Comments on: NY Times Slams Coburn Gun Amendment

By: jlt

jlt — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:09:50 +0000

Coburn is right.Screw the nyt!

By: Sallie Jones

Sallie Jones — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:40:04 +0000

Bloomberg’s push to rid New York City of illegal guns has seen results. The number of guns recovered from crime scenes in the city dropped by 13 percent from last year. The number of people shot to death dropped from 347 in 2007 to 292 in 2008. Overall, murders increased from 2007 to 2008, but only due to an increase in crimes committed with knives.

The implication is that Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun jihad has been successful, despite an increase in murders, simply because fewer of those murders were committed with guns. Somehow, we are to believe that murders committed with knives are less tragic than those committed with guns. That’s something in which to take comfort in your last seconds of consciousness, as you bleed out from your slashed carotid artery.

By: Gus

Gus — Tue, 26 May 2009 04:31:16 +0000

Everyone with a brain should realize that criminals will alwasys have guns no matter what the the law allows for or disallows. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms will only benefit us all.

By: David

David — Thu, 21 May 2009 18:29:13 +0000

And why does anyone care what the NYT thinks? Dems just got pissed off because they wanted the credit card bill to pass. It has been legal to carry in National Forests and state parks, but not national parks. This law will give states the right to regulate gun laws, and will create less confusion.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 16 May 2009 03:44:39 +0000

Like Jay said, Coburn is no better then the rest of those who he rails against. How was this related to a credit card bill. Would he have voted for the bill had he not inserted the gun ammendment, I don’t believe so.

By: Charles

Charles — Fri, 15 May 2009 21:14:26 +0000

If the New York Times doesn’t like the legislation then Coburn is probably right .The NYT is adamantly anti-gun.A bunch of pointy headed New York liberals.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:55:18 +0000

As well it should. Coburn rails against adding earmarks to legislation, but when he adds an amendment such as this to a completely unrelated piece of legislation, he is just as guilty as the pork-spenders. If Tom Coburn wants loaded firearms in our National Parks, he should write and present a bill specifically addressing the issue.