[Nameplate] Light Rain ~ 68°F  
Severe Thunderstorm Watch
Sunday, May 1, 2016

Linton mayor joins with 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' group; says he is not anti-gun use

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Linton Mayor John Wilkes was one of six Indiana mayors to express interest in the national group Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Wilkes said while he is not against the use of guns, he does believe there should be regulations put forth.

"I am not against guns. I own guns. ... I'm not a radical. I've given rifles and shotguns to my grandsons and I like to shoot. ... I've got a Lifetime Personal Protection Permit in my pocket right now," Wilkes explained.

The mayor was contacted by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and a phone conversation allowed him to express his own opinions on the matter.

Wilkes said his concerns are in line with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's initiative in the group's effort to regulate.

"What I am against is assault weapons with the large clips. I am for doing background checks on anyone that purchases a gun," Wilkes said.

The background checks, he hopes, could deter the purchase of high-powered guns by those with a criminal history or a mental illness.

Wilkes said as mayor of Linton, he fears for the safety of his officers and emergency personnel as they respond to methamphetamine labs, or if there was an incident at the school.

"I don't want people on the other side to have more fire power or equal fire power to my policemen," Wilkes stressed.

Wilkes referred to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting when explaining his stance on automatic weapons, where 20 students and eight adults were left dead in the path of a shooting rampage.

"I think when a person can kill 28 people in a matter of seconds, we need to start doing something," Wilkes said.

He added pistols or shotguns could still kill people in the event another similar tragedy were to strike, but more lives could be saved if the suspect did not have access to the assault weapons.

Wilkes said there are events taking place across the state and the nation, but added he will not be taking part in them.

"I just wanted to state my opinion. I think if everyone would do this and be honest about it we could make a change," Wilkes said. "I don't have the solutions, but we have to start someplace."

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition, according to the website www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org consists of 800 mayors across the country.

There are currently six mayors listed in Indiana that have signed their agreement of the group, including Wilkes, Richard Hickman of Angola, Mark Kruzan of Bloomington, Thomas Henry of Fort Wayne, Karen Freeman-Wilson of Gary, and Dennis Tyler of Muncie.

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on gcdailyworld.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Report on gun lobby suppression? Suppression of the legal gun lobby. Suppression of the first amendmment rights of the gun lobby. This whole thing is getting out of hand. Taken from the above link on the web page of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Statements of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chairs on President Obama's Comprehensive Proposal to Reduce Gun Violence

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Releases New Television Ad Demanding Action From Washington and Report On Gun Lobby Suppression of Research on Gun Violence on One-Month Anniversary of Newtown Shooting

-- Posted by Barb and Hay Wire on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 2:48 PM

Forgot to put in that anyone who joins this suppression group will not be receiving any vote in the future from me.

-- Posted by Barb and Hay Wire on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 2:50 PM

They are trying to erode peoples rights / protection under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

-- Posted by MovedOn on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 3:30 PM

Mental health is the issue with mass shootings, not guns.

-- Posted by The Raven on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 4:00 PM

Shame on you John Wilkes. You support those who want to control the people. I will not vote for anyone of this kind either.

-- Posted by eagle26 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 4:50 PM

The second amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. The notion that some left wingnuts keep comming up with is that the founding fathers couldn't concieve the type of fire power we have now. The whole point is for "common citizens" to have the right to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. The revolutionists had smooth bore muskets, the same as the British. Limiting our RIGHTS to possess the same fire power as our military gives an unfair advantage to that government. Gun control of any kind is not the answer, people control is. Felons and mental cases have given up that right, but not the rest of us! An "assualt weapon" is a fully or selective fire weapon. The guns these people are trying to ban are simply dressed up semi-automatic rifles. Ban politics to mess with our constitutional rights!

-- Posted by BuckHunter on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 4:51 PM

AMEN BUCKHUNTER well said. I beleive all law abiding citizens should have all the means of fire power and recources to protect their home, family and fellow citizens. As stated in many conversations, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. It is a huge responsibilty for a citizen to take this job to protect themselves and other inocent folks around them. So the next time you see a family man packing a side arm you can rest assured you are protected while in his prescents. Now this same man that uses his side arm for protection in public uses an ar15 to protect his home. This is nothing more than the right tool for the job. Shame on those who want to take a good mans recources and send him to a gun fight with a knife.

-- Posted by eagle26 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 7:06 PM

Timothy McVeigh did not need a gun and and I do not recall anyone trying to "suppress" fertilizer. You should be really be proud to be in the same company as Comrade Bloomberg and Kruzan.

-- Posted by greenetucky on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 7:12 PM

So nice to know some officials are keeping their oath to protect the Constitution such as The County Sheriffs Project!

Sheriffs Stand TALL for the Constitution: http://youtu.be/e4RuWK2Ww-4

Commissioner Littleton & Sheriff Maketa, NDAA Nullified in El Paso County Colorado: http://youtu.be/xiiFe2q8AxA

-- Posted by dorindaJ on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 7:19 PM

Oh and Mr. Wilkes most of us here in greene county are always close by to assist our local law inforcement especially in the event they are out gunned and you want to take these tools away from us? I think you may be the mayor of the wrong towm or you are greatly confused. We will always honor and support our law enforcement we will never stand by and let them be defeated by a criminal. Im not so sure you know what kind of great people you have in this town. You of all people with this type of local support should never turn your back on your best back up plan.

-- Posted by eagle26 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 7:31 PM

Mr. Wilkes, shame on you for not doing your research on this organization. MAIG is the same group that has called for making all semi-automatic firearms illegal. That shotgun that you hunt with? Yes, that's on the hitlist for MAIG as well. You better check with King Michael Bloomberg and Dear Leader Obama and see how many of the guns you own are actual legal and not on their hitlist. I would seriously question your ability to make rational decisions given the ability for someone on the phone to sway you against a fundamental civil right.

-- Posted by robipilot on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 8:55 PM

I'm all for a more thorough background check when it comes to purchasing guns OR ammo. I think it should be that way. I am a gun owner and a hunter and I also have my lifetime personal protection permit, there's more people killed by drunk drivers than guns every year. It's not the gun that kills people...PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. It dont matter what kind of gun it is whether it holds 30 rounds or 5 rounds, it only takes 1 shot. People run people over with their car and I havent seen a ban on vehicles yet. What about 911? Some foreigner hijacked a plane and killed thousands of Americans. Did we ban foreigners? Hell no! We welcome them with open arms and even give em a job! It takes one whacko to mess everything up for everyone. Even if they do go through with the stricter gun laws its just like everything else, there's always one idiot in the background that will buy it for them. It's just like the drug issue we have, we can keep making it harder to get the "supplies" they use to make the stuff, but they will get it one way or another. It's going to be a never ending battle because either way you look at it, whether be guns & ammo, or allergy medicine, it's the good people in this world that will suffer the most in the end. They go messing with the constitution then what's next?? Re-writing the Ten Commandments? QUIT SMACKING THE CRIMINALS ON THE WRIST AND LETTING THEM PLAY THE "I'M CRAZY CARD" AND WASTE OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY....IF THEY KILL SOMEONE KILL EM BACK!

-- Posted by kicking_rox on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 10:13 PM

Banning certain guns, or magazines is unconstitutional. All these groups that are trying to get the president and congress to make laws that are not legal. There is a legal way to do it, but I have not heard any of these groups make statements to do so, and that is to AMEND the U.S. Constitution. It is a living document and can be changed. However, they know they would not be able to get that done, so they choose to try to go against the Constitution. It is unfortunate that the mayor has chosen this path and his statements, while I know it will not directly affect him but others I will have to stop doing business in Linton. It looks like a lot of driving to Bloomington for me now.

-- Posted by WRVGrad92 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 11:01 PM


FYI, Bloomington's mayor, Mark Kruzan, is also a supporter of this group.

-- Posted by 0123 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 12:44 AM

In a town like Linton this is political suicide...what was he thinking?

-- Posted by 0123 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 12:47 AM

The former mayor was a member of one of Bloomberg's fringe groups for a short time. A little research on his part and he removed himself from it. We can only hope the current mayor does likewise. Associating with a moonbat like Bloomberg on any of his freedom-stealing agendas is a losing proposition.

-- Posted by ScottyLC on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 1:43 AM

You say I'am no radical and like guns but aline yourself with Mayor Bloomberg of N.Y. (He of the most anti gun not to menion anti soft drink) He is one of the most left wing radical I know of. Hope you rethink keeping company with such folk. This is Greene county not N.Y. city. Bob C

-- Posted by drifterbob on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 8:57 AM

John wanted to voice his opinion. This is a wonderful thing. Anyone who would stand with Bloomberg should be in question.

Can we also have your opinion on how large a soda we can have or if you are for withholding pain medications.

Mr. Wilkes is apparently tired of being Mayor. I can see the line forming to vote against him. Just let people know where they can send contributions to "Alarmed Citizens against Wilkes".

Maybe that gun permit should be reconsidered until his condition can be determined, whoops he just revealed it to us.

-- Posted by Ex-Pat on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 9:08 AM

0123 Thank you for the info, I guess it will have to be Washington or Terre Haute for shopping then. I will have to check more into which mayors are supporting it!

-- Posted by WRVGrad92 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 9:41 AM

Are all you people insane? They want to take away weapons and limit ammo that can be used for killing in masses and your upset about that? Really? What do you want to do with weapons capable of killing in a spray of bullets? You people are so bunched up in your underpants about 1st amendment rights you don't see that this country needs some restrictions. None of you complained when we had anti-terrorist protocols. No, why would you? That's to protect you from the bad guys. Guess what America the bad guys are now disguised as Americans. Lets give them automatic weapons and big clips of bullets because they have rights. The mentality of this comment board alone makes me scared for our future as a County and Country.

-- Posted by peaceloveandprayers on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM

Mayor Bloomberg has long been known to desire total Gun Bans and Confiscation of Guns. The Chicago Mayor also is well known to favor massive Gun Control as well as the majority of the leaders of this Organization.

I stopped nearly all shopping in the town of Linton while the previous Mayor belonged to this Organization and will do so again now that the present Mayor belongs.

A Large number of Mayors have quit membership in this Organization due to it's illegal and behind the back operations and ideas as well as using the names of members without permisson to farther thier Goals of Gun Control.

I fully believe that the NRA would be a Much better Organization for the Mayor to join since it is the Worlds Largest Gun Safety & Hunter Education Organization and works with Police Departments Nationwide!

-- Posted by bjackson on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 9:57 AM


Please read up a little more on the subject and get back to us.

In the meantime, pray for us all.

-- Posted by Ex-Pat on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:02 AM

If the sandy hook killer had not had a gun then it could just as easily been his car as the students were let out...Could have been pipe bombs or, heaven forbid if mock assault rifles were illegal then it still could have been a mock assault rifle (since he could have gotten one illegally). The only ones for sure to not have a mock assault rifle would be the law abiding citizen who gave his up to obey the law. Short sighted are all these gun regualtion rules. Fix the real problem (and that is not gun ownership by honest citizens).

-- Posted by nogahide on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:43 AM

Assaut weapons were banned in this country for 10 years - See: Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act 1994

Perhaps my memory is failing me but I don't recall criminal acts widely increasing during those years, I don't recall law enforcement being threatened because they were out-gunned, I frankly don't recall it at all.... How did our country suffer because of that ban? What bad incidents came of it? Sure maybe some 'boys and their toys' felt deprived because they were stomping their feet like toddlers becuase they couldn't buy what made them look cool, but seriously what did it REALLY hurt?

I'm curious to know from those of you that oppose a ban on assualt weapons if you believe we should or should not prevent nuclear proliferation - if we should or should not stop countries like Iran and North Korea from building weapons. It's always been my belief that the reason to stop the proliferation is so that the weapons don't wind up in the wrong hands...that the more weapons that are out there the more likely they are to wind up in the hands of people who will use them to do harm. Like you needing that AK-47 for 'home protection' they just want their bombs for self-defense.

-- Posted by RB on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 3:34 PM

RB, do you not know the intent of the 2nd amendment?

-- Posted by dorindaJ on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 4:56 PM

Why is it the crazy paranoid goofy people are the only ones who want weapons?

-- Posted by skyrocket on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 5:47 PM

It isn't.

-- Posted by dorindaJ on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 5:58 PM

Peaceloveandprayers: it is the 2nd amendment. Also, why are you willing to give away your rights?

-- Posted by MovedOn on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 7:35 PM

The 2nd ammendment is for the people to protect their family from a tyrannical government period. This shall not be infringed period. End of story. Those who support breaking the constitution should move to another country if they want to be controlled by dictatorship. This is the land of the free and Mayor Wilkes is trying to control the people of Linton. The government only needs to do 3 things to control it's people, supply food, shelter and entertainment. This is what Obama promotes (welfare). So if folks want to beleive the lies and let them pull the wool over your eyes with all the soft talk then you watch this country go straight to hell in a handbasket. I love my country and I love my God I choose to fight for what I beleive. I beleive in freedom. Call me crazy, paranoid, goofy whatever, but I think that there are three types of people, sheep,sheperds, and wolves . I would call myself a sheperd and for "skyrocket" i would call you a sheep with lots of wool on your eyes.

-- Posted by eagle26 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 7:55 PM

@Peaceloveandprayers - Actually many did complain about the Anti-terrorist laws and still are, about the TSA and laws instituted during Bush's presidency. Also as pointed out it is the 2nd Amendment and it is Semi-Automatic weapons that they are talking about, automatic weapons is covered under The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986. The constitution does give rights in regards to firearms, and as I mentioned in a previous post, the Constitution CAN BE changed with Amendments, but should not be changed outside of the Amendment process.

@RB - Even a little research shows that the Assault Weapons Ban between 1994 - 2004 had little to no effect. During the 10 years of the ban, there were 21 school related shootings including Columbine. Overall while crime decreased in some respects it increased in others with most data showing that the statistics only changed within the margin that they do normally every year. In regards to nuclear proliferation, there is no part of the constitution that covers that for the average citizen and therefore is not a concern is this respect. It would be covered under the Government's authority to defend the nation and must be rationalized that way.

-- Posted by WRVGrad92 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:16 PM

"Assault Weapons" are full auto/select fire firearms which have been strictly regulated since the 30's and whose new production for sale to Citizens was halted in 1988. What the left is whining about today are simple semi-auto rifles that fire one bullet at a time. The talking point is they look "scary". Purely cosmetics. Functionally they are the same as your .22 semi-auto.

And the 1994 Clinton Ban didn't "ban" anything. It simply excluded the new production of normal capacity magazines and rifles with a bayonet lug and flash hider. Again, just more cosmetics so politicians could say "Look at us! We did sumpin'!"

Some people should educate themselves before they speak on subjects. Sadly, knowledge is trumped by emotion these days.

-- Posted by ScottyLC on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 1:25 AM

You people complain and carry on about your rights being taken away. I wonder if a single one of you are as equally appalled by child abuse, animal neglect, cruelty to the elderly and on and on it goes. Who cares about all that, right? Because someone is going to tweak a law and instead of your gun going bangbangbangbangbangbang It will be bang......bang......bang......bang. OH NO...now you can't mutilate a animal with rapid fire. Because that's what guns are used for, right? Hunting....oh and personal protection. Are you preparing for a mass attack of Zombies? Why do you need a weapon that sprays bullets? You people are so ready to look at any change as a personal attack on your rights you can't see this could be a step in the right direction. Stupid guns.

-- Posted by peaceloveandprayers on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 3:17 AM

ScottyLC well said. peaceloveandprayers its not about hunting or zombies that is just a radical statement. It is about having equal fire power of our military and other countries in ithe event there was ever a war on our soil i think you would be happy that more people like myself and others that support our rights would be there to assist our law enforcement and military. Yes i do want a weapon that goes bang, bang, bang, bang, just like the one im being faced with. Im sure you will be hiding in a corner somewhere while we protect you so i think you should probably rethink your outlook of this and support those who are here to protect you. It sounds like you may be a christian and im certain you have good values. I am also and im that guy in the back of the church with a side arm in the event a sick man comes in to harm my church family. I will not stand by and watch my loved ones be murdered by a sick man or a terrorist. You should thank folks like me that make you safe and bear that burdain for you. Be sure you understand what we are fighting for here and please offer the same support we offer you. Just for an extra thought of mine, if teachers and principal carried a side arm the monster in Colorado would not have made it near as far as he did. In fact if they did carry a weapon he probably would have never attemped what he did as even a monster has fear and common sense. So please reconsider so we do not give these offenders a chance to be a repeat offender.

-- Posted by eagle26 on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 8:00 AM

@Peaceloveandprayers - Yes I am appalled by child abuse, animal neglect, cruelty to the elderly, Abortion and many other things. While I am personally pro-life, I realize that there is nothing in the constitution to stop a Woman's right to chose and therefore is a state issue not a federal one. In regards to zombies, the only thing I have done is laugh at the concept. In regards to mutilating animals, I have never killed an animal in my life, I am not a hunter. The 2nd amendment was setup so the citizenry could hunt (if wanted), defend themselves, and defend their nation. The point of these laws circumventing the constitution, sets legal precedence that can be utilized in the future to circumvent the constitution in other ways to the harm of the citizenry. NO, I am not saying Obama will do this, but he has 4 more years in office, who will come after him for the next 100 years during my life, my children and my grandchildren?

-- Posted by WRVGrad92 on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 12:05 PM

"I'm curious to know from those of you that oppose a ban on assualt weapons if you believe we should or should not prevent nuclear proliferation - if we should or should not stop countries like Iran and North Korea from building weapons"

Yeah, that's completely related.

And peaceloveandprayers, why would you assume a citizen who values the second amendment would not care about child abuse and every other wildly unrelated issue you mentioned? Do you actually read what you write here?

Anyways, I fought for a year in Afghanistan for the rights of the people of the United States, so your rights may not mean anything to you but they mean quite a bit to me. Restricting the law abiding majority is wrong, and will not fix anything.

- SGT Logan Hobbs

-- Posted by lhobbs on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 1:22 PM

Thank you for your service, believing in, and upholding the lifetime oath you took SGT Logan Hobbs!

-- Posted by dorindaJ on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 2:34 PM

First of all thank you for your service Mr. Hobbs you are a true hero to myself and all of the U.S. My little brother has served 4 terms in this war with the marines. Yes i think we should stop them from building such weapons. They have intentions on killing us as you know sir. Nothing good can come from what they are trying to do. What we as americans want to do is protect ourselves with the only means possible should a war ever arrise on our soil. For men like myself stopping those countries from what they are doing is out of my hands but what i can do is defend my home and i do not want to be stripped of my recources nor do i wish to see any other law abiding citizen stripped. Why would our government allow other countries to continue such a thing as building those weapons to strengthen themselves for evil against us while at the same time weaken our own american army (its people)? This to me seems like our own country is turning its back on us (the people) for some reason thats probably discussed behind closed doorswith these other countries and behind our backs. Now does this have something to do with our national debt? Are we maybe controlled by other countries? I realy dont now these answers. What are your thoughts Mr. Hobbs? You have seen way more than i will see in a lifetime im sure after hearing some of my brothers stories.

-- Posted by eagle26 on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 2:52 PM

There is truth in most of your words for sure .I believe in guns and the constitution . The biggest thing I see that keeps fanning the fire on guns and mass killing is the mass media. They sensationalize it so much that more and more people want the notoriety for something so the cowards go after unarmed citizens. Then the media glorifies it for the next person to copy,tells them how to do it and other things. We could be in some south american country where mass killings are done with machetes . Comes down to the media needs to report on Ideas to stop people from killing people not guns killing people.A good start for it would quit making a nation wide spectacal out of all the shootings.

-- Posted by yazoo on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 6:23 PM

Peaceloveandprayers: your argument against guns using child abuse/animals is not even valid nor relavent.Have you truly set down and thought about the constitution and what it means to this country. Why should citizens of the US give up any of their constitutional rights. The old saying "you give them an inch they will take a mile" comes to mind. This is an attempt to circumvent people's 2nd amendment rights.

lhobbs: thank you for your service to this county and its citizens. God bless and stay safe.

-- Posted by MovedOn on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 6:46 PM

The following is from "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban" "Report to the National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice" dated: June 2004

"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. Assault Weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."

And a couple of quotes regarding the previous ban.

"No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control."

Washington Post Editorial.

Sept., 15, 1994

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move. . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."

Charles Krauthammer,

Syndicated Columnist,

The Washington Post,

April 5, 1996

-- Posted by WRVGrad92 on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 7:12 PM

Just a few points: Mr. Bloomberg is one of the largest ANTI-Gun people in the Nation and will go to extreme and Illegal lengths to damage Gun Laws.

ASSAULT RIFLES are Military Grade, capable of Full Auto-matic and Burst Fire. These have been BANNED from the General Public since 1934.

ASSAULT WEAPONS is a MADE-UP TERM with a MADE-UP DEFINITION used for the purpose of creating Fear and getting the So Called Clinton Gun Ban Passed in 1994.

The Clinton Gun Ban was PROVEN NON-effective and allowed to expire in 2004.

The AR-15 Rifle is NOT an ASSAULT RIFLE! There has been _NO_ ASSAULT RIFLE used in ANY USA School Shooting, or in the Colorado Movie House!

The Proposed 2013 Gun Ban List does NOT contain ONE single ASSAULT RIFLE! Every Gun on this Proposed Ban List is a Common Hunting, Competition & Target Shooting Gun!

The above statements are pretty easy to research if people are interested or in doubt of the truth.

-- Posted by bjackson on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 8:58 PM

Time for a republican to run for mayor of Linton!

-- Posted by telle man on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 9:32 PM

jail gun owners who cannot secure their guns. if the columbine parents had been seen in handcuffs going to jail for a century or two.. this latest tragedy would not have happened. drunk driving was once a bigger problem till a group of concerned mothers forced politicians to put teeth in drunk driving laws. someone who lives with you uses your gun for violence ..you got to jail!

-- Posted by thunderoad on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 5:10 PM

I agree RESPONSIBLE gun owners do secure their guns. If you cant secure them you have no bussines with em. Now back to the mayor.....FIRE HIM...

-- Posted by eagle26 on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 5:30 PM

I bet a majority of the folks that want to restrict gun ownership (in response to these killings) intoxicate themselves and their families with the consumption of violent, life de-basing, sewage that the entertainment industry has released on us (and we eagerly accept). As a society/nation, we've allowed ourselves to become morally weakened to the point that we're not even sure what the difference is between right and wrong.

So many smart people hacking away at the branches of the problem instead of the root, what a pity.

-- Posted by Thought 4 today on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 6:48 AM

Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who is a conservative, has stated that there is nothing in the Constitution that says firearms cannot be regulated. No one wants to take all our guns and there is nothing wrong with regulating them. Your rights to own a gun are no better than the right of the 26 people in Newtown (or those of anyone for that matter) to life. There must be a balance.

The idea of a *well regulated* militia (the words in the second amendment DO say well regulated) stopping foreign invaders if the US military cannot is just ludicrous. Everyone needs to stop the fear mongering and use some common sense. And yes, there are guns in my house but we do not need military style rifles and large capacity clips to protect our home. If you can't protect yourself with shotguns or handguns, maybe you need to do a little target shooting and brush up.

Background checks on all sales of weapons is only common sense. I cannot understand why any law-abiding citizen objects to this. We do need to make information available to law enforcement so they can use it when necessary. Why not?

There is a multiple murder in New Mexico that is currently in the news. A 15 year old boy shot to death his mother, father, brother and two sisters this last weekend. His father was a pastor (so much for not enough God in the home), the kid was home schooled (so we can't blame the public school system), he was not allowed to play video games or go to violent movies (goodbye to that theory), and his parents owned guns to protect themselves (which their son used against them). We really have no idea about the root of the problem because the NRA has lobbied for years to keep the CDC and other groups from studying gun violence and the root causes.

Every month there are hundreds of people injured or killed by guns. This is a public health issue. If a flu were rampaging through the US killing that many people we'd want someone to do something about it.

The Constitution gives us many rights and liberties, but those are not without responsibility and regulation.

-- Posted by Ellie on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:50 PM

As a political scientist, I will try to be patient with your strong opinions. This isn't about taking away guns, this is about saving lives. And from a moral standpoint, it saddens me that you are not even willing to entertain a conversation while you are squealing like pigs about your all-important guns. For all you talking about the 2nd Amendment, it does not protect you from keeping any and all the guns you want. You have the freedom of speech, but you can't say anything you want (slander/libel). Guns can lawfully be regulated without an amendment, look up the Supreme Court cases. It amazes me that nobody actively or positively participates in government but all of a sudden jump out of nowhere to scream and yell when they hear of their "rights being taken away." You have to earn those rights you know, you can't just pick and choose like a Chinese buffet. This nation was founded on the idea of a social contract, that people would give up some individual rights for the collective benefit of us all. The government protects you more than a gun ever could. You have the right to defend yourself, but you are not guaranteed the right to a military-style assault rifle meant to disintegrate dozens of people in a minute or less. I love and respect you all, but put the passion you have for this issue into all other political issues and let's do what's best for all of us, whatever the case may be.

-- Posted by PhiXiZeta on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 11:27 PM


Maybe you and peaceloveandprayers can form a study group.

Another self-proclaimed expert.

How lucky we are for your patience with us squealing pigs.

You can give away your rights, but don't try to give away everyone's.

If you think the Government is here to protect you, you need that study group more than you think, but we will be patient with you.

-- Posted by Ex-Pat on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:32 AM

Better a pig than a sheep.

-- Posted by dorindaJ on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:53 PM

As a business owner in the city of Linton I would be worried that too many people are not going to care for his stand and see it as a threat as their customers may choose to do their shopping elsewhere! A mayor who would think like bloomberg! I would be worried!!! Watch out Linton your big soft drinks are next!!! I hope he discussed this with the business owners that may be effected by such a radical decision.

-- Posted by lillymae on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 7:01 PM

gun control..is goverment control..plain and simple..nazi germany is proof of that..and dont think it cant happen in the us..theres aleady law in affect for when it dos..one world goverment is a real agenda..

-- Posted by willam* on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 12:48 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: