Churches put up money for gun buyback

Churches put up money for gun buyback

CHAMPAIGN — If you've got a gun or two around your home, here's a chance to sell them to police, no questions asked.

Champaign County residents — excluding gun dealers — can bring up to two guns to a gun buyback being held from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Aug. 4 at the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District, 201 W. Kenyon Road.

A prepaid $50 Visa cash card will be given in exchange for each gun turned in.

"We'll certainly take all the guns you want to turn in, but we're only going to pay for two," Urbana Police Chief Pat Connolly said.

Or, rather, local churches and contributors will pay, because they're providing the money for the buyback.

Local police departments are providing the manpower and expertise, Connolly said.

Stone Creek Church, Urbana, and Berean Covenant Church, Champaign, are raising the money.

Connolly said Stone Creek Church approached his department and proposed the gun buyback to help make the community safer after three people were killed by guns in an eight-day period.

As far as he's concerned, it's already been successful, Connolly said. Two people who heard Stone Creek Church would help get firearms to police asked if they could surrender their guns at the church, and officers have already picked them up.

"That's two guns from young people who don't know how to handle them and didn't know what to do," he said.

Connolly said he knows through talking to people in the community that not enough adults are talking to kids about gun safety.

"I hope the motivation behind this is people will say, 'Maybe it's not safe to leave a gun safe and secure between mattresses, and maybe it's time to get rid of it,'" he said.

Police have asked the churches involved in the buyback to raise enough money for 400 guns, and fundraising is about half-way to that goal, said Terry Austria, Stone Creek Church's college and young adult pastor, who is organizing the gun buyback.

Austria said his church helped out with the funeral costs and held a vigil for 3-year-old Mekhi Woods, the Urbana toddler who was shot May 16 by his 14-year-old uncle, and church members want to spare other families a similar tragedy. The teen told police he thought the gun wasn't loaded and was using it to teach the child a gun-safety lesson.

"Several families have guns in the house. If they're not doing anything practical with them, we want to give them an opportunity to make their homes safer," Austria said.

Connolly said he's not naive enough to think hard-core criminals will sell guns to police in this event, but Austria said he doesn't give up on anybody having a change of heart.

"There are people who want to have a change of heart, and we're making it easy for them," he said.

The gun buyback is part of Stone Creek Church's long-term Inspire Urbana program focused on the east side of the city, and church members have been out working in neighborhoods making contacts through such events as grocery giveaways, free makeovers and a basketball tournament.

No names will be asked at the gun buyback. There won't be any surveillance and nobody will be forced to talk to anyone, Austria said.

"But if they want to talk, we'll talk," he adds.

The guns will be taken by police in the parking lot, but people will need to come inside the public health building to pick up their prepaid Visa cards, and the churches will have staffed tables with refreshments inside the building for anyone who wants to stop by, Austria said.

He stressed this is a community-safety issue for Stone Creek Church, and the church doesn't take issue with all guns.

"We have a lot of outdoorsmen in our church, and we're not anti-gun," he said. "We're going after illegal guns and trying to protect minors."

Public Health Administrator Julie Pryde said the health district is more than willing to take part in this event, because violence and unintended injuries are two major local health issues.

"I'm a big supporter of education for people who have guns," she said.

The health district would be just as happy to host a gun lock give-away to increase gun safety in the community, she said.

In planning the event, Connolly said, local police contacted other police departments that have conducted buybacks.

"We learned a lot by their mistakes, so we don't create them as well," he said.

Meanwhile, his officers talk to neighborhood watch groups, church groups and other organizations with interest in gun awareness and safety, he said.

"I recognize a gun buyback won't solve all our problems about accidental shootings in this community, but it certainly won't hurt," he said.

Champaign County gun buyback


When: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Aug. 4.

Where: Champaign-Urbana Public Health District, 201 W. Kenyon Road, C.

Details: Champaign County residents — no gun dealers — can bring up to two guns and receive a $50 Visa cash card for each. Additional guns will be accepted, however.

Organizers: Stone Creek Church in Urbana, Berean Covenant Church in Champaign, Urbana Police Department, C-U Public Health District.


More information:

Comments embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

whatithink wrote on July 20, 2012 at 9:07 am

Boy this should help, I'm sure all the criminals in town will want a whole $50 visa card instead.

Stu Strickler wrote on July 20, 2012 at 10:07 am

You are correct. If the town really cared about the subject, they would teach firearms safety to the residents. This can not be called a gun buy back, because the town did not own them to start with! Gun locks are not the answer either, they prevent instant access for self defense. If anyone wants to sell a firearm for more than $50.00, I suggest that the local firearms shop would be a good start. 

rsp wrote on July 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Because knowing how to handle a firearm safely will fix things even though you don't want it in your home and you don't want your children to get ahold of it. Suppose your foid card expired, or the gun came from a relative who has died. You just want to get rid of it. Maybe you're not really sure of the gun's past. You could sell it to a friend, on the quiet, just so you don't have to deal with it anymore. And tell yourself they need it for "protection". How often does that really happen? I can think of three local cases in my life. And one isn't public. So what you really want to do is turn it in. It's done. You never wonder about it again. Unless there is a program to do that, how is someone supposed to get rid of a gun? 

mcdigsk2 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 10:07 am

"The Right to Bear Arms"....Please revise this America.  You make it too easy for unstable folk to get FOID cards. 

fhoskins wrote on July 20, 2012 at 10:07 am

You want to revise the 2nd Amendment? Then why not revise all of the Amendments. Why is it people want to screw with the 2nd amendment and no other!!! People will kill people by whatever means they want to. So why not leave the 2nd amendment alone. I am so tired of people blaming the gun when is no more than a tool. A gun will no more fire on it `s own than a circular saw will cut a piece of wood on it`s own!! 

mcdigsk2 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 11:07 am

Yes, but the USA is VERY high on the statistic list of Murders with Firearms by country....the only countries ahead are muppet, developing countries (S. Africa, Colombia and Thailand).  All the other developed countries have FAR less gun fatalities.  You honestly must be in denial about the gun problem here.

fhoskins wrote on July 20, 2012 at 11:07 am

Not in denial just dealing with the facts. How many shots from a gun did Timothy McVeigh fire? ZERO.How many people did he kill; hundreds!!

emsed1 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm

I think you should check your facts.  The United States is 33rd in the world in intentional homicide rate, behind such wonderful places as the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil and Belize.


Of course these statistics come from the FBI Criminal Justice Reporting System.


I'm sure your opinion is much more accurate.


Also, the firearm homicide rate in Zimbabwe is nearly DOUBLE the United States and it's ILLEGAL TO OWN A GUN IN ZIMBABWE.


Source:  United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

mcdigsk2 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Before we start bickering about our sources, let's just examine our own little community of Champaign-Ubana.  There has been an unprecedented amount of gunfire and indeed murder by firearms in recent times.  I suppose you think I've imagined this trend also.

OwlCreekObserver wrote on July 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Yes, you have imagined it.  What are your sources to support your claim of huge increases in firearm incidents?  Trick question.  There are no such sources.  Actually there has been a dramatic decrease in firearm violence in recent years, while gun purchases have increased dramatically during the same period.

emsed1 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm

It's a felony to sell a firearm without an FOID.  Will everyone who shows up without an FOID get arrested?

It also seems the churches would be 'straw-purchasers' who are buying (their words, not mine) firearms through a police agency.  Where's big sister Janet and big brother Eric?

It's also a violation of state law to possess a firearm that is not unloaded and enclosed in a case.  Will everyone walking up with grandpa's hunting rifle be arrested?


OR... since it's the po-po and the church do they just get to arbitrarily waive laws?

emsed1 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm

In the Chicago police gun buy back last month "Guns Save Life" from Champaign County sold 60 firearms that ranged from rusty rifles from the 19th century to BB guns.  They made over $6000 to fund a firearm safety camp.

Interesting... In Chicago you can own ONE gun and it has to be in your house, yet nearly twice as many people have been killed by guns in Chicago this year than US troops in Afghanistan.

In fact, since 2001, 2000 troops have been killed by gunfire in Afghanistan and 5000 have been killed by guns in Chicago.

Buybacks don't work.  Gun laws don't work.

rsp wrote on July 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Most guns in the hands of felons, etc. are stolen guns. If people don't want their guns and they don't have them where they can be stolen or found by children, wouldn't that be a good thing? 

jdmac44 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm

I don't see this as a valid use of church (i.e. God's) money, it does not contribute to the mission of the church, to go and make disciples.  If they were doing what they're supposed to be doing, by Jesus' command, there would be much less concern about guns and those who misuse them.  It's an admirable thought, but it's barely a bandaid on the real problem.  I see so much of the church looking at trying to solve problems in ways that were not commanded, while avoiding the one way that was.

mcdigsk2 wrote on July 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

It is a Christian's duty to practice Christianity outside the 4 walls of the church...if that includes Pastoral work to improve one's community, so be it.  To simply pass judgement on people that have strayed on the wrong path while burying heads in the sand is tragic.  I worry about the message your church is delivering to its flock....true Christianity needs to be manifested in action and not just Sunday prayer with the family

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

If God cared about people killing each other, God would have done something about it thousands of years ago.  People have killed each other in God's name forever.  Guns just makes it easier.  The only thing that religion, and guns have in common is money.  Money for organized religion; and money for gun manufacturers.  How many good Christians want conceal and carry?  How many of them want to carry their hidden guns into a store, school, or a church?

rsp wrote on July 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm

How many christians want guns turned into plowshares?

rsp wrote on July 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm

If they were doing what they're supposed to be doing, by Jesus' command, there would be much less concern about guns and those who misuse them.

Either you haven't been going to church or you're been going to the wrong ones. Jesus loved the sinner. There are people out there who need to be reached out to if anything is going to change. You may not want anything to change but I want things to be better. That takes work, reaching out to people. You can't reach out to help someone if your hand is full. 

fhoskins wrote on July 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm

For all the anti gun folks, tell me the difference between being stabbed, ran over by a vehicle, or beaten to death versus being killed with a bullet. Please explaain the difference! 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Your justification for guns makes no sense.  Yes, people die by being stabbed, ran over by a vehicle, and beaten to death.  So it is okay for more people to be killed by guns?  Why not add a justification for bombs, and swords to be added to the list?  There are more people killed by guns whether accidentally, or purposely than any other way in society.  The spread of guns has increased dramatically over the past ten years.  People have the right to have a gun.  What about people having one gun kept in their home for defense?  What about registering the gun, and the owner?  What about requiring gun owners to declare to the authorities when the gun is sold, or stolen?  Even the Wild West was not as wild as things are now.

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

Dead is dead isn`t it. You need to go back and check the facts! So what if this nut job used a bomb, would you be all fired up about it as you are with the guns? I bet not

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

Wow....!  You really are out there.  No one wants people killed whether it is a bomb, a lead pipe, or a gun.  Guns just makes the killing easier.  What is your real objection to tighter gun owner laws?  Your fired up defense of gun owners makes one wonder about you.  I have a FOID card; and I possess a gun in my house.  I believe that gun owener laws are too lax.  One gun for one person is enough.  A shotgun for hunting, and home defense is fine with a FULL background check of the owner.  You cannot hunt deer in Illinois with an assault rifle, or an automatic pistol.  Registering the gun, and the owner makes sense.  I do not support "conceal and carry" because there are too many John Wayne wantabees out there.  Quite frankly, I do not trust them.  The last time this subject came up I made the comment about hidden guns on people in schools, stores, and churches.  People raised cane about their right to carry hidden guns anywhere they wanted to go.  They implied that "they could be trusted".  Well, I don't believe that.  The "nut job" in Colorado bought his guns legally.  He bought two automatic pistols, an assault rifle, and a combat shotgun legally.  Yeah, something needs to be done about gun control.  The churches, and the police are at least trying to do something about it.  I give them some credit for doing something.   

rsp wrote on July 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm

I can't get ran over from two blocks over, or stabbed because the neighbors are having a fight in their house and I'm in my bedroom. If someone wants to beat me to death? At least I have a chance to fight back. If someone walks up behind me and pulls the trigger I don't think I'll have time to show them what a good shot I really am. Does that answer your question?

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Well said.  I used the word "penis" in an earlier comment regarding guns, and manhood; but it was censored.  I learned that one cannot use the word "penis" in comments.  What would be the correct term for it?

rsp wrote on July 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm

I see nothing wrong with it. They must have issues.

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

What makes you think you have a chance to fight back? I will use your own analogy; Someone walks up behind you and splits your head open with a lead pipe, baseball bat, brick etc.etc. instead of pulling a trigger, you still think you have a chance? 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

A tree limb could fall on your head also.  What about someone walking up behind you with a cane?  Are you going to shoot them by accident?  Get over the John Wayne attitude.

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

If someone beats on me? From experience I know I would hit back. You countered with a pipe, a bat, a brick, and etc. Those are all considered weapons of opportunity. Except maybe the bat. You can't hide them in your clothing as you go about your day, riding the bus, shopping, work, etc. Whereas a gun you can know someone is behind you and think that you are safe because they aren't carrying any weapons. You should always know your surroundings but sometimes in life things happen to you that are just out of your control. No matter how much you prepare sometimes bad things happen. I've lived it. I'm not going to live in a bunker.

serf wrote on July 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm

Shouldn't yesterday's events in Aurora, Colorado effectively explain the difference?

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 1:07 am

You're looking at it backwards. That's just more proof that everyone needs to carry bigger guns. And bigger guns.

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

NO!! cause he could have used a bomb. Do you not remember what Timothy McVeigh did? apparently not

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

Apperently you don't know about his apartment. It's full of homemade bombs. 

serf wrote on July 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm

As soon as I read this article I knew it would bring out the knuckledraggers and mouthbreathers.  Even the mere thought of someone voluntarily turning in a gun to the guv'mint just scares the dickens out of them.

I'm amazed one of them hasn't yet made some type of ignorant parallel between a voluntary gun buy-back and Hitler.  

The NRA has scared the pants off those too stupid to think for themselves.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 20, 2012 at 10:07 pm

I saw the most amazing interview on TV this week.  The U.S. signed an agreement with other U.N. nations that guns would not be sold to foreign governments that were found to be supporting human rights violations.  The spokesman for the NRA was interviewed.  He was outraged that the U.S. government agreed to the agreement.  He said that it would result in the government confiscating guns in the U.S.  The interviewer explained to him twice that it did nothing to guns laws in the U.S.  It was an international agreement that did not effect gun laws in other countries; only those that supported human rights violations.  The NRA spokesman still swore that it was the "first step" in confiscating guns in America.  He had no logic; and kept repeating the same sentence without any additional rationale supporting it.  I realized how many fellow Americans support the NRA which really is a lobby group for gun manufacturers, and gun dealers.  America has dumbed down.  

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 1:07 am

If you repeat the same lie enough times it becomes true. Facts don't matter anymore to too many people. 

serf wrote on July 21, 2012 at 8:07 am

Things like this should be a parody:

But instead it's becoming mainstream...'cause you don't want yer kids steppin on your scopes'

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

Of course, it was in Texas....   It could have been any other state though.  Crazy Ted Nugent lives in Michigan.  He spoke this year to the Sangamon County GOP.  They loved him.  The love for guns in this country has become perverted.  Why do you need an automatic assault rifle to hunt deer?  The guy in the commercial had two.  One for the back of his pickup truck, and one for the cab.  Both rifles had thirty round capability to hunt deer.

ClearVision wrote on July 23, 2012 at 3:07 pm

Wrong. Ted Nugent lives in Texas.

rsp wrote on July 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Ted has ranches in both states. 

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

I have owned guns since i was 9 years old and i cannot remember once any of them just going off and start shooting all by themselves.

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

You've never seen one accidently discharge when it was dropped? I have. Hit the ground and shot off a round. Couldn't believe nobody was hit. 

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

i dont believe in accidental discharge, only negligent discharge and i have seen some

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

just read about two doctors in south florida who have been charged in the deaths of nine people.

 Granted they were addicts but the those doctors continued to give them prescription meds  to make some extra cash. Gee  i guess those people didn`t have a chance to fight back either

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

Gee... maybe if the addicts had guns, they would have had a chance to fight back?

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 10:07 am

Granted they were addicts

That said a lot right there. Now if they hadn't been addict, would he care?

common_sense_isn't wrote on July 23, 2012 at 9:07 am

Pretty common response when people talk about addicts actually.  Like they aren't really people anymore.  Don't want to turn this into a debate of drug policy or anything else, but it makes me sad when people lose sight of humanity behind an addiction.  They are a person addicted to drugs, not a disposible, faceless drug addict.

rsp wrote on July 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

That's why Prairie Center had to close the detox facility to save money. The state stopped paying so now people go to the ER at a higher cost. Pennywise and pound foolish. And the medicaid cuts will end up costing more than they say they will save. The poor aren't people, addicts aren't people. 

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 9:07 am

Point well made.  Guns do not kill by accident.  People kill by accident, and on purpose.  I was given my first gun when I was 8 years old for hunting.  My Father trained me how to properly, and safely use it.  I received further training when I was older.  A gun is used only for one thing.  It is used to kill something.  The gun should be registered, and the owner should be registered following a FULL background check.  There are too many John Wayne wantabees out there.  This love for guns is perverted.

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 10:07 am

The CDC is a good place to look at causes of death. Firearm fatalities rated lower than overall fatalties according their latest updated stats.  Firearm deaths don`t even rank in the top 15 leading causes of death in the country!!! You are more likely to die by disease  than by a gun!! Also in 2009 which was latest stat from the National Transportation and Highway Safety Administration that vehicle accidents was the leading cause of death. So why on earth is everyone so anti gun???

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 11:07 am

No one is "anti gun".  They just want tighter controls on guns.  What difference does it make if deaths by guns is less than the top 15 leading causes?  I don't care if deaths by Great White sharks is greater than deaths by guns.  What is so wrong about tighter controls on gun ownership?

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 11:07 am

How many more laws do you need? there are hundreds now!! Chicago and NY city have probably the most stringent and most laws on the books now and look at them.This nut job obeyed the law and purchased those weapons legally, and yet he did what he did. The 2nd Amendment is located in the same place that all the other Amendments are, and when the Fourth or First starts getting trampled everyone is ready to fight like heck to keep them restored. 2nd not so much.  

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 21, 2012 at 11:07 am

We don't live in Chicago, or New York City.  We live here.  The 2nd Amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms.  It says nothing about gun control.  You have the right to bear arms.  Tighter gun control will not take your gun away from you.  They would only make it harder for a "nut job" to get a gun.  What is so wrong about that? 

fhoskins wrote on July 21, 2012 at 11:07 am

Please elaborate on what type of law would prevent something like this! This nut job obeyed the law!! Unless you can control the minds of people there are no amount of laws that will work.

 Drunk drivers are a prime example of how all the laws in the world don`t work. I know of several people who lost their licenses but continued to drive. So unless you put a total ban on a product and discontinue making it, there will be this issue. So do we disconitune making all the products that people have used for illegal means???

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 5:07 pm

Two things come to mind. He went to shops and asked what kind of guns he should get for safety. Perhaps if dealers were trained to ask some basic screening questions someone like this guy would give off enough of some warning signs that additional background or questioning was needed. You would be surprised at the amount of information you give out with seemingly simple answers. Second, there were people who were suspicious about him. We haven't heard about them yet, but we will. 

I know of several people who lost their licenses but continued to drive.

Did you make any calls?

OwlCreekObserver wrote on July 26, 2012 at 7:07 pm

So what tighter controls would you like to see?  Guns are already among the most heavily regulated purchases, especially here in Illinois.  The punks killing other punks in Chicago are not legal gun owners.  Criminals are criminals and no amount of new laws layered on top of existing laws will ever change that.

rsp wrote on July 21, 2012 at 11:07 am

The bigger question is why are you in such a panic over some local churches buying up guns that people don't want? You don't have to go. Nobody is asking for your guns. But you seem to be in a panic. Keep your guns. Just don't shoot the mailman when he rings the doorbell.

serf wrote on July 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm

He's upset because he's been brainwashed to think that anything (ANYTHING) that might take a single gun off the streets is the first step in an evil UN conspiracy to enact a new world order.  


Ten years ago, people like him were just considered nutbags.  Now the head of the NRA is spouting this stuff.  Needless to say, the NRA has made money hand over fist because of these scare tactics they've perfected, but let's not look at the man behind the curtain.

illini_trucker wrote on July 22, 2012 at 3:07 am

Gun control: keeping the honest man honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly honestly SUPERBLY STUPIDLY HONESTLY HONEST.... While the criminals don't give a rats rear end!!!!

guns deter as much criminal activity as they do cause the activity. Take away our guns and you upset this balance. How?? Gangsta LL Pimpin G. L. Q. from da burbs can rob an entire town with his filed off Glock 29.


Now... I'll agree to any unconstitutional gun control with this sole condition: I want to see 2 people who can move at 2,400 feet per second, turn around a FULL 180° and put their fist through a tree as far as a bullet normally would.... While using LESS than 1 single pound of force... GUNS ARE ALREADY A SOLID FACT OF THE USMA. Take them away from the honest man and you almost literally have criminals with superhero powers. Guns are here to stay, just like weed, pot, crack, speed, heroin, meth, etc.... All your doing with gun control is disarming an honest man, readying him/her for slaughter..........

rsp wrote on July 22, 2012 at 6:07 am

guns deter as much criminal activity as they do cause the activity.

You have proven our point. Thank you. So you agree if we ban certain guns violence will go down. I mean, who needs an AR-15 assault rifle which can hold upwards of 100 rounds? Deer hunters? Or perhaps the local neighborhood watch guy? Who isn't supposed to be armed.


Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 10:07 am

Who is the "honest" man?  No one is trying to take away citizens guns.  However, there needs to be more controls on what type of guns are sold; and who buys them.  How many guns does one person need?  You don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer.  You don't need two Glocks, an AR-15, and a combat shotgun.  Get real about it.  No one is taking away the right to have a gun.  However, there needs to be tighter controls on what types, how many, and who has them.  Geez..... has this country gone nuts in the past ten years?  Now, go ahead and rant and rave about black helocopters, secret camps, and the government......etc.

serf wrote on July 22, 2012 at 10:07 am

You're scared of black it.


Again, overblown hyperbole based on irrational fears.





Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm

He must be.  He is talking about one guy robbing the entire town!  I just saw an interview with the Gov. of Colorado.  Whenever the questions came up about gun control, he talked about something else.  No politician wants to talk about it due to running for election.  The NRA has them all scared to death to talk about the subject of gun control. 

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Too many guns slip between the cracks at gun shows, private sales and from inheritance of unwanted guns from estates. If this gets some of the unmonitored weapons off the street, then so be it. During stressful times like these with the recent shooting its real easy for people to retreat to their respective extreme polarized corners in the gun ownership debate. We as a nation have the constitutional right to bear arms. Even if it was intended by the authors as the official military only having weapons, the dynamics of personal gun ownership has now permanently trumped that argument. Too often guns are used as the solution to religious and societal conflict, poverty and in the most horrendous way, spree killing cases like the Aurora shooting due to the delusional perception of entitlement thwarted. There is ample room within the law for us to own weapons and treat them in a responsible manner without the Posse Comitatus arguments inflaming an unnecessary paranoia about an apocalyptic martial law scenario threatening our existence. I firmly believe compromise can be achieved. I am a responsible gun owner and I don't think military battle field grade items like body armor and giant drum clips need to be available to the public.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Amen.  Good comment.

serf wrote on July 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm



I suppose it's relevant to bring up the 'Fast and Furious' ATF case.  Everybody always talks about how the ATF agents supposedly 'let guns walk.'  The truth of the matter is that because of the work by the NRA, it's legal in Arizona to buy as many guns you want to buy at any given time.  The ATF agents are powerless to stop someone in Arizona from buying 4 guns at once and walking out the door with them, even if everybody knows they are simply gonna drive them to Mexico.  It's sheer lunacy, but everybody's ticked off at the ATF for not stopping something that they've been made absolutely powerless to stop.

pangloss wrote on July 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm

"Even if it was intended by the authors as the official military only having weapons..."

It was not.  If you read the writings of the founding fathers, that fact will be quite clear to you.  The supreme court also put this issue to rest in DC v Heller. 

The reason that politicians don't talk about gun control much anymore is that they are left quite powerless to enact new legislation in that area, due to a vast body of legal precedents that establish many common tactics for gun control as being, yes, they are afraid of NRA efforts to kill their chances in the election.  The risk (not getting elected) is not worth the reward (passing legislation only to have it overturned in court).

I am a 2nd amendment supporter, and do own a couple of guns, partly for defense, and partly because I just enjoy target shooting.  All of our rights do come with certain limitations.  In the case of gun control, any limitations need to be consistent with the freedom that was guaranteed the people in the 2nd amendment...they also need to have practical results.

Guns are here to stay in this country, like it or not.  In my opinion, we need to focus more on educating people on gun safety (the NRA actually does a very good job at this), as well as somehow detecting and neutralizing the odd nut job BEFORE he can get his hands on a deadly weapon.  For these types of nuts, who likely have a death wish anyway, the deterrence aspect of promoting concealed carry does not really apply.

Bulldogmojo wrote on July 22, 2012 at 6:07 pm

I try not to surmise what the "Founding fathers" were stating in their writings as I don't pretend to be a scholar and because of the context of the time when reloading a black powder muzzle loader took full 2 minutes afforrding ample time to escape being shot and I don't think they ever imagined this --> watch

We certainly don't have to worry about having to quarter any red coats (You dont want those snooty brits in your refirgerator)

The supreme court is not infallible an example being justice Thomas taking the position that the separation of church and state in his view meant that each state could have a designated religion...Umm Hmm

The issue of gun control seems like an exercise in futility. If you were to outlaw guns how would you go about the actual collection? Would you have a police briefing each morning and the chief would say to his police force present, “well some of you probably will not come back alive today from your gun collecting duty”? If you have ever been behind someone in traffic who has a bumper sticker that reads, “They can have my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers from it” I’m thinking they may mean it. The world is saturated with guns and they are never going away. This does not mean we can’t exercise some affective programs to eliminate the fringes from having too easy of access to weapons and enhancements that take weapons and their operators into the realm of weapons of mass destruction. I think we owe it to the victims of these killings to have a dispassionate conversation in our public and legilative discourse to always improve safety and protect constitutional rights.


MarkLam wrote on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 am

If these are the responses of an educated university town, I hate to see what idiots would say.  

rsp wrote on July 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

Read your reply.

MarkLam wrote on July 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm

@rsp.  Ok let me clarify.  Not everyone's comments.  I actually liked yours.

rsp wrote on July 23, 2012 at 6:07 pm

Well then, I'll retract, it's the wild west in here.

fhoskins wrote on July 23, 2012 at 4:07 pm

How many guns does a person need was asked? However many he wants!!! 

ErnestTBass wrote on July 26, 2012 at 9:07 am

Maybe this will change your mind to keep your guns.

rsp wrote on July 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Snopes is your friend, but I'm sure you prefer doctored videos.

ErnestTBass wrote on July 26, 2012 at 12:07 pm

Reading this will probably change your mind about a lot of things.

Sid Saltfork wrote on July 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm

Back to the "birther" lunacy.  That plus the "muslim" lunacy.  If Voter I.D. laws are legal, Voter Intelligence Tests should be legal also.  Oh, yes... the Earth is flat also.  Why don't the Right Wing lunatics just admit it?  They are angry that the President of the United States is one half Afro-American.  Guns, and racism are the Right Wing's platform.  Youtube... what a joke.  "I saw it on Youtube!  It must be true!"  Might as well watch cartoons; but they think that half of the cartoons are made up.