As we sit looking at TVs hearing the news of another mass shooting, one wonders why people in the legislature sit on their backsides seeing the same death of American children and people as voters do. Our governor is a lame duck, he does not have to worry about running for office.

The above people are Republicans and will not act to pass laws to protect Arizona people from living through a mass shooting here.

Background checks are painless and are not only for gun purchases, but for jobs and other things everyday — what's the problem? Credit checks are a form of background check used by everyone.

Why do people need military-type guns? They are not for hunting, they are for killing and killing only. Ban them. This act would be painless and may save lives.

Why do people need magazines for 20-100 rounds? They don't use them for hunting, unless it's people.

Why can't the state put in place a buy-back program of military-type guns and magazines and destroy them?

A leading example is Maricopa County, people are gunned down there almost every day and the governor and legislators work there and nothing causes them to act.

Voters of Arizona, the Republicans are not going to act unless you vote them out of office. Maybe if the voters vote them out, the message will hit home.

Robert Struck,

Show Low

(10) comments


[love] Agree.


the second amendment is not about hunting.


Well sorry but the second amendment was not written for hunters rights to bear arms. It was so that the people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Sounds like that's what you want is a government who forces it's people to disarm and become complacent only voting for one party. FYI most if not all legal gun owners have no problem with having background checks, the problem is the Democrats try to load any bill down that proposes such a thing with fillers and fat that do not speak to that simple solution. Your idea of just kicking out all of the republicans seems very ignorant and short sided to me. Maybe do a little more research. The term "military style weapons" is also farcical. I once took a poll of "gun control" folks showing them 3 different pictures of what looked to be 3 different guns. One was the scary looking AR-15 type rifle, all agreed it should be banned, then I showed them a picture of a wooden stock ranch type rifle, most agreed that would be ok as it was designed for hunting, finally I showed them a wooden stock rifle that was pink and had a fun pink camo shoulder strap, again all agreed that would be OK since it looked to be for kids target practice. The thing was, they were all the same gun at heart, they all used the same ammo, could have a clip (or magazine) added for large capacity and would be just as accurate as each other one. The only difference was the way it was "dressed up". They all wanted to ban the scary "Military style" because they have no clue what they are talking about.

So again your plan is way too simplified for a very complex problem.


Well said. But the left, including several overblown gasbags here will never understand the necessity of the need for people to be armed. Ronzim, Kramer, and Az. Al like to pontificate on Trump supporters, and general lack of knowledge by them. If it has to do with rights on our side, its wrong to them. They pat each other on the back like old hens in a barnyard, and congratulate each other when one of the others calls someone out, yet none of them ever offer a valid reason. To those her that know good from bad, and right from wrong, I commend you. To those that cruise these pages to spout about how terrible the right is- In five more years you might have a chance if you cease throwing lunatics out there. Right now, we got scoreboard.


I am pretty sure the lawful citizens who own 393,347,000 firearms in this country will have a big problem with your gun removal schemes. Lawful gun owners do not wish to be unarmed and hold very tightly to the founders vision and purpose for the second amendment. In fact, without the 2A, you really cannot expect to have any other rights.

Of those 393,347,000 firearms owned by the citizenry of this country, 3 million or so are the scary AR-15 type rifle that you are intimidated by. The AR-15 is not used by ANY military in the world. They are not classified as an "assault rifle" and statistics show how little they are used to commit murder with mass shootings included. Such shootings are extremely rare, and a look at the FBI data informs us that homicide with these types of rifles represents an extremely small fraction of overall homicide violence. Banning or confiscating such firearms from the civilian population would likely produce little to no reduction in violent crime rates in America.

A mass forced confiscation of these sporting rifles, or any other (to follow no doubt) will result in a lot of bloodshed and if the Democrats are ok with that, I hope they will be the ones knocking at my door to get them.

Molon Labe, Mr. Struck...


You stated facts. They don't like that.


Thanks, johndoe... excellent points.


An Analogue

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.


Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the United States Supreme Court in "Heller v District of Columbia." The case that affirmed an individual's right to own a gun and also affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

"Like most rights,the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited." Although, we do not undertake an exhaustive historical anaylsis today of the full scope of the second amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recongnize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. "Miller" said as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in "common use at the time." We think that

limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

This decision, was given by a republican conservative majority Supreme Court and

the opinion by a conservative republican Justice Scalia.

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. … NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

"Gansterland weapons which have no place

in the legitimate sport of shooting"

The National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President in 1968, Franklin L. Orth, was no fan of machineguns or sawed off shotguns.

"We think it’s reasonable to support the federal "Gun-Free School Zones Act" … We think it’s reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. … That’s why we support "Project Exile" -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws … we think it’s reasonable because it works. … We only support what works and our list is proud."

— NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre

Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999

Hearing Before 106th Congress

House of Representatives

Committee On The Judiciary

Subcommittee On Crime

First Session


ComebackShane: I speak only for myself here. The reason I write to WMI and to various other publications and policy makers is fundamental to the responsibilities of citizenship--to participate. I address this from the standpoint of the formal problem-solving process.

PROBLEM STATEMENT: A chronic, decades-long public health epidemic of gun injuries to Americans, a problem which has long been solved by every advanced nation in the world.

SCOPE OF PROBLEM: There are about 135,000 shootings per year which includes 39,744 deaths(2017). The deaths consist of about 1/3 homicides and 2/3 suicides. Among the homicides, we incur roughly one mass shooting per day; however, all the injuries from those shootings comprise only a tiny percentage of the total, but give rise to highly robust emotional responses which tend to drive ill-considered solutions.

FACTORS WHICH BEAR ON THE PROBLEM: 1. Political reticence. 2. Constitutionality. 3. Opposition by the gun lobby and the NRA. 4. Public acceptance. 5. Resources available to solve the problem.

CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM: Globally, throughout modern history, lenient gun safety laws combined with the under-regulation of gun accessibility has been the proven cause of high levels of gun injuries. For both homicides and suicides, there is a significant factor of mental illness.

GOAL OF SOLUTION: Steady annual increments of 3-5% gun-injury reductions until we reach the average of the five best nations in the world.


1. Create a national gun registry which mandates the registration of every firearm in the nation, under felony penalties for failure to comply. Every person having ownership, possession or access to any firearm must be included. False reporting of theft or loss (and hiding) would be a felony.

2. Establish national mental health criteria for gun possession and require a comprehensive background investigation(similar to that for a TOP SECRET clearance) which includes a mental health examination, not more than five years old for entering the registry, and to be renewed every five years.

3. Ban those firearms which have high impact, high velocity, large capacity features.

4. Offer a voluntary buyback program for all banned weapons after which penalties apply.

That is the bare bones of it and will, in the main, pass constitutionality, public acceptance and resource sufficiency. Opposition by the NRA and gun lobby as well as political reticence will

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.