Gun control debate reaches Southport


Tags: , ,

Submitted: Mon, 12/31/2012 - 3:39pm
By:

SOUTHPORT, NC (WWAY) — The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School has once again brought the topic of gun control to the forefront. But some local gun owners warn against knee-jerk reactions.

As the president and Congress are arguing the gun control debate, so are folks right here at home. Today, I spoke with gun owners who say more laws are not the answer.

“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” President Obama said in an interview today.

“Put law enforcement or armed security guards in these places where we want our children to be protected,” said gun owner Joseph Parent.

There does not seem to be much middle ground for the two sides in the gun control debate.

“Gun control is not the problem. Control the people,” said gun owner Richard Timberlake. The gun doesn’t kill anybody. The idiot behind it uses it to kill somebody.”

Ever since the shooting at Sandy Hook there have been increased talks in Washington for stricter firearms laws.

Gun owners at the Ant Hill shooting range in Southport say such laws would only hurt the good guys.

“If you want a gun, you’re going to get a gun,” said gun owner Joe Hill. “I spent many years in the police department. You’re going to get a gun, legal or not.”

They say for them, shooting is just a hobby.

“Some people enjoy yoga. Some people enjoy running. I enjoy coming out and meeting like-minded americans in a safe environment with good, safe, friendly competition,” said Parent.

A USA Today poll taken shortly after the Sandy Hook Massacre shows 58% of people now favor stricter gun laws, that is up from 43% the same time last year.

68 Comments

  • Mr.T says:

    Years ago I was an avid rabbit hunter. We would always use the phrase
    ” He didn’t have a rabbits chance” when some body would have bad luck. Under today,s gun standards, I would accept a rabbits chance! You see when we hunted rabbits, by law you had to have a plug in your gun, you were limited to three shells in a semi-automatic shotgun. Today we are up against 30 to 100 rounds. Now if your answer is Rabbits don’t shoot back, your missing the point!!

  • Debbie says:

    I’m not brain washed by NRA or anyone else. You also do not have the right to tell me what I can or can’t own. I do not tell you. You have a opinion that is different is all. I do not understand why you feel the need to insult people because they do not want to give up the guns they have purchased. You think we all are paranoid and it is exhausting for you. People like you exhaust me. Because you think you have a right to tell some one else how they should think and how they should live. Just because some people do not agree with you doesn’t make them wrong or hate filled. You are the one that seems to have no understanding of anyone else views. You just said yourselve that it won’t save anyones life. But meeting force with force will save lives. Nut jobs will still get the guns they want because we know they don’t do things normally. On the other hand I do understand your fear of what might happen next. People that own these types of guns have valid reason for owning them. You just don’t see things the way they do. If you start banning types of guns the next thing you like minded individuals will be saying is we can prevent more killings if we just add this gun or that gun to the list of banned weapons. What if there was something you enjoyed doing like shooting guns at targets and some one wanted to ban what ever you enjoyed. Don’t you think you would get upset? Try to look at this issue from both sides. You do know that this kind of sickness in the world is not going to stop because you banned a gun. Sick individuals will just use a different object to get the attention they seem to need. Maybe it will be a bomb which would kill so many more. You just have to protect yourselve and others the best way you can by fighting fire with fire.

  • Guest123234 says:

    I hope you all feel better about yourself making these arguments. Lets change or make new laws that wont change anything for an entire population of law abiding gun owners since a few nut jobs who go off the deep end. The Bushmaster is such a “scary” looking gun it just has to be banned. Who do you think the only people who will have it be if that happens. Please step out of your bubble and join us in the real world.

  • JARHEAD says:

    AMEN…… Ex-Marine, Ex-Police Officer… the ACLU turned the nuts loose, the courts allow the killers to remain on the streets. You want my gun(S)… Pry my dead, cold fingers from around it!!! Semper-Fi…

  • Guest CommonTater says:

    You need a dose of perspective as well.

    ” Look at Columbine they had armed guards at that school the day of the shooting, but there was nothing the guard could do… the shooters studied the guard and made sure they used an entrance the guard wasn’t attending to… ” – John

    Assault rifle ban was from 1994 to 2004. Over 160 deaths at school shootings during this time. How’d that ban work out?

    Your last sentence says it all… I think so.

  • John says:

    I am fully aware of the ban. The individuals involved did not use assault weapons but a small caliber handgun, and shotgun… they also didn’t kill as many people as they could have if in fact they were able to get their hands on an modified assault weapon like the one used at Sandy Hook… My point is your not going to stop violent acts, but you may save a few people from each situation.

  • Vog46 says:

    An assault rifle because of its muzzle velocity can shoot through walls and windows of schools. If a guard with a .45 or 9mm stepped out into the open against an assault weapon that guard is toast.
    Assault weapons with 30 round clips have no purpose in the hands of John Q Public – especially when those very same gun owners do NOT secure those weapons from those that could get at them – due to psychological break down or just plain being a demon.
    Columbine proves that “the shooters only pick on gun free zones” is wrong. Armed guards at schools provide NO ASSURANCE against someone with an assault weapon who is hell bent on killing kids.
    Think about Alderman, Pine Valley, and other elementary schools right here in town. Single story, large windows……..
    Our “trust” in our local schools systems to protect our children is now shattered – and our children are too exposed. Do we coop them up in bullet proof buildings?
    I want to think that America is better than that – that it’s more secure.
    But you restrict assault rifle sales and 30 round clips you can minimize the damage. IF lanza had a 9mm semi instead of the Bushmaster that principle or the counselor may have gotten to him.
    But before we have this debate lets ask ourselves a question.
    I believe we should see the crime scene photos from CT as gruesome as it sounds. When one sees the damages caused by weapons of this kind it leaves an indelible impression.
    I’m sure the NRA would join me in this recommendation (NOT)

    Vog

  • jj says:

    I have a right to protect my family. When the President gives up the Security Service protection for his family, I may consider giving up my guns.

  • John says:

    For the gun owners: Please stop the fear infused, hatred spewing belly aching that “Gun Grabbers” are coming after you. Your paranoia is exhausting. Myself and other like minded individuals think making a certain specific style & capacity weapon (assault rifle) illegal will save lives, and it will. It will not save everyone, but it will limit what an individual can do which will effectively result in less victims. Look a the school shooting fatalities during the assault weapons ban of 1994-2004, 49 victims were murdered… look at 2004- Present … we haven’t even completed a ten year record and we have 77 victims of school shootings… Do you want to know why? Do I even need to bring it up? Can you not protect yourself without a small military arsenal at home to save teachers, administrators, and last but not least children… Can you not think for yourself and see that it is wrong? Does the NRA control your mind to this extent? Come on people this is UNNECESSARY! These weapons serve no purpose in our society. The risk greatly out weighs the reward… more guns is not the answer, people are to flawed to accept the responsibility. I ask you to look at the facts and understand not having these weapons legal during 1994-2004 probably saved a lot of lives… Columbine could have easily been twice as worse as VT or Sandy Hook… please stop the hate filled bickering and use some common sense.

  • John says:

    And actually you need to do more research as there were 49 deaths in school shootings from 1994 – 2004. There have been 77 deaths since and we haven’t even hit the 10 year mark yet… so your point was?

  • John says:

    Leroy you aren’t the only one needing a strong dose of perspective… I have heard many people make this claim, and the only conclusion I can come up with is you need to step out of your self importance and look at the big picture.The President & his family have armed security because he is our leader, commander in chief… If we are going to elect an individual to office and bestow upon that individual the responsibilities that POTUS has we better make sure we give him adequate protection because otherwise we would be replacing Presidents every week from assassinations. You are not a target… The POTUS is… See my point. You also misinterpreted the POTUS by saying he said we don’t need armed guards… What he said was it is not feasible. Take one of the largest counties in our state Mecklenburg… It would take 2 million dollars a year to place well-trained armed guards at every school in that county. And by doing so you still haven’t thwarted the threat… Look at Columbine they had armed guards at that school the day of the shooting, but there was nothing the guard could do… the shooters studied the guard and made sure they used an entrance the guard wasn’t attending to… You forget schools have numerous exits and entrances… Are we to pay for armed guards at every entrance/window? Your talked hundreds of millions of dollars per state! All so the gun owners can have their toys (assault rifles)… I think not.

  • John says:

    Debbie… your too ignorant to reply too… So I won’t. I own two guns for self protection… I am not against people owning guns for that purpose as long as they aren’t battlefield intended weapons. Come off of your soapbox your acting ridiculous. You are the one that needs to take a long look on both sides and see that people are flawed and need to have limits. If you disagree lets open the drinking/smoking age to the day of birth, take down the speed limit signs, and in your case give everybody a free gun market to buy whatever weapon device they can afford… you have 10 million dollars here have a nuclear warhead,.. smh

  • leroy reid says:

    the president says we don’t need an armed guard in school.Armed guards protect his kids . Are they more important then our kids. will he give up his armed (with assault weapons)guards. He can be protected But we cant protect our self makes you go hummmm.

  • Sgt. Leroy says:

    You are obviously not very well educated and extreamily liner minded because most of your above statement has no concept of the fact that our founding father’s put the 2nd amendment in the constitution so that if tyrants like you ever get elected into public office and started i don’t know, over taxing us, oppressing us, taking any of the liberties that we are guarantted by our birth right as american citizens,…..yeah the 2nd amendment is there so that if a person like you ever got elected and tried any of that communist bull crap we could shoot you on the spot because we swore as citizens to protect and defend our constitution from all enemies and especially dommesticated communist enemies who should be thrown in prison for even daring to attempt to suggest that our rights be stripped away. Shame on you! I wish I knew where your mother was buried so I could spit on her grave and curse the day she gave birth to such an anti-american snot nosed communist punk like you. Get heck out of our Country,…..people like you are scum go spread you cancerous left wing propaganda somewhere else you disgusting little brat!

  • Joe says:

    The argument that the 2nd amendment was not intended to include modern firearms is no less absurd than claiming that the 1st amendment was not intended to include modern technologies. Under this claim, our right to post our opinions on this very web site should not be covered. We should be left to write a physical letter to the editor of a newspaper, in hopes that it would actually be printed, or go gather at the town hall to express our opinions.

    Further, the supreme court has upheld that the 2nd amendment is a “right of the people” not a “right of the militia”.

    Whether you believe your neighbor has a “need” for an item, be it an assault rifle or otherwise, is irrelevent in a free society. To ban an item you must show that it’s possesion significantly endangers the person or property of others within society. When making this argument, be sure to keep things in perspective. Contrast the rate of assault weapons ownership and use in crimes and death with other products on the market, like automobiles. For both gross and population adjusted values, the death rate is higher than for firearms, let alone assault weapons. Is their really a need for you or your neighbor to own a sports car, designed to exceed the legal speed limit, especially when you consider that a third of all traffic fatalities are related to excessive speed (and what criminal wants a slow get-away car). Wouldn’t we save more lives by banning sports cars? Or should concede that if people want to speed, they will. Conceding this, why would we curtail the rights of law abiding citizens in their choice of automobile. We accept that there will be some who will abuse their freedom and speed, and that in some cases this abuse will have devastatng results.

    Killers will seek to kill, with or without assault weapons (assuming you could actually get rid of them). Please stop advocating the removal of this individual liberty from law abiding citizens. Doing so will not save lives or reduce crime rates, gun-control law history in our country has shown this. Banning fully automatic weapons (real assault weapons) 27 years ago has not kept them out of the hands of criminals. Banning their semi-automatic cousins will be no more effective.

  • Ronnie says:

    You liberal brainfarts try to take biased statistics and your logic and try to turn it into reality.. The second admendment was not meant for hunters to keep their deer rifles as Ed Rendell seems to think. Or half of the gun grabbers seem to think we should just own muskets as to when the era of the 2nd admendment was wrote and that is not the case. We are to be armed the same as the government minus the fully automatic weapons (ORIGINAL ASSAULT WEAPON)! they took care of that in 1936 which there is still a few handfull of people that due have them legally but its a long process to get. I own an ar-15 it doesnt jump out of my window and shoot somebody. It is no different than my bolt action rifle or my handgun i carry on a daily basis. ar-15 ak-47 and any other semi auto rifle, shotgun, or handgun, is NOT an assault weapon IN THE RIGHT HANDS OF A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN! It is only deemed so when a individual uses a gun in the wrong manner. Then it doesnt matter what type of weapon is used. Anything can be used as a weapon. Why do you sheep have to segregate one type of weapon. If you dont like it dont buy it. Way i see it. If you want to question me why i bought one only thing i can tell you is its none of your business. It was my choice. Just like me buying a chevy and you buying a Prius. The second amendment was not written to pick what guns we were allowed to have. And a little of intelligence for you John an ar-15 is not a battlefield weapon. They are meirly a look alike do not function the same. Go google it. But if our crooked government ever decided to take our rights away it would atleast give us a fighting chance. Im one that will not stand and lose my rights as a free law abiding citizen. I dont depend on my government and somewhere along the lines people have forgotten that or have had to much smoke blown up where the sun doesnt shine. I think any politician that took an oath to uphold the constitution and trying to change laws as they see fit on any amendment should lose there jobs. Every law they pass to control us does NOTHING to stop the bad in this world, everyone say this with me BECAUSE CRIMINALS DONT CARE ABOUT LAWS! You go after the source! Not the tools and not the innocent. I will agree with you on one thing though. It is too easy for somebody to obtain a gun. I cant say for myself because my name or ssn is close to an individual with a record so im delayed for hours to a day. More stricter background checks and mental illness checks need to be improved. Private sell needs to be done away with and loopholes at gunshows need to be addressed and thats it. That would be a start and local law authorities need to look more into convicted felons in there area to see if they have weapons illegaly. Almost all crimes committed with a gun were criminals to start with, mental and stole a gun, werent legally allowed to have one in the first place. There is alot of cases of self defense cases and justifiable homicides this year from people legaly carrying you just need to look for them considering it doesnt meet your national telivised news channels agendas. There is your common sense brother!

  • John says:

    It’s time for Americans to use some common sense, and a bit of intellect. First lets cover the 2nd Amendment… probably the most out of context piece of legislation over the past 200 years. The 2nd Amendment states that the country has a right to a well regulated militia, and an individual right to bear arms. The last part is what gun owners cling to argue they have the right to bear whatever arsenal they can afford to assemble… Many gun owners have countless firearms because of this thought process. They read this last part and take out what fits their objective leaving out the meat of the amendment and it’s intention. The 2nd amendment was constructed in a period of time when the newly founded United States of America did not have a proper Army to defend it’s citizens from foreign threats, thus the amendment passed to arm able bodied citizens so they could defend themselves…. That’s what the whole 2nd amendment was about. It was never intended for it’s citizens to own semi-automatic weapons which could fire 4-6 rounds per sec. at a velocity of 3,000 ft per sec. it was not intended for citizens to be able to purchase firearms, and ammunition over a internet in a secondary market with zero background check. We have created this epidemic over the last 200 years by not amending the 2nd amendment as our culture changed… Does anyone else not feel it utterly stupid that we live under laws catered to the 18th century… Do we not have the mental faculties to adapt our laws to our evolving culture? My last point is this, being a veteran I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is absolutely zero use for AK-47, AR-15 type weapons in the homes of our neighbors, family, and friends. The people who own these guns have not received the proper training to be capable of responsibly owning such a destructive device. Don’t forget these weapons are the device of choice on battlefields… They should be illegal to own, and they should be turned in immediately. That’s a start. For the individuals who say it’s not the gun it’s the people behind the gun… Lets examine this statement for a moment… What is the only thing you can effectively do with a gun? … Shoot a bullet out of it. You also say it’s not the gun but the person behind it… well lets look at that… Only .07% of individuals who apply for gun ownership get denied… So your telling me that 99.93% of American Citizens applying have the mental capacity to own a weapon and we can’t limit the weapons meant for battlefields because that would be “Unconstitutional”…???…??? You can’t take a 200 year old piece of legislation (taken out of context), and pair that with the ability to own war machines, and hand them out legally to 99.93% of the population who wants them… I’m sorry your incapable of proper intelligence if you think otherwise.

  • guest11904jesse says:

    So what happens if we end up in a situation where our government turns tyrannical? Or if our homeland gets invaded? Do you want to be defending your homeland from invaders with a bolt action 30-06 deer rifle that will only hold 5 shells? I dont. I think that’s a good enough reason for me to have high capacity, high fire rate, semi automatic rifles. As for the tougher background checks, I totally agree. Hell, if it were my way, anyone who was trying to buy a weapon with a capacity higher than 10 would get a full psychiatric screen plus the background check.
    On a final note, I’ve got several ar15s and ak47s, and if I had to choose to get shot with any of my guns, it would be one of those. The bullet would go straight through you with a low chance of fragmentation. That is how they are designed to perform. A .22 is wayyyy more dangerous in terms of lethality.
    Looking forward to your response

  • Guest123234 says:

    Why do you think your intelligence is so superior just because someone does not agree with your logic. I listened to your argument and you only proved a major point most gun owners worry about. “thats a start” sums it up meaning the anti gun people will keep coming once once they start taking away any guns. Thank god the NRA will not let it happen.

  • Seriously says:

    You give your brain too much credit..

  • GuestUSMC says:

    Many of us are using our brains. The second amendment is just as important today and means the same thing as it did when written. The authors had the foresight to look ahead many years and see that our government could become opressive and citizens would need the means to defend themselves. My personal feelings are that any citizen, who has never been convicted of a felony involving a firearm, should have the right to posess any type weapon that he/she wants. If the time ever comes when citizens must fight against a well armed government, military type assault weapons will be much more effective than single shot .22 rifles. People with ideas like yours are very, very dangerous. I seriously doubt if you are a military veteran, as your opinion would be considerably different.

  • HotDog says:

    So you are saying the Second Amendment is out of date? Would you be saying the same for any of our other amendements? What if people suddenly began thinking cruel and unusual punishment was “out of date” would be then be able to torture people who may or may not have committed a crime? By saying that one of our amendments, our BILL OF RIGHTS is out of date, you are saying that about all of them. These are rights that are inherent to us as humans and aren’t to be infringed or taken away.

    Seeing as you have been in the military, then weren’t you sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic? How are you protecting or defending the Constitution of you are so willing to dismiss one of our amendments to is as “out of date”?

  • Guest2020 says:

    Considering the situation that our forefathers face against an oppressive government, they did not need a crystal ball to have the foresight to protect the future citizens of this country. They witnessed first hand what an oppressive government can do to its citizens. What do you think happened during the Revolutionary War? England was being oppressive to the colonists and the only recourse for the colonists was to fight back. What do you think would have happened if the colonists weren’t allowed to be as equally armed as the British? We would be speaking the queen’s English.

  • Guest7969 says:

    Like you I wish would pack up and leave this country. If one tan be called irrelevant because the times have changed…what stops all of our freedoms from being taken under the.same argument.

  • enoughisenough says:

    We should be able to own ANY type of firearm because of our 2d amendment rights? Bazookas? RPG’s? Anti-aircraft? Any caliber? You may as well say we all should have the right to drive our cars at whatever speed we want, and anyone who wants to drive slower better just get off the road. People with these ideas are not dangerous. People with broken brains and ridiculously easy access to highly efficient, well designed and effective killing machines are dangerous. No hunter in his or her right mind is going to hunt with a bushmaster rifle. We have no more need for these than we do for personal armoured tanks or anthrax. If we had the stomach of Australia, which I doubt because paranoia and fear is rampant here, we would be able to reign these 10,000 murders and 15,000 suicides in and still keep farmers and hunters and law abiding citizens happy. How many children have to die every year for us to feel free?

  • John says:

    What gives you the right to tell me to leave? When your family slept I stood the watch to protect you and nw you want to cast me aside… thanks for the gratitude A**.

  • John says:

    I did swear to defend… doesn’t mean I’m so close-minded that I don’t see the need to improve and update to todays culture.

  • John says:

    HAHAHA… “The second amendment is just as important today and means the same thing as it did when written”… Do you even know what the 2nd Amendment says?? LOL.. it states: 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. Which was written in the infancy of our nation when we did not have an Army to protect the security of our United States… It’s completely out of date! When was the last time we had a government endorsed Militia… The Civil War… LOL it has absolutely no bearing on modern culture. “The authors had the foresight to look ahead many years and see that our government could become opressive and citizens would need the means to defend themselves” Are you kidding me? You mean to tell me that the framers of our constitution were all prophets who looked into their crystal balls and knew the future… Do you own firearms? Because I would question your mental state if you honestly believe they had the foresight that the government THEY created would become oppressive… Your personal feeling that a non-felon should be able to own and operate whatever weapon he/she wants is absolutely the reason laws need to be put in place because people such as yourself know no limitations… Tell me how many Mass Murders were previously convicted Felons?… And you want these people to have option of hand selecting what destructive device they want with no cap on the possibilities… again I question your mental state… Also, if you ever have to go toe to toe with the US Military the best thing you can do is lay down your weapon because there is no arsenal greater… you would stand no chance… and you say my ideas are dangerous. As for my veteran status I don’t have to prove anything to you, but I will tell you I was a BM2 (SW/AW) SAR aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower for four years… honorably discharged. and yes my opinion is quite different from yours.

  • John A. Difloure says:

    ”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”

  • enoughisenough says:

    Gun control is like trying to tell people who think they have the right to drive 150 miles per hour that it’s dangerous.

  • enoughisenough says:

    How many children have to die every week so that we feel like our 2nd amendment rights are not abridged? This is a real, not a rhetorical question.

  • John says:

    Actually the individuals carrying out these mass murders are actually untrained law abiding citizens. The Theatre gunman, Tucson Shooter, Columbine High School, Oregon Mall Shooter, & Sandy Hook School Shooter all had zero rap sheets not even a traffic violation… So the reason we need these assault rifles out of our communities is because there is absolutely no way to know who is a threat. It will not stop these sick individuals from carrying out acts of violence but at the very least it will cut down the death toll by not arming them with fire power intended for war zones.

  • B M says:

    I wouldn’t put 2 cents worth of faith in any poll USA and Today would run for accuracy, legal gun owners have always favored gun control, there are already more gun laws on the books than will ever be enforced, problem is the people and liberal justice systems, either they are repeat offenders or mentally challenged, either case, the justice system turns a blind eye to both of them. Why else does the mass shootings occur in gun free zones?

  • Guest2020 says:

    What legal gun owners favor gun control? It’s the law-abiding citizens who follow existing law that are the ones who get killed. It’s the criminal who will kill no matter what the law says. More gun control laws is not the answer to end the violence. Enabling the innocents (by that I mean adults) to protect themselves is the answer.

  • Guest987654321 says:

    They regulate cold medicine more than bullets because meth is a bigger problem than bullets. Also, to get guns legally, you have waiting periods, and background checks. You can’t do a whole lot with ammunition without a gun. It would be like trying to regulate beer bottles, it’s the alcohol in the bottles that’s the problem.

  • Charles Walters says:

    Get rid of the assult weapons. No one needs an AK-47, AR-15, M-4 Carbine, or any other weapon that was designed as a military weapon. If you need 30 shots to bring down a deer, the you do not need to be hunting in the first place. Also you should not be able to buy ammunition over the internet. This is how that fool who shot ou the theater in Colorado got 6000 rounds no questions asked. They regulate cold medicine more than they do bullets. Quite frankly there has been no talk about the government going door to door collecting guns. There has been talk about making it so people with mental illnesses can not get permision to have a weapon of any kind. In NC a person who is a convicted felon gets 5 years with no parole for having a weapon. That does not deter them from having and using guns to commit crimes. I personally believe any felon found to have a gun should get 25 years with no parole, that would have a profound effect on crime, because then thye would be off the streets forever. The NRA, and the Republican nuts want you to believe the cops are coming after you, and that is a load of crap!!!!! If something is not done to get rid of military weapons in the hands of untrained civilians or nut jobs, then we are going to have many more shootings like the one in Newtown. Wake up people stop using the 2nd Amendment as a way to be stupid.

  • FazNo4 says:

    Your words:

    Quite frankly there has been no talk about the government going door to door collecting guns.

    Your words:

    Get rid of the assault weapons.

  • philbily says:

    Keep in mind that it is not the untrained law abiding citizen that is committing these mass shootings. Besides when you start deciding what one should and shouldn’t have that starts to sound like a tyrant. When you start spouting how our gun rights should be then exactly what rights are you willing to start forfeiting?

  • Guest7969 says:

    would be nice if people like you would actually take the time to find out WHY the founding fathers put that right as the second. Here`s a hint, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting! I happen to think that our founding fathers knowledge of tyranical goverments and their complete devotion to their new found freedom meant something when they put those words onto paper. The times aren’t different, but those who claim love of freedom and country are NO WHERE near as patriotic as our founders!

  • Guest123234 says:

    Once again you make the point for someone else. That killer could have inflicted the same damage with a 12 gauge shotgun and a 38 revolver in a classroom. Have you ever shot or qualified with a 12 gauge with buck shot. It produces a massive coverage without being right on target. Then times that by 6 and someone who knows how to combat load a shotgun and that is a problem. Do you get the point IT DOESNT MATTER. Look there are those of us who had to strap on a gun every morning when they went to work and those who havent. I would be the one more likely to face the weapon you are so against. Take a deep breath a go read a good book which you seem to be very good at.

    There are those who do and those who just talk.We all know which group you belong to.

  • Guest123234 says:

    I sure hope you can hold your own if the s**t hits the fan with an assailant who is also armed. Things are a little different in that situation than hitting a paper target at Shooters Choice from 10 feet away. Good Luck!!!!

  • John says:

    Guest 123234 … I never stated my intelligence was superior. I simply laid out an intelligent argument for the implementation of safer laws governing killing machines. You also jumped the “gun” by assuming when I stated that removing assault weapons from civilians was a start implying my next intention would be to restrict the ownership of other firearms. Which is a completely wrong observation. I feel before we can tackle the other obstacles plaguing our society we must first remove available assault rifles from the equation. Also we should limit the amount of ammunition an individual may purchase over a certain timeframe i.e.., month, quarter, or year. Also all guns should be registered, and when sold in the secondary market i.e.., for sale by owner there should be proper paperwork, and background checks performed such as when an individual purchases a boat, trailer, vehicle. Guns should not be allowed to change ownership without the proper authorities being notified, and background screenings preformed. The start I was referring to is that once we have implemented a logical agenda to remove these war machines from our communities, and have placed safe guards to ensure the safe tracking and evaluation of secondary market sales we can then focus on other items such as mental health, and effects of desensitizing stimulating visual effects. We first must remove the easy access to weapons which were designed to kill in large quantities in small increments of time. Once we limit access, we greatly diminish the threat of mass murders. If we focus on a common sense approach to restrict availability coupled with mental health reform paired with an updated culturally accepted gun application process that my friend is a start. With that being said I understand the feeling to defend ones home, and protect ones family… but my friend if you can not do that with a 12 gauge shotgun, and a small caliber handgun you are already out of luck.

  • Charles Walters says:

    You make it sound like the NRA runs this country. THEY DON’T!!!!!! The NRA should be branded a terrorist organization. They spread this crap about how the government is going to raid our homes and take our guns which is about as far from the truth as it can be. No one needs an assult weapon that was meant for nothing but killing people. As stated in other posts the 2nd Amendment has been perverted over the years, and taken out of context, and every NUT hides behind this thinking they should be able to own every weapon known to man. People who are mentally ill should not have a weapon of any kind, and there needs to be a way to check and see who has a mental defect that would prevent them for owning or even posessing these weapons. Also felons who are caught with any type of firearm should be locked up for 25 years with no parole that would ensure at least this group of criminals would be locked away and off the streets. Also gun and ammunition sales over the internet should be stopped cold. How many more children have to die before people wake up and push the NRA out of the way, and take control of our country away from the NUTS who seek to destroy it.

  • John says:

    Frankly, you nothing about me or what I have done… I have served in the military and have fired military weapons. I was trained to kill, I was also trained to save lives as a search and rescue swimmer. So I have been on both sides of the coin… I know what weapons can do with a trained marksman… trust me these pimple faced brats who are shooting everyone know nothing about marksmanship, and we should be thankful for that.

  • John says:

    Guest 123234 if s**t hits the fan I can defend my family and home with my desert eagle, and pump action 12 gauge… I wasn’t trained to hit stationary targets in the military. I can hold my own. And I don’t need a AK-47 or AR-15 to do it.

  • John says:

    Thank you Vog46 for being a reasonable gun owner.

  • Vog46 says:

    Thank you

    “but my friend if you can not do that with a 12 gauge shotgun, and a small caliber handgun you are already out of luck.”

    Nicely said. I have a fairly decent rapport with my handgun and I can hold my own at its intended range which is more than enough to protect my home and family.
    I do not need anything more

    Vog

    »

  • Guest123234 says:

    But wouldnt you at least admit you could do the same damage in a classroom with your weapons of choice as you could with semi automatic versions of the AK and AR. You have made so many posts you are now making my points for me.

    By the way 4 years in the miltary does not make someone an expert in these matters.

  • Erlkoeig says:

    Liberals should good that they didn’t profile Lanza and make him feel like he wasn’t tolerated.

  • MilVET says:

    When people feel they have the “right” to tell others what they can or can not have then this is no longer the country that I know and love. It is our GOD GIVEN RIGHT not GOVT APPROVED!! Where will YOU be when Mr. Robber, Rapist, or Murderer comes kicking in my door?? Certainly NOT defending my house and family like I would! I was told long ago to never bring your fists to a knife fight and never bring a knife to “you guessed it” a GUN fight!! Since I moved here I now have a convicted murderer down my road, a convicted child rapist right next door, and another down the road. https://www.crimereports.com/

    As for me and my house we will serve the LORD, love the USA and, by GODS given rights, we will own GUNS!!!

  • Guestomfg says:

    When did god say you had the right to own guns? That is the most asinine thing I have read from you gun freaks. Sounds like you live in a scummy neighborhood too. Guess the lord and those guns didnt get you much of an education so you could afford a nice neighborhood.

  • John says:

    Your the religious one not me but… Doesn’t the Bible have a commandment from God demanding you not to Kill… But now God has given you the right to own and operate a firearm?? Missed that verse… But thats great now we have religious zealots claiming they have Godly rights to firearms which supposedly you can’t use because of the whole “Thou Shall Not Kill” bit. Another example why people should have their brain examined before given a gun. Also if you feel your in danger MOVE!

  • Guest2020 says:

    The commandment given in Exodus 20:30 translates back from the original language to mean “thou shalt not murder”. Self defense is not murder. Protecting my home and my family is not murder. If someone breaks into my house, I can only assume that he is there to do harm and I will do everything within my power with whatever weapon I have on hand to protect my family and myself. As for your claim that owning a gun is not a God-given right then you need to refer back to the documents of our forefathers. “We are endowed by our Creator by certain unalienable rights”. Among the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence is the right to life. Therefore, I have the right to protect my life and the lives of others when someone attempts to take those rights away.

  • Guest98765 says:

    Not all guns are used to kill people. Millions of people use them to hunt. I am not religious either, but I do know the Bible says that God put animals on this Earth for him to eat.

  • Guesticles says:

    Hey Matt,
    How, exactly, has the “Gun control debate” reached Southport? Because, you went down there to interview some gun owners? So, if you go to Burgaw or Carolina Beach and interview gun owners, the “Gun control debate” will have reached them too? Very nice reporting. You may want to look for a new career.

    Maybe write how the debate has reached Southport. Are these guys writing to their congressman to make sure more strict laws are not passed? Are they lobbying the government to favor the laws we have? Your headline of “Gun control debate reaches Southport” isn’t very accurate, since the only information you’ve shared is that you went there and interviewed some gun owners about the possibility of stricter gun laws. In essence, you started the debate in Southport by going there and asking questions.

  • Guest4563 says:

    Lets just split the country down the middle and you get to pick what side you want to live on. I’ll give you one guess which one would survive and prosper and which one crumble.

  • enoughisenough says:

    That is an insult to the intelligence of those who design assault weapons. If that were true, we could save a lot of money arming our armed forces. Look at the history of the Colt revolver that caused a paradigm shift with it’s 6 shot capacity.

  • MrPX4 says:

    So first of all let’s identify the cause of the issue:
    Restriction on the type of caliber is not going to minimize this type of insane massacre. The individual sick in the brain to kill small children could have accomplished the same using a mere .22 caliber pistol or rifle, which can be founs easily with or without stricter gun controls. Moreover, one can make the case that an idiot like that could choose his car to kill as many children or people in a busy street.

    That said, we need security staff with powerful rifles on every single ‘gun free zone’ institution.

  • John says:

    Thank you for the reply. In the case the government turns tyrannical we are all SOL. I don’t care how many guns you have you would be shooting bb’s against heat seeking missiles… Tell me how that turns out for you… Also we have the largest military in the world actually 10 times larger than the next military… If someone were to attempt an invasion I’m very certain they would not get very far.

  • John says:

    Wow Ronnie your a very angry person… Tell me when was the last time a convicted felon committed Mass Murder? I’ll answer that one for you… It’s never happened. So there is no detection as to who would be a threat! You have to realize as a responsible gun owner as you claim to be that certain guns should not be available to the public, to limit what these undetected evil individuals may do… Can you imagine the carnage that would have unfolded at Columbine High School if those two young men had access to a modified AR-15 With a muzzle designed to fire at a velocity of 3,000 ft per sec. and the capacity to fire 4-6 rounds per sec such as the AR-15 used in the theatre shooting or Sandy Hook? A lot more people would have died. But since this happened during an assault weapon ban they were not able to acquire one… read their journals… they tried!! See the point now?

  • Debbie says:

    Amen a person with a brain. Here is your sign. Ha

  • John says:

    Hello Joe,

    I stand behind my assessment of the 2nd amendment and will continually state that the whole amendment should be regarded not just one bit… I don’t see the effectiveness of using words out of context to fit a point. I look at the entirety. Your arguments are ridiculous, and completely irrelevant so I won’t even comment on those but I will comment on your last paragraph… I never stated removing all fire arms just the ones designed for battlefields. Also another nugget of information for you to chew on… in the 1990’s we had an assault rifle ban. There occurred a school shooting at a high school called Columbine… Go read the journals of the two men who carried out the mass murder there… Tell me what weapons they were so desperately trying to get their hands on but they were banned at the time… so they had to settle for what they could get their hands on… and shotgun, and a small caliber hand gun… They killed 13 people imagine how many they could have killed with a modified AR-15 with a muzzle velocity rated at 3,000 ft per sec which has the capacity to fire 4-6 rounds per sec… A lot more than 13 people would have died if indeed they were able to access the weapon of their choice. You see criminals don’t commit mass murder… only unassuming, lonely, disenfranchised individuals do that so their are zero detection devices to find the threats. Also it’s not about removing personal liberties but having common sense and limiting the capacity to kill…. and I rest my case.

  • Debbie says:

    Thank you very well put.

  • John says:

    I didn’t want to comment to your hate filled unintelligent “Bull Crap”… But I will…. I served this country for four years I did my time, and was honorably discharged Sarge! People such as yourself will never compromise because your head is so far up your rear end your smelling new years collard greens. You have no intellect to understand the constitution much less claim to be an expert. I bet you believe God wrote the bible too… Sorry you won’t be able to spit on my mother’s grave because she isn’t in one.

  • Debbie says:

    Guestomfg you talk about some one being a freak and getting a good education. You should have skipped the education and went to church so you would have been taught how to speak to people with respect. Also with your so called education you can spread your wealth so everyone can live in your gun free neighborhood. I think we have a obama voter.

  • confused1 says:

    That sounds a little elitest-you must live at WB or Landfall. Also living in a “good” neighborhood is not always safe. The four thugs who committed the hate crime/murder downtown a couple of weeks ago went first to the desirable and “safe” Forest Hills area to rob some rich white folks who keep stacks of cash around.

Leave a Reply