JVB. BANK RIGHT. Our drive-thru lanes are open for business during the COVID-19 Emergency! Coudersport Office and Lillibridge Place Office in Port Allegany. (West Mill St.)

Stoltz Of Coudersport

Howard's Inc, Coudersport, PA

xxx

xxx

Really Rural Real Estate Closed Due To Coronavirus

Really Rural Real Estate Closed Due To Coronavirus

Southern Tier Polaris, Olean, NY

Do You Know: You can buy this marquee ad on Solomon's words for the wise for your business or event for only $10. per day! It's just one of the low cost advertising options available. Your ad is viewed 40,000 to 70,000 times every day. Email us for information on other ad locations.

Solomon's Auction & Yard Sale Page

Suplizio for Senate

JVB

UPMC Cole

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Rendell Wants Assault Gun Ban

WESB NEWS--Gov. Rendell Wants Assault Gun Ban in Comonwealth

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has sent a message to Pennsylvania lawmakers to support the re-enactment of a federal ban on assault weapons.

The message was delivered to Pennsylvania lawmakers 11 days after three Pittsburgh Police officers were shot and killed by a man with an assault rifle.

Rendell says quote time and time again in Pennsylvania our police are finding themselves outgunned. Rendell also would like a law passed requiring citizens to report lost or stolen firearms.

14 comments :

Anonymous said...

Another instance of a politician using an unfortunate incident to try and convince the voters that they're doing something to protect us. The rifle, no matter what style or action type, did not kill those officers. A human did. How about enacting legislation that assists folks in getting help with their problems?

Eric said...

I support a federal assault weapons ban 100%. Assault weapons have no useful purpose to the everyday average American. The only groups that need them are law enforcement and the military. I understand that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but law enforcement officers with 9mm pistols don't really stand a chance against a madman with an AK-47.

Anonymous said...

10-4 on that. As tragic as this was, and it is tragic, blaming and penalizing all the law abiding people out there is no way to curb this conduct. If this nut didn't have a rifle he would have used a shotgun. If he didn't have that he'd have used a handgun. If he didn't have that he'd have use a knife. If......

Anonymous said...

Maybe those officers would have had more of an oppurtunity to defend themselves if they weren't up against an automatic weapon. It takes alot more time to kill 3 trained officers with a shotgun or knife than it does an assault weapon. You would complain if he sat back and did nothing just the same. It is unfortunate that it took an incident to make something happen, but not unmerited.

Anonymous said...

And if you ban assault weapons, then the only ones who will have them is the criminals. Do you really think that a ban will stop those who are intent on wreaking havok? Make the punishment fit the crime.

Anonymous said...

Every Citizen of the United States has the right to keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment does not specify, what type and it never should. If we are controlled on one type of weapon, soon it will be all, we cannot allow the government to control this. Yes, I feel very sorry for those families whose lost their loved ones, but that is the line of duty they chose. If the government gets their hands in this we will all suffer. The government fears an armed public. If we are unarmed, we are in a world of trouble, just think about it. Think Hitler, or Stalin. Look at how many innocent people lost their lives all because they were unarmed. If anything should be done we need to enforce stronger laws to do away with anyone who is not abiding by the current gun laws in effect. I say we bring back the noose or the firing line and this country would straighten itself out!!!!

Thirty Something said...

um... not to point out the obvious or anything...

But the first ammendment gives us the right to free speech. However, there are limits to that right. For instance - one cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded place if there is, in fact, no fire. Why? Because it's dangerous. And could cause panic.

I wonder if assault weapons are dangerous or if they could cause panic.

The point is, there is precident for limiting a right if, when taken to the extreme, is more dangerous to others. Using the 2nd ammendment as a right to own a weapon that is not useful for hunting, nor for immediate self defense ("hold on theif, let me just set up my AK-47 here, I'll be ready to shoot you in a jiff!"), is cowardly. Unless your plan is take up arms against the government. If that's the case, why not move to Texas. I hear you'll fit in well down there.

Anonymous said...

Again the only people that will not have them are the ones who would buy them legally. The criminals will get theirs through the black market or theft or some other way and innocent people will still be killed. Maybe law enforcement should carry bigger guns... We at home should be able to have what we want.

Rep. Chick said...

I am quoting this from my "The Week" weekly political publication, April 17, 2009 issue...
"Pittsbugh, PA Cops ambushed: A gunman who was reportedly fearful that President Obama wanted to take away his guns ambushed 3 Pittsburg police officers, killing them all.
The officers were responding to a 911 report of a domestic dispute, but the dispatcher failed to mention that the man involved in the dispute was armed."


Now here is the rest of the story, they responded to a 911 report BUT WERE NOT INFORMED THAT THE MAN WAS ARMED! Sounds like human error, these men were protecting and serving and were not informed of the full details of the situation, they should have been!

Anonymous said...

Rendell wants to be very careful on this one.

The Commonwealth of PA is to damn broke (thanks to him) to miss out on the fees and taxes in regards to the sale of fire arms!

Anonymous said...

founding fathers didn't contemplate the use of guns for hunting. at that time in our history everyone hunted. that was a given. our founding fathers wanted us to have guns to prevent oppressive federal governments. the militias the 2nd amendment refers to were not militias to protect from foreign threats but domestic threats. so the "you don't us an AK47 for hunting and hence it should be banned" argument is bogus from the start. now if our founding fathers were alive today would they see this issue differently???? i haven't a clue but the fact remains the 2nd amendment is there and yes it is to arm citizens against an oppressive federal government. may seem drastic by today's standards but you can't revise history.

Anonymous said...

I lot of our founding fathers thought slavery was okay and many owned slaves themselves so its easy to see not all their decisions were the right ones....

we should make it harder to get a gun...when you can walk into a gun store and walk out 10 minutes later with a new gun and a case of ammo that sounds a little too easy to me....

Anonymous said...

man kills !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not the gun....punish the hell out of the person that kills... instead of letting them stay in a plush prison..

Anonymous said...

Gun's just make it easier. Jump off your we have rights high horse for a second and tell me why any of you need an automatic weapon. Your all right, criminals will get guns, but we shouldn't make it easier for them by every household in america having an automatic weapon. It is easy for most people in this area, you've never been face to face with this kind of violence. I left the City for that reason. I support the right to bear arms, but i also support gun control. Because some people are just too stupid to learn how to properly use them.