|

Area Law Enforcement Participate in Gun Rights Forum

Ellis County Sheriff Ed Harbin at Tuesday Gun Rights Event in Hays Photo Courtesy State Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady

Ellis County Sheriff Ed Harbin at Tuesday Gun Rights Event in Hays Photo Courtesy State Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady

110th State Representative Travis Couture-Lovelady reported on his Facebook page today that almost 200 people showed up for Tuesday night’s gun rights forum with five area county sheriffs, including Ellis County Sheriff Ed Harbin.

“We talked about the needs of our jail, the 2nd amendment and there were a lot of good questions,” Harbin told Eagle News. “People are concerned about what the Federal government might do on gun issues. It was very informative.”  State Representative Sue Boldra was also in attendance.

The event was held at Thirsty’s Brew Pub in Hays and sponsored by the Big First Tea Party.

Sheriffs from Rooks, Rush, Trego, and Russell County also participated.

KSKOLLECTIONSBLACK-FRIDAY
Commenting Disclaimer
  • Be respectful. 
  • Do not use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Do not make accusations or personal attacks
  • Comments considered to be 'trolling' or for the sole purpose of angering others will be removed.
  • Very informative

    Wow this is really interesting. People met somewhere. Very news worthy.
    How about listing the content of the forum?

    News flash: I have a training meeting at work this morning.

    • Joshua

      Don’t u think they discussed 2nd amendment? Duh.

      • Very informative

        I guess I would just hope that these gun owners(I myself am a gun owner as well) understand that like all of the constitutional amendments, the 2nd amandment is not unlimited. Like free speech for example. I can’t slander someone with out legal repercussions, nor yell fire in a crouded Theatre.
        Lets be sensible about gun control. I think background checks on ALL guns sales would be a good idea.

        • Chris

          It is refreshing to hear a reply like this. Educated and sensible! Thank you.

  • Lance Geyer

    I am sure they talked about the 2nd amendments, but I would be curious to see what their point of view on gun control is.

  • Chris

    Oh hey did you hear?? The gov’munt gonna make us register all our “cars.” First step towards confiscation is registration! They gonna have a database that tells them everyone that has a “car!” And they wanna make all these new rules about “cars.” They’re gonna restrict what types of “cars” we can buy! There goes my dream of owning a “2001 Nissan Skyline R32/R34″ or a friggin “1996 Honda Beat.” They’re even gonna try to tell me what size of “rims” are legal to have on my “car!” Well they can come to my house and try to take my “car” but they better bring a “car” of their own!

    All sarcasm aside, when a new noun is substituted for an old one, it makes the argument sound ridiculous. And the argument is ridiculous. Someone is not going to come to your door and take your guns. Conservatives get mad about more stringent gun registration requirements, and then turn around and get made when voter registrations isn’t strict enough. *smh*

    • Chris

      and then turn around and get *mad* when voter registrations isn’t strict enough. Dang typos.

    • Citizen

      I missed the part of the Constitution that talks about the right to own a car.

      • Chris

        And I missed the part that spells out that you can have high capacity magazines and don’t have to register. I remember something about voting rights in the Constitution though. And if I remember correctly, don’t you have to register to vote? And aren’t there certain restrictions on voting?

      • Very informative

        You do understand the constitution was written before cars correct?
        It was also written before assault rifles and machine guns. Yet in 1930 the US gov. With the support of the NRA mind you, banned private ownership of machine guns. Grow up, dude. It’s not 1776 ya know.

    • A

      Owning a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

      • Very informative

        Uh, I’m pretty sure I can buy a car from anywhere if I want. Driving it is a privilege.
        Your point is so rediculous. I’m not saying people shouldn’t own guns. I own a few. And I’m qualified on many, Ma duece (M-2), M240 Bravo, M16 (includes M14 qualification), M60, Mark 19, M249(squad automatic weapon or SAW), and a 9mm. I’ve seen assualt rifles in action brother.. it’s not a pretty sight. I’m not saying ban them, but surely you can understand that background checks on ALL gun sales is a good idea? If you disagree I would think your the type of person we need to worry about the most.

        • A

          Yeah but where are you guranteed the right to own that car? No where

        • Chris

          Absolutely agree, Very informative. Almost impossible to argue with people of this mindset. Background checks are a great idea, not perfect, but better than nothing. If someone disagrees, please post an INTELLIGENT reason as to why. “Cuz it’s a right!!!” is not an intelligent reply.

          • very informative

            Yes, the “cuz it’s a right” reply is week. I have the right to life so says the bill of rights, but if I kill someone in Kansas, Texas, or any other death penalty state the odds are I may no longer have that right to life. Having the “right” to something doesn’t mean it’s unlimited. There are boundaries to everything.

      • http://hayspost.com Jr.

        Maybe we should treat gun ownership as a privilege.

    • Augusta

      When you change the noun in a syllogism, that means the subject matter changes, thus the conclusion does not necessarily equate as VALID. Now, if you’re just substituting “friggles” where you once had “fraggles,” you would be correct. When you’re talking about rights and privileges, the fact that it IS a right is sufficient enough to warrant that answer in and of itself as a defense. There are reasons to register cars (read: taxes that help pay for road repair and such), but there is no reason beyond a big brother defense (read: authorities are aware of ownership just to be aware of ownership). Universal background checks are great in theory, but they would be over-burdensome on the everyday citizen. If John Dee needs to sell some of his assets, because he’s low on money for bills, that means he probably doesn’t have the $50 required to do a background check on the individual offering to buy his P38, which is only worth 50 bucks. Moreover, the liquidity of a gun is high, because he can quickly sell it and get the $50 needed to pay his phone bill. However, that bill has a due date, and the background check not only cost money but takes time to complete and get back, as well. So, now that harmless background check has limited the individual’s liquidity of assets. You’re argument would be that he could just sell something else.

      By the way, looking down at some of your responses to others, I suppose that your response to my own will be one of rudeness. Being rude does not make you right, rather it takes away from any potentially logical arguments you might otherwise make.

      • very informative

        If I kill a man with my car -dui, hit and run,ect- they can identify me by my liscense # which = my VIN # and ultimately my drivers liscense #. If someone steals my car and uses it in the commision of a crime. They can still identify that car because it is registered, but reported stolen. Now, how does not registering a gun not compare to that? You write a real long paragraph there but you failed to use common sense in it. Think my friend. Why do you have fear of resitering a weapon if you don’t plan to use it in a criminal fasion?

        If your buying a $50.00 gun. It’s a bb or airsoft gun.

        • Augusta

          “You write a real long paragraph there but you failed to use common sense in it.” << That is a very rude comment. Shame on you.

          Under your "common sense" argument, it would follow that basically any item that could be used in a crime should therefore be registered so that it can be traced back to the person who used it in a crime. What about knives? Should we register all of them? What about alcohol purchases? Where does the potential for crime stop?

          Also, I can tell you that every crime that I have witnessed and have turned in the car license to the authorities has come back "unfound." This reregistration theory is flawed in practice.

          Furthermore, if cars equate so nicely to firearms, should people be required to have firearm insurance, as well?

          I am not afraid of background checks, and to insinuate that I would have some reason to be is insulting. Our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," when you give the government the ability to register (thus know who Of the people have weapons), you change that to "of the [government], [IN SPITE OF] the people, and for the people [whether they like it or not]."

          I love this country and my representatives in the government, but I am not so naive to believe that every single representative really has my best interests at heart. Sometimes common sense isn't as common as it should be. I have both common sense and manners. You, sir, seem to be lacking both.

          • Chris

            The quote “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is not found in the Constitution or any other such document. Rather it was a quote by Lincoln. We live in a democratic republic–not a democracy. We elect representatives that vote on laws. If the majority of these representatives feel that the gun measures are necessary, than it is logical that a majority of constituents also find the gun measures necessary. So all, in all, this would fit in nicely with Abe’s quote.We might need revisions to your quote though.

            of the [government(elected by citizens)], [IN SPITE OF] the people(the minority that doesn’t agree with it), and for the people [whether they like it or not](and if not, then they can vote new representatives during the next election).

          • very informative

            Your being a little over the top with the “any item that could be used in a crime should therefore be registered”. My point is guns are dangerous in the wrong hands. I think everyone can agree with that.
            As far a registered vehicles coming back not found I would argue that point with you. How do I get a bill every April for vehicle registration, tags and taxes? I guess they randomly spin a wheel and by some mericle match up the vehicles I own to my name and address? That’s amazing! I didn’t know it worked that way. I thought there was a database somewhere but okay then.

            I love my country too, Sir. I spent 18 years defending it in the Army. Including deployments to a country we were told lies about and lost over 4000 of our Men and Women, not to mention the wounded, but I won’t get started on that fiasco.
            You are correct, this is a gov. of the people, for the people and by the people. ALL of them, not just you. 88% of the public believes in universal background checks. It’s the lobyists (as usual) who are defeating the principles of democracy.
            Fire arm insurance? Not a bad idea. I had to take hunter safety to get a hunting lisence, and present that to Fish and Game to get my lifetime hunting license. I think some sort of requirement for fire arm ownership would be a good idea, the MAJORITY is not asking for gun insurance, they are simply asking you to prove that you aren’t insane or a felon. VERY VERY simple. I don’t understand your argument to this.

            I’m really not trying to be rude but this is a heated subject for some, including myself. I’ve seen what the kenetic energy alone from a weapon can do to a person. And to think of that happening to children really bothers me. Please understand we aren’t asking people to give up their weapons, we are asking for people to be reasonable. That’s all.

  • http://hayspost.com Debate

    This is a interesting Debate but since someone above mentioned cars, its a fact that more people die in car accidents then they do because of Firearms. All the laws in the world, no matter how harsh will not end gun violence, gun free zones will not end gun violence. Criminals have no regard to the law, the only thing gun laws do is inconvience law abiding citizens!

    • Augusta

      You are absolutely correct.

    • Chris

      Please tell me why then, that countries in Europe that have gun laws, have MUCH MUCH less crimes(All crimes, not just gun crimes), than the US.

      “60 percent of U.S. homicides occur using a firearm. (In other gun-permeated countries, such as Finland (45.3 guns per 100 people), only about 19 percent of homicides involve a firearm.”

      • A

        Really http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

        But I suspose you will find some issue with that article and then insult me.

      • A
        • http://hayspost.com AMERICAN

          no I take issue with this being a ” fox-affiliate” story

      • Augusta

        If you like those countries so much, move to one. There is nothing wrong with this country.

        Let me source your quote for you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

        Now, let me re-post a comment to that article that is very well-spoken: “basil21
        2/5/2013 2:53 AM CST
        I don’t think a violent crime rate is a smokescreen. Guns are more effective at the task of killing than other methods, but violence is violence. I’m willing to accept the US murder rate (which is falling), in trade for the means to protect myself. Also, given that I’m not in one of the high risk groups for gun crimes, it’s a pretty good trade for me. The police cannot protect you from violent crime. They only show up after the deed is done, to capture the assailant. I don’t want to be raped, robbed, or beaten. 40% of US citizens will fall victim to a violent crime during their lifetime. I’d rather not leave my survival to luck.

        Look at violent crime by weapon in the US and you will see that guns aren’t preferred over other methods. Guns are just a more effective tool, so they end up with more kills, which is why I want one on my side. If we could eliminate guns all together, I doubt you would see a decrease in the number of violent crimes, only those of us who once were prepared and able to defend ourselves, would join the victim class.

        I also think that we need stricter sentencing on violent crime. A nation wide 2 strike rule for violent criminals. 5 year minimum for your first violent crime, life on your second. It is my bet that if the violence that occurs in our prison system was added to the national figures, we wouldn’t be experiencing a falling crime rate.

        We should also take another look at alcohol. 40% of violent crime and up to 50% of murders involve someone who is drinking, and 2/3 of rapes. Alcoholism is the primary diagnosis in 25% of the people who commit suicide. http://www.nllea.org/documents/Alcohol_and_Crime.pdf

        Between locking up people we already know can’t function in society, prohibition and effective drug control, we could really clean up our streets. Let’s not mention the 30,000 Mexicans who die, each year, so that Americans can smoke pot.

        That is if you want to reduce violent crime. Not just ban evil guns. ”

        —-
        People will find a way to commit evil if they are determined to do so. I want a way to defend myself. I 200 pound man can defend himself against a knife-wielding 200 pound man. I weigh 114 pounds. I can’t defend myself against a man who is determined to kill me with a knife. Hmm…

    • Green friendly

      You could say that about anything. People who don’t have drivers licenses or liability insurance don’t care about the law requiring it but they drive anyway. So therefore should I be allowed to own and operate a motor vehicle and not meet those requirements simply because I’m a law obeying citizen? Cause it really is an inconvenience paying for those things.

  • A

    In response to Very Informative. There are polls that show a majority of americans oppose obamacare. But i dont see you advocating to get rid of it.

    • Very informative

      I agree with you on obamacare. I personal believe the healthcare system needs a rework. You are right though. The majority appose it and it shouldn’t be law.

    • http://hayspost.com AMERICAN

      The majority of people voted for Obama twice, i’d say that they must believe in Obama care. And polls run by fox or rumunson only means that conservatives oppose Obama care

  • mark

    The presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide by 500 percent. And, just as disturbing, is the statistic that half of the women murdered with guns in the U.S. in 2010 were killed at the hands of their intimate partners.

    .

  • Just Me

    People will find a way to commit evil if they are determined to do so. I want a way to defend myself. I 200 pound man can defend himself against a knife-wielding 200 pound man. I weigh 114 pounds. I can’t defend myself against a man who is determined to kill me with a knife. Hmm…

    So, does anyone know what was actually said at the FORUM? Wish I would have known it was going on. Why didn’t they postpone it, so more people could go? I think this was a bit more important than a game, and they postpone those things for weather.

    • Very Informative

      I think those of us on here in favor of gun control aren’t saying you don’t have the right to own one. Why does every non gun control person go to the extreme on this. By all means you have the right to self defense. Including fire arms. I can’t speak for all pro gun control people but I would assume they are like me and simply want you to prove you aren’t crazy or a felon. It’s really that simple. There are already background checks from listened dealers. Simply expand that to Internet, gun show and private sales. Pay the 30.00 and be done with it. Goodness sakes people.

      • Citizen

        I believe if the government put a little more effort into background checks they could make everyone happy. They need to allow individuals to log onto a website and do background checks themselves at no cost. If they would do this, responsible gun owners would do this before they sell a gun. Then there would be no fear of a government gun registry.

    • http://hayspost.com AMERICAN

      You can read it in the todays hays daily

  • Just Me

    Hey moderators, thanks for censoring my previous comments… Who else have you chosen to silence and what for?

    • Just a thought

      I hate it when Hays post does that as long as no foul mouths. I like to see this kind of debate because it means we are alive and well in America. My thought is if we give up one right then they (THE MAN) will move on to the next right. We as Americans should NOT allow ANY of our rights to be taken without a fight. If we do allow our rights to be removed then we will end up just like those war defeated countries meantioned above. If you think those countries are so wonderful then go live there no one here will blame you. I am just amazed at Canadas homicide numbers it is not a far drive. However, America was founded on principles that were born out of civil war, persecution and blood. The numbers of men that died then and since protecting these values cannot go unnoticed. I know registration now seems small and a good idea BUT, it is a beginning. Once we give part of ANY admendment away it will lead to another part and another. Stop, think for a minute what you are trying to really do.

      • mark

        If you love guns so much, why don’t you move to Mexico?

        • Citizen

          Maybe before you spew ignorance you should do a little research. Mexico has very strict gun laws.

          • mark

            Great, then you should feel safe living there.

      • Just Me

        Well said.

  • http://www.junodownload.com/plus/2013/03/20/sun-god-release-due-on-sequencias/ läs mer

    Together with havin a lot articles do you ever run into any problems of plagorism as well as copyright violation? My site provides extensive of exclusive content We have either written by myself or outsourced but it appears like lots of it can be popping upward all around the online without my agreement. Do you know just about any techniques to aid the prevention of content coming from being cheated? I would really appreciate it.

    • inkslinger

      better prove copyrights

    • Just a thought

      What are you talking about las mer? I dont understand the question can you give an example?