Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
What a great idea! Have the highest level of scrutiny and most detailed background checks whenever someone wants to buy a relatively "more deadly" weapon!
So let's start with the largest mass-murder by a single individual in US history. It happened at the Happy Land dance club in New York City in 1990. The perpetrator was able to kill EIGHTY-SEVEN people! That's more than SEVEN TIMES the number of people slain during the Cinemark Massacre in Aurora. Clearly, anyone wanting to purchase so dangerous a weapon as that used in this mass murder should receive the HIGHEST and most INTENSIVE SCRUTINY of ANY weapons purchase.
So head on down to the police department, get your fingerprints taken and your mugshot, pay the $500 application fee, wait 6 months and if the investigation shows that you're not a shady character AND if the local police chief concurs, then you may purchase the same weapon used at the Happy Land dance club...
...a gallon of gas.
But not TWO gallons. After all, nobody needs an "arsenal".
/sarcasmAug 15, 2012
Here's a clue about Constitutional interpretation: An Amendment may have more than one purpose. Neish is quite correct regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment... as far as he goes... which isn't very far at all.
Consider that the Founders had just fought a war against the standing army of their own oppressive government. The first shots fired in that war were in fact to thwart British efforts at gun control, specifically, to stop LTC Francis Smith's marched on Concord to seize guns and ammunition from the Massachusetts militia.
After the war, the Founders were reluctant to form a standing army, knowing full well that such might be turned against future generations of Americans. (How prescient they were! The recent NDAA authorizes the military to seize American citizens without warrant or charges, imprison them without access to counsel and hold them forever without right to trial. But I digress.) What Neish apparently fails to understand is that the intent of the Second Amendment went further, and in fact the historical record is replete with references to the Founders' intent to ensure that the People should always be able to overthrow their own government by force of arms.
To assert that the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the militia was able to serve as the American army is a bit like saying, "The sole purpose of Mark Neish is to write poorly-researched columns to undermine the freedom of the American People". I sincerely hope there's more to Neish than that. As to the Second Amendment - there is no doubt.Jan 9, 2012
Attorney General candidates Republican Mark Brnovich and Democrat Felecia Rotellini debate at the East Valley Tribune office in Tempe on Thursday, Sept. 26, 2014.Question 2: What are your thoughts on the restriction on RU486 and should the state continue to pursue the case to the Supreme Court?