There it is; written in 1789 by a bunch of middle-aged white men. Does that clearly mean to you that anybody should be able to walk into a store without any restrictions and buy a fully-automatic weapon with hundreds of rounds of ammunition?

ed186
August 1, 2012
4:45 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Bill, The answer to the first half of your question is NO. The ansewer to the second half is this..first off what does White middle aged men have to do with anything? SECOND not anyone can walk into a store and buy a gun, there is a prosess one go through. And THIRD you can't purchash a fully-automatic weapon period it is against the law. I thought I explained well regulated militia in a prior post, maybe you misses it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED!!! What do you not get?

ThePhilistine
August 1, 2012
10:06 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

"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."

it does not say the people have to be members of a militia, its clearly states "the right of the people" thus Heller. It was written and has been ruled... deal with it hippies.

miketomm
August 2, 2012
4:42 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Carl - where did you get the 1/2 mile range data from?
It's a gross exaggeration. While under ideal conditions no one but a select few highly trained individuals could actually hit a target at that range. Those select few shooters know that the projectile has lost about 80% of its energy at 500 yds. A half mile is 880 yards. We can go on forever debating ballistics data - it's not the point. The point is someone fed you a gross exaggeration and without any research you took their word for it and perpetuated the erroneous data. The media does this all the time to serve an antigun agenda. I always thought more highly of you than that.

Advertisement