I am quite sure that there is a “Sensible” explanation to the following question and would be extremely interested in understanding that explanation. Regarding the January 26th edition, there were two articles, one by State Representative Humason and another by Councilor Sweeney. Why does the article from Mr. Humason have a “Disclaimer” on his views and Mrs. Sweeney does not? Because we don’t always remember to put it on every column, which is our policy. The views expressed in these columns are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of the Westfield News.
To all the supporters of the Federal Government’s push to restrict, regulate, ban or in the worst case, confiscate firearms that are legally owned. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO KNOW WHY I OWN A FIREARM. I am a woman, 5.3. I am athletic, physically fit and though I am strong for my size I am no match for any man. I will fight but my chances are slim that I could adequately protect myself if assaulted. Although I speak only for myself I would point out this describes almost all women. I am alone most of the time and have no one to depend on except myself. I don’t have the money to continually pay for a security system and am not home enough to properly care for a dog. My firearm is what I have to keep me safe and give me an edge against a criminal who would hurt me. It is still no guarantee I would be able to remove it from its mandated lock box but my chances are better with my firearm then without it. My situation echoes throughout this country ? single mothers protecting their children, the elderly whose neighborhood has declined and cannot move, the battered wife hiding from an abusive spouse or me, normal people who just want to live quietly but safe. I could be your mother, daughter, wife or sister.My question to you is: Will YOU feel responsible if you support guns laws that allow my firearm to be restricted and an intruder breaks into my home rapes and kills me? Or limit the amount of bullets I can have when gang invasions are commonplace? I don’t want to end up like Dr. Petit’s wife and daughters in Cheshire, CT. Before jumping on the media bandwagon – check your facts. At this time in history we have more laws then we ever have. And guess what? We still have child molestations, rapes, animal abuse, elderly abuse, random beatings, drunk driving deaths, child pornography, human trafficking, and murder. And that’s because you cannot and will not ever be able to control human nature. You can only protect yourself from it.
Hi PulseLine, this is in response to the person about banning violent video games. . .are you kidding me??? I am in my twenties and have been playing video games for many years now along with many of my friends. By no means do these games make me or anybody who play them lose sight of what is just a game, and what happens in the real world. First person shooter games came out in the late 80’s. Did that turn any child into a crazed killer then? No it didn’t. Fighting/FPS’s/Action or “violent” games as you call them, generate billions of dollars of revenue each year and calls for a huge amount of jobs. Ever think of how many people would be out of their job if they were not allowed to make these? All of the writers, producers, sound and video technicians, that list goes on forever. What about all the stores that sell these games? They would easily be put out of business. All that money generated from advertisement would be gone. The economy drop would be disastrous. So what about in a couple years when I have kids? Am I not going to allow them to play Harry Potter because they fight in it? How about Star Wars?? Should they ban that because it is about fighting? By you standards we would be banning almost every game that had anything to do with the army, flying, hunting, ghosts/supernaturals, zombies, all RPG’s (role playing games), and almost every game that has anything to do with a large city. Let me ask you, should we ban racing games because racing is dangerous and our kids might try it??? So this leaves puzzle games and sports games, well I guess we should ban hockey because they can fight, football because you are trying to jump on a person which is violent. All boxing/wrestling games because that’s violent. So now were left with puzzle games and a couple sports games which the majority of gamers or even normal people do not like. So I guess we can just go ahead and ban video games in general. Just because you like Pacman does not mean the rest of the world should have to suffer through it, it’s entertaining for what, 5 minutes, come on. If anything banning violent video games would cause huge riots and an economy drop worse than the great depression. The only way I see banning them as a benefit is maybe some school grades will go up, but maybe not. I know in many kids cases, you take away something they enjoy doing in their free time, it just makes them want to work so much less. Let me tell you if this was to happen, the bad repercussions would be astronomically larger than any benefit that came out of this ridiculous idea. I ask you and anybody who agrees with you to really think about what I have said before making another comment like that. Thank you and keep up the good work Westfield News.
Now here’s a question that I think deserves to be answered: does the president of Westfield State College live in Westfield or just work here?
Yeah, I hear all this stuff about guns, and guns rights, and people with guns, their rights… how about if they make when you get a gun license, make you go through a psychological evaluation, and they give you a drug test, a periodic drug test, when you’re an owner of a gun, and a lie detector test.
Yes, John Kerry has been confirmed as Secretary of State. Now they want to put Barney Frank in there? Another joke? Or even better, Scott Brown: the biggest joke of all. Both are liars. Both fill their pockets with money from business. So, they’re both liars. Do we really want them people representing us in this state?
Dear Pulse line, A dirty trick during the California Gold Rush was salting a worthless claim. A shotgun shell filled with gold dust was fired into worthless rock to make it appear a rich claim! How could the first test taken by the anti industry activists, show so many harmful toxic chemicals including e-coli on an abandon mill site 20 years after it closed down? The Mass D.E. P. has retested this site three times and found no such dangerous chemicals! Now the anti industry activists want another test done on a site they are sure that contain toxic chemicals! Please remember they want to keep Russell Green Clean and Pristine at all costs and All is fair in love and war!
The anti-gun, loony left type that wrote into your newspaper on Monday is trying to cherry pick the constitutional amendment in order to propagandize her point of view. This person failed to complete the writing in the second amendment which in all fairness I will do now. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Did you forgot the rest of the quote lady or are you trying to misinform the people to your one sided opinion?
