Local reaction to shootings in Connecticut
December 21, 2012 · Updated 1:38 PM
The subject of making it illegal for civilians to own assault rifles has been ongoing for a couple decades. The NRA has taken the position of keeping assault rifles legal for law-abiding citizens, and that is why I am not a member of the NRA.
My question is this: why does a civilian need a weapon that is designed to kill people?
I have been a hunter since I was a child, and own shotguns and hunting rifles, so I am “pro gun.” But I see no reason why anyone needs to own an assault rifle, which is designed to kill people by spraying out as many bullets as possible in a short period of time.
My deer rifle is bolt action and can hold five bullets, but I only load two bullets at a time. If I am fortunate enough to get a good shot, as a sportsman and responsible hunter, my goal is to use only one bullet and I only shoot if I have a good chance of killing the animal quickly. I don’t need a rifle that can hold 60 bullets. I also do not need an assault rifle to defend my home and family.
If one has a desire to use an assault rifle, then perhaps they could be a policeman or join the armed services and defend our country. I would like to hear from folks who will tell me why assault weapons should be legal for civilians to own.
n n n
It is time that reason must be observed and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution be repealed.
A well-reasoned amendment assuring the right of a citizen of the United States to keep and own a firearm should be formed.
This amendment must place restrictions on the type and operation of permitted firearms and ammunition.
This amendment shall require a permit and vetting prior to issue of permit.
Certain circumstances such as mental impairment, instability or a history of such would deny a permit.
A permit to own a firearm would be no different than a permit to operate a vehicle, a driver’s license.
Time is of the essence in this needed action.
Earle L. Willey
n n n
As an early activist for 9/11 truth, I am a veteran of intimidation and censorship. Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance claim, however, that social media users posting misinformation about the Sandy Hook shooting would be subject to arrest sets a new precedent.
I am unaware of any criminal law that covers such issues, but if so, CNN, which published numerous errors, should be locked up — and, should her Royal Highness deem fit, Fox News for that whole misinformation about weapons of mass destruction.
I can attest in the past to outright denial of salient facts by the mainstream — for instance, Marvin Bush’s role in Stratesec/Securacom; and pools of molten metal at the World Trade Center towers. Three separate sensationalist crimes now involve key witnesses in the Libor scandal, if we include the New York stabbing homicide of a CNBC executive’s children by a “crazed nanny.” Libor is the biggest scandal ever in history.
Meanwhile, the Connecticut police seem hell-bent on controlling the narrative, unfolding as political theater by mainstream lackey presstitutes, a coup de grace for gun control. Rather than investigating this criminal act, they intend to prosecute the alternative press (gun owners are next). Why? What kind of country have we become?
If the Connecticut police can afford to prosecute Facebook posts, can we afford the loss of the free press?
Editor’s note: On Dec. 16, the New York Daily News reported: “There has been misinformation coming from people posing as the shooter in this case, using other IDs, mimicking this crime and crime scene,” Vance said, adding that some of the posts are of a “threatening manner.”
“It’s important to note that we have discussed this with federal authorities. These things are crimes. They will be investigated and prosecuted.”