www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyD9ftpzKj0

Must be one of those Tea Party types Imagine that ?

www.gunsandammo.com

www.nrapublications.org

Joe here is the Zen question of the day. Would give up your guns in order to have no tolls on our bridges?

Rep. Linda Finn (D-Portsmouth, Middletown). I know people in Portsmouth and don't like her.Do not vote for her.
She a communist..

Typical Progressive Liberal response. PS you can build those weapons with parts from the hardware store . It's not that difficult .

Sad part is Middletowner can't even define the words he used.

The sad part is that irony is wasted on you, Transplant.

Joe - the point is that there exists limitations on the 2nd amendment now.
Responsible gun owners can manage safety compliance and background checks.

Annual inspections for licensure, that may be problematic for erratic people with a history of violence, in a certain well-defined profile. (Angry white guy, lives alone.)

The definitions for violent crime are very different in the US and Britain.
The British definition includes all crimes against the person, including simple assaults, all robberies, and all sexual offenses, as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and forcible rapes.

Look at a comparison of gun related statistics:
Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775
Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638 (Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58 (equivalent to 290 US murders)

The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita overall. In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita.

Middletowner@ You ignore the fact that they actually are more violence which could be the people cannot protect themselves.

2 July 2009
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
• The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
• It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
• The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
• It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2OBkPnfc3

Middletowner, you also ignore the fact, that crime is a crime, I would rather be able to protect myself from any crime, not just the ones you cherry pick.

You talk about Murders, and ignore other crimes, which a well armed person can protect them selves from. It is well know a criminal prefers the defenseless person or property owner to commit crimes. Yet another fact you ignore. Why would you accept any crime being commited on your person, family or property?

Please post a sign on the front of your residence and wear a patch saying, "I am defenseless". I suspect you will have a criminal in your face with in 24 hours.

This is about my right and your right to defend yourself, family and property from crime and to keep the Government from taking away those rights and all other rights the Constitution affords every citizen. Simple as that.

You need to start somewhere. Clinging to this archaic "right to bear arms" in a modern world is the stuff of imbeciles. You are the perfect salesman for gun manufacturers. I look forward to the day when we are as smart as Britain and other countries that realize- and its not rocket science- that more guns mean more violence and more murders. Duh.

Nancy@ You think Britain is in great shape with thier gun control and they all walk aound in a utopia of safety?

Read the numbers of the EU Then add all those numbers together, because it takes the whole EU to equal our population, Or Population the Middle East and North Africa which is a little more than the US.

The US Constitution and RI Constitution are not archaic, though if you with to change it, you have that right. Until then "The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Nancy Taylor - I don't seem to understand how liberals view the Constitution. On one hand it is a "living document" that can have all things read into it (like an unlimited right to privacy when convenient...wink wink) and on the other hand you absolutely refuse to acknowledge what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN DOWN! Figure it out! I'm not expecting you to be a great constitutional scholar but can't you figure out that there is a process to change the Constitution without all you people just thinking about what you think should be in it and then piously telling us that it is so obvious? Oh, and before you mention it, having Linda try to put in dumb bills like this does not actually change the Constitution, you need an amendment to do that. Sorry. How about you and Linda go and have fun in the garden and stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

@Mom to twins. I am a registered democrat and I do not own a gun. I believe in the constitution. I have a right to own a gun, I just choose not to.
That being said lets explore your comments. This piece of legislation does indeed erode at peoples right to own a gun. There are already laws on the books that prevent easy access to firearms. Waiting periods, backround checks, etc. This legislation does NOTHING to prevent easy access to firearms to people that would do harm to your kids. NOTHING. All it does is put a burden on law abiding citizens. I would support legislation that would increase penalties for people that break existing laws. If you could tell me how this law would REALISTICALLY, without emotion, prevent crime I would be on board. Otherwise it only targets law abiding people.

Some day a gun could save your kids.

I hope to god you don't have to have one.but if you do what then??

Thank you for the voice of reason, in a cacophony of "MY guns aren't dangerous!"

The loudest advocates for unfettered gun ownership are among the least likely to actually vote, go to the State house or write to Rep. Finn. We certainly can.

the Republican party are the criminals........

MichAEL wrote:

"the Republican party are the criminals........"

What? The GA has been dominated by the Democratic Party cult for seven decades, with tax increases, spending sprees, and regulations running rampant all over Rhode Island.

Founder Roger Williams would not recognize his home colony.

http://www.golocalprov.com/politics/roger-williams-would-be-a-republican-in-ri/

It's time to take back Rhode Island -- 26 more GOP seats stops the veto-proof hypermajority.

Why stop there? Lincoln Chafee is chafing everyone. GOP had record fundraising last year, and Obama is dooming the Democratic Brand every day he remains in office.

Go, Denis, Go!

Contact Raymond McKay, and tell him that Linda Finn is vulnerable!

(401) 487-2514

He can help connect you and the "right" people to put the "right" person in that seat!

Time to get voters educated.

GOP has the voice, and the values, now they need to get the vote!

In CA, we have pushed pension reforms in two cities, despite big special interest money.

Stop saying "unions, the uninformed and the uneducated."

A more perfect union of voters, informed and educate, makes the difference every time!

I'll vote for you...

The ATF has been effectively and systematically neutered by the NRA and their lapdogs in Congress. The ATF has been without a director for six years.

Middletowner@

Where pray tell does it say that in the US or RI Constitution? "shall not be infringed". Look up the word "Infringed" What you are saying by definition Infringe on My right to own and bear arms period.

Where do I stand?

I think you gun nuts are more a threat to public safety than a largely incompetent
Federal government. They're not the ones shooting up public spaces.

YOU cranks, on the other hand...

"Basically what id like to focus on is that I'd love to see more articles on the patch about positive things. I am liking the postings about local businesses and things like that. "
Can you show us some of "positive things" you have done. You know lead by example. Did I miss your positive contribution ?

Ah. A great example of what I touched on.

I do apologize if I sounded "holier than thou." I have posted on the patch a few times about events around town. I work at the mansions downtown where we are working to increase tourism to Newport with a modest 800,000 visitors last year. I also volunteer when I can. But my comment was more just about the fact that I'd love to see more thi he happening in a positive light around town. If I want news about arrests, I can watch the evening news.

But thanks for somewhat proving one of my points further by biting.

And if "positive contributions" means saying I love guns I love guns, then no I will not be partaking.

Jon, go rent Snow White at a Redbox. There ya go. Plenty of positive things in that flick. I guess I just proved another one of your points. Passion toward a subject as this is a positive thing. Debating is caring. What ever you take from this comment forum is what you take from it. If you don't like the discussion, change the channel. Simple as that :-)

Jon, I love talking about events around town as they put money in my pocket. Back in 2010, I hosted the Arts on the Plaza series at the BayClub. Last year, I put together a short play festival which included pirates. Speaking of same, I would love to bring the Pyrate Museum back.

When I'm not doing that, I'm usually trying to help others find manageable recovery from different forms of addiction and mental illness. Those stories are about as positive as you can get.

However, at present, there are some issues that could really affect the growth of our community as a cultural mecca. This would include reducing the number of folks who go see the mansions.

I'm sorry if due to the nature of these things, and their possible contribution to the shrinkage of my bank account, that they're taking up my time right now.

All I can tell you is I why try to keep it in mind and do better.

That's kind of the point.

We sat on the sidelines to in the run-up to 2010 and the wing nuts got loose.
The Patch needs to decide if it wants to be relevant, or an encounter group.

Just requiring a factual basis for any claim, and removal of bogus ones would help.

Jon@ Nothing in the article says a thing about "I love guns". The topic is guncontrol which is happening right now in this State, because of a vile and disgusting "Bill" From Aquidneck Islander "Finn" to Take away a citizens right to protect themselves and family..

This is Local Voices of which I am one. If you want to complain about me or others writing an article on a serious Constitutional issue facing all citizens in this country, Write an article under "Local Voices", no-one is stopping you after all.

I suspect you decided to pick this article out, because of its content on Gun Control. How about you address the topic?

The patch would not be much of a site if it did not allow all opinions and only allowed what you want so people can hide their head in the sand and ignore the crime in Newport of which there appears to be a large increase in violence the last year. I feel so sorry for a tourist that may come here and get mugged or worse, because you think articles that tell the truth about this State should be ignored. Shame on you.

To conclude Jon@, what happen to your very correct response on another topic "Sandy".

Should we really have you or anyone else chosing what can and cannot be posted?
You cannot have it both ways my friend. Either you are for free speech or your not.

Jon Sisson

3:43 pm on Wednesday, October 24, 2012

"I believe the point of this article to be the same of every article on here. To spread awareness"

Thank you Very Much.

Why not post what exacty is (factually deficient) in the letter) If you do not then you are just blowing smoke and have no credibility on the subject at hand. That simple.

I will be happy to ask my brother to respond to it.

Little History lesson for you Robert, and notice what State these great men were from like “Ambrose Burnside”, W. Milton Farrow.

1791 Second Amendment Ratified
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." See U.S. Constitution

Read more: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html#ixzz2OELCuNcY

1871 National Rifle Association Founded
Union soldiers Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate found the NRA to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, serves as the organization's first president.

Read more: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html#ixzz2OELMriWl

1934 National Firearms Act
Brought about by the lawlessness and rise of gangster culture during prohibition, President Franklin D. Roosevelt hoped this act would eliminate automatic-fire weapons like machine guns from America's streets. Other firearms such as short-barreled shotguns and rifles, parts of guns like silencers, as well as other "gadget-type" firearms hidden in canes and such were also targeted. All gun sales and gun manufacturers were slapped with a $200 tax (no small amount for Americans mired in the Great Depression; that would be like a tax of $2,525 today) on each firearm, and all buyers were required to fill out paperwork subject to Treasury Dept. approval.

Read more: Federal Gun Control Legislation - Timeline | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/guntime1.html#ixzz2OEMWKa3v

Newport Rifle Club
The club was founded in 1876 by W. Milton Farrow, said to be the best rifle shot in America during the last quarter of the in America during the last quarter of the 19th Century19th Century.

http://www.newportrifleclub.org/

Jack,
Can I ask what this little history lesson has to do with the actual discussion at hand?

Lets see old. Hmm, oh yea, it was in response to a poster about gun control laws.

Ouch,
looks like Jack just schooled Robert.

Tom, unless you're totally unfamiliar with US History, and Jack just might be, how did his post school anyone??

Poor Jack should really stay away from history and law and confine himself to worn out rhetoric. He goes off on these bizarre tangents that have nothing to do with anything. A 6th grader wouldn't get away with what he pulls.

Won't matter Tom, He is your typical "Gun Control" advocate, with out facts or expertise to back up his rhetoric. Hense the name calling and off topic rants to try and deflect. Sad really.

Jack, do you do anything besides incorrectly state the positions of others?? It's pretty weak - like your knowledge of history and law.

I haven't come out for a gun control bill yet. All I have done is correctly state that "shall not be infringed" means "reasonable restrictions are ok." If you can't step up your game, and in the process stop embarrassing Jim, maybe you should do something else.

Ahh you didn't say anything yet.

Let me repeat what I said in case you missed it:

1. There were gun laws passed before 1927.

2. Many gun laws are Constitutional since they have withstood Judicial Review.

The militia brings their own weapons to the fight. Read a history book.

Since we're reading that history book, let's not forget the militia's number 1 job in the South: gathering up slaves.

Read the RI Constitution Old? "The right of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed". Funny how that has never been ruled unConstitutional huh.

No, it hasn't been ruled Unconstitutional because an Amendment can't be. You've said some really dumb things before, but this one was precious.

What has happened is it has been reviewed. Under review, it has been determined that reasonable restrictions are OK.

Like I said, you really don't have the education necessary for this. I don't Jim does as well. Otherwise, he'd never let you put his name on something so moronic.

Jack,
I would like to point out that Federal law supercedes state law.

Joe,
That is true, go join the RIARNG and try to bring your own gun to a drill and see what happens.
Just because you don't like my liberal viewpoint does't make it wrong. Actually quite the opposite is more likely.

Considering you do not know me or Jim, and only choose to post personal deroatory, comments and typical gun control rhetoric to deny citizens the right to protect themselves. Shows you have no credibilty in this debate at all.

I respect your right to post an opinion, but I prefer it was on the actual issue. Otherwise you are just spinning in a circle of confusion.

Here's what I do know:

You signed Jim's name to something filled with mistakes. You obviously don't respect him. I'm not the one who did that.

Robert, why keep trying to deflect the issue? Jim can speak for himself on what he wrote in the letter. As I said you do not know him at all. He is a well respected Combat Vet and extremly well educated. For you to just assume that people who disagree with you especially on this issue are somehow not intelligent, speaks volumes of your inability articulate an honest thought out reply to the issue at hand.

No you still have said nothing, because you post no dissertation of how you come to in that post. Are we to take your word because you say you have taken political science which is nothing more than the theory and practice of politics. Hardly a foundation for this topic on "Citizen rights".

All you are doing is what you always do. That is try to deflect and change the argument of the issue to suit your personal agenda and vanity. Try getting to actually know some honest Citizens who own arms and have respect for the value of this Country and its freedoms, whoes rights you so willingly seem to be bent on destroying.

You have the right to try that, but I suspect you will lose.

Oldtownie@ That is true.

If there is a conflict between the US Constitution and a state constitution, the US Constitution prevails.

However 44 State Constitutions have written in them the “right to bear arms shall not be infringed", all have been upheld as Constitutional” and not in conflict with the US Constitution.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

There are 6 States that do not have it in there specifically; they are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. They do however have other provisions or laws to allow the citizens to protect themselves with arms.

Last time Robert, explain the mistakes. You may want to re-consider and accusation of someone signing a name with out permission also. Lies do not advance your Gun Control cause. They only show the reality of the flaws in your thinking and non-sensical rhetoric that has nothing to do with the issue.

I also take great offence that you are attempting to denigrate my family with personal attacks, Please stick to the topic, which is "Gun Control" I will therefore flag that particular post.

Jack, if staying on topic were required, every post of your s would be flagged. You dragged Jim into this, who now looks foolish, I didn't.

So far, most of your posts have been nonsensical. Not surprising based on your limited knowledge base. Serving in the military has done nothing to increase it.

You were wrong about when the first gun laws appeared, you were wrong about what is Constitutional and what is not. Deal with it.

Hey Robert, not sure if you're up on recent history, but the Southern Militia lost the Civil War. I'm just sayin'.

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
If you meet 10 USC 311 criteria you're in the militia whether used or not, it's inherent in citizenship.

OldTownie said "I would argue that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia."
Sorry but the SCOTUS disagrees
" The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22."
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER

Most legal training comes from law school. I never heard of someone joining the army to become a lawer.

Shill, in order to be a para legal in JAG, they have a JAG school.

Renee, Thank you for asking a great question. History has proven over and over again that registration leads to confiscation and therefore a very big deal to many of us. I will leave you with just one example, there are many more.
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration.
Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" ~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Germany

and a great link to a fellow testifying before CT General Assem.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/20/conn-man-took-three-days-off-work-to-deliver-this-epic-testimony-against-gun-control/

Renee@

If you regulate something to the point, that a citizen cannot own or purchase an item, you have effectively banned it. That is how these bills like Finn's do it. You place fines and fee's threats of arrest, jail time, finger printing, banning semi-auto matic rifles guns by setting limits on amounts of ammunition, setting limits on purchase of ammunition, gun registration data bases of all gun owners and how many guns they own etc.

Not one of these laws or regulations will prevent a single crime. They only penalize law abiding citizens.

"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People." George Washington" First Inaugural Address, 1789.

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves ... and include ... all men capable of bearing arms ... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." Richard Lee 1787.

" Why is it that every time some maniac goes crazy with guns and kills a lot of innocent people, the politicians want to pass a bunch of new laws against the people who did not do the shooting?" Anonymous.

Renee@ You said 'If these bills that are being put out there help save the life of one person, isn't that worth it?"

The opposite could be said. A citizen saving the life of one person in his family by using his right to own and bear arms to protect his family from a criminal, isn't it worth it. Criminals are the problem not the honest citizen or the arms they own.

You can also defend yourself with a knife, bat, tire iron, etc. are you limited to how many of those you own. What other item does the government limit the amount of a perfectly legal item to own and regulate on such a draconian way?

Please think about that.

Renee I don't want the public to know what I own It's what we call Private property . It's no ones business but mine if I own weapons . As long as I am responsible. If I am irresponsible there are already laws to deal with that . More Laws and Taxes are no answer to the problem . Giving criminals a data base where they can get my personal information is wrong. Do you want that crack head to know you have know means to protect your self . Cut the phone line and you are a sitting duck. Or a lamb to the slaughter in some cases. The element of surprise is the best deterrent. What they don't know could hurt them .

Troopah,
You are wrong on several aspects. The first being Hitler never said that.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html

The second being there was no gun control act of 1935, it was 1938. And it actually relaxed gun control on German citizens from the Weimar gun control act of 1928.

Learn the history before you cite is.

Old Townie@ well you are correct that Hitler did not say that. You just happen to leave out the part where jews were forbidden from owning guns or knives or anything that could be used as a weapon. It singled out one group of people, which he then eradicated who were totally defenseless.

Guess what, most of those German Jews were citizens also. He got around that by revoking thier citizenship. Kinda reminds me of this Country and people like yourself singleing out a single group of people in this Country (87 Million legal honest gun owners). Never say never.

@troopah -

This is the fourth time in three months you've insisted on printing a bald lie.
Hitler never said this. The Nazis didn't confiscate guns from Germans.

It's a pious fraud. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html
You're just another oxygen thief in what has become a crowded bunker.

Go spank another monkey - this one's tapped out.

Thank you all for your answers to my question. I have a very hard time with this topic. I have always believed that everyone has the right to have a gun. Then I see what happens in the world, and as a mother, of course I can't help but doubt it. I wish there was an easy solution for the problem.

Not true Dan D@

RI is rated #8 gun control in 2011 by the most anti-gun organization in the Country.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/2011/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf

dan D - Hitler, whether you like it or not, did register and then confiscate all the firearms, those are the facts.
So did Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin. and on and on. It is not a "scare tactic" it is documented history. The question you must ask yourself is how many people were slaughtered by their own over zealous governments? The number is quite large.
You can choose to own a gun or not... i would suggest you leave the constitution well enough alone unless you are comfortable being the last fool "feeding the aligator".

yet, you can own 500 guns and not register a single one. Funny how that works out, huh?

Troopah: yes, fascist states have done this. When? before the internet, before television etc...

Gee Dan D@ you can own any number of things that kill and do not register a single one. Funny how that works out, huh?

Might interest you to know that in this State you must get a blue card before you can purchase a weapon. You cannot buy ammo in MA unless you are a MA resident, It is a federal law that every gun manufactured must have a unique identifly mark (They use serial Numbers) That is how law enforcement tracks guns used in crimes right to where the weapon was sold and many cases who bought it, though it is not used as much as you would think.

RI law requires Backround checks, yes even at gun shows. What does the Government need a data base of every honest citizen and what they own for? Have they all committed a crime? Sorry but that violates many element of the Constitution besides the 2nd Amendment.

Get in an argument with a neighbor over you cutting branches hanging over in your yard. You decide to call the police and say you believe he owns guns not on the list. Police come to house with a list of guns and your fingerprints, search house find one violation and off you go to jail marked for life as a felon. You now cannot vote in election in RI until your complete sentence is over. Proably lose your job, can't get any job where security backround checks are done etc. Thats the kind of society your approving of? Because that what "Finn's" law will do.

my point, Jack, which you missed (not a surprise, you focus on out of context things often and make super long winded and ridiculous arguments out of them), is that RI does not make you register weapons, but is considered "8th"? that is ridiculous.

Dan D@

You may think it is "ridiculous" but it is from the most respected anti-gun organization in the Country.

Also what are the "ridiculous arguments" I have made? Making a statement like that and then not qualify it makes no sense. I have tried to answer any question put forth by posters. If I am wrong somewhere please feel free to correct it with information proving it. Not just say it is wrong or a"ridiculous arguments".

As I have said time and time again, on this issue; It is not a one sentence issue. It cannot be boiled down to a nut shell. It is very complex and involves answers that are explained in full. That is how I see it.

This is the problem with the "gun control" crowd, they seem to think all you do is create a law and criminals and evil people will obey it. I still wait for one person to list a banned item used for criminal activity thaat has ever stopped a criminal from using it.

Troopah,
The fact is that you are wrong. Hitler NEVER confiscated guns. Period. Re-telling a lie does not make it true.

Confiscation is a real possibilty Carrine@.

Consider this. If you regulate them to the point where the average citizen cannot afford them or they are so limited in their ability to be used for protection, you have banned them.

In New Orleans during catrina, the police illegally went house to house confiscating guns. This left many people not able to protect their property. Law enforcement has a time frame for them to show up to a crime and is almost with out exception after the crime has been commited.

Your safety part is spot on. In Rhode Island about the only way you can practice is at a gun range, which has many requirements including gun safety. Even if not a member, all gun clubs I know of will gladly give free classes to any citizen on gun safety whether a member or not. Every gun club has registered certified safety instructors and strict guidelines.

There in no reason for anyone who purchases arms in this State to not be able to take advantage of these free services. It i9s about self responsibility and no law or regulation can legislate that or common sense either or should the taxpayers time be wasted on such feel good lies and knee jerk reaction to unpreventable evil.

" Why is it that every time some maniac goes crazy with guns and kills a lot of innocent people, the politicians want to pass a bunch of new laws against the people who did not do the shooting?" Anonymous.

Family and friends. They can remove the weapons with help from police . The only answer is " I am my brothers keeper" Those close to them need to be aware of the threat. Public education and community involvement. No big Government Solutions ever real fix the problems in our society .

To the Mental illness part. Yes that is a real problem and like not enforcing laws on the books currently on criminals, they always seem to ignore root problems like that.

I would let you know however that Arizona is one of only 2 States where they can commit a person to mental evaluation against their will with out permission from anyone. The system failed in that with the Gifford incident as there was plenty of evidence on the shooter to accomplish that.

There lays the problem with that. How do you find those people who are either mentaly ill or just plain evil. There is not all inclusive answer to these problems as of yet. But again going after 87 million legal gun owners sure is not the answer and that border on insanity in my opinion. It is illogical and lacks the most basic common sense.

Oh not to long winded lol.

This issue requires explainations that are not one line sentences or pundit points, questions like yours should be answered in the same respectfull way you aasked them. I wish more people would do that on here. Just saying. ;-}

Well since your one who obviously thinks all people who own arms legally and are honest citizens (87 million owners if with 300 million weapons not including military or law enforcement who have never commited a crime). It is up to you to explain how to get them out of evil people or criminal hands.

I do not nedd to give you an idea on that, because guess what. It is impossible. You could take away every weapon in possession of every citizen and close every manufacturer plant in the US.; evil and criminals would still find a way to get guns and use other instruments to murder even on mass scales as has been done in the past.

So you are the one with no credi itbility since your only answer is to go after the people who did not commit mass muder and have never commited a crime. Which of course lack all common sense and is as logical as banning drugs in the belief people will not use them. (see drug wars) for clarity on banned substances.

Oh I forgot how well your theory worked on "prohibition". which in case you did not know gave rise to the most corruption of government and started the largest criminal organization in the history of this Country. Not to mention the first massacre with guns, ( St. Valentines Day massacre in Chicago which is still murder capital USA with the most strict gun control in the Country). Almost the whole population is disamed from the effect ban of hand guns, except the criminals.

Though the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional, and has required then to re-write the laws that effectly banned ownership, to this day the plaintiff in that case still has not been able to own a handgun and lives in the most dangerous neighborhood in the city.

Proof that even out right bans do not work.

I have no interest in taking guns out of the hands of law abiding people, just like you have no interest in taking guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. So I guess we're both to blame for this:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2008__2009_FINAL.pdf

Tiv Dad@.

Where are these facts on gun owners having "no interest in taking guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill."?

Don't recall any Gun supporters saying that.

However if you support "Finn's" law and so many of the other laws being passed or proposed in States and Congress than you do support taking the guns out of the hands of 87 million law abiding Citizens who have never commited a crime with a gun in their lives.

Please expand on just how exactly you stop evil people and criminals from commiting evil acts or crimes with guns or any kind of weapon.

And no one with a criminal record should have access to a firearm. Hint hint.

That law is allready on the books in this State for felons and most every State. But the criminals still get them hint hint! So what your answer to the Old@

the hint is that it IS legal for felons to own guns, in EVERY state. after a waiting period from the completion of sentence. And someone who is posting in this thread, and owns guns, has a significant felony on his record.

So Dan D@ You are are against people who serve time and complete their debt to society under the law?

You support a person who makes a mistake and pays the penalty should be should be denied their rights for the rest of their life?

I should have added this also of those who can never possess a gun in this State.

The following persons are prohibited from owning, possessing, or controlling any firearms:

Any person convicted of a crime of violence. (Crime of violence includes: murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault involving grave bodily injury, assault with intent to commit a felony, and any felony violation involving the illegal manufacture, sale, possession or delivery of a controlled substance.)
Any fugitive from justice.
Any non-naturalized foreign-born person who has resided in the U.S. less than ten years. (Can be waived for aliens passing through to take part in an organized competitive shooting match run under the auspices of a national shooting organization.)
Any person who is under guardianship, treatment, or confinement for being mentally incompetent.
Any person who has been adjudicated or is under treatment or confinement as a drug addict or an habitual drunkard, unless he has been pronounced cured for at least five years and can produce an affidavit from a ``competent medical authority'' stating that he is a proper person to possess firearms.

Dan D@ Those are for RI they vary from State to State and Federal Laws.

As to your assuption on a person posting, that is a personal matter and not my business. If the person has guns legally that is fine with me. If you feel the law should be changed then have at it. No-one stopping you there.

However; as I said the laws being consided which this blog is about are aimed at only law abiding citizens. Nothing in this law has a thing to do with preventing crime.

Old Townie@ You do know dui, running a red light or stop sign, speeding etc are crimes right and create a criminal record?

Your Hint does not apply Dan D@

The law does not State any person who has a felony, it give specific reason that prohibit certain felons from not owning them.

Obviously the person you discribe does not fit that catagory and proably has qualified under the present law. Like I said, if you think it is a bad law then you can try and change the law then.

Carrine@

As i said there are many problems out there, however the answers are not available in a free society with out affecting those freedoms of the honest citizen.

No one has the answer to evil in this world that I know of anyway. Certain Humans are by their very nature the most dangerous and evil species on the planet.

As to the safety and help in purchasing a fire arm, a great place to start is your local Gun Club. On Aquidneck Island that would be the Newport Rifle Club Located in Middletown.

There are people there who will train you in safety and you can try many different hand weapons before looking to buy. Of course you would have to call and set up an appointment and talk to them about what you are looking to purchase.

I believe every women should learn to defend themselves with a weapon, as society even locally has proven to be very dangerous of late with women being the victims of very vicious crimes and domestic violence much more than their male counter parts.

Well that is a sad comment on current society, it is the sad reality of it.

You can go to this site for information of the Newport Rifle Club and get safety training and such contacting them they will be more than happy to help and have many Nationally Certified Instructors.

http://www.newportrifleclub.org/

PS. It is only extreme when you need it.

Only thing that makes for equal protection of a criminal coming at you is a gun, whether the criminal has one or not. At least you have the same equality to protect yourself as the criminal does to do evil to you and your family.

Remember no crime was ever prevented on a person who was defenseless.

"Clearly, the law abiding gun owners are assets here, and unlikely to cause harm. But what about the unstable ones, or the ones who slack in gun safety?"

It bears mentioning that all of the shooters involved in mass killings were using guns legally, until they committed murder. What other implement would be tolerated in a modern country that was only deadly if it was used?

It's pathetic that Jack can't get enough action on this topic, so he starts one
in order to answer it himself. If the original post was convincing, or even factual
it would stand on it's own.

One thing is for sure, the State House will never see him in person, it's too far away.

To the family of goof offs. I would report them, that is illegal and a danger to the children, DCYF or your local police can help you with that, anonymously. Though isf you are using your real name on here it may be too late for that. I would also tell people using their real name, not to advertise you own no weapons. Criminals are not dumb as people think ;-}.

I don't have a problem with Backround checks (which RI already does). I do have a problem with data bases and list of what I own in my home, fingerprinting etc) and the government and local police departments having those list on honest law abiding citizen who only happen to own a perfectly legal item, in some insane belief it will stop violence.

That is what this blog is about because that is what is in "Finns Bill" and many other bills and even congress.

You said; "that people like Jack don't have a single constructive idea of how to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them". Again How do you do that. I will answer that one again also. You can't, criminals do not obey laws and you can't legislate common sense of stupidity.

What "semantic games", you made those statements and I merely asked what your answer was to the first one, which I answered. (There is no answer in a free society)

You said; "just like you have no interest in taking guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill".

So again; Just where are these statements of people saying that. Even if you could find one pro gun person saying that. Why would you assume all pro gun people are saying that.

Actually the article blog was put there so people could discuss and debate in a reasonable fashion and to ask questions.

It however is not there for the posters like yourself and others to do name calling and personal attacks, but I knew you and others would do it any way.

As for "run for Office" Do not have to, the Constitution allows redress for the people through the Courts and our elected representatives, which I am doing and many others. Many GA members are all ready stating they will not approve this Bill in its entirety.

We are defending ourselves from an elected official who would deny people their rights, and single them out as criminals in waiting. Accomplishing nothing to stop crime or violence in any way at all period.

Ah for clarity I am not an angry white guy. though I fail to see what race has to do with this. Little bigoted I would say on your part.

Registration of firearms solely targets potential criminals;

Well I guess by your theory you should be registered also, since it is possible you may use some inanimate object to murder someone someday. You forgot to mention that criminals do not register their weapons.

Not to mention your belief that free speech only applies to what you want to hear.

Staw purchases are illegal by federal law already, Backround checks at Gun shows are requirement by RI law.

Care to state and prove what are lies in the in the blog?

anarchy? That would be the absence of government, which would mean no State or Federal Constitutions. Where is that in the blog?

"Americas most sacred freedom" Far as I know that is the freedoms the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the RI Constitution provide along with the creator according to the founders in the case of this State. Only thing violating that is "Finn's" Law".

In this Country and granted by the Constitution you have the right for redress. You do not have the right to demand gun control though circumventing the laws of the land. There is a system for that. Use it if you like no-one stopping you.

Registration targets potential criminals? I don't think criminals will be registering their guns. They are criminals.

umm....how do you know this for sure?

Wow! Here are the rantings of someone who has gone over the edge.

Robert you constantly keep posting person attacks and lies, yet not once have you posted anything to dispute what is in the letter or my post. Now you try to deflect into politics of a past election. How sad.

When you ost actual asnwers to the questions posted and actual evidence of what is not true with or that you say is discredited, then maybe you will be taken seriously.

Until then you are just spouting nonsence with absolutly nothing to back it up what so ever. Not really intelligent debate, just nonsence.

Jack, all the nonsense we need is in your original posting.

Trying to make "shall not be infringed" important is one of the more delusional things I've heard in a long time. Trying to call laws currently in place "unconstitutional" was a close second. Since Jim is alive, I'm guessing, I wonder what he's rolling over in since you signed his name to this idiocy.