This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • xandevalinour Jan 24, 5:11 p.m.

    @the yoda not sure where you got your information about the school being gun free but its not. http://www.lonestar.edu/weapons-premises.htm

  • virginiagoldenleaf Jan 24, 11:19 a.m.

    To all the sheriffs of NC and to the NC Sheriff's Association; Have you all forgotten what the oath of office that you swore to uphold said? To uphold the US Constitution and the NC Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?

    So now tell me, if you are enforcing a law that is against the US Constitution or the NC Constitution, are you a "Domestic Enemy of the US & NC Constitution"? Yes you are, it doesnt matter if you have a badge or not, for if you obey and enforce a law that goes against the constitution of the state and government, you are an enemy of the people.

    Please bear in mind that the second amendment says: " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    It is a simple question, will you uphold the NC and US constitution or are you an enemy of the people of NC and against the people of NC?

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 24, 10:52 a.m.

    “The CSA found that out in 1865.” - Grand Union


    What did the UK find out in 1776?


    “They had little effect on overall murder rates because guns never were a factor in them to start with.” – Grand Union


    So why do you keep comparing the United States of America to the UK, if it’s not apples to apples? Why not compare our great country to some other country that had a high gun murder rate, that banned guns, and then saw a large drop?


    “Take guns out of the US equation the rate in the US will fall to close to UK rates.” – Grand Union


    That’s your guess and conjecture because of your irrational fear of guns. Why not use a real world case to prove your point rather than the UK, which doesn’t support your point at all?

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 24, 10:39 a.m.

    “Your continued use of the UK... which had a much lower rate BEFORE they banned guns, and the rate went up AFTER banning them, proves the OPPOSITE of your point, it's weird you keep bringing it up.” – junkmail5


    What?!!! No wonder he ignored my question about what the UK rate was BEFORE the gun bans. I hate deception and hypocrisy!

  • Lightfoot3 Jan 24, 10:26 a.m.

    “There is no unconstitutional leap to add other weapons that were not even available in the 1790s.” – Grand Union


    But at some point it does become unconstitutional because the only weapons left are ineffective at personal protection and securing a free state. Your draconian approach to eliminate all handguns, rifles that fire more than one shot, and shotguns that fire more than two shots will cost many lives. Granted, you may save some lives, but precedence has shown (despite your irrational refusal to acknowledge it) that thousands have saved themselves, family members, and others by firing more than ONE shot. One of the latest (which I’m sure you also ignore) was that mother and child hiding in the attic in Georgia. The intruder had worked his way to her with a crowbar before he was finally repelled with SIX shots (5 hits). Under your proposal, she and her child would likely be dead.

  • junkmail5 Jan 24, 9:14 a.m.

    yeah and the UK is such a terrible place to live- Grand Union

    well, the food is awful, and the weather is too... and they have to put warning labels on sale of silverware lest someone under 18 buy it and go on a crime rampage.... soon I expect they'll require everyone to wear a helmet when going outside... there's a reason they call it the nanny state...

    But the scenery is quite lovely.

  • junkmail5 Jan 24, 9:09 a.m.

    There is no unconstitutional leap to add other weapons that were not even available in the 1790s.- Grand Union

    Of course there is. Just as there is one to add television and radio to the first amendment, even though they didn't exist in 1790 either.

    You have no need for such a rifle. period.- Grand Union

    Need is irrelevant. I have a _right_ to one.

    And for good reason.

  • 68_dodge_polara Jan 24, 8:59 a.m.

    "Its not your or his job to "understand" the Constitution." - Grand Union

    Clearly the best and most revealing statement made so far. Thank you pointing out where the banners are heading us for.

  • 68_dodge_polara Jan 24, 8:56 a.m.

    "You have no need for such a rifle. period. You want one but thats not the same thing." Grand Union

    This is stated by someone that states below that all firearms should be banned. Paints a clear picture that the banners want to start with certain mean looking firearms but won't stop until everything is banned and only criminals have them with law abiding people having no way to protect them selves and families from assailants welding anything, firearm or not.

  • Grand Union Jan 24, 8:14 a.m.

    "Why are folks worried? Because things always start out small. Case Study- take the UK for example, look where they are today, and look where it all started. Bit by bit, piece by piece, little by little. It all starts out benign and eventually snow-balls to total control."

    yeah and the UK is such a terrible place to live....oh the horror of having 1/4 the murder rate.....
    8000 Americans die every year because of a hobby and you call that freedom. How free do you think the parents feel who buried their children last year?

  • Grand Union Jan 24, 8:12 a.m.

    "So, I assume your drift on that comments was that it's not OK for someone to force gun ownership on you, right? But your idea of freedom is that you think it's stupid of me to think I want, or need, a semi-automatic sporting rifle that looks scary to you, and you don't see that as forcing your ideas on me?"

    You have no need for such a rifle. period. You want one but thats not the same thing.

  • Strawberry Letter 23 Beth Wilson Jan 23, 7:39 p.m.

    What is wrong with some people? Are they really that stupid? Nobody is going to take their guns away. That not only would not happen, but could not happen! It's called the Constitution. Yes, it's been re-written some, but these people who think they will actually have their guns taken (these law abiding people, I might add) have nothing, nada, to worry about. That will NEVER happen! Quit being paranoid!

    Beth

  • Glock Ranger Jan 23, 7:26 p.m.

    So, let me see if I have this straight, Sheriff: You say that law abiding folk don't need to worry about you, or your deputies, showing up to take their guns away as long as the law says we can have them. So, we don't need to worry about you, until the law changes.

    When the law changes, lawful gun owners will not be lawful anymore. That's what we are worried about. That's why we are standing up, shaking our fists, and, as law abiding citizens, making known our concerns. We would like to keep the law from changing.

    You did say that you would be along to enforce the laws, right? I believe we are looking for you to say that you actually understand the constitutions you have sworn to uphold, even if the lawmakers make laws that violate the constitutions of the U.S. and N.C.

    That's really what you meant to say. Right?

  • Glock Ranger Jan 23, 7:19 p.m.

    OMG! The NRA is imposing gun rights on me? Really?!?

    How ridiculous. No one can impose rights on anyone else. If you choose to exclude yourself from gun ownership, go right ahead. That's called freedom. I doubt the NRA, or anyone else is going to knock on your door and force you to have a gun.

    So, I assume your drift on that comments was that it's not OK for someone to force gun ownership on you, right? But your idea of freedom is that you think it's stupid of me to think I want, or need, a semi-automatic sporting rifle that looks scary to you, and you don't see that as forcing your ideas on me?

    Does that logic bother you, at all?

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 5:20 p.m.

    OMG - the stupidity of some people is just overwhelming. The only guns the president wants to ban are the automatic rifles that are nothing but a means for mass destruction -hnelms3

    Uh... you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Automatic weapons have been highly restricted since 1934.

    Virtually nobody has killed anyone with an automatic weapon in the US in over 50 years.

    So I agree that "the stupidity of some people is just overwhelming" but mainly because they are trying to discuss a topic they clearly know nothing about.

    Further, the shooter took 10 minutes.

    Which is more than enough time to kill 40 people with a musket, let alone any modern firearm of any kind, even a single-shot one.

    And he DID use a "regular" rifle that fires _exactly_ as fast as many common hunting rifles.

    But it "looks" scary, and you clearly have no idea how it even operates, so you want to ban what you don't understand

  • oldparent Jan 23, 5:14 p.m.

    OMG - the stupidity of some people is just overwhelming. The only guns the president wants to ban are the automatic rifles that are nothing but a means for mass destruction. No one needs to own such a weapon! It was designed for military use not the "crazy right wing militia crew." The only tyrant I see is the NRA imposing their "gun rights" on everyone else.

    All of the 20 children would not have been killed in Sandy Hook if the shooter had just had a regular rifle that had to be reloaded numerous times. It only took the shooter 2 minutes to kill 26 innocent children/adults and most had been shot 8-11 times. If you don't see anything disturbing about this then you need to re-examine your morals.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 4:15 p.m.

    Cars are heavily regulated and death toll is falling steadily despite ever increasing numbers and use of cars. - Grand Union

    But... according to you, guns aren't regulated AT ALL.

    And deaths have been dropping steadily on those too!

    So I guess we should just stick to what is dropping those deaths year after year, right?

  • The Deadhead Jan 23, 4:15 p.m.

    teleman60 sez "I would bet nearly every voice spouting all this pro guns nonsense is in possession of at least one illegal weapon (unregistered pistol, sawed off shotgun or rifle...) Why else would you all be so afraid?"

    LOL. Unless you live in Durham County, you are not required to register any firearms with anyone. LOL

    Why are folks worried? Because things always start out small. Case Study- take the UK for example, look where they are today, and look where it all started. Bit by bit, piece by piece, little by little. It all starts out benign and eventually snow-balls to total control.

    In the UK: The Gun License Act 1870, The Pistols Act 1903, The Firearms Act of 1920, The 1937 Firearms Act, The Firearms Act 1968, Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, and the 1997 Firearms Act (that pretty much bans handguns except black powder). The UK firearms laws have more acts than a Shakespeare play.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 4:09 p.m.

    amazingly enough not everyone is a racist like you- Grand Union

    And neither am I racist.

    I'm just telling you why there's no political will to do anything about what you perceive as a problem.

    When one minority drug dealer shoots another, most people do not care.

    It's just like how tons of young minority teens go missing all the time, and nobody cares.

    But as soon as it's a pretty white girl, it's all over Nancy Grace or whatever.

    That ain't _me_ being racist... because I'm not. It's me explaining to you what _actually happens_ here.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 4:07 p.m.

    Wrong yet again.- Grand Union

    Of course it's not wrong.

    Your continued use of the UK... which had a much lower rate BEFORE they banned guns, and the rate went up AFTER banning them, proves the OPPOSITE of your point, it's weird you keep bringing it up.

    But yes, most of the gun murders here are drug related, and since nobody cares about them dying it's why you don't hear any interest in the issue unless rich white people get shot, which is fairly rare.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 4:05 p.m.

    If you go back a few decades the federal government was going to make individuals pay for the mandated background checks or have the local lawenforcement enforce it. A few sheriffs stood up against this action and the Government had to find a way to do checks. And this was also upheld by the courts.
    davisgw

    uh... not quite, no.

    The government wanted the sheriffs to handle it TEMPORARILY until they got the national system up and running.

    The USSC ruled that Sheriffs don't work for the federal government, so they weren't required to comply.

    Most DID comply anyway FYI... and once the national system was up and running that is what has been used ever since.

    Here's a good rundown on what happened-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

    In particular-
    "The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks."

  • 68_dodge_polara Jan 23, 4:04 p.m.

    "Take guns out of the US equation the rate in the US will fall to close to UK rates."

    No it won't. We have very different cultures. What would actually drop the crime rate is keeping repeat violent offenders in prison where they belong. But then they wouldn't have an excuse to trample law abiding citizens rights now would they?

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 4:02 p.m.

    UK murder rates are probably near irreducible lows, those rates are the end point not the start.- Grand Union

    Course, they went UP after the 97 gun ban... and stayed up for well over a decade....

    Take guns out of the US equation the rate in the US will fall to close to UK rates.
    Grand Union

    You simply have no evidence to support that.... showing us a nation that had a low murder rate BEFORE a gun ban, and still had one after (even though it spiked upward) is not evidence that a nation with a higher murder rate would get the other nations rate if you banned guns.

    Especially since many other nations with HIGH gun ownership ALSO have low murder rates.

    Which again tells you the GUN isn't the issue.

  • joshro Jan 23, 3:52 p.m.

    Only from my cold dead body!

  • Greyhound_Girl Jan 23, 3:52 p.m.

    teleman60 - I take offense to your comments. I have recently (in the last 2 years) become a LEGAL gun owner. After being raised by parents (in the NE) where I was taught nothing about guns, except that they are 'BAD'. I enjoy shooting.

    I have taken a number of training classes and gotten my concealed carry permit. I enjoy target shooting with my rifles, long barrel shotgun, and my pistols and every one of my guns was purchased LEGALLY at a gun store with either a pistol permit, or verification of my concealed carry permit.

    It's not FEAR...it is concern about changes to laws that we are already abiding by and questions being raise.

    Please keep your ignorance and blanket comments to yourself.

  • lrfarms27572 Jan 23, 3:49 p.m.

    Nobody is going to take anybodies guns and that's the real problem. We should be registering all of them so when they get stolen we know what got taken...

    teleman60

    just as a simple question....how many things do you own that are registered with some form of government are not taxed?

    house? land? cars? boats? business? income?

    if you mandate full registration, which for ownership sake is not a bad idea, i'm afraid the gov't will soon find some way of taxing it.

    furthermore, requiring registration of firearms with the gov't is providing said gov't with the laundry list of who will likely be willing to go against it.

    Our country's founders clearly stated that the right to own firearms is provided for the people to protect themselves from the gov't.

  • disgusted2010 Jan 23, 3:49 p.m.

    Grand Union: "Your rights are simply what those that RULE you permit" (Emphasis added).

    In this country we have people who REPRESENT us, they do not RULE. When they fail to represent us they are voted out or if they exceed their authority they are prosecuted or impeached.

    You can write trite comebacks to those posting here forever. The point is that you wish to force your beliefs and ideas on those who believe differently. This is no different from those in elected positions who are attempting to push their ideas on the citizens and choose to ignore the Constitution. The difference is that they will most probably be voted out at the first opportunity.

  • Pretzel Logic Jan 23, 3:46 p.m.

    RE : We should be registering all of them so when they get stolen we know what got taken...

    Registration is only good for two things :

    Taxation and Confiscation

    RE : I've been listening to this nonsense for 35 years and it scares me more now than it did in 1975!

    Works from both sides...

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:41 p.m.

    "Annual average of people killed in alcohol related auto accidents 10,000 plus all the people killed under other circumstances in automobile deaths. I don't hear anyone moaning loud and clear over these needless deaths."

    well this thread is about guns so why would you??? and why would another bad situation be an excuse to do nothing about all bad situations?????
    As has been explained to you before, Cars are heavily regulated and death toll is falling steadily despite ever increasing numbers and use of cars. We have tens of thousands of LEO every day checking that people are following the road regulations and we use them far far more than we use guns and still the death rate will soon be lower than for guns.........regulation is working for cars...and would for guns if it was ever actually tried.

  • delta29alpha Jan 23, 3:38 p.m.

    If you choose to be independent and self reliant in other words free, then buy a firearm and learn to shoot it....well. train in realistic scenarios not just target shooting. There is a big difference between simple target shooting and combat\survival shooting. it should become second nature and you should become confident enough in your capabilities that you will not panic and use your weapon prematurely or hesitate when you should act. Remember in the final analysis nobody cares as much or has as much at stake in you or your families survival as you do.

  • rocket Jan 23, 3:36 p.m.

    "but a hobby kills 8000 a year including many many children and we do.....nothing"

    I hate to bring rational thought to the table but the people doing the killing are not the ones that legally collect guns as a hobby.

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:35 p.m.

    "It's only when we get the rare case of a bunch of well-off white people being shot that anyone gets into an uproar about this."

    amazingly enough not everyone is a racist like you. A dead black kid is still someones kid. My opposition to US gun free for all did not start with Sandy hook and you know that.

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:32 p.m.

    "which side is killing 8000 people every year.- Grand Union
    The majority of them being gang/drug related, generally between people with criminal records.
    So new laws wouldn't do anything to help that."

    Wrong yet again. Brits have similar war on drugs and about as ineffective....difference is that the drug dealers and gangs can't easily get hold of guns. And whilst many of the deaths are of people with "criminal records" many many are not.
    Criminals get guns because you get guns so easily.

  • davisgw Jan 23, 3:31 p.m.

    If you go back a few decades the federal government was going to make individuals pay for the mandated background checks or have the local lawenforcement enforce it. A few sheriffs stood up against this action and the Government had to find a way to do checks. And this was also upheld by the courts.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 3:30 p.m.

    the rest through straw sales because regulation is so lax as to be essentially non existent. Fix those things and Criminals will get far less guns and they will be priced out of the hands of your average gang member or nut. _grand union

    this is the first good, practical, suggestion I've ever seen from you on this issue!

    I brought this up several days ago... the ATF is underfunded, under-manned, and largely handcuffed by regulation from reasonable enforcement/policing of FFLs.

    Fix those things and you fix a lot. WITHOUT any new laws or restrictions for legal gun owners.

    Its possible to make guns but not easily- Grand Union

    Actually... we're pretty close to be able to make em with 3D printers.

    A group recently built an AR-15 entirely with a 3D printer... and it fired half a dozen times before failing.

    That will only get easier as the tech improves.

    And that's pretty much the end of any sort of gun control anywhere in the modern world.

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:29 p.m.

    "it would reduce murders by about 75% to levels they are in every other Western Democracy. Grand Union
    And that's ALSO a lie... the european murder rates were far lower than ours BEFORE they had gun control. Because the GUNS aren't the problem."

    Guns never were a problem because they were never allowed to become a problem. Bans only happened when massacres happened like Dunblane. They had little effect on overall murder rates because guns never were a factor in them to start with. UK murder rates are probably near irreducible lows, those rates are the end point not the start.
    Take guns out of the US equation the rate in the US will fall to close to UK rates.

  • teleman60 Jan 23, 3:26 p.m.

    I would bet nearly every voice spouting all this pro guns nonsense is in possession of at least one illegal weapon (unregistered pistol, sawed off shotgun or rifle...) Why else would you all be so afraid?

    I agree with all other posters that see the arrogant big man voices as what frightens me -- A LICENSED GUNSMITH.

    I've been listening to this nonsense for 35 years and it scares me more now than it did in 1975!

    Nobody is going to take anybodies guns and that's the real problem. We should be registering all of them so when they get stolen we know what got taken...

  • dollibug Jan 23, 3:25 p.m.

    It is interesting to see what kind of comments are posted....everyone has an opinion....and some of them do not count. Federal LAW overrules State Law....It is also interesting to see how people interpret the laws....when there should be only one legal and lawful way. It is what it is. Perhaps people get in trouble when assumptions are made.

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:25 p.m.

    "Grand Union, clearly you do not understand the overarching issue at stake here. Yesterday you spoke of your dual citizenship. As a SUBJECT of the UK, you don't understand that CITIZENS have rights that do not flow from the whim of a monarch (or his government). In the US we are citizens. Clearly you wish for us to be subjects with no rights that you don't agree with."

    semantics. Your rights are simply what those that rule you permit. The CSA found that out in 1865. The only advantage we have is a tradition that lets us choose our leaders and a tradition that those leaders give up power when the law says they should. This is the case in the UK and it is the case here. No difference at all.
    Case in point...WW2 The Gov superseded all private industry and sent people off to fight whether or not they wished to do so.....that is the reality of power, be thankful they use it so rarely.

  • davisgw Jan 23, 3:24 p.m.

    Annual average of people killed in alcohol related auto accidents 10,000 plus all the people killed under other circumstances in automobile deaths. I don't hear anyone moaning loud and clear over these needless deaths.

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 3:20 p.m.

    so IF federal agents tried to enforce Obama's EOs as legislation, when it is illegal to do so... the sheriff could indeed stop said agents from trying to enforce EOs as legislation... even if it meant detaining them.- offthegrid

    No, they couldn't.

    Because sheriffs don't get to decide what is constitutional or not.

    That's what courts are for.

    Sheriffs don't have any authority to prevent federal law enforcement from enforcing federal laws.

    We already proved to you the "court case ruling" you cited was made up.... and the courts issued stated was EXPLICIT that Sheriffs could not stop federal LEOs from doing their jobs.

    it's time to find a new conspiracy theory to fixate on.

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:18 p.m.

    "I can't believe some of the commets that you people are making. You really trust the government?"

    More than I trust you.....

    " While my pop gun might not be as good as a SAW or Ma Duce (.50 cal machine gun) it does make me feel better and may make some despots think twice. This is why the current POTUS wants to take our guns away."

    and you are nuts to think that. Thanks for helping the gun control cause :)

  • junkmail5 Jan 23, 3:17 p.m.

    which side is killing 8000 people every year.- Grand Union

    The majority of them being gang/drug related, generally between people with criminal records.

    So new laws wouldn't do anything to help that.

    Ending the war on drugs might though- you ok with that?

    As a society we don't seem ok with that... and seem fairly ok with bad guys killing each other.

    It's only when we get the rare case of a bunch of well-off white people being shot that anyone gets into an uproar about this.

    What other hobby do we allow that kills 8000 people that are not taking part in the hobby?- Grand Union

    That's not even remotely true. Again, most of those killed are criminals themselves. That's why nobody really cares much most of the time.

    it would reduce murders by about 75% to levels they are in every other Western Democracy.
    Grand Union

    And that's ALSO a lie... the european murder rates were far lower than ours BEFORE they had gun control. Because the GUNS aren't the problem.

  • Grand Union Jan 23, 3:16 p.m.

    "Grand Union: "12000 gun murders a year..."
    In the past you stated 8000 murders a year. There must have been 4000 shootings overnight."

    LOL there are about 12000 murders using guns in the US every years, the 8000 figure takes into account the relative efficency of guns versus other methods. Typical murder rate in a Western Democracy (UK Germany etc) where guns are rarely used is 1/4 that of the US so its a safe assumption that guns are responsible for the 8000 extra deaths over the 4000 that would otherwise occur with humans being humans.

  • cwmllc1952 Jan 23, 3:14 p.m.

    I actually listened with mouth shut and the President said nothing about taking any guns.He did say he did not have the power to do that. He did say he would ask CONGRESS to "Ban the sale of any NEW ASSAULT WEAPONS"
    His actions realisticly did not affect NC as we are pretty much already in compliance.
    If you have bought a firearm lately you already know that.

  • glarg Jan 23, 3:12 p.m.

    Nice to see some government employees honoring the Constitution for a change.

  • disgusted2010 Jan 23, 3:10 p.m.

    Grand Union, clearly you do not understand the overarching issue at stake here. Yesterday you spoke of your dual citizenship. As a SUBJECT of the UK, you don't understand that CITIZENS have rights that do not flow from the whim of a monarch (or his government). In the US we are citizens. Clearly you wish for us to be subjects with no rights that you don't agree with.

  • concerncitizen Jan 23, 3:08 p.m.

    Here is right! Only the criminals are killing people with guns, in schools, churches, homes(murder/suicide), movie theaters. These folks lie so often and so well, we just about start to believe them. Then another solid citizen just about kills three people at a gun show! Are the bad guys killing people. YES, but they can hardly keep up with the solid citizens, and there (AK47) hunting and target guns!

  • Red Green Jan 23, 3:08 p.m.

    "There is no difference! do I get a prize?" Grand Union

    With the operative word being educated I'd have to adamantly say... no!

  • barry333 Jan 23, 3:02 p.m.

    well there was 3 gun shows and some RESPONSIBLE owners guns went off! WOW!

Oldest First