newsobserver.com projects - guns - Comments

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

GiggleBox — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:31:00 -0400

Because they just now saw your 5 exclamation points about a bill that failed anyway.

Should we reserve two or more pages in tomorrow's NY Times for your rebuttal?

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

dbotts — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:47:34 -0400

Why has there not been more outcry about her vote in the media!!!!!

I obviously don't support states' rights

James_Protzman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:30:25 -0400

Sorry to intrude, but this bare-a$$ed pandering to the NRA deserves every ounce of scorn North Carolina can muster.

Especially since she voted against legislation she voted for when she actually cared about North Carolina.

Back to lurking.

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

mountainman — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:23:01 -0400

Thank you senator Hagen!!!!!

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

blackdog — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:10:31 -0400

Perhaps, a federal permit to carry would suffice....instead of overuling a state's rights or new law changes. Simply, a very stringent training and background check to issue a federal license.

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

landshark — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:46:07 -0400

That's a lie. She new how she was going to vote! Only the death of a love one would have given her the guts to do the right thing!

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

landshark — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:30:52 -0400

Your logic is destroying my right to live safe!!!!! Don't you care?

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

landshark — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:28:34 -0400

You're a bigger fool than she is. Have you not seem the killings going on just here in North Carolina over the last few weeks?

Re: Hagan votes for gun amendment

interested860 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:05:45 -0400

I hate to admit it but The Pubs are right on this one.
Americans have the right to bear arms, period.

Re: Hagan undecided on gun vote

interested860 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:44:28 -0400

I wonder how many of Richard's "trophies" were armed when he shot them?
I bet he feels like a real MAN. He's like Ted "the nut" Nugent he only shoots things that can't shoot back, real tough.

Re: Hagan undecided on gun vote

Quigley — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:44:17 -0400

These "mayors" exhibit their ignorance on the subject. This amendment is to protect citizens who have LEGAL handguns. Currently, even though you have the permit to carry a handgun (having jumped though all the hoops) in your resident state, it is very hard to travel from state to state; because states tend to make minor changes their laws occasionally. Every gun owner I know is also against ILLEGAL GUNS. I certainly hope Senator Hagan understands better than the mayors.

Re: Hagan undecided on gun vote

ncpoli — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:51:26 -0400

What do these mayors mean by "illegal guns"? Doesn't this protect people who actually follow the law?

Re: Bill would allow guns in restaurants

murf26 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:51:08 -0400

You're right about the thugs...they don't care about having a permit...THAT'S WHY THEY ARE CALLED BAD GUYS! The law-abiding citizen is not a thug. Maybe you need to ask some of your friends/family if they carry. Actually, North Carolina is a "traditional' open carry state. Just watch those 'gun free' zones. When a bad guy sees those signs, he knows that by law, he has open pickins' to anyone walking around and that the law-abiding citizens have had to leave their guns in their cars. Just look at the shootings in the last couple of weeks...ALL IN GUN-FREE ZONES. I would bet you that the majority of shootings are in gun-free zones. And you know what? GUN-FREE ZONES TO THE LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN MEANS FREE-GUN ZONES TO THE BAD GUYS. Think about it!

Re: How to title a controversial bill

cornbread — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:32:08 -0400

Real people, real problem, really recently.

Here ya go.

If we only did this to every straight couple that called the police, we could "stimulate" the bailbondsman industry and increase revenue from court fees.

Re: How to title a controversial bill

meckcommish — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:20:33 -0400

Lawrence V Texas only prohibited prosecution if the behavior occured in a 'private' setting. The statement in the article above that 'state statutes were found unconstitutional' by this decision is untrue. In fact, Mecklenburg County (Charlotte, NC) arrests roughly 250 homosexuals a year for either a 'crime against nature' or 'soliciting a crime against nature'. Proof that the law is being used to arrest, prosecute and jail those that 'solicit' such behavior. The above is a good example of unformed reporters who claim what they 'think' the US Supreme Court said versus what it actually said.