Local shooters react to Obama plans on gun control
 

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) -- President Obama went on record today saying he wants large-scale changes to the nation's gun laws. While the president wants to control guns, gun owners feel he has them in his sights.

At one local gun store and range, people were sounding off about their sport.

"I love it," Chip Capobianco said. "I started a couple of years ago, and I really enjoy it.”

So what do they think about the issue of gun control?

"You can't control guns," Capobianco said. "You have to control people. You can educate people and do background searches, but you can't keep guns away from people who are going to get them.”

The president announced his proposal for sweeping gun control legislation. Shooters we spoke with consider guns a part of their culture, and one they are not about to give up.

"Most of us just enjoy target shooting, practice, sharing it with our kids, so they can learn how to handle a gun responsibly,” Phil Tart said. “I think this is a commentary on the culture we live in. It has nothing to do with the guns themselves."

At the gun store, sales are booming, and shooters promise the president won't have an easy time changing gun laws.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

Im one man's opinion, the words well regulated are just as important to the people as the words the people's rights.

I have read all of your comments below, and I have this to say... you are a bunch of hypocrites... You sit here and belly ache that your rights are being threatened and that the government is taking your personal liberties away... How many of you voted for amendment one last year, how many of you oppose a woman's right to choose? If your such a liberty advocate why then are you infringing on the rights of others and pushing for regulations on marriage and women's vagina's. I served this country so EVERYONE had the right to life in a free country where they can live happily with the ones they love, and determine what health needs THEY need. I support the 2nd amendment but I'm not so naive to think that it's all inclusive that we can own whatever weapon we can manufacturer. There are limits... and right now the limits are soft. You can belly ache and pick a fight with me all you want... But I stood the watch so you can sleep peacefully at night, and so you could enjoy the rights given to you via the constitution. We will never become a Stalin, Hitler, Mal tyranny lead nation. We aren't setup that way. Stop the fear mongering crap... I'm honestly tired of it.

I have and most people the the U.S. military don't not feel the way you do. Most in the military remember their oaths that they took to protect the U.S. Constitution. They also know the importance of the 2nd Amendment, too. They will not fire on American citizens who are protecting their 2nd Amendment rights. If you would, I pray to God that I meet you on the battlefield, before you hurt an American fighting for his rights! Oh, the last time I looked, killing unborn babies was not protected under the U.S. Constitution. The ability to protect oneself from criminals and a cruel and unjust government is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Now, answer me this...How are the American people supposed to fight against a corrupt government with muskets?? Oh, and another thing...It seems to me that you feel that the American people owe you some kind of gratitude you and the U.S military, because they are unable to protect themselves against foreign invasion. Only a fool would think that. Example: Why do you think Japan refused to invade the United States after they bombed Pear Harbor? Don't get me wrong, I am glad that we have our awesome U.S military. They are a great first line of defense. The American militia and our 200 plus million American gun owners are an awesome last line of defense. How dare you support Obama on his illegal crusade against our 2nd Amendment!

At some point very soon we have to realize as gun owners (which I am one) we have an obligation not just to the safety of our family but to the safety of our society. We don't drive our vehicles 110 mph because that would be reckless and dangerous. The same can be said for these military grade assault weapons. People are flawed, and we have to realize that as a whole the American society can not handle the responsibility of owning these weapons. If they did they would have never been available to the evil individuals who have caused so much harm, and loss. As gun owners we have to be the first to step up with common sense, and not be controlled by a special interest group who wants more guns... imagine that? Oh the American people are going to hire 2 million security guards and give them government issued weapons purchased from gun manufacturers which the NRA lobbies for... at some point you have to see the big picture... the NRA is trying to sell the American people so they can cash in on a 50 million dollar sale. It's time to do the right thing. Just as the POTUS said yesterday it won't stop evil people from doing evil acts but it will curb the level of violence they can carry out.

If POTUS thought he could confiscate every gun in America, he would do it. That is a fact. Ask Pelosi, Reid, Boxer etc.

The NRA acts for it's members. They have done more to preserve the 2nd amendment that any organization or group.

If you walked around Chicago (which has a ridiculous gun policy) for a week, you would want as many guns and ammo you could carry.

New York just passed a knee jerk gun law that had some unforeseen consequences.

It turned a majority of policemen into gun toting criminals instantly because they use pistols that carry more than 10 rounds.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=895...

We can all agree there is a problem. But let the Congress or State officials debate until we have a working, sensible, discussion to preserve our rights, not throw away all reason in the name of "safety".

Without the 2nd amendment, we would not have the first. Reason and logic is needed not hysteria.

Because of the CURRENT POTUS you can now carry in National Parks and on trains.
Not Bush, not Clinton - OBama
He has been a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms since he was a community organizer (think about THAT for a moment).

He has no intentions of taking away all GUNS just a specific set of them and frankly? He won't get that passed Congress.
Gun control legislation is feel good but do nothing legislation and will do nothing to prevent another Sandy Hook - but it has been done before and it has withstood legal challenges.
The problem here is that unstable people have access to guns. Whether it's because of misplaced trust by the gun OWNER or failed background checks that allows an unstable person to buy one they do get access to weapons of all kinds. Lanza had a Bushmaster and 2 handguns - sure he may have KILLED the person who owned the guns and may have gotten a hold of the gun lock keys - but the problem at it's core is that Mrs Lanza, who was apparently totally sane, and a good gun owner should NOT have had those weapons in the home. Her son could have killed her with a knife, a car, or his bare hands and got ahold of the key. What was this gun OWNER thinking? (She, along with her "ex" in fact, taught Adam how to use the weapons in the misplaced thought that he could "handle" it.
This is why I favor treating guns like autos.
Training
Testing
Licensing for use
Registration and insurance required for ownership with renewals, eye tests etc.
Then if someone becomes depressed or seeks attention for some disorder and is given medication that "license" can be suspended.
A law abiding citizen has no worries that his or her gun will be taken away - a DOCTOR can tell them if a MED will impair their ability and if somehow someone gets ahold of their gun insurance can protect the owner from lawsuits etc.
Mental health issues ARE a big concern and mentally unstable people should not own or be able to use weapons but at some point a DOCTOR will have to make that determination.
In order to effectively "qualify" someone for gun ownership an outside entity will have to get involved.
So do we let the free market (doctors) do it? Or the government?
Its real nice to say its a mental health issue - but if it is we better be ready to accept, as gun owners, a third party determining whether or not we are mentally stable enough to own or use.

Vog

If gun control worked to curb violence Chicago, New York City, LA, Great Britain, etc., would be the safest places in the world. Guess what? They are the opposite. Great Britain banned even handguns years ago. They have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world and the average citizen has been conscripted to victim status by it's well meaning government. Don't forget, it was all done in the name of safety. Every one thinks that the Founding Fathers only intended the Second Amendment for sporting purposes or muskets. Really? Have you read their well documented writings on the subject? They intended, sometimes required by law, the average citizen to be armed in order to defend himself not only from evil doers, but from tyranny. As far as muskets go, what was the military fighting with at the time? Muskets. So the Founding Fathers expected the average citizen to be armed with the same arms that the military was. I'm not advocating that we be allowed to have bazookas and tanks, just clarifying a misconception. Also, if you think gun control is the answer, how's that war on drugs working? Do you really think we can curb the criminals from getting their hands on guns, but we can't stop them from getting drugs? Gun control only punishes and disarms law abiding people.

uh, Great Britain has 35 gun murders a year... we have 10,000. Your point was? As for your fear mongering that our government would turn tyrannical let me say this. By the constitution the President has 33% power leaving 67% of all legislative power to Congress. Who can we ever be ruled by a tyrant if one person will never gain over 50% control of the government? Your opinion is just that a fear infused opinion with no fact or logic of the sort. The framers built this country so that one individual can not possibly have a controlling stake in legislative matters. So why would they make the 2nd amendment to protect the citizens of America from a tyrant that will never come to pass?

Truth is they instituted the 2nd amendment because we did not at the time have a federally funded Army. So it was passed in the congress to approve a well regulated militia made up of everyday citizens who the government would bestow the right to bear arms for the security and preservation of the original 13 statehoods. remember they lived in the late 1700's to early 1800's they had no air support that could be on the scene down the coast in minutes... they needed armed civilians on the scene that would be able to hold the fort so to speak. That is and always will be the real reason for the implementation of the 2nd amendment. Everyone these days just refers to the second part of the amendment and leaves out the first bit which categorizes it's true intention. Lastly, no one is disarming anyone here... just like we have speed limit signs to limit dangerous and reckless driving... we need gun bans to ban dangerous and reckless firearms (firearms made for war zones not towns and homes) from civilian circulation.

The second ammendment is just that..our right and it's going to stay that way, no matter when it was written and what the conditions were at the time. It's here, it's going to stay and the law abiding citizens in this country will continue to arm themselves, that's what the truth is!
We need to ban dangerous people! They need to remain in prison rather than laughing at the prosecutors on the way out of the revolving courtroom door. The criminals are beginning to realize that we have people that shoot back now. Even though the leftist media won't publish it, there are cases everyday where the criminal falls to the good guy! Nobody can stop some lunatic, mental case that is hell-bent on a mass killing, otherwise the 9-11 incident wouldn't have occurred, Charles Manson wouldn't have succeeded and Hitler wouldn't have murdered over 6 million jews.
If you really believe that banning fireams, ammunition and magazines will halt mass killings, then you should push for the banning of heroin and meth to prevent drug addiction. Oh yeah..it is illegal already! Well now...guess that sorta proves a big point doesn't it? Pull your head out of your hindquarters and wake up! Changes are needed, but guns aren't the avenue...the sickos and the criminals are.
PS - Observe the crime rate in the UK, Scotland and other European countries. Guns were banned, knife and sword attacks rose over 500% and are still there!

The folks that use the mindset that we don't do 110 even if we possess the capability can use the same logic on guns. And most everybody does and you know it. In every case you will have some fool that will speed to a great excess... run from the law... race... kill or get killed. Do we get rid of cars because of it? No... that's idiotic! No law will ever address pure evil. No law will ever dictate morals. The current fools on the hill can play up to this all they want but any law put into place will not keep things like what happened to those poor children from happening. The criminal will always have a weapon. No amount of rainbows will ever change that fact.

Carry on....

According to your logic we should walk around with RPG's and if someone pulls the trigger... well they were acting in excess... Don't be an idiot...

Carry on...

How many things can be used to kill or maim? Is it the "item" or the person that executes the action? Yes I could have an RPG and CHOOSE NOT to kill anybody with it.

I tell you what.... Let's cut off hands because people can beat someone to death.....ban cars for the deaths they cause....outlaw baseball bats, kitchen knives, rat poison........ Don't be an idiot... people can and will be irresponsible with anything and no law will change that fact.

You still miss the point. It's not so much the item as it is how lethal the item is... sure you can kill people with a baseball bat, but you can kill a lot more in a shorter amount of time with a gun. You can enhance the carnage with a rapid fire weapon which is what we are really talking about. You absolutely can not shut down all gun violence, but you can limit how much fire power you make available to the public. I know what your next arguement is going to be so let me go ahead and answer that... it's not about criminals getting hands on guns...these mass shooting are committed by law abiding citizens by that I mean these individuals have no rap sheet many don't even have a traffic violation. They are usually socially awkward individuals and will not feel comfortable purchasing weapons on a "Black" market... No, they are going to use weapons that are easy to come by. Case in point Columbine High School... read the journals of those two young men they dreamed of getting their hands on a couple assault weapons. but because of the gun ban they had to settle for what they could find. Trust me if those two young men had the access to two AR-15's they would have committed the largest mass murder in American History that anyone would have trouble beating... if we limit access we limit firepower... if we limit firepower we save lives... and that is a good thing.

You will not limit firepower except for the good guy. How many large capacity clips would you say exist today that will be available via the black market? How many are out there? What do you suppose will happen to them. Poof... gone? Rainbows and unicorns pal....

You are yet another being fooled by the media and our fearless leader... You will not dictate morality via any law. Rainbows..... unicorns.... Have fun with that. I will remain armed.

It absolutely WILL NOT, curb anything. Restricting firearm possession from law abiding citizens will have absolutely no impact on the ability of criminals to access weaponry.

Are you serious? You take your 9mm handgun and all the clips you want, and I'll take a AR-15 with a 100 round drum, and let's see who would be more effective in a 60 sec timeframe... Since restricting firearm possession does nothing to curb the level of potential death's of human's (your opinion) why do we restrict fully automatic weapons? How about Tanks, or Nuclear Warheads if your insanely rich? Point is people need limits... If you want to shoot an AR-15, or Ak-47 join the military... They'll teach you and arm you. John and Jane doe a block up the street do not need these weapons in their homes, and we do not need them in our communities.

None of my guns have ever shot anybody. When not in use they are stored in a bolted down fire safe that requires a combination and a key to get into.

Because you can't possibly be responsible enough to own weapons with a higher magazine capacity, nobody is? It's funny to me that you can pretend to know the needs and abilities from everyone within the community.

Restrictions on fully automatic weapons come more from revenue generation than from an ability to curb violence. Law abiding citizens do not go on shooting rampages. The only people that are affected by increased gun legislation are those that choose to follow the laws set forth by our governing bodies. Criminals will always have access, through back door deals, to whatever weaponry they choose. No amount of laws will change that.

John, have you ever sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, at a federal (.mil) level or at a state/local (LEO) level?

I will take that 9mm and just ONE round and you can take your AR-15 and I will show you real fast that my nine is just as dangerous as any weapon on the market. More people are killed by handguns each year than by rifles of any kind. Get the facts before you go yapping.

But his Father could have beat up your Father back in the day though.

The reason the government does not allow citizens to own fully automatic weapons is because they fear them.

here is the point the second admendment says these rights will NOT be infringed upon and you may not need an ar in YOUR home and thats fine do not buy one but if I want one I have the right that is endowed by my creator to have one the ar and aks are no more dangerous than a tube fed .22 rifle that hold sixteen or seventeen shots as a matter of fact the ar in 223 uses the same diameter bullet so do start talking about stuff you do not know anything about you sound like the rest of the liberal fools that think they can tell everyone what they can or cannot do. the average hunting rifle in 30 06 was used as a sniper rifle in vietnam and the same varient of the model 70 winchester is still used today by the military. so what ever the gun looks like a miltarized sporter or an mossberg 702 plinkster it is still a one triger pull one shot tool,please realize, this is not about guns it is about control.thomas jefferson said "that those who beat thier swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't"

Your right to own a weapon is not being infringed. It states a right to bear arms not an arsenal. You look at it with such broad strokes. As for your and my technical knowledge of firearms lets just say I know more than you think... The AR-15 has a .8 lb trigger which allows it to fire easy which when now legally modified will allow the weapon to fire 4 to 6 rounds per second. nearly 100 rounds in a minute. It also has a modified muzzle which allows the 223 round to fire at a velocity of 3,000 ft per sec. At that modified rate of velocity it does not matter what caliber size the round is. the shear velocity of the round will tear anything apart, and at a combat zone rate of fire.

typo... I meant 3.8 pull trigger load.

You should have stopped talking while you were ahead. You know nothing of the AR15/M4/M16, and I'd wager guns for that matter. Your comments show your ignorance (not an insult, simply a level of knowledge). A .8lbs trigger pull is lighter than even the fastest race guns on the planet. You know nothing about wound cavities, or the affects of a projectile on the human body.

As I asked before John, have you ever signed your name on the dotted line swearing to uphold the Constitution of the United States, either in a military or law enforcement capacity?

And thanks for straightening ol' Jonnie boy out...he's a bit lost, mis-guided and doesn't know much about the doctrines of the country in which he resides. Talks big though...a typical faceless, cyber-warrior on an imaginary soapbox.

One fact that a lot of people are seriously overlooking is: If someone really wants to hurt or kill a lot of people, especially at a relatively close range, a shotgun rules them all. Today, with expanded capacity and drum magazines, the 12 ga. can easily do more damage than a semi-auto rifle, especially in the hands of an inexperienced shooter. This "assault weapon" mentality of our government clearly displays their obvious ignorance, lack of experience and their knee-jerk application of a "solution" that will have no effect on the problem. They are the kind that would put a set of brand new tires on a car that sports a blown engine.

With all the gun control legislation that has been enacted over the last 30 years, has any helped at all? No. The answer is not gun control laws.

They need to have stronger punishment for criminals that get caught with guns.There is a guy in Brunswick County Jail right now that is a 3 time offender that has been caught with a gun by a convicted felon and this time he was caught with a stolen gun and he got 30 days in jail to serve at his own convenience. Where is the justice in that but the honest people get punished by all the stupid laws that try to tell us what we can buy. To much Govt. control America is supposed to be free not since Obama Got in office.

I would beg to differ. in the 90's we had an assault weapons ban. We had far less mass shootings during that span and in the cases of mass shootings the death toll was far less than the recent mass shootings. The only case that had a high victim rate was Columbine which had two shooters. If the two men involved in that shooting had AR-15's they would have committed the largest mass shooting in history.