AT LEXINGTON AND CONCORD
Note: Comments of readers are their own and do not reflect the feelings of Bob Lonsberry or lonsberry.com.
# 1. 1/9/13 12:17 AM - slc ut
The fight is not over, it has just begun.
# 2. 1/9/13 1:11 AM by GB - Utah
Regarding the poll question: The term "assault rifle" is a made up term by the liberal left to confuse the uninformed and gullable. The AR 15 is just a rifle with some bells and whistles. It goes bang one time with each pull of the trigger and it's not really a high power rifle. My 70 year old vintage M1 Garand is more powerful and lethal than an AR 15. Columbine happened during the Clinton gun ban so let's figure out what does work. Getting rid of gun free zones is the first thing we should do because mass killers know they will be unopposed. Then lets ban criminals by enforcing the laws already on the books and then keeping them locked up.
Editor's Note: 1. the committee that designed the m16 for the military set out to design an "assault rifle." 2. the ar15 is used in nra high-power rifle matches. the garand is more powerful, but not truly more lethal.
# 3. 1/9/13 1:19 AM by biker - bob
Are you trying to start something Bob?
# 4. 1/9/13 2:34 AM by Patriot1
What killed more people in NY...
Rifles, Shotguns or Hands & Feet?
According to the latest 2011 FBI murder stats:
The winner is.....HANDS & FEET!
Hands and feet - 26 Shotguns - 16 Rifles - 5
Not 500...not 50...FIVE!!!
AND..those 5 may include grandpa's old hunting rifle and little Billy's .22 plinker.
MORE PEOPLE WERE MURDERED IN NY LAST YEAR BY HANDS AND FEET THAN BY SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES COMBINED!
To exploit the death of children to push an anti-gun agenda is both obscene and disgusting!
2011 FBI murder stats: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20
# 5. 1/9/13 3:10 AM
Subversion is illegal and today's poll is a trick question. Biden and Cuomo must have flunked history. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Warm up the presses and let's print the Cuomo bumper stickers and tee shirts.
# 6. 1/9/13 4:40 AM by The Last Mohican
The trouble is, we have too many loyalists these days. Those of us who've had it are now in the minority. It is less about liberty anymore and more about "whatcha gonna do for ME? People are selling out their values for entitlements and I'm amazed at people who say their anti-establishment think that this government, which wants even more responsibility over you, can do a better job than past administrations. I think America as we know it may not be dead, but is at least choking on the oxygen mask.
# 7. 1/9/13 5:54 AM by Abner D
To my beloved marxist brethren ...
COME AND TAKE IT
# 8. 1/9/13 5:54 AM by MikeNTNY - North Tonawanda NY
Hey Bob, All too true. People misunderstand what the Second Amendment was all about. It was put into place so the people had a balance of power with the government. It is not about hunting or target shooting. It is part of an inspired document. There have been many horrible things done lately with firearms. Many things caused these unspeakable acts. Foremost is , I believe, a general decline in the lack of a moral compass in certain individuals and society in general. We need to improve in the way we value the gift of life. It is precious. The power grab by politicians will solve nothing but strip all of us of more of our rights. As gun owners we have to make certain that our guns are used safely and responsibly. For every right there is also a duty to exercise that right in a responsible manor. Bottom line, the problem is not that firearms have gotten better, it is that we have gotten worse. We can fix that but it will not happen through the government and it will not happen overnight.
# 9. 1/9/13 6:00 AM by B Smith - Syracuse New York
More threats from the gun enthusiasts. You want to take up guns against Obama next? We also have the right to amend the Constitution and regain sanity in this country. Is that a reason to take up arms too? So often guns fall into the wrong hands because the gun folks aren't responsible, so before your kind threaten the rest of us citizens who also have rights, check your ego's and guns at the door and let's take a sensible look at the problem and be willing to compromise. Otherwise, the next step is to either modify the 2nd or wipe it off the books.
# 10. 1/9/13 6:28 AM by Tom Dey - Springwater, NY
Exactly. And I have more than once wondered if the TRUE motive of many of these lobbyists (and administrator) is NOT protection of civilians from cooks - but neutering of the population. We already have been told that the march into socialism will continue with gusto. I think they are declawing the people before screwing them.
# 11. 1/9/13 6:46 AM by rjd
Number #9 is the perfect example of what you are up against. Amend or wipe it off the books. Regain sanity, as though those that believe in the importance of the 2nd are NOT sane. The trouble with the left is once you let them have an inch they will go for the whole mile, they are historically never satisfied until you are living your life exactly as they want you to. So Mr. #9 you are the one that is insane and you don't get to decide who is and who is not, in fact ironically if you worked hard to keep the really insane folks off the street most of this bad stuff would stop happening.
# 12. 1/9/13 7:29 AM by pp
I think what you are saying is we should have an uprising if they come take our guns. Kind of a threat, I guess.
I also think we should be more literal in our acceptance of the second amendment. When it was written, there were no real shells. Everyone loaded the same way. Those are the guns we should be allowed to have. There is no mention of assault rifles, grenade launchers, revolvers, extended clips, or whatnot. So where in the 2nd does it say we can have those.
In addition, we should be able to own cannons.
# 13. 1/9/13 7:44 AM
assault rifles are already banned in some states and it hasn't made a difference. only the bad guys have them.
# 14. 1/9/13 7:47 AM by Poplar Beach
Bob, I get your point and I am pro gun, but a revolution like that of our founders, in this day, does not really compute for me.
IF WE DO NOT GET OUR DEBT UNDER CONTROL; I do believe there will be a revolution, but it won't be the gun owners, it will be those that have come to depend on government largess, welfare folks, pensioners, and government employees. When the money runs out and the crap hits the fan, those riots in Greece & France will seem like a marshmallow roast compared to what happens here.
That is why I will never give my guns up, I will use them to protect myself, my family, my friends, but it won't be from the government.
# 15. 1/9/13 8:10 AM by Sam
Your Deckard Rifles vs today's military weapons.
Good luck with that.
# 16. 1/9/13 8:20 AM
Could you look the parents of the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook in the eye and explain that your Second Amendment right is more precious than their lives were?
This absolutist attitude is where you lose so many people.
# 17. 1/9/13 8:24 AM by Jerry - Rochester
The gun-banning issue is all about a conflict of cultures in this country. Those who aspire to sophisticated, international-worldview and largely urban lifestyle versus those who follow a traditional, self-reliant and largely rural lifestyle. The problem is that the media and education complexes are populated by the former who twist the facts. I am sick of the news saying that the only people opposed to gun banning is some faceless irresponsible "gun lobby." That gun lobby is made up of people, my neighbors and my community.
# 18. 1/9/13 8:31 AM by Ella - Alfred, NY
Those who worship the leather bound Word of God, should be able to connect the dots.
According to The Book, "Thou shalt not kill" seems pretty straightforward. Assault style rifles are designed for only one function...to kill. Therefore, wouldn't such gun ownership would be viewed as "contrary to God's Word."?
# 19. 1/9/13 8:36 AM by OldVietVet - Rochester, NY
As the power and the size of our Government increases, so does its fear of the citizens it is constitutionally bound to serve.The failure of the elected officials to act responsibly in fiscal matters,and to provide for the common defense give rise to speculation, even amongst the most thick headed, that all is not right in Oz.Our Government today will demand yet more restrictions on law abiding citizens; and these government flunkies, along with their communist manipulators will rub their hands togeather like houseflies atop a dung heap.The results are already in-less freedom for all, an increasingly skeptical citizenry, and a more lawless society.
# 20. 1/9/13 8:37 AM by Mittens
It's Mormon thing!
Doctrine and Covenants 134:11
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
# 21. 1/9/13 8:49 AM by Laraine - Brockport
Guns don't kill people, gun-owners kill people
# 22. 1/9/13 8:52 AM by Princessclaudia - Buffalo ny
" By the rude bridge that arched the flood, their flags to Aprils breeze unfurled, here once the embattled farmers stood, and fired the shot heard round the world,"
# 23. 1/9/13 8:56 AM by Mark - Lodi
Guns aren't enough. Everyone should have access to small atomic weapons to fight the government's arsenal of weapons.
# 24. 1/9/13 9:04 AM by Chad - Owego, NY
To #12... the Second Amendment says so when it uses the word "arms." A small amount of research will show you that what the founding fathers meant by this term was "small arms commonly issued to soldiers." A little bit more research will show you that the founding fathers were well aware of what future small arms technology would consist of.
# 25. 1/9/13 9:08 AM by Dave - Fairport
We need to figure out what gun would Jesus own? A Glock? A .44-Magnum? ("Dirty Yeshua?") An AK-47?
Keep your suggestions coming.
# 26. 1/9/13 9:17 AM by Watson
Officer Mark Reed took six shots at the shooter during the Webster tragedy. He missed the target......so much for arming teachers.
# 27. 1/9/13 9:20 AM by Nancy - Pittsford
When Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers," he wasn't talking about the Colt revolver.
# 28. 1/9/13 9:24 AM by Elmer - Leroy
You should have sent Jack to school with a FUBO t-shirt. That would have been a hoot.
# 29. 1/9/13 9:25 AM by Carl - Williamson
Bob, 1)Politicians are a strange breed. They don't want US to have what there body guards use. 2) Alfred Mancuso says the Dawn Nguyen has a "heart of gold". I will add that she also has the "brains of an idiot". 3) Looks like Obama's dream of a dictatorship is coming true. Keep your powder dry.
# 30. 1/9/13 9:27 AM by Tony
And Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, if a man strikes you on the cheek, pull your pistol and cap his ass."
# 31. 1/9/13 9:29 AM
Thank you for the free column and for your time and efforts in preparing it, and for the reminder it contains.
As long as assault rifles and all manner of weapons are in existence on this planet criminals and bad people will have them - so why not let some good people have them, too?
It seems so simple. Is my logic faulty, or difficult to comprehend?
# 32. 1/9/13 9:34 AM by GunDog - Honeoye Falls, NY
When Cain killed Able, a large group rose up demanding the banning of rocks. They wanted anyone found in possession of a rock to be put to death on a cross. At the same time another group of people rose up in defense of rock ownership. They were the predecesor organization to the National Rifle Association (NRA). They were the 'National Rock Association'! And that's how we got where we are today.
# 33. 1/9/13 9:35 AM by MIke - Rochester
This is hysterical. It's like you regressives think nothing has changed since 1776. I have asked this of rabid pro gun nut jobs before and never get an answer, so I'll ask again. Do you HONESTLY think that if the US military and our gov't decided to turn on the people, that you and your bumpkin neighbors and your penis substitute AR-15's are going to make a difference? Little hint Flanders, the US military has come a long way and is the most well trained and well equipped fighting force on the planet. Other nations military's cannot stand against them, what makes you think you and your gun are going to? This isn't 1776 and we aren't Syria or Libya or some other crappy 3rd world country. You aren't part of a militia. You never have been and never will be. Btw....another question the regressive nuts never want to answer when they are parroting the foolish sentence "if they take away guns only criminals will have guns", is where do all these illegal guns that criminals have come from? The easter bunny? Jesus? The "illegal" gun manufacturer? Hmmm.....curious. It's almost as if regressives don't realize that every single illegal gun out there started life as a perfectly legal gun. Then, due to some mishap, like say irresponsible gun ownership for example, ends up in the hands of the wrong person. So in fact if we did ban all guns (never gonna happen don't get nervous) that would in fact take guns out of the hands of criminals since that would cut off their supply line also. Guns removed from the streets by cops daily would be difficult or impossible to replace. Kinda common sense. Something you regressives are notoriously short on. Which is obvious since even the discussion of COMMON SENSE requirements like background checks on ALL gun sales or limiting magazine capacity sends the faux news whack jobs into a frenzy that the evil black guy is coming for their guns. Nah the regressives refuse ANY sensible discussion of any sort of gun laws. They'd rather blame video games and homosexuals and hollywood and rock and roll and gee....did I leave anything out?
Editor's Note: there are more of us than there are of them.
# 34. 1/9/13 9:41 AM by Becky - Pittsford
Breaking news......the Weapons of Mass Destruction have been finally been found. Many were located in Webster, Newtown, Oak Creek, Aurora, Tucson, Fort Hood and Columbine.
The search is ongoing ....stay tuned for further developments.
# 35. 1/9/13 9:44 AM by Tom Bastian - Fairport, NY
I don't currently own a gun although I am thinking about getting a shotgun for protection. There is no real reason why a person needs an automatic weapon other than as a hobby/collection OR because he doesn't trust the government and its intentions. I hear a lot of commentators claim it is because of their Second Amendment rights but I don't believe that it is for constitutional reason alone. Those who want to be armed to the teeth because of their fear of the government attentions need to come out and say so. You have come as close to this as anyone and I applaud you for it. Many people don't look deeply enough into the issue to understand the reason the NRA is so adamant about not banning assault weapons. If they read this column, perhaps they will.
# 36. 1/9/13 9:44 AM by Mike - Stafford, NY
The left has worked for the last 50 years to present the government as your friend which will protect you from life's problems. They do this by putting LIFE as the number one issue which is always worth more and more controlling laws which reduce your freedoms and privileges. They forget that here in the U.S., FREEDOM is the number one issue and we have always sacrificed LIFE to protect and maintain our FREEDOM every time it has been threatened. There will always be people who use our freedoms against us and cause pain and loss of life. The solution is not to take the freedoms away to conserve life. That is against the FREEDOM priority which we have had since this nation was formed. These socialists (communists) will use any opportunity to relieve us of freedoms under the guise of protecting us. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN. Fight them with everything you have before it is too late.
# 37. 1/9/13 9:45 AM by Dan
Are you advocating a firefight with Government troops? If you are publicly advocating armed attacks on our Government forces then this comes very close to treason.
# 38. 1/9/13 9:51 AM by Holly - Churchville
“Those who live by the sword die by the sword.”- JC
# 39. 1/9/13 9:57 AM by Abner D
2nd Amendment-despising, America-hating, Obama-bootlicking liberals prefer to see racism, hatred, and threats where none exist, rather than look in the bathroom mirror with eyes wide open.
On a side note, the confrontation at Lexington and Concord was the 1st recorded instance of liberals establishing escape routes to Canada.
Speaking of escape routes to Canada, how many libs posting here have Canadian moms and American dads who met in Toronto during the Viet Nam war?
C'mon, fess up ...
# 40. 1/9/13 10:00 AM by kittynana - Lewiston NY
Re: Your poll-
I thought assault rifles were banned already. I thought only the military was allowed to have them. Yes? No?
As far as I know, my son's AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. It might LOOK like one but it doesn't have the capability of being one. One trigger pull = one bullet. I mean, technically any rifle can be an assault rifle if the victim doesn't request being shot by it, which most don't.
# 41. 1/9/13 10:21 AM
#26 have you ever shot in the darkness at a muzzle flash that was sending bullets your way? No? Thats what I thought you would say, STUPID.
# 42. 1/9/13 10:22 AM by BSP
ANOTHER column about guns????
How come you weren't such an advocate when they took our Jarts (lawn darts) away???
# 43. 1/9/13 10:22 AM
If we ever have your so-called "revolution", the government will simply flip the switch to turn off all our cell phones and it will be all over. In fact, they will cut off all our communications - internet, land lines, TV, radio, satellite, and cable. They will know where "we" are but we will not know where "they" are. Black helicopters and drones and thermal imaging.
# 44. 1/9/13 10:43 AM by Iron Mike
"I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look -- I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want -- but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that." - General Stanley McChrystal
# 45. 1/9/13 10:51 AM by jeff - rochester
Outright bans have ALWAYS worked before. Prohibition was an astounding success...no alcohol to be found. Ban hard drugs like cocaine, heroine, meth...that seems to be working flawlessly. Banning guns seems the the next "common sense" thing to do. What could possibly go wrong?
# 46. 1/9/13 10:55 AM by GEORGE (the other one) - GANANOQUE ONTARIO CANADA
Of course the fact that the English troops were 'second string' and their strutting, posing commander wasn't even that good had something to do with it.
# 47. 1/9/13 11:02 AM by webstertreecutter
#26, you're an idiot. You are right that the Webster PD officer apparently did not hit his intended target yet the result was that the subject ceased his attack, ran, and killed himself (probably almost immediately after he came under fire). Most would consider this a successful engagement. Bob has mad this same argument multiple times recently when he suggested that just one armed defender in some of these mass shootings may have been able to prevent additional deaths.
# 48. 1/9/13 11:02 AM by Poplar Beach
#26 Yes, the officer took 6 shots at muzzle flashes in the dark, (he did not empty his clip, let bullets fly in all directions as anti gun folks fear) he missed, but apparently he came close enough to make the sniper murderer run 200 feet, then hide and shoot himself.
You anti gun folks just don't get it, without return fire, the carnage would have continued, because of return fire the coward ran and shot himself. We gun advocates think the same thing would have happened in the school shooting ,at the theater shooting and in this case, the proof of our argument is in the outcome!
# 49. 1/9/13 11:09 AM by Scott - Rochester
Hey, #26, Just what do you think would have happened if Officer Reed had not been there???
Comments like yours make me sick.
# 50. 1/9/13 11:24 AM by Thomas M. - Arkport, N
The left always wants to frame the argument around children, so let's do that. The recent shooting in Sandy Hook claimed the lives of 20 innocent children. I can't pretend to know the anguish and sense of loss felt by those parents. As a gun owner, I could easily choke the life out of anyone capable of such evil and not have a second thought about it. 20 lives of innocent children is a horrific price to pay for our freedom.
My question is, how many children do you think were lost during the reign of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairmen Mao, the Khmer Rouge or even more recently the Serbian Government? If you think for a minute the horrendous conditions that existed under those regimes could not happen here, you're gravely mistaken. As outlined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I and people like me own guns as a direct check to an oppressive government that would take away all freedom and liberty. I don't want my children to grow up in a society like any of those I've listed above. If that means at some point I must join a fight to stave off such oppression so my children may remain free... well then so be it. As a parent, I am prepared to lay down my life in the defense of my children and their freedom. Do I want to die? No, of course not. Would I give my life so that my children could remain free? Absolutely.
Would you like to:
add your own comment? or
send this story to a friend?