text:
When is the NRA going to at least put a web page dedicated to the martyrs for the right to own assault weapons? Gutless fools, all of you pro assault weapons. Not gutless?
Honor the victims for your right to own. Petition history books to include the martyrs names and some life stories– won't take up much room for most since their lives were cut short so soon.
The NRA and its supporters in Congress should introduce legislation to honor the victims of 2nd Amendment defense with a memorial on The Mall. I'll contribute, I doubt any of you sad sacks will.
The answer isn't in gun control its who gets the guns
Unarmed teachers had the courage to stand up to the gunman. Will US politicians have the courage to stand up to the NRA?
The one thing all of these tragedies has in common is that the person behind the trigger is mentally unstable. You can outlaw guns, but then you'll need to outlaw knives, then hammers, then rope, then rocks, then fists and then, maybe, just maybe, people will get it.
Chris, please pay attention. These events don't occur with knives hammers or rope.
Thank you Senator Manchin.
The gunman was in a gun free zone. We should teach literacy to our teens. Didn't he see the sign? The Colorado shooting was also in a 'gun free zone'. It's obvious if these nuts want to get the maximum number of deaths, you do it in a 'gun free zone.' That way you're get at least a few minutes of time before someone with a gun can stop them.
The answer IS absolutely in gun control. We have to protect our children.
I'm pro gun, even pro assault rifle. At least I post using my own real name. Who is gutless now? While I do feel bad for the victims of the rampage it could have been avoided by having an armed guard on site. Israel does this and has has this type of event cease. Individuals like you wish to erode the freedoms and values of this country and that needs to stop. Ban all guns then the nut jobs will just get one off the black market of build a bomb. Think I'm lying? Look at how it's going down in Mexico. Banning drugs sure has stopped drugs huh? If a person wants to kill in mass amounts then nothing short of armed security will stop them, sometimes not even them if a bomb is involved. My AK-47 has never gone out on its own on a killing spree and to say that my owning it will eventually lead to me doing an act like these nut jobs is asinine. It's like saying that every sports car owner will drag race eventually. Yea, I know you, a freedom revoking coward that will not post using their own name.
@Peter, they sure do — take a look at China.
Gun control laws will do nothing. He was snagged by the existing laws when he tried to purchase a rifle the week before the shooting. Instead he killed his mom and stole her guns.
For those interested in doing the research, the 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution has ZERO to do with hunting, defending your home or any other sporting purpose. It is singularly and entirely about defending our constitution from tyranny (from within). If you listen to or read the entirety of the US supreme court's recent Heller decision, at one point one of the justices (in exchange with 2nd amendment expert) alludes to the fact that the 2nd amendment could be construed to protect only an assault (military) type rifle. I think this is accurate read and makes complete sense when you consider that a citizen protecting his rights might be fighting the police or military type adversary (heaven forbid).
So when people, who should know better, bring up the fact that assault weapons should be banned because they have no "hunting" or "sporting" use it is clear that they haven't the foggiest understanding of our US Constitution or the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. If we think we have outgrown this meaning or it no longer serves it's intended purpose then propose an amendment and nullify it.
I have to add that most of what I read from the NRA on the subject of the Second Amendment also betrays substantial ignorance (willful ignorance?). Many state constitutions (Florida for one) specifically protect the rights of hunters hunt and citizens to defend their homes, but this is entirely different from the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
you keep assault weapons out of the hands of criminals?
You can ban them for legal ownership…but seriously, how do you do it?
Sounds legit! Since making guns illegal will take them off the street and make them impossible to get, we should make heroin and meth illegal also! Please don't be naive
Should cell phones & motor vehicles be banned? More children are killed & injured in collisions by inattentive drivers than by guns every day.
But chirs, 26 people would not have been killed if the CT shooter had been armed with any of the weapons you listed. In fact, if he had somehow gotten into the building the first few women who confronted him my have been able to subdue him. Armed as he was, the only way to have prevented this tragedy would have been for the principal and teachers to have been similarly armed. With the numbers against him, the shooter would have likely lost in a shootout. A far better outcome than what happened but shootouts in schools, theatres, shopping malls etc. disturb almost all of us. But the NRA's so far successful fight for almost no restrictions on the weapons and ammo private citizens can get leaves this as the only hope we have to prevent episodes like this.
You're totally right that violent people will find violent actions in some fashion. Columbine guys built bombs themselves. Evil still exists.
The "who needs an "assault weapon"?" is a dangerous route to follow. Who needs more than $100k a year?
This country wasn't designed to have to justify every one of your actions before you do them. It is about freedom. Do I need an assault rifle? No. Do I enjoy going to the range with mine? Yes. Will it every be pointed at a person? No.
Chris, grenades, bombs and RPGs are illegal, how many people get killed with them? how many stabbings lead to death? how hard do you have to try to kill someone with a rock?
But what about mental disorder what are they going to do with these nasty people that we all know are dangerous and can at any time decide to take out society. Oh well nothing of course, so its just another FUBAR legislation.
@ LInda,
I'm sure if the teachers had been armed, they would have shot the nutjob instead of throwing themselves at him. True heroes no doubt, but woefully outgunned. Gun grabbers are the ones with blood on their hands. They create gun free zones which are magnets to psychopaths.
The 2nd Amendment makes no rereference to "hunting" or "sporting". It does refer to a "well regulated militia."
Yes! We need to put loaded handguns in kindergartens…. ARE YOU FREAKING STUPID?
We should outlaw cars, because more people are killed by them each year then guns. Also we should
increase the number of law enforcement to police state standards. We will be safe now that guns are off the street, right? No more killings will happen! We have evolved to the point of insanity, where we run off emo then logic. Sweet:-(
At Linda:
No, the unarmed teachers couldn't stand up to the gunman, because they had no weapon. They are all dead. They had the courage to sacrifice their own lives in an attempt to shield their students. It did not work. No one without a gun had the ability to effectively confront/stop the gunman. By the time someone who did have that ability arrived, the cowardly gunman had taken his own life, and the lives of twenty-six others. This is all on the gunman. The NRA had nothing to do with this, nor did politicians.
restrictions on assault rifles – an assault rifle was not used by lanza
psychopaths don't go to gun free zones to kill, they go where-ever their unstable minds take them. Less guns would just mean maybe they'd go there will less ability to kill as many.
People really! Assault type rifles are used in a very small percent of killings. Banning or restricting high cap-mags will do nothing at all to reduce gun violence. We already did that back in Clintons days and the effect was nada. Handguns are 90% of the weapons used to commit murder, not rifles.
"an assault rifle was not used by lanza"
Are you lying or willfully ignorant?
Kudos to you, Sen. Manchin.
"People really! Assault type rifles are used in a very small percent of killings"
Aurora and Sandy Hook. That's enough.
Have people not seen the simpsons episode when they ban guns? The person with a board with a nail in it will be in charge! Defend our freedom! I feel deeply for the familys and there are evil people in this world sadly, but you will have to pry my SKS from my cold dead hands…
One look into that kids face and you can see by his eyes, that kid was disturbed. I don't think everyone should have their guns confiscated.
The mentality behind the person holding the gun should be priority number one. To that end, I point a finger of responsibility to video game makers. Sure, first person shooters are fun, but when people can murder the innocent all day everyday without consequence, it desensitizes the person from the value of life.
I think the FEDS should leave the marijuana war alone and focus on video game companies. Do I think they should ban first person shooters- of course NOT, but in these shooter games, it should be coded into the game that if you intentionally kill an innocent- GAME OVER.
I like checking the graphics and weapons out, but killing innocent people because "you can" is not cool or funny. It's bad programming.
I get what yer trying to say, unlike the mental cases in this room. I don't get it, a armed nation is a free nation. 2nd ammend. Is to keep the people in power, protecting yerself from pychopaths is secondary.
Chicago has one of highest gun homicide rates in the US Where are the members of Congress from Illinois on gun control?
Actually all victims were shot at close range with a high powered rifle.
Senator Manchin is to be commended. He will receive an 'A' rating from the concerned citizens of this country who can see that it is more important to limit massacre potential than it is to have mass murder weaponry prevalent throughout this country. It will more than offset the loss of an 'A' rating from the 'cold dead hands' groups.
Being 'open' to it won't cut it-my kids were on lockdown today in Ridgefield, CT b/c of a 'suspicious' person in the area. I'm not going to live quietly w assault weapons for sale one more day of my life. I'm done, DONE with the B.S. trotted out by 2nd Amendment nuts. YOU CANNOT OWN AN ASSAULT RIFLE FOR PROTECTION, FUN OR ANYTHING ELSE, sorry, this day is fast approaching, and anyone who doesn't like it can move somewhere offshore and leave the rest of us alone.
If we are going to have a discussion about banning "assault rifles", and as a gun owner that's a conversation I think we should have, at least know what you are banning and what might have at least a chance of making a difference to public safety. AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are no more "powerful" and are actually less powerful than most deer rifles. Collapsible stocks, flash hiders and pistol grips — feature that make this type of rilfe useful to hunters (yes, some types of hunting such as feral hogs do call for semi-autos) and recreationsl shooters — have ZERO to do with the gun's lethality. The only feature of these guns that have any rational basis to mitigating mass shootings is magazine capacities.
We should therefore have a discussion of whether some limits on legal mag capacities are called for. For some reason the gun control crowd has deemed 10 rounds to be "sensible". Given that most modern firearms are designed for mags that hold between 10 and 20 rounds and millions upon millions of these mags are in circulation, 10 is probably too low. 15 rounds (the current mag limit in the highly restrictive state of NJ) probably would make more sense. We also need to fix mental health background checks and need a federal law guaranteeing the right of lawfuly concelaed carry nationwide with background checks and training requirements.
The only thing gun control will do in the US is create more victims. The last assault rifle ban did absolutely nothing to stop violence. It's time for grown adults to quit blaming inanimate objects for human failings. If there was proper security at all schools and malls then these events would be far and few. I obey the law of the land, why should I be punished by the actions of a few? It's a case of spank all of the children to get the bad one. You want your children protected? Demand armed security. Guess what? It works against guns, knives, baseball bats and other weapons. A law in a book somewhere will never stop a killer like bullets will. A trained guard is your only hope. Not more worthless laws. There are over 2000 gun laws currently on the books and guess what? They have never stopped a murderer. They never will. Never. Fight fire with fire. Why do you think federal and court buildings all have armed security? Demand it everywhere unless the lives of politicians and judges are more valuable then children. Try to disarm the law abiding and they will not stay so for long. Think about it.
When are people going learn?? People kill people not the guns. Until we learn to help these people and the media quit exploiting tte news this will keep on happening. They will aways be a black market for guns. The only people you hurt with gun laws is prson who follows the alw.
Bunch of craven liberal Democrats using this horrific act so they can remove still another one of our constitutional freedoms. That dip s–t Diane Feinstein even has her ban list all ready to go. And yet we Americans are buying more guns than ever; Drudge reports a gunshow more crowded than ever before. You Democrats s–k. I'm going to write a $1,000 check to the NRA today and plan to write and call my congressmen now to stop this knee jerkism.
I believe in the 2nd amendment as well, but there are limits. We probably agree that people should have a right to defend themselves from tyranny, then again, we shouldn't be able to carry bombs either. There is a large gray area in between. I personally think we should be allowed to have guns but it should be regulated much more heavily (such as mental disability checks — seriously, do you want an unstable person with a gun?) and assault rifles should definitely not be in our average possession.
@Anon: Yes, please DO take a look at China. EVERY one of those kids attacked is alive.
All mass shooters turn out to be white males. How about limiting gun rights to women and minorities only?
If a ban were issued it would put more people at risk. Just because a type of weapon is banned does not mean they are not still around and getting into the hands of someone they shouldn't. The black market for illegal weapons will grow and therefore anyone that is trying to follow "the law" would be at a greater risk. It gives the firepower advantage to the criminal or lately the unstable person in a defensive role.
If they want tighter control maybe a more thorough background check with personal references might be in order to be sure that the purchaser is mentally stable and not just a check box on a form. Even then there would be ways around that.
And what do "assault rifles" have to do with this incident?
Manchin was obviously compromised ..
Is everyone ok with the FDA approving drugs for prescription that have side effects of homicide or suicide ? Look up "side effect homicide" or "side effect suicide" and see the ones that you find. And then find out which of these drugs Adam Lanza and the other mass killers were on.
the amount of stupidity courtesy of WSJ comments page is astounding. "banning assault weapons could lead to banning $100k salaries?" since when was common sense such a rare commodity.
Mike form New Hampshire- you are a perfect example of a person without any common sense, looks like you would rather have more massacres just so that you can show off your assault rifle
"People really! Assault type rifles are used in a very small percent of killings" [citation needed]
Yes people kill people, but people are the ones pulling the trigger. IMO, we still do not know enough about this case, well we do not know enough about Adam. So much is circulating in regards to him, whether he was mentally ill or not. Personally, while I believe in the right to bear arms, I also believe it should become way more regulated. I just want to point out, a few years back some guy in china or japan (not sure) went crazy and killed several of kids and teachers with a machete. If his mother had any indication that her son was mentally unstable, why oh why did she not lock up her weapons? Stupid woman. It is unfortunate, while there are citizens whom have a deep respect for weapons there are those that are filled with illusions and or hate… and look what happened… 20 innocent children were killed… Be sad for the children and the families.
No civilian needs an assault rifle. Those who are against banning assault rifles are scum
well this is it now. they cornered us into getting rid of the Second Amendment. look at Russia were 20 to 30,000,000 people were killed by their own government because they had no way to harm themselves and protect themselves from their own government. the shootings at schools are not a coincidence. something like plot of this behind this. is it funny that everything seems to be falling in place just like the prognosis to cater said it would. open our borders and take away our guns. we are just like Mexico now.
Conservatives say, instead of restricting private use of guns and ammo, we should arm and train teachers in the use of firearms; put armed guards in all schools, shopping malls, theatres, etc.; and improve treatment of the mentally ill. What is their position on the use of taxpayer dollars for this?
Thank you Senator.
Evil exists in the world. You cannot legislate it away. Your best course of action is to equip yourself to deal with it as best you can. Get over your fears and arm yourselves.
OK, one case in China a few years ago, we have had a dozen massacres just in the past few years, 6 this year alone! You NRA supporters bring up one incident and brag about how guns don't need more regulation, pathetic!
What do Syria, Russia, Egypt, China have in common?
Watch the movie Defiance. Remember our own recent history with internment camps. I wonder how many people have lived near a border town?
"No civilian needs an assault rifle"
It's not for you to determine what any citizen needs. MYOB.
Are you positive that the semi automatic rifle found at the site is considered an assault rifle? Dude, perhaps we should ban all rifles?
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term:
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (which the M16 rifle is based on) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable.
Repeal the bill of rights. The document is 200+ years old and absolutely not applicable to the 21st century. Let the government protect us.
Do you know what makes a weapon an assulate weapon? Most of it has nothing to do with how deadly a weapon is. Was the version this pysho used post or preban? If it was post ban its not an assualt rifle.
Going by memory guns need to have two of the following to be considered assault weapons per the ban which is still in effect in CT and NY at least and obviously didnt prevent anything.
1. bayonet lug
2. folding stock
3. removable magazine
4. more that 10 rounds
5. Flash suppressor, probelm here is no one knows what that is. Can be called something like a stabalizer as well and be the same thing but legal.
Preban magaizines that this guy had that hold 30 rounds are still legal. Obvisouly shouldnt be. but really 10 round mags arent going to stop anyone either. Bayonet lug? Really? who cares.
Point is most of the things that make an assualt weapon definition are irrealvant. And really makes no difference. Lets not just make stupid calls for assualt weapon bans to feel good, we need real changes that will matter. Not just things put in place to make us feel warm and fuzzy and make no difference at all. It doesnt matter if a gun is M16 looking or not.
How many lives were ever saved due to an ordinary citizen preventing a murder with a high capacity semi-automatic pistol or assult rifle?
Now how many people were killed with assult rifles and high capacity semi-automatic pistols?
The CT shooter left the "assault rifle" in the car. He did not use it.
While we are at banning stuff, lets ban cell phones and automobiles. With all of the mindless idiots that text and drive no one is safe on the roads of America.
My dad was a hunter; I endured venison every fall (at least when his hunting trips were successful). He was also the gentlest man I ever knew. He would be appalled at the availability of the rapid fire, high velocity arms used in Newtown. These are weapons of hate, not marksmanship or self-defense.
I wish I could vote for Sen. Manchin.
…Barry has Sandy Hook…
We can all do something. I've asked my State Assemblyman and Senator to call for a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd amendment. The people in favor of unlimited gun rights have shown time and again we will not get traction on gun control until the foundation in the 2nd amendment is removed.
One more thing to consider, do you know what the largest school killing was in the US? It was in the 40s some nut job placed bombs in the basement of a school and blew it up killing 40 people. Had nothing to do with guns.
"These are weapons of hate…"
Now they're "weapons of hate", and we all know that we have to ban "hate".
Finally some common sense. We don;t need any more AK47s mowing down children and innocent people. If you need an AK47 to defend yourself, move to Afghanistan.
The answer is PEOPLE CONTROL, NOT GUN CONTROL.
When will the public and politicians understand that?
So we should accept restrictions on the rights of 380 million Americans in the hope that this will prevent a handful of loners from going off the edge? That's a tough sell.
" If you need an AK47 to defend yourself,"
What if we decide we need one living here in America?
Does anyone really believe that they're safer having a gun in the house when then fact is it's more likely that if you have a gun in the house you'll be killed by a gun, especially if there are kids in the home.
I have spent time as a classroom teacher. I go to movies. It is chilling to think that our republic denies me the right to defend myself, my family, or my students. They expect me to die as sheep to slaughter.
Let's change the term "gun free zones" to "free fire zones.
Pass all the restricts you like. Evil is still evil. You can't legislate or wish it away. When you are done you will have made it easier for the criminal and left the law abiding citizen more at risk.
When Bloomberg et all give up their armed guards, come talk to me about my right to bear arms.
Manchin is right, you don't go hunting with 30 round magazines, you protect yourself from the government and others that would do you harm with those kinds of weapons. That's the real reason behing the 2nd amendment. How do you stop the governement or anyone else from seizing your personal property or doing you or your family harm with a gun with 5 rounds in it? You don't. Ask the people of Mexico or Venezuela how its going for them with only the government and the criminals having all the weapons.
Ken C.are you daft? Do you honestly believe that all the crime will go away without guns?
Repeal the 2nd Amd. It's no longer valid in today's society. Guns are so dangerous that they need to be regulated and restricted much more than a car or driver's license. The fault of the killings was the mother who had all those guns in the house when she knew her son had mental problems.
For the anti-gun advocates, I would like to say thank you. Your arguments have convinced me that I am indeed dangerous and irresponsible, and can not be trusted. Please, take my firearms.
The good news is that pro-gun politicians will be voted out in droves in the next election cycle.
I am appaled at people that would easily give up their liberty for a false sense of security. If you give away your liberties what will you do when you are a victim? How will you defend yourself or your family.
I knew it wouldn't take long for those who oppose lawful ownership of guns to demand increasing gun control in the light of this tragedy. Yet, we are a country that turns a blind eye to the same number of children's deaths every day in this country. We abort 1.2 million children every year in this country. That's like having a Connecticut school shooting every 15 minutes. Where is the moral outrage about that? Where is the righteous indignation over these children killed every day in this country? Where is the call for new laws to limit abortions because so many innocents don't get to grow up, go to proms, graduate from college, or have children of their own? Ours is a hypocritical society. We strain the gnat and ignore the whole swarm. Until we stand up for the unborn murdered each year, we have no business talking about saving the lives of children anywhere else.
as someone who has deployed to afghan and iraq multiple times (and currently in afghan), let me say that no gun control laws at all really are the best way to curb violence. when everyone is armed everywhere, nothing bad happens anywhere. guns in every home in both countries and look how stable and how low their violence is! oh wait……….
To Terence, how will you live with yourself if it was your kid that was killed or did the killing with one of your guns that you really didn't need.
"Repeal the 2nd Amd. It's no longer valid in today's society."
Just because abortion is wrong doesn't make gun control wrong. Don't try that false argument.
to HUH, tell me why we NEED the 2nd amd? Why not repeal it and then let the States make their own gun laws. Repealing the 2nd amd would not make guns illegal. It would just allow more flexibility in rules and regulations.
Let me just say I have never owned a gun nor want one. However, I also am familiar with the US constitution. Although recent tragedy means many emotional hysterical responses, does anyone think things are going to change? Seriously. USA cannot stop millions of illegal immigrants, cannot stop millions of tons of cocaine, cannot stop trillions of dollars of graft and corruptions in our government, etc etc. What is the odds they will stop automatic weapons? ZERO.
machin is a typical low life politician, who runs on one platform and votes for another. WV wake up and get rid of the hypocrite. Remember running against obamacare, then voting for it, then admitting he hadn't actually read it? What a spineless fool.
I'll tell you what feels bad. Knowing as a teacher I have a legal gun at home that I can't bring to work to protect myself and my students. Also knowing that a school "gun-free zone" is nothing more than a "free fire zone".
I would hate to die with my students knowing that evil exists everywhere, but I am rendered defenseless by my government.
The fact is Liberals don't trust teachers to have guns. They think the teachers will be the ones to gun down the students. That's why they make schools 'gun free zones'.
And for all this talk about the 'hero' principal the fact is her act probably didn't save any lives. We should admire the attempt, but she didn't delay any action and he still had plenty of bullets to use on others. The only way to stop a gunman in that situation, is with someone with another gun.
I understand the desire to do something, and the easiest thing to do is pass more gun legislation. The folks on the Sunday talk shows claimed there is a bright line between "guns" and "assault weapons". I may be missing something, but to me there is no clear line. Other than some of the cosmetics, a Winchester semi-automatic hunting rifle (or shotgun, for that matter) works basically the same way as a Bushmaster semi-automatic. The Bushmaster looks more menacing and maybe there is a psycological impact to the shooter, but from a technical aspect, they are similar. And anyone who has experience with a bolt-action rifle can work the action nearly as fast. Those that aren't familiar with guns will have a hard time understanding the terminology and may confuse "semi-automatic" with "automatic", as in a machine gun. A semi-automatic rifle's action is not built like an automatic weapon and can not be easily modified to fire continuously like an automatic weapon. I'd be all for getting rid of the military wannabe rifles and that might make everyone feel better about doing something, but I don't know that it will have much of a real effect. Restricting the size of the magazine might slow down a mass-murderer that hasn't given the crime a lot of thought. It's a cliche, but guns don't shoot people, people shoot people – the primary focus needs to be on people.
Sure crime won't go away, but it won't be as fatal.
I hate to blame a victim here but wasn't the killer's mom ultimately responsible for ensuring that the guns could not be accessed by anyone but her? I know as a gun owner that when my firearms are not directly in my control, they need to be locked up. I have a 14 year old son and I trust him emphatically but I have trigger locks on all my guns and they are all in a safe (keys are on my person).
This was a tragic event but the fact of the matter is; there will always be lapses in judgment that will end in loss of life. Read any Sunday morning newspaper to learn about the latest drunk driving incident …
Sure, let's get rid of the 2nd amendment. Let's get rid of the whole constitution. It's old. Obama is new. He is wonderful. He will lead us to the promised land.
"… how will you live with yourself …"
How will you live with yourself when our government becomes abusive to the point that a 2nd revolution is necessary, and you've willingly given up your ability to defend your liberty?
I am both a gun owner and supporter of the right to do so. But I have no problem curtailing ownership of assault weapons and other unnecessary weapons. But I also think that simply passing a law and declaring certain weapons illegal will not put an end to this kind of crime.
If we only do this because it is an easy salve and then do nothing to confront the problem of how we treat the mentally ill, we will not have learned the apparent lessons of this tragedy.
"…tell me why we NEED the 2nd amd?…"
It is the ultimate guarantee of our liberty.
Children are killed with handguns, and a moron proposes limits on "assault rifles"…. Just more left wing blathering.
"When is the NRA going to at least put a web page dedicated to the martyrs for the right to own assault weapons?"
CT HAS an "assault weapons" ban. Did that stop anything?
When will the proponents of "gun free zones" at least put up a webpage dedicated to the martyrs for the right to put up a sign, disarm all the law abiding people, and make it easier for those committing this spate of mass shootings?
Yes, people with guns kill people and people without guns hurt people.
And it's stupid to think that arming teachers would be smart. For everone one killing you preven there would be dozens of accidental shootings. It's just the law of averages by having so many guns in the school. If there was even a one percent chance of an accidental shooting, all those guns in the school would kill more than ever prevent. Plus the psychos would just wear bullet proof vests when they go on their killing spree.
HOW does owning a gun guarantee your liberty? Are you that nuts that you think some government civil servant is going to storm into your house at night like the Nazis?
Its tooo late to ban assualt rifles. There are millions floating around. We need permanant registration of them with penalties if sold illegally. Stop selling them at gun shows. Right now records of guns sales are destroyed 30 days after purchase. Your credit history exist forever but the fact you had a backgrouncheck and boughta firearm are deleted after 30 days. Does that make sense?
"Guns don't kill people" comes from same mental process as the people who believe only in "legitimate rape".
"Move out of the country" if I don't want my constitutional right?!!!! Are you…….I don't even know the right adjective for that.
Does this mean that the administration was wrong to do Fast and Furious? Odd that.
I agree that even if we banned all guns today we'd still have problems because there are so many out there, but at least in the future our grandkids would be safer if we banned them today.
"HOW does owning a gun guarantee your liberty?"
It gives us the means which to defend it.
"Are you that nuts that you think some government civil servant is going to storm into your house at night like the Nazis?"
Not too familiar with American history, such as what led up to the Revolutionary War, are ya?
"Your credit history exist forever but the fact you had a backgrouncheck and boughta firearm are deleted after 30 days. Does that make sense?"
Yes. There's no constitutional right to credit.
Move out of the country if you want to put me and my family at risk by having a house full of legal guns laying around ready for any nutcase to take them an go on another killing spree.
We can always trust the government to look after us. It is all good and all-knowing. The government would never harm us!
Hey HUH, you're not to familiar with the fact that it's not 1790 right now.
@Linda: "Unarmed teachers had the courage to stand up to the gunman. Will US politicians have the courage to stand up to the NRA?"
Beautifully said, Linda! I live in dread a day is soon coming when my kid's 4th grade teacher will need to wear a sidearm in order to defend the NRA's unfettered interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Our elected officials need to show as much courage as those extraordinarily brave teachers who sacrificed their lives. And sorry, guns in schools and classrooms is NOT the answer — esp. not so "hunters" can hunt deer with a military-style assault weapon. What "sport" is that anyway?? It's madness on a grand scale.
To the idiots who said "Unarmed teachers had the courage to stand up to the gunman. "
Just think if those teachers had guns, how many would be still alive?
"Move out of the country…"
No, you move out of the country to one where ownership of guns is banned.
I trust the government a lot more than folks like that mother in CT who had a house full of legal guns with her mentally ill son.
After the shooting, I went home and told my assault rifles that they better be good from now on!
"Hey HUH, you're not to familiar with the fact that it's not 1790 right now."
I am familiar with the fact that you have proven yourself to be an idiot.
As a carpenter, I'm offended that people give my hammer all the credit for building that wooden table.
@12:59 That depends on the state in which the sale happens. They are retained in MA. Private sales of any sort are also registered.
"I trust the government a lot more…"
Then you're a moron, but that's your right. I don't share your feelings.
I'd rather stay here and try to improve things.
So would I.
So huh you trust people like the mother with a house full of guns and a mentally instable son..if so, then who's the moron?
@Randy Collins:
Do you really want to live in a US where every building has armed guards and metal detectors to keep people from bringing weapons inside? Is that the price we all must pay for gun ownership?
Are you like here? Do you belive the end is near and you need to prepare for the collapse of society. If so, then you're the prime example of why we NEED more gun control.
"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."
See !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because we need Militia.. those Militia need guns.
A few dozen children murdered each year is the price we pay to keep our freedoms.
We should legalize hand grenades too.
You bring up a valid point. How can the people who lost 2,000 assault weapons that were and probably still are, being used to kill innocent people…..be put in charge of keeping track of assault weapons in this country?
mental illness….the root of the problem.
what we need are more politicians willing to stand up agains the noisy NRA. So far we've got one good Republican doing just that.
what we need are more politicians willing to stand up agains the noisy NRA. So far we've got one good Republican doing just that.
@second amendment:
I fully support your right to be a member of a well-regulated militia. We should start enforcing this part of the right.
Okay, so when there is no more mental illness than people can have guns again.
Mike a wrote :
HOW does owning a gun guarantee your liberty? Are you that nuts that you think some government civil servant is going to storm into your house at night like the Nazis?
Let me just say:
George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Rooted in the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others to follow, his biography (1863-1952)
"… you trust people like the mother with a house full of guns and a mentally instable son…"
More than I trust the government, yes.
Ask the Japanese-American interned during WWII, ask blacks, ask Native Americans, ask the Branch Davidians.
It is not as simple as banning assault weapons.
Some serious work needed in the mental health sector, the parenting sector, the violence in the media, the violence in video games leading to desensitization, a 24-7 media that gives instant fame to and obsession with mass murderers…often giving birth to copycats…..the list isn't short.
That's right…go join the state national guard if you want a weapon. If we had a supreme ct that interpreted the 2nd amd that way we'd all be a lot safer.
"MB wrote :
Mike a wrote :
HOW does owning a gun guarantee your liberty? Are you that nuts that you think some government civil servant is going to storm into your house at night like the Nazis?
Let me just say:
George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Rooted in the philosophies of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others to follow, his biography (1863-1952)"
There's no getting through to that person, I'm afraid.
Reasons to own a firearm: The Patriot Act, NDAA, a possible financial collapse of the American system, living in a urban city where crime rates are high. If you honestly beleive that the government is here to protect you please read the NDAA.
To @Randy Collins: you propose armed guards at ALL schools? Then you'd have to include armed guards at almost every public venue: libraries, malls, parks — the list is endless. All so you can hang onto your AK-47?? As guns represent a serious health care crisis in the country — something like 40,000 gun fatalities of all kinds annually, pretty consistently — how about a great big TAX on all guns and ammo to PAY for all these armed guards you propose, and to cover the insurance & medical costs for all those killed and maimed?
Let's be clear: right now the conversation is about assault-style rifles. It's NOT about hunting rifles or even pistols kept in the home (for self-defense). There really is NO reasonable argument why high-power semi-automatic rifles need to be in the hands of citizens. My kids attend a public school in Los Angeles, they can't afford textbooks — they surely have no money left for armed guards in every school, just so you can keep AK-47 on hand.
Btw, no one has commented on a salient fact: Adam Lanza's mother kept several guns on hand, both for sport and self defense — and it did nothing at all to insure her safety. In fact, she died as most gun victims die: at the hands of someone she knew well, her own son, using a gun he had stolen from her. This is a very, very common story.
"Do you really want to live in a US where every building has armed guards and metal detectors to keep people from bringing weapons inside? Is that the price we all must pay for gun ownership?"
No, that's the price we pay for gun-phobia.
It's true that there are a lot of things that contributed to the killings, but the only factor that alone could have prevented it was the lack of easy access to so many guns. Again, why does anyone feel that this mother had the right to a house full of LEGAL guns, especially living with her mentally unstable son.
"There really is NO reasonable argument why high-power semi-automatic rifles need to be in the hands of citizens. "
Sure there is – we want them. We don't have to justify ourselves to you.
If I go on a murderous killing spree, I do hereby solemnly I will murder only staunch advocates of the second amendment or their children.
Gun rights advocates are much more understanding of these tragedies. They understand our freedoms have a cost. They are better prepared to be murdered or have their children murdered.
It just doesn't seem right to kill the children of people who want handguns banned.
I have a plan and I call on all future murder spree nut-jobs to do the same.
"…why does anyone feel that this mother had the right to a house full of LEGAL guns,…"
That's her constitutional right. Feelings have nothing to do with it.
The left are all idiots.
my last post
1. Gun advocates claim that if we ban guns, then only criminals will have guns. Well, that would be a reliable indicator of criminality, would it not? And if law enforcement encounters an individual with a gun (i.e., by definition, a criminal), then the officer would know immediately how to react.
2. Gun advocates claim that gun ownership is a constitutional right. So is freedom of speech, but even speech (comparatively innocuous when compared to a gun) is subject to restrictions.
3. Gun advocates claim that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of nuts. We've been trying that for years, but the NRA is basically against any form of gun control. (It's actually more difficult to get a driver's license than a gun license, and guns purchased from private individuals don't ever require a gun license.)
This stink over gun restrictions will last about two-weeks, at the end of which time nothing will have changed.
these comments are nothing more than people yelling pass each other. It's almost futile to express an opinion here. But nevertheless, ban assault rifles. You are not hunting dears with that thing, why the hell do you need that.
if the only reason these killings occur are because of an interpretation of a single sentence in the constitution, then that interpretation is wrong and need changing.
"But nevertheless, ban assault rifles. You are not hunting dears with that thing, why the hell do you need that."
To defend my liberty from an oppressive government, and because I like them.
"g wrote :
The left are all idiots."
No, their leaders know what they are doing, and they have an army of useful idiots at their disposal.
No military grade weapons were used in the CT shootings. What does an "assault rifle" ban have to do with anything? As this latest lunatic proved, you can kill just as easily with a common handgun as you can with a military style weapon. The ammunition used is also just as deadly no matter what kind of weapon it comes out of. The REAL questions, which liberals constantly duck, is how to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable and the violent culture of Hollywood and computer games which have such a deleterious effect on disturbed individuals like this latest young murderer. And banning guns is no solution. Mentally deranged people are not stupid: if they snap, they can still get guns illegally…along with sane criminals.
hey odumba, how are you oppressed by the government?
" I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting," he said, adding that he had just returned from deer hunting with his family."
Well my friend, that's EXACTLY the preferred rifle for hog hunting, maybe you need to do some research before shooting off your mouth. Oh, one more point Mr. Deerhunter, it's called a MAGAZINE and not a CLIP.
……. how many innocent people has obama killed with his drone attacks ? ….. and lets not forget odumba supports after life abortions
the left are disgusting hypocrites
This legislation is an emotional response.
So what's the non-gun-phobic solution? Or is there nothing that needs a solution? Which would imply that the occasional mass killing is just part of the deal of living here in the United States.
Laws to ban guns will be just as effective as laws to ban drugs.
"Or is there nothing that needs a solution? "
" Which would imply that the occasional mass killing is just part of the deal of living here in the United States."
Correct again.
include hand grenades, rocket launchers, nuclear weapons (ever hear of "nuclear arms").
Why the hell can't I buy grenades???
Someone commented that it isn't a matter of gun control, but rather a matter of who gets the guns.
Well, could someone please explain how you control who gets the guns without gun control.
True story: the bullets fired by an AR15 "assault rifle" are smaller and less powerful than the .308 rounds fired from my hunting rifle. We should outlaw hunting to keep such powerful weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
A myth of mass murder.
Incidents are "increasing".
Since 1976, there have been about 20 mass murders a year.
However rates of all violent crime decreased over this same time period….from 48 victims per 1,000 in 1976, to 15 in 2010.
Most violent year 2003 with 30 incidents and 135 victims.
The most lethal school mass murder was Bath,MI…..1927, a school bombing that resulted in 45 deaths.
If you ban assault weapons then you have to ban the violent video games and movies that glorify them. But we all know how prohibition of anything works out. Or do we?
"could someone please explain how you control who gets the guns without gun control."
You can't control that even with "gun control". CT has strict laws, They didn't help. The shooter stole the weapons used.
Newsflash: criminals and psychopaths do not obey laws.
Upon which of your Constitutional rights may I infringe?
All politicians are to easy for anything and anybody to buy a gun. I bet you if something like this actually happen to their family or themselves , senators and congress members would then ban all weapons being sold to any fool and nuts in the public life. Anyone that has a gun are on the way straight to hell. They think and are acting off crap they follow on all these terrible TV shows that are coming from Hollywood which is totally sick, overpaid, people of stupidity. Every thief, bully wannabe, nut with a gun is nothing but trash.
To arrive at a solution to a problem you must first "identify the Real problem".
• The Democrat Party has nurtured death of innocents through violence/intimidation/terror/fear by representing a "Culture of Death" in our country from abortion, to infanticide, gendercide , assisted suicide, Euthanasia, Population Control, CO2 from people, to incitement of Unions by BO in Michigan and his seemingly unending violent rhetoric like "if they bring knives you bring guns" to his partner in thuggery J. Hoffa intimating death from a coming(one side are his Unions) inevitable civil war.
• CAN ANYTHING BE MORE VIOLENT THAN TEARING A KID APART LIMB BY LIMB via abortion and of all things running on a platform of abortion and winning. What does that say of voter advocacy? It's alright to kill! What example ever set by Obama (the infanticide President) should the murderer have been guided/ since there is no "fundamental" (virtue) respect for life by him, or that party?
I blame all these killings on Obama and his sicko Party for establishing a "Culture of Death".
A myth of mass murder.
Banning assault weapons will lower frequency of mass murder.
Most popular weapon for mass murderer in US, a 9 mm pistol, often a Glock.
They generally bring 2-3 weapons to the scene. When they were previously banned, 1994-2004,
there was no decrease in the number of mass murders per year in the US.
Why not the US Military take over all gun manufacturing in the nation and no more imports for guns, also with immediate effect stop selling any ammonitions,guns, bullets, shells of any kind to the public.
Thanks for clarifying your point. (I mean this honestly, not sarcastically.)
I'm of two minds about it. One, you're probably right. Bad things happen. (I'd like to see the TSA and its attendant airport security-theater disbanded for similar reasons.) Two, it's not acceptable, and there have to be ways to minimize to near-zero such massacres. Twelve such shootings this year (12 widely reported, anyway) are too many.
@Randy: in a civilized society there are limits on everything: speech (hate speech, the old 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' thing); sex (non-consensual, with minors, etc); AND guns. Terribly sorry if you "enjoy" taking your semi-automatic rifle to fire at the range. I have no doubt whatsoever you are a reasonable law-abiding citizen. However, 20 first graders and six of their teachers should not have to sacrifice their lives for your fun. As well as the thousands of other victims of mass violence.
We'll never be able outlaw or prevent all of these kinds of unthinkable events, but reasonable limits on assault-style weapons would be a good place to start. It will take a long time, and a lot of hard thought and work, but we can begin to unwind this massive damage. Btw, it's ALL on the table: better mental health services, too much violence in our society, some kind of self-censorship in the electronic gaming industry (and/or a much tougher ratings system). I'm sorry there's no cogent defense for assault-style weapons — unless you and the NRA believe you need to be armed for the 'next' American revolution. In which case, that's more than a little disconcerting.
Finally, is the full-body armor that these shooters tend to wear — which make them even tougher targets to take down — is that too a covered 2nd amendment right? Shall elementary school teachers be schooled in the fine art of a head or neck shot to a heavily-armored shooter? We're slipping into madness.
wickedly violent video games?
It's sad that some of you feel the need to bring this back to politics. It comes down to the fact that over two dozen innocent people will never get to see, embrace or speak to their families ever again. This is due to one individual's inexcusable actions which will never fully be explained. I do not believe that gun control will fix this problem but I believe it would help if access to military grade weapons was restricted. Not to act is to say we will accept a gun culture that occasionally results in the massacre of our fellow peers. If you are on that side then you are entitled to your beliefs but I wonder what side you'd be standing on if that was your six year old child or sibling.
Muhammed and Malvo killed 10 people in Washington and VA….using a series of different weapons.
One by one.
at some point folks like odumba will grow old and die away and maybe then we can have a logical discussion. In the meantime, I'd say tax all guns and ammo (simliar to a cigerette tax) to pay for registration, tracking, gun classes, as well as extra security at every public venue.
I hope the NRA changes Senator Joe's grade from "A" to "F". The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting; it's about self-defense – from criminals and tyrants. Why is this difficult to understand?
Why are young people constantly committing these hideous crime? How could a parent give a known mentally ill child access to a any firearm? Shouldn't people that own a firearm be responsible for the security of that firearm? Why do parents let their children control them? Why are young people that committ crimes given lenient sentences? Why are young people playing violent video games? Why do young people constantly come from a broken home? Why are children exposed to violent movies? Why is there so much violence on television? Why are children listinging to violent and vulgar music? Why are our young children being hooked on illegal drugs at a young age? Why are young people unemployed? Why do young people quit school? Some people might know the answers, most do not.
It is the legal purchase of guns that needs regulated/restricted, because if there were not as many legally owned guns, there would not be as many illegal actions with guns. Criminals and phychos get guns from law abiding people, so to prevent criminals/psychos from getting guns, we need to reduce the number owned legally.
And where in the 2nd ammendment is that explanation? Or we're you there when it was being discussed? You're an idiot sb in dc..
I feel like the solution lies at the bullet-level. It's a single-use, expendable item. Start there.
An assault rifle is any rifle used to assault….and banning something that can't be defined is the politician's way of getting the emotional to think something has been done…and we can all feel better. You so called gun control folks really want to believe you have a cure for MURDER! Consider that mass murders peaked in 1929, and have decreased significantly…like the crime rate. Except in Chicago, D.C., and L..A…..all huge gun control anti-so-called assault weapons locales. By the way firearms are only weapons when their purpose is use against persons…either defensively or offensively
I see the usual brainless know nothings screaming about being able to revolt against a repressive government. If any of you Neantherdals were able to think , you would know that any armed uprising against a force as powerful as the American military would be quelled within minutes. The idea of arming the teachers is equally brainless and there is not a community in this country that would consider turning their children's school into an armed camp. Stop with the moronic suggestions already and get these assault rifles and semi-automatic hand guns off the street. Enough is enough !
to DC SB, do you need a house full of guns for self-defense? Why is that difficult for you to understand? Have you shotgun in your corner for self defense, and your 2nd Amd is not infringed.
"Two, it's not acceptable, and there have to be ways to minimize to near-zero such massacres. Twelve such shootings this year (12 widely reported, anyway) are too many."
I disagree. That's as near-zero as it gets.
Guns are not to blame. Gun control will not solve the problem. If society wants to solve the problem by passing laws then I recommend a multi-faceted approach:
1. Make it against the law to report on these types of crimes
Most of these crimes are done for attention and are copy-cat crimes,
2. Ban all weapons & explosives: guns, knives, manure, arrows, gasoline………
3. House one solder in every household that is not a family member
4. Perform, at-will, and periodic searches of homes and property
5. Arrest anyone that is suspected of being mentally dangerous or could become dangerous
6. Use corporal punishment and military tribunals to convict those suspected of any dis-harmony
7. Tribunals include a single appointed officer
8. No bail
Gun owners ("gunnies") will soon be shouting about the 2.5 million incidents/year when gun owners have saved the day. Do the math – that would be 6,850 events EVERY DAY where Charlton Heston would arrive to save the day for someone. My simple request – find me 10 news stories today about a Gunnie helping and saving a disaster because that Gun and the Gunnie was there. Better yet – there should be at least 100 stories today (out of the 6850) that show the real need for an assault rifle or machine pistol that can fire 30 bullets or more in 10 seconds. Gunnies should have no trouble reporting those where that need was present over the weekend.
What we do with assault weapons in the US is insanity. Time for those of us who are shocked and appalled to speak and work and tell our Congresspeople that the insanity stops now. Time now to stand up to the NRA and the Gunnies that get thrills and hot flashes out of holding their precious guns. One statistic – since the killings of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968 – almost 1 million Americans have been sort to death (22,272/year on average). This is not about freedom; this is about gun nuts that have a power lobby. My kids and grandchildren are more valuable than that – we can be free without some gun nut with a 40 clip magazine that can kill 15 people in the blink of an eye. But writing these messages does not help – It is my duty to be a voice to the Governor, Congress and let them know that we will work as hard as we can on this issue – that we will not go away; that we will no longer be silent and the the NRA intimidate Congress and other elected officials. If we do not do that, we deserve what we get. In the name of the 26 we lost on Friday – they deserve no less from us.
well said laurence
"You can't control that even with "gun control". CT has strict laws, They didn't help. The shooter stole the weapons used."
He stole the guns from his mother. Had his mother not had the guns, and had such guns been illegal, he might have had a very hard time obtaining them. That is how effective gun control is supposed to work: as a deterrent.
No law is perfect. But to say that gun control can never work because it will never catch every single instance of violence is to close off any debate and is unreasonable. We can, we must, do better.
"Why is this difficult to understand?"
Too many people are ignorant of history. Our government would never harm us.
well said laurence
The assault weapon ban did not reduce gun violence.
The expiration of the assault weapon ban, did not elevate levels of gun violence.
Is it the so-called American dream to own a big home and drive 60,000 dollar cars and fill homes with many powerful guns and pretend like we are OK, while we can not even help our own childrends at home.
"He stole the guns from his mother."
The gun control laws didn't work.
hey odumba, tell me specifically how the governemnt is harming you such that you need a gun to stop the harm.
The Founding Fathers had inaccurate single-shot weapons that took minutes to reload. The 2nd Amendment was written for that technology. Think about it.
You really wanna save children?
Take a hard look at childrens deaths in automibiles.
Wanna save more? Take a look at deaths caused by swimming pool drownings.
And as you tally those numbers, please be sure to factor OUT the 18 to 21 year olds. Those are the ones that are adult enough to join the military, but that the CDC groups as" children".
There are more law abiding gun owners (percentage wise) that insured & licensed auto drivers.
Republicans want unregulated guns, unregulated climate, unregulated hate speech. Time to put them all in jail for the sake of our future.
"…But to say that gun control can never work because it will never catch every single instance of violence…"
Gun control will never work because criminals and psychopaths will always find a way to harm other people. Your best course of action is to defend yourself by arming yourself.
Overcome your fear.
adumba, you're right, the existing gun laws didn't work, so that's why we need STONGER gun control laws. Well said!
There is a group in the USA that comprises less than 7% of the total population, but according to the Department of Justice, they commit more than 52% of the murders.
98% of this very same group voted for Obama.
Why are liberals so very violent?
just ban all guns, including the firearms for those who protect the president ?
"Why are liberals so very violent?"
I was wondering the same thing – what is it about liberalism that inspires people to become violent sociopaths?
I'm an NRA member. We were founded after the civil war and we trained civilians who went to every war this country has fought. We helped preserve your freedom, even FU's freedom to be thoughtless and ill informed. Can't you simple solution folks grasp that MURDER was committed….and no law stopped it. You all sound like the same group who would restrict speech because its too provocative. Grow up….the world is filled with EVIL People…its evil people who do evil things…things are inanimate …they can't act alone. I say ban the automobile…it kills 57k + every year on our roads
@Jag: I don't get it, a armed nation is a free nation. 2nd ammend. Is to keep the people in power, protecting yerself from pychopaths is secondary.
@ODumba: "There really is NO reasonable argument why high-power semi-automatic rifles need to be in the hands of citizens. " Sure there is – we want them. We don't have to justify ourselves to you.
Jag, you will discover there is a vast percentage of this country — possibly a majority, we'll see — who DON'T want to live in the heavily-armed state you describe. I don't want my kids' elementary school teachers to have to carry sidearms. It's crazy. Btw, again, the shooter was wearing heavy body-armor. As was the Aurora shooter, head-to-toe. In this free for all shootout you envision in the halls of an elementary school, how was anyone going to take him down?
And, um, Dumbo, your remarks kind of disqualify you from the conversation: gun rights advocates are going to have to start making an articulate case for WHY they need assault-style weapons. You haven't come close. You just make yourself look — bad. In fact, you make an excellent case why high-powered weapons shouldn't be in certain hands.
900,000 children in America were neglected or abused….physically, sexually or emotionally.
Ban child abuse.
Fact is, they generally get sent back home.
steve, you're right, kids die in accidents all the time in various ways, but this shooting was NOT an accident. How many kids are murdered by throwing them in a pool are driving over them in a car?
And again, it was a law abiiding gun owner that provided the guns to the killer, so that's why we NEED more restrictions to law abiiding gun owners, at least a tax on gun & ammo to pay for the extra security needed in public venues.
Does the 'right to bear arms" necessarily mean all arms? What about a small nuclear device? What about a super rich guy buying an ICBM? These are all technically "arms", but there is no way the government would or should allow anyone to possess these things. If you have a shotgun, technically you are bearing arms, and therefore your 2nd amendment rights are protected.
With that said, I have no problem with responsible, law abiding citizens owning guns, including gun enthusiasts who just enjoy shooting automatic weapons. And unless you had an all out ban on certain guns, which I think would be tough to get, then the incident in CT still probably would have happened. We ABSOLUTELY do need to have a good-faith DISCUSSION about guns, where all stake-holders, including the NRA, have a voice. But we also need to discuss mental illness and intervention.
Gun bans don't work. Until fairly recently, Washington, DC had a total ban on firearms. During the time of the ban, GUN violence went through the roof and it became the national murder capital of the US. Then the ban got lifted in DC. Chicago maintained it's total gun ban, and then it became one of the murder capitals of the US and a place with massive gun violence. Banning weapons simply does not work. Why do libs refuse to look at hard evidence that is right in front of them????
child abuse IS banned, and so should MOST gun ownership.
@GWNumber1: "There is a group in the USA that comprises less than 7% of the total population, but according to the Department of Justice, they commit more than 52% of the murders."
Gun users?
"And, um, Dumbo, your remarks kind of disqualify you from the conversation: gun rights advocates are going to have to start making an articulate case for WHY they need assault-style weapons."
That's the point – we don't have to make such an argument to you.
in America, every day….from child abuse or neglect.
In 2010, 1,560…..dead.
Fatalities…..80 percent caused by one or more parents.
Ban abusive parents.
Hey, Jag, I'm obviously one of those 'lunatic' Democrats, but I agree with virtually everything you wrote here. See? There is common ground. No one wants to gut the 2nd amendment, but there is room for sane conversation. Thank you for trying!
@jag wrote : I believe in the 2nd amendment as well, but there are limits. We probably agree that people should have a right to defend themselves from tyranny, then again, we shouldn't be able to carry bombs either. There is a large gray area in between. I personally think we should be allowed to have guns but it should be regulated much more heavily (such as mental disability checks — seriously, do you want an unstable person with a gun?) and assault rifles should definitely not be in our average possession.
"at least a tax on gun & ammo to pay for the extra security needed in public venues."
Nah, let's tax gun-phobes such as yourself.
A country full of idiots. I dont know the gun laws in norway but iam sure they are strcter then they are here and that killer still murdered plenty o people. In mexico guns are illegal and that seems to be working out well for them……
Do you realize how many abused children, are sent back to their parents….after they go through a prescribed program?
Guess not.
How do you define "don't work." It may take decades for a total gun ban across the country to work. You have to think broader and more long-term and not just city by city.
Gun classes and the arming of teachers is now mandatory. You come to a school armed expect to get shot dead.
Matt, do you really think Norway is as safe as Mexico?
If King George would have had gun control, we'd still be captives of the Britts, and perhaps be speaking German under the Nazi's
Clearly, the solution is to ban the use of firearms to kill a person. Then we'll all be safe!
where do you live? That never will happen, nor should it. You'll end up with more and not less dead kids that way
And just because our govt seems stable doest mean it always will be. The government seems to be preparing for th worst with the ndaa and patriot act. Why shouldnt the citizens prepare as well.
to due-dad, the US MILITARY, not armed citizens, defeated the NAZIs.
I applaud the leadership of Sen Joe Manchin on this issue. This is about common sense.
It is just like the health care bill, partisan agenda…..as anyone with a brain knows that you cannot give MORE to ALL for LESS.
Yet partisan agenda pushes it's way through.
Same with tighter gun laws…even though facts and figures show truth, the partisan agenda ignores it, and is the top priority.
Otherwise, we would see Democrats rushing out to treat the core problem of mass murder…..mental illness.
Matt – Clearly you are a traitor. You need to be sent to a re-education camp, and all your guns should be confiscated.
Mike m, google sarcasim……
Mike m, google sarcasim……, i own guns these laws will do nothing juat like in mexico where gun violence is rampant
Matt, do you believe all the US soldiers will one day start kicking in your door? And it's the JOB of the government and military to defend its citizens. You having a house full of guns present more of a danger to your community than the remote possiblity of our soldiers suddenly becoming NAZIs.
@ mike q , tell that to all the resistence fighters who couldnt wait for us soldiers
California has a law about marijuana which is you are not allowed to possess enough that can kill you. The same should also be true about guns.
gun violence in mexico is caused by guns made and shipped from the USA. It's true that gun laws in Mexico don't work, but then hardly any laws do. Maybe technology will help us so that one day cops can have gun detectors like radar detectors and really get guns off the street.
I pray anti-gun onwers never have to expierence a day when they need a firearm to defend themselves or their children. Trust me, it will quickly change your view on the subject of why having a firearm on you is important.
Se government that sold thousands of weapons tp cartel members? Or the same goverent that allows big pharma to produce super drugs? I dont know about everyome on here but i have lost more people tp legal prescription drugs then random acts of violence
so matt what resistence fighters? there are no resistence fighters againsts the us government. I'm for democracy and I just hope our elected officials will one day repeal the 2nd amendment and pass some sensible gun laws, or have the technology to track every gun out there.
Mass killings like this dont happen in watts, the bronx or detroit, u know why? Because the populis own guns
" twstroud wrote :
The Founding Fathers had inaccurate single-shot weapons that took minutes to reload. The 2nd Amendment was written for that technology. Think about it."
The founding fathers had hand writing and a slow manual printing press. The first amendment was written for that technology. There is no reason the average citizen needs unrestricted access to the internet.
eric, i pray that you never have a child killed by a gun accident or by one of these phycos because YOU wanted to have a house full of guns.
I don't see why we need a federal law banning assault rifles. If Connecticut wants to ban them, then go ahead and do it.
The internet isn't designed to kill people.
Just because drugs kill people, doesn't mean you can't ALSO try to prevent gun deaths.
And in detroit if you add up the gun violence there it's probably 20 a week.
"The founding fathers had hand writing and a slow manual printing press. The first amendment was written for that technology. There is no reason the average citizen needs unrestricted access to the internet."
We also need to repeal the 4th Amendment – the founding fathers did not have sophisticated spying technology. Clearly the 4th Amendment needs to be repealed.
Dear Libtards: The MOST gun controlled societies experience THE HIGHEST DEGREE of mass murders: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and NORWAY (most recently 80 killed by a LUNATIC Socialist).
Switzerland where ALL men 18 to 65 have FULL AUTO Army rifles has virtually NO murders, let alone mass murders.
Without the 2nd Amendment the Bill of Rights has NO MEANING and NO TEETH YOU MORONS
Mike Q,
I pray that you never have a child killed by a swimming pool because someone insists that it's their right to have a swimming pool because that is thousands of times more likely to happen. It's just not as outrageous when it happens, so it doesn't get national attention.
first we need to repeal the 2nd amd, and then focus on true gun control laws either at the state or local level. The 2nd amd is what prevents states from enacting their own restrictions.
I personally don't own a gun (at least not yet) but I fail to see why anyone thinks that banning certain types will keep people who want them from getting them. Marijuana is illegal under US law, but it sure is in plentiful supply to anyone who wants it. Besides, criminals don't buy there weapons legally – and neither did this mentally unstable man. His mother owned them legally. She did not properly secure the weapons, which led to this tragedy.
At the same time we're talking about gun control can we have a serious talk about abortion? With about a million abortions a year in the U.S., that means that on the day of the shooting there were 2700 babies killed by abortionists, or about 100 times the number of children killed at that unfortunate Connecticut school. Those 2700 babies had their entire lives ahead of them. They will never get to see their first kindergarten, never read their first book, never make their first basketball goal. We need to talk about this.
The fact that this is happening with a democrat politician in West Virginia could play into the hands of several organizations, if they only got off their butts and did something about it. There needs to be a massive education effort in WV among the rednecks…let them know what their governor is calling for..remind them who their coal union official told them to vote for (Manchin)…and then organize a recall vote.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.),wants to get "weapons of war off our streets."
"Off our streets"??? Sounds like code to me.
Is Feinstein's real purpose to prevent African-Americans and Hispanics from gaining access to guns of any sort? After all, "everybody knows" that blacks and Hispanics commit most gun-related violence, mostly on each other, but occasionally on white people, too. With so many gun-toting, violence prone African-Americans and Hispanics on "our streets", what's a Senator to do? (Remember the "Saturday night special" frenzy?)
Is Dianne Feinstein just another closet racist? Arguably, Feinstein is the best friend the NRA has ever had.
no, freedome of the press is the most important, that's why it's #1
i don't think anyone is saying you can't own a gun…if you want to protect yourself, get a hand gun. if you want to hunt, get a shotgun or hunting rifle. semi-automatic and automatic weapons however, are not for protection or sport…they are weapons of war. huge magazines, same use–war, not protection. the country would be more safe without these, and with a mandatory waiting period before taking possession of any gun–no exceptions.
while i'm not naive to think that having rational limits on guns would eliminate all heinous acts such as just occurred in connecticut, i do believe we would be safer with rational limits, and if we can make it more difficult for those who would perpetrate those acts, we should try.
Wasnt it jefferson who had a quote about how giving up freedoms in the name of security is a dangerous idea? There needs to be a serious conversatipn in this country about mental illness , and the media and goverments ptoliferation of violence. Tv, movies video games, sensless violent wars for oil, we are a violent culture. More people are offended by a nipple slip durning the super bowl then movies that glorify violence…..isnt there something wrong with that
The right to bear arms was not given to us so that we could go duck hunting. The right to bear arms was given to us so that we would have the ability to rise up and take back our constitutional rights when the Government became corrupt and was acting outside of the powers that were given to them. The writers of the Constitution said it was our duty to do so.
There are many examples of Corruption. I will give you 1 example for arguments sake.
We were given the freedom of information act. When Dr Shirley Moore and Richard Fine discovered and exposed that the L.A. Superior Court Judges were excepting money that was not authorized by LAW and Sturgeon vs. Los Angeles County 1 declared those payments to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL the Judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 that granted themselves (Retro Active Immunity from Prosecution).
When Government and Corporations are held to the same standards of the rule of LAW as the people are held. Then and only then could there be meaningful discussions about gun control.
When Government stops taking money from the people and giving it to banks and corporations and prosecutes blatant acts of corruption then gun control could be an option.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.),wants to get "weapons of war off our streets."
"Off our streets"??? Sounds like code to me.
Is Feinstein's real purpose to prevent African-Americans and Hispanics from gaining access to guns of any sort? After all, "everybody knows" that blacks and Hispanics commit most gun-related violence, mostly on each other, but occasionally on white people, too. With so many gun-toting, violence prone African-Americans and Hispanics on "our streets", what's a Senator to do? (Remember the "Saturday night special" frenzy?)
Is Dianne Feinstein just another closet racist? Arguably, Feinstein is the best friend the NRA has ever had.
An "assault weapon" wasn't even used in this tragedy and Connecticut already has an "assault weapon ban". Why do politicians think gun control window dressing will stop these horrific acts of violence? Address the root causes of these evil acts, be it our overly violent culture or lack of mental health concern. In the meantime, place armed guards or armed teachers in our schools because the SWAT team won't be there when the next evil person decides to shoot up a school.
The ONLY way they will ever get my guns will be to pry my cold dead fingers off of them…
FU ignorant antigun pukes.
It is a terrible tradigy. I just hope the politicos make it worse by pressing some b.s agenda to get votes
@Thomas Capital:
I love your Switzerland example! Do you also know that they must perform four weeks of service per year until they're age 34 (or have performed 260 days)? And that they cannot store military ammunition at home during that time? And that buying their military-issued militia weapon is an optional choice after they've left the military, but only after it is converted from fully to semi-automatic? And that they must provide justification, and have it approved, in order to keep that weapon?
No, you probably don't.
But: LUNATIC SOCIALISTS!!!
Tradgedy regardless of what was used as the weapon.
My opinion is that you cannot legislate crazy no matter how hard you try. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 men,women and children and injured over 800 with fertilizer and fuel oil purchased from garden centers and truck stops. I see no one suggesting bans on fuel or fertilizer that can take out far more innocent people when combined, you can even find the "How to do it" online.
From this guy to John W Gacey, Timothy McVeigh and other mass killier psychopaths, no laws,bans , etc., will stop these crazies when they are determined.
I see this very sad time as a opportunity for antigun folks to live off the fear and grief of this tradgedy to further their useless agend.
Facts are facts, we cannot legislate a phycopaths behavior and that is the REAL problem..
Dont make ir worse…. Iphone
The right to bare arms means arms that are equal to the threat regardless of the time frame of the writing. A british long bow would have been more effective back then because it could be loaded faster and didn't require the gunpowder to be mixed or bullets to be fabricated. The entire right to bare arms is meant to defend yourself because the government can't officers everywhere all the time with arms equal to the era. Nothing is going to stop the advancement of firearms, whether they're restricted or banned or not. Look at Africa, Australia, and any other place where firearms are banned by law. It doesn't get rid of them. The only difference it just destroys the people's ability to defend themselves against those who do not follow laws and consider laws to be beneficial to their ability to commit crime with less effort or threat to their own life.
So banning a certain type of weapon would have stopped this shooter? It's easier to shoot a lot of people with an automatic weapon, but certainly not impossible to shoot a lot of people with a handgun. What can stop a shooter of this kind is an armed and trained person(s) in the place where the shooting takes place. An armed and trained citizen or security officer on the spot may be able to take the guy out quickly. It takes time for police to arrive. By that time, the crime is finished unless someone is on the spot to take the guy out.
This hystrisa reminds me of the months following september 11th. We were forced to go to war with a country that had nothing to do with the attacks because of hysteria and claims of protecting natipnal security that turned out to be false. I agree with the comment above you cant legislate crazy
I am in favor of severe restrictions on Assault type weapons. I do not believe the benefits of freely available Assault type weapons out weighs the serious threat to the safety of our citizenry. I think the threat of government subjugation is more threatened by big brother type monitoring than the lack of available Assault type weapons. The Founders in all their wisdom, should not be diminished because they could not predict changes in technology for centuries to come. We are the citizens of this great and noble country, and in our hands are these decision always. I do not want to make big changes to the Constitution, but slight changes around the margins. I DO NOT FAVOR BANNING GUNS. I just want someone to justify an Assault type weapon, because I do not see this as compelling, there is no benefit that is worth it, unless we are at war. We are not at war. I want severe restrictions as the default, so someone needs to justify changing it. I think if we the citizens start to feel more threatened, than I reserve the right to change my mind, but now I do not see this, but I do see quite a lot of gun violence occurring now.
We must ban the selling or giving of guns w/o proper checks, all guns must be licensed and must go through a background check, every transaction. Every gun owner is responsible for all acts with their gun, if they want the privilege they will accept the high degree of liability for prosecution if that gun is used in a crime or accidental death or injury. With privilege comes responsibility.
The government can do more to destroy your reputation, in the form of character assassination, then coming with a gang of jack booted instruments of subjugation. The government will probably kill you with poison that causes a natural looking death.
Ideas in today's world of rapid communication are the most powerful weapons, not Assault weapons. The military force of tomorrow will be drones and some incredible weapons that we can not imagine. That war if it comes to pass, is not going to be fought with an Assault weapon, robots dont die like that.
WE NEED TO STOP LIVING IN THE PAST. Traditions and principles can be strongly held, but times do evolve and the problems we face do change as we evolve as a society and country. The Constitution needs to evolve with the times.
Fear is the enemy. Do not fall prey to fear, and do not follow those who exploit fear.
The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It simply enumerates those we already had…..given to us by our Creator.
"The Constitution needs to evolve with the times."
Then muster support for an Amendment.
Case study inarguably supports the position that disarming civilians will have the opposite affect.
Ask yourself why these atrocities occur almost exclusively in "gun-free zones". The recent mall shooting in Oregon (not a "gun-free zone") was halted by a civilian who was carrying legally. Local news reported it, but the national media outlets ignored this inconvenient truth. Why are the five cities with the most firearms related violence also the five cities with the most restrictive citizen firearms laws?
I've stopped a potential knife attack upon myself from multiple assailants without ever removing my firearm from my holster. I'm curious as to how many other CCW holders have been able to avoid violence simply by lifting their shirt. I doubt that a disarmed individual would have experienced the same outcome.
The monster who committed the Newton massacre committed 40 different felonies and 1 misdemeanor all total that day. Do you really think an additional law would have prevented anything? If so, how are those illegal drug laws working out.
Additionally, Jefferson noted when he authored the Second Amendment that one of the primary reasons for the establishment of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect us from the tyranny of our own government.
I'm certainly not willing to peacefully allow my Constitutional Rights to be revoked. Especially as a means of providing a false sense of security to those who haven't really considered all of the consequences such a senseless action would cause.
The Pro-assault weapons crowd and the
NRA are shame to our nation.
I believe a few years ago a NSA report came out stating that the biggest threat to America was going to be domestic terrorism, iam pretty sure this would qualify, what does the government know that they dont want to share with us? Instead of drugging these crazies and waiting for them to commit a crime to be commited to lock them up, why dont we have more loony bins to but these people in?
Those who do not support banning high-capacity clips and assault weapons are pathetic, immoral excuses for US citizens. They should be rightfully shamed for the simple-minded fools they are.
Anon, you are obviously ashamed of your comment or you would have put your name on it
"The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It simply enumerates those we already had…..given to us by our Creator."
I think you mean the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
Dear @Dumbo: "And, um, Dumbo, your remarks kind of disqualify you from the conversation: gun rights advocates are going to have to start making an articulate case for WHY they need assault-style weapons."
That's the point – we don't have to make such an argument to you.
In the wake of this most recent tragedy in Newtown, you most certainly WILL — well, not YOU, the tenor of your non-comments indicates you have little coherent to say. Hopefully others can make a more articulate case than you have here, 'cause I can promise you, you ain't winning any hearts or minds. There IS going to be a more thoughtful dialogue in this country. Either you can be a part of it, or you can opt out. If you feel you're arming for the Second American Revolution — which is the tenor of your remarks, and the not-so-veiled position of the NRA — well, that too, is a topic for conversation. Almost 250 after the founding of this country, are we STILL a revolutionary society? Is this still such a fragile democratic "experiment"?
Your inarticulate bellicose statements seem to be suggesting that. In which case, yeah, we all better arm ourselves to the teeth — to protect ourselves from the likes of you. It's all a pretty sad commentary.
I take some hope that the dialog that is sure to come in the weeks and months ahead will be on a higher, more thoughtful plain. To your credit, your comments are funny — in a macabre kind of way. What's disheartening is that I know many people think, and speak, they way you do. Live and be well.
I love how quick people are to want to take away rights of others. If you want to be told what you can and cant do move to Europe or a communist country
Our first reaction is about gun control but when are we going to do something about mental health in this country. We long ago abandoned it. Secondly, it is alarming to see how desensitized young people have become to violence. They play games all day where they are killing and knocking people down, who come back up which is not real. Hollywood takes no responsibility for the violence on TV and at the movies. It is as though they keep looking for more and more violence and as much destruction as possible. Let's address some of these others issues spurring to do violent unthinkable things.
Your solution is to house one soldier in every household?
This is exactly what the gun lobby wants: the militarization of America. Why is the answer always "more guns?"
Btw, quartering soldiers in homes is illegal under the Constitution. And so are restrictions on speech which you are advocating. You're pretty quick to advocate trampling on constitutional rights rather than to advocate for the enactment of any legislation dealing directly with the problems caused by easy access to assault weapons etc. (And no, you do not have a constitutional right to own any weapon you choose.)
Remind me again, was an assault rifle used in this cowardly act? Didn't think so.
Pelple control? Then watch them yell, "they are taking away all my rights". These loose guns laws are restricting my right to pursue happiness.
We live in the 21st century. We have rights to diversity, food, healthcare and we don't need any rights to bear arms – this was relevant 300 years ago but absolutely irrelevant now.
"In the wake of this most recent tragedy in Newtown, you most certainly WILL"
No, we won't. We aren't going to apologize to you or argue with you to retain our freedoms. We are going to keep them.
Why are people so quick to say our government will nevet turn against us, these were probably the same people who believed housing prices would go up forever till the end of time. I never thought the planes would hit the towers yet it happened. One or two more financial crisis could unhinge the peoples faith in their government and then what? A peaceful take over by the people? Governments dont like to lose control.
"One thing that I think is clear with young people and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this," Eric Holder told the Women's National Democratic Club while discussing how to curb gun violence in D.C. "It's not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
Our society is at times so dehumanized. I think video games are part of it. Kids go around shooting the characters on the screen and then they show up shooting the characters in real life. Abortion is part of it. We kill a million babies a year. They don't even have names. What I'd like to see is that everyone who gets an abortion would have to fill out an abortion certificate, with all the appropriate names – just like a birth certificate. And can't something be done about limiting those stupid phone answerers that talk about how important you call is which we all know the call is not important enough to be answered by a person. OK, there are three examples of a dehumanizing society. Let's work on those.
People with guns kill people. Thirty thousand every year in the US.
I favor restrictions on unicorns. There are just as many unicorns as there are "assault rifles." Can we talk about the culture that destroys millions of unborn children a year, devalues the lives of the aged and infirm, and drives God from the public square, but somehow thinks that access to tools of self-defense is the problem? Are you all so effete you can't see that this whole reaction to a dysfunctional family's progeny is political grist for the big government mill? It hurts too much to laugh, and I am too old to cry.
Maybe we'll get to see someone shoot up an NRA convention with assault weapons. I bet we would get some action pronto. In the meantime, nice to see the Senator grow a pair and stand up to the paranoid, anti-government loons. These people need to find another country and a good shrink.
Maybe it's time to boost Manchin out the door!!!
Banning them will do nothing but maybe a band aid fix. War on drugs has really worked to keep drugs off the streets right? Hahah actually it has just done the complete opposite. If you ban assault rifles then all you are doing is causing the value to go up and the guns will still be sold but to just unscrupulous individuals
People should not be allowed to keep guns in the same house as the mentally incompetent.
"Maybe it's time to boost Manchin out the door!!!"
He's got to go. A recall sounds like a good idea.He's nothing but a pawn for Barry's agenda.
New Laws Needed wrote :
People should not be allowed to keep guns in the same house as the mentally incompetent.
So you propose that no liberal can own a gun?
If you ban assault rifles, no new assault rifles will be sold in the US and the value of the existing ones will go up so that ordinary people cannot afford them.
Let's ban assault rifles.
When Math addiction was raging .. they controlled the sudafed .. now we do not get access to sudafed.. why .. they should have checked if the person buying has good backgrounds or not just like they do for the assault weapons people buy… Amazing ! …… we need more lobbyists in white house….
By the way .. why is no one talks about peoples addiction to assault weapons.. they are every where including the video games .. and they go and buy one and then just for fun starts using it in Cinemas, temples, malls, and oh boy in elementary schools.. some brave souls there ..
Wingnuts like me should not be allowed to own guns.
Gregory and Ryan need to look at every other western democracy where a couple of dozen deaths occur each year from gun violence. The U.S. kills 100,000+ but I'm sure it has nothing to do with all the guns in circulation. Idiots!
"… Look at how it's going down in Mexico. Banning drugs sure has stopped drugs huh? If a person wants to kill in mass amounts then nothing short of armed security will stop them, sometimes not even them if a bomb is involved. …"
A high percentage of those guns come from the US, courtesy of lax gun laws. What is to keep someone from buying a batch of guns legally from a dealer and then reselling them as the personal property of a "rightful owner" to someone else 20 minutes later?
Mentally incompetent liberals like me cannot be trusted with gun ownership. Please protect me from myself.
…don't own one, period.
Problem solved!
"A high percentage of those guns come from the US, courtesy of lax gun laws"
Correction – courtesy of your president, Barry.
GOODBYE Sen. Joe Manchin!! I don't know what you're going to be once the NRA is done with you!!!! BIG MISTAKE!
Comparing guns to sudafed qualifies as the dumbest post of the day and you have had some real competion.
@If You Don't Like Guns…
This is certainly a good solution to a lot of things, isn't it?
Guns, abortion, gay marriage, violent video games and movies, religion, drugs. If you don't like it, don't participate.
Problem solved.
Reading through these moronic comments from gun nuts makes me very sad.
"This is certainly a good solution to a lot of things, isn't it?"
It's what you liberals always say!
ST. LOUIS COUNTY (KMOX) – St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says it is time to talk about arming civilian school personnel following Friday's massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, comparing it to arming airline pilots after September 11, 2001.
"I see it no differently," he said. "Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we've not had another hijacking and the issue is, for the bad guy, he doesn't know which airplane he's getting on, if the pilot is armed or not."
Fitch said the killing will not be stopped by legislation or laws. "If there's somebody that's really hellbent on doing something like this, they're not going to care what the law is."
It is not true that gun lovers use guns to compensate for their small genitals and lack of a social life.
Say goodbye Odumbass.
No, many Americans do not want to arm themselves and roam the streets like vigilantes, which is obviously your wish. I have nothing against you owning a gun (well, maybe you, because you sound crazy, but not others) to protect yourself in your home. IT's a right I enjoy. But we TRAIN police officers for YEARS to be able to respond to shootings like this. We train our military to be able to respond. Most state laws require little to no training to own a firearm, and surely nothing of the type that would equip a hunter to respond to a combat situation or a shooting in progress in a crowded school or a mall. And while you keep saying others should arm themselves, you can't possibly be a gun owner because any gun owner would know as much.
The founding fathers guaranted thei Right to Bear Amrs. Why? What happend during this beginning time that there was a right to bear Arms?
Was there law and order, the military, a police force, national guard and the days when the constitutionalist WANTED AND NEEDED individuals to protedt thia country, to stop being ambushed by outside groups or do we pay taxes to fund these organizagtons federal, state and local that we may be relieved from bearing arms. If a person goes for a gun, and the clerk says why do you want a semi automatic? For my safety. I suggest you call 911, get an attack dog, get a security system – they have the guns that will be needed for your safey.
Last comment for today, spent too much time on this: But I notice no gun advocates have responded to this salient point: The shooter's mother had several weapons available for herself defense, and she died the way most victims of gun violence die — at the hand of someone she knew well, using the same guns she kept in the house. No, I don't have the stats, but I do know this is a very common occurrence. Guns kept at home are a very high incidence of gun deaths. It surely didn't make Nancy Lanza any safer.
Reading through these moronic comments from New Laws Needed and the other moronic liberals makes me very sad.
As a strict conservative, there is one area with which I do not hold the party line – use of guns, specifically assault weapons. Let me make a suggestion for those who feel the desire. Start by getting up off the couch, put down the supersize meal, Miller Lite, Xbox and Tour of Duty. Put on of a pair of running shoes (you can still wear the jogging suit that you've had on for the past 3 days), and go for a walk, run or something constructive. Not only will you get in shape but releave yourself of all that anger and possibly reduce that massive inferiority complex. Then, perhaps you can spend some quality time with your family.
Do liberals say that staying out of other people's business is the best solution? I thought they were Big Government-types, with the regulations and all?
Odumba wrote : "In the wake of this most recent tragedy in Newtown, you most certainly WILL"
No, we won't. We aren't going to apologize to you or argue with you to retain our freedoms. We are going to keep them.
Pathetically, your comment speaks for itself. Evidently, this is the best argument the NRA can muster, and it's a loser. Time will tell. Let the conversation begin…but Dumbo, you better bring more to the table than that.
Full-auto assault weapons are already illegal. Be honest and say that you want to ban assaulty-looking weapons too.
"Your president, Barry?"
IF Obama is not YOUR president, then you are not an American or you do not live in America. It's simple logic, given that he is the President.
Which means you are a foreigner living overseas–in which case, you mind your business.
There is no legitimate need for assault weapons among civilians. These guns are designed for mass eradication of human beings. Other than military or law enforcement, anyone buying these weapons should automatically be seen with suspicion. They are either paranoid, unstable or up to no good.
If you just like to shoot, these weapons should be confined to a range. Shoot them, and leave them locked up at the range. No need to bring them home.
Finally, the fact that these weapons can be procured on-line (eg. gandermountain.com – shame on you), is just plain insane. At very least, buyers should be required to present themselves in person to procure a fire arm. if you're man enough to own one, be man enough to show your face.
As soon as any of the Einstein anti gun types can figure out a way to get criminals to turn in every type of weapon that that carry and forgo the urge to attack myself or family members or break into my home for my belongings or money I will happily get rid of my guns. When this happens it happens on this planet you will be just as likely to see a unicorn. Force is a deterrent, not the lack thereof.
I'd like to ban morons like you that use semantics to justify arming mass murderers.
30 rounds in an "assaulty" weapon can still kill 20 kids in minutes. Moron.
I'm no fan of gun control either, but good for Joe Manchin. It's time, and the NRA had better not stand in front of the train or they will likely get smashed.
One of my family was gunned down about 20 years ago in a courtroom. The shooter cased the place first and detemined there was little or no security, then came back some days or weeks later. There was one writer who has it right: these are cowards who prey on the vulnerable, and it all happens in 5 minutes or less, By the time the cops get there, they are mostly counting victims. If we have $250 million for Solydra, then we have enough to protect kids with armed officers. If we don't have both, then Solyndra, et al, can forget it.
So, I should send my eight year old to school with a Glock in her backpack? You're nuts.
Good grief. Reading this "blog" reminds me that I really miss civility and respect in conversation.
Hey, Conservative M, I'm from the loyal opposition, but may I say I LOVE your comment: smart, well-written and funny! Hat's off. You're a conservative after my own heart! More power to you…
Conservative M wrote : As a strict conservative, there is one area with which I do not hold the party line – use of guns, specifically assault weapons. Let me make a suggestion for those who feel the desire. Start by getting up off the couch, put down the supersize meal, Miller Lite, Xbox and Tour of Duty. Put on of a pair of running shoes (you can still wear the jogging suit that you've had on for the past 3 days), and go for a walk, run or something constructive. Not only will you get in shape but releave yourself of all that anger and possibly reduce that massive inferiority complex. Then, perhaps you can spend some quality time with your family.
Rate of Homicide with Firearms
Canada: 0.49 per 100,000
USA: 2.85 per 100,000
5.8x higher in USA
Keep your heads in the sand all you want, but the numbers don't lie – or maybe Canadians are just more civilized.
Not to worry, stats show that you are more likely to die from the discharge of your own weapon against you, than you are from an intruder's. So we may just have the opportunity to do some prying.
Someone this committed to do something this horrible will do it- either with legal guns or illegal guns, or even without guns. There are many ways to committ mass murder, some of which may have been more deadly. What if one teacher or other adult had had a weapn and could have ended this early?
When the colonial rebels fought the British, they did not use bows and arrows, spears, or stones. They used the state of the art, for the time, weapons. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the Constitution of the United States. Having citizens armed with the same type of weapons as the government would use against them and prepared is a deterrent to anyone including our own government from infringing on it. Those who say that could never happen are foolish and have learned nothing from history. There will always be mass murders, genocides and revolutions, there always have been throughout history. Taking away guns is the exact opposite of what we should consider. Have you noticed that these things occur in places where guns are restricted? When planning a mass murder, the last thing you want is for some citizen to pull a firearm and shoot you before you can finish. These senseless acts are planned to get the most shock value possible because the new media goes into a feeding frenzy and the perpetrators are trying to accomplish just that. Take away guns of any kind and they will use a fire bomb, a tank of chlorine or propane gas, a truck bomb, or anything else to get the news media whipped up. If the news just reported the facts without the perpetrator's name and moved on, it would have much less sensation value, but they won't. They will give the public what they crave. There is a axiom in the news business, "If it bleeds, it leads". You wonder why these things happen, look no further than your living room television.
Look at the data in the US where the homicides with firearms exists. Unfortunately it is in high density minority neighborhoods.
Just one other idea. According to FBI crime stats (latest is for 2011) of the 12,664 murders in 2011 only 323 were done in by a "rifle" of any kind….assault, single shot, musket, etc That is less than half of the number of murders carried out with "hands, feet, etc." I appreciate everyone being upset. But don't do something as a pretense to actually making the lives of children safer. 5 or 6 children die each and every day from abuse. If we channeled this energy now exerted on gun control and the money it will take to pull it off, and put it to preventing child abuse…then we would have done something important for our population.The USA has NEVER successfully banned anything. Do you remember or remember reading about "Prohibition"? How about the billions being spent of the "War on Drugs." Lets do something that a)we can actually accomplish and b) will actually make a difference.
Arguably there is no reason for having any automobile or motorcycle that goes over the posted speed limit but we have them. How about if your ride goes over the speed limit you cannot take it home and have to leave it parked at a race track to prevent the deaths of innocent lives due to excess speeding? Sound fair? Or logical? IfiI work hard for and legally pay for something it is my property, bottom line. If you like being told what to do with your belongings then feel free to move to Russia. The nanny state suggestion is an asinine one.
These stats are just horrible. Did you know that 99% of all alcoholics started out on milk?
We need to do something!
is the price of complete unrestricted freedom to own guns.
They were vastly outgunned by the British, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. It wasn't until later in the war that they were able to procure a steady supply of weapons from France.
Also, the alternative means of destruction that you mention are already closely monitored. A 25-year old trying to procure large quantities of fertilizer would quickly get a visit from the FBI. The same 25 year old buying a Bushmaster and large-capacity magazines, would liklely go unquestioned – as in Denver. It's a major gap that's becoming increasingly deadly.
Why not use the ballot box to protect yourself from government.
These massacres are only a symptom of a much wider malaise. The youth of the country is even more psychologically sick than their parents. I was shocked to hear that:
"Being young has not always carried such a high risk of being anxious, depressed, suicidal, or medicated. Only 1% to 2% of Americans born before 1915 experienced a major depressive episode during their lifetimes, even though they lived through the Great Depression and two world wars. Today, the lifetime rate of major depression is ten times higher–between 15% to 20%. Some studies put the figure closer to 50%. In one 1990′s study, 21% of teens aged 15 to 17 had already experience major depression." p. 105 "Generation Me", Jean M. Twenge.
Kids these days are sicker and more nihilistic.
What better way to shock people than murder children? I expect this to be the new template for massacres in the future, no matter the weapons used.
The crazy people seem to always take assault rifles with them to their massacres. And high capacity clips.
Most every one I know well hunts and enjoys hunting, But none of them have assault rifles because they are not for hunting. They are offensive weapons againest humans not defensive. The same people who get bent over guns are the same people who believe in "legitmate rape".
The arguement that rocks or scissors are just as deadly is silly . When you can throw a rock or knife 200 yards at 1200 feet per minute let us know.
Grow up fool.
Really clever.
Actually, I don't want deranged psychpaths to own them. How are you going to fix that?
in all sorts of ways.
We need to keep our eye on the ball… don't let the government take away your freedoms.
High capacity mags and assault weapons… It's in the Constitution.
We need to restrict all of our constitutional rights, not just the 2nd Amendment.
"Arms" is not just guns.
Grenades, ied's, rocket launchers… these are all "arms" and should be covered by the constitution too.
We need to push for the sale of Grenades to the public.
Then while the Libbies are fighting that, we can keep any changes to the gun ownership laws.
Listen, I'm sorry about those kids, but statistically.. it's nothing.
There is a group in the USA who comprises less than 7% of our population, but according to the Department of Justice, they commit more than 52% of the murders in the USA.
98% of this very same group voted for Obama.
Why are liberals so very, very violent?
@Now is the time to double down:
"Listen, I'm sorry about those kids, but statistically.. it's nothing."
The price of freedom, folks. Nothing to see here, move along.
"There is a group in the USA who comprises less than 7% of our population, but according to the Department of Justice, they commit more than 52% of the murders in the USA."
Gun users?
just consider the third Amendment:
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Clearly our founding fathers intended these amendments to be relevant and observed in perpetuity.
@The Constitution of Timeless:
Do you currently have any soldiers quartered in your house without your consent? That amendment seems to be working as intended.
Fellow New Englander wrote :
"There is a group in the USA who comprises less than 7% of our population, but according to the Department of Justice, they commit more than 52% of the murders in the USA."
Gun users?
Black male gun users.
must be refreshed with the blood of our youngest patriots.
and those little ones are true patriots, sacrificing their lives for our constitutional amendment freedoms.
The government uses fear to strip away our freedom. You want safety lock yourself in a cage and give the government the key. After events like this politicians always need to look like they are doing something and then when it happens again they do someting more that won't work. Take away the guns and the maniacs will use bombs which will kill even more like the bus attack in London, or they will resort ot poison gas which will be even more effective in killing large numbers of people. Remember the Sarin attack in the Tokyo subway. And how about knives. In China a mad man recently killed 16 Chinese policemen with just a knife. Why not ban cutlery. I want to stop these mad men as much as anyone but passing laws just to make Obama look good is plain BS. Meanwhile over a thousand people a year are still alive because they had a gun and used it when threatened with death. Good math – save 30 but kill 1,000 -
Joe Manchin just showed us he is really nothing more than another Socialist. He'll also be a one term Senator; which ain't a bad thing.
Rather than respond with the wrong solution, while emotions are high, I suggest we look at the situation from all angles, rather than from the limited scope of banning guns.
The reason people like me are pro gun is because it has been consistently demonstrated, across the board, that gun control is counter productive. In fact, concealed carry laws and a greater awareness of gun safety (including keeping firearms locked up and out of the hands of minors and the mentally ill) has decreased gun crimes, as well as violent crime overall.
We have had an assault weapons ban. It didn't work. How quickly we forget that the Columbine massacre happened while the assault weapons ban was imposed.
Norway has super strict gun control that served only to insure that Anders Behring Breivik's 77 victims had no chance of defending themselves from him.
We must learn from the past in order to come to a meaningful solution, rather than demonizing groups like the NRA, whose primary function is to advance firearm safety.
Lastly, we must recognize that our country has remained free for 236 years, in no small part because of our second amendment.
The relevance of the second amendment is just as great now as it ever has been–perhaps moreso, at a time when so few of us now trust that our government is representing the interests of its citizenry.
Awwwwwwhh. But I;m angry right now.
If I have to go build a bomb I might settle down.
Banning weapons will create a war on weapons. Organized criminals will seize the opportunity to stake their claims on U.S. territories. It seems we are bound and determined to repeat the days of Al Capone. Do you understand how many deaths will result? Everyone calling for doing something to stop these isolated mass murders will rue the day when it becomes commonplace to lose a friend or family member to collateral damage… and this will be centered around criminals getting weapons, not the law-abiding citizen. I believe you people are being played.
We liberals don't really care when hundreds of black kids are killed by other black kids in our inner cities every year…but precious little rich white kids being killed calls us to action.
Once again we jump to the "easy" solution which, of course, won't address the problem but will allow the politicians in Washington to claim they have done something! Please remember people that the last assault weapons ban was in place when Columbine occurred and did nothing to stop that! This is just noise! Limiting magazine sizes might make some sense but has the same problem as the weapons ban; you'll only stop law abiding people from getting these weapons.
I know it is not politically correct but has anybody noticed that these mass shootings have only occurred post the introduction of three other elements of our society/culture today; 24 hour hyper-focused news media, large doses of violent video games, and complete abandonment of long-term forced psychiatric care. I am not advocating a return to Willowbrook style horrific incarceration but almost all psychiatric counseling today is voluntary. Parents, schools, courts are all severely hamstrung in trying to get people help that truly need it until they commit some horrific act, which of course is too late. The news media turns each of these events into week long or multi-week long 24 hour events that give more notoriety to these poor demented souls than they could ever hope to achieve any other way. Lastly, especially for young boys, we have been producing mind numbing, highly intensive, graphically specific video games that dull the senses and make the killing of humans, in any form, completely acceptable.
Yes, you need access to guns to fulfill the outcome of a tragedy like Newtown but removing "lawful" assault weapons won't solve the problem by itself and frankly, like many of our other "quick fixes" could actually make the situation worse!
According to the ATF so called "Assault Weapons" are used in less than 1.5% of all homicides in the US.
Every DAY 110 people(men, women, and children) die from auto accidents in the United States. Shall we petition the White House to ban sports cars?
The push to ban "Assault Weapons" is based in fear of the unknown- a fear of weapons that these people do not understand. The rifle used in CT WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. Columbine occurred in the middle of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Virginia Tech shooter used 2 pistols that do not qualify as Assault Weapons.
I understand the desire and anger about "doing SOMETHING" to make sure this doesn't happen again but the sad truth is that it WILL happen again regardless of what we ban or allow. We can ban and confiscate every weapon in the US and there will still be these lunatics plotting how to massacre a school full of children. The worst massacre on US soil was accomplished with BOX CUTTERS.
It is time to take a breath, step back, and look at the situation objectively. Believing that banning these weapons will somehow solve the problem is like believing that banning sports cars will end traffic fatalities.
If gun control laws saved fetuses or prevented gay marriage, I'd be for it.
.. unless you live in England or some other socialist paradise where it's tough to get guns.
It is breathtaking human beings could write these remarks (below). Is this really — truly — what the NRA stands for?? Is this the kind of twisted thinking "reasonable, law-abiding" gun owners wish to associated with? If so, God help us, because this is truly blood-curdling — and yet another reason why a serious conversation needs to start now. To wit:
A few dead kids wrote : is the price of complete unrestricted freedom to own guns…
Sometimes the tree of Liberty wrote : must be refreshed with the blood of our youngest patriots. and those little ones are true patriots, sacrificing their lives for our constitutional amendment freedoms.
You won't even give these kids a memorial or a web page to honor their sacrifice for "your rights"? You are gutless and probably a cheap @SS.
Adam Lanza was seriously deluded…he thought he was an abortion doctor.
mike y @ 2:13 pm December 17, 2012
No Mike. Gun violence in Mexico is fueled by this nation's insatiable appetite for narcotics and the international gun trade. I assure you that these criminals are not obtaining fully automatic, true assault rifles from the United States. They are getting them from Central and South America and from around the World. They are cheap, ubiquitous and fairly easy to obtain. Why spend $1000 on an American semi-auto when you can purchase true military weapons on the international market for far less? The answer is one wouldn't purchase the American semi-auto and neither do the Mexican cartels in any great numbers.
If you take away my guns I will weep for the country I once knew..
and for those dead kids – that was a tough break for sure,
but mostly for the corruption of the country Jesus and I once loved.
It wouldn't be to ban guns, that's for sure.
@This will happen again,
Since the U.K. banned guns in 1997, per capita violent crime has doubled and per capita gun crime has significantly increased.
In terms of per capita violent crime, U.K. has now surpassed the U.S. It's even surpassed South Africa.
SOURCE: British Home Office
Yikes, "Tree of Liberty" — your twisted comment really doesn't merit a reply, just stunned disbelief. Maybe you could ask those "little patriots" — oh my God, those six-year old children — if they wished to sacrifice their just-beginning lives for YOUR right to an assault weapon. How does one even conjure such a thought? No wonder the NRA website has remained silent, even they don't know how to respond.
God help you tree. You don't live in any country I recognize.
How can so many "Christians" be so enamored with guns, tax breaks for the rich, pollution, and the death penalty? That will always be a mystery to me…
Since when are higher tax rates the same thing as tax breaks?
"He said that "everything has to be on the table," and expressed astonishment that anyone would need to own the sort of assault rifle that the Connecticut shooter used."
What people 'NEED' to own is totally irrelevant…as is Sen. Manchin's assumption that he is in any position to decide what people need. Nobody NEEDS a car that exceeds the speed limit, or more than one house, or a camper, or a pleasure boat, or many many other things.
We should ban all guns, it worked for drugs, didn't it?
There are apparently a lot of gun rights advocates in this town (including the shooter's dead mom).
So this was the perfect place for a shooting spree massacre. Gun rights advocates understand that sometimes a price must be paid for their freedoms.
Much better than this happening in some hippie liberal gun hating town where they wouldn't be so understanding of the price of gun freedoms.
Good point.
I own assault rifles because it is my constitutional right as a law-abiding U.S. citizen. They will never be used to commit a crime of any kind and they will not be stolen or misused when I am not around, because they are kept securely locked up.
Besides that, it's no one else's business or right to interfere with my guns.
What is different about the Senator –he just got elected to a full term so can reveal his liberal biases. Armed adults could have ended this disaster;, but, there were none.
knowing that millions of trailers around the country are stocked with guns, beer and meth.. prepared to defend this country against all terrorists foreign and domestic.
Sad reporting by Murdoch-influenced WSJ. Manchin's quote; "IThis MAY be the time to START a discussion…",
yeah, real supportive of gun control. W Virginia would un-elect this guy in a heartbeat if he even considered a vote for gun control. NYC has nothing to say re: the desires of his constituency. So naive, WSJ
We liberals love victims. They are our most reliable supporters.
we only notice when it happens in groups.
Let's not start stripping our freedoms for a statistically insignificant event.
I will not stand for anyone to diss beer.
We keep on heaping laws and layers of governement hoping to solve all of societies problems, but that only goes so far.
The problem is culture: we raise children with no morals and no reverence for anything, with no ambition and no hope and then think we can pass laws to somehow contain them.
If we started producing better people we wouldn't have these problems. The time to start with this guy was infancy, but it's too late now.
I wonder how many million others there are just as bad?
To suggest my post implies you should send your child to school with a glock is asinine. How about boning up on your reading comprehension skills and quit being a troll .
30,000 people die a year from gun violence. How is that statistically insignificant????
Well Joe, you can kiss another term goodbye. I knew you would show your true colors sooner or later.
So The Dick Head That done the killing , and was told the AR-15 was left in the car and he had two hand guns is not the truth ! If the can prove to me that a gun no matter what type will jump off a table , gun safe, or any where else and kill you Then I would say the gun is in control ! A gun has never killed anyone till someone squeezes a trigger , The Gun is Not At Fault , But the one who has pointed a Gun At A Person And pulled the trigger and either wounded them or Killed them. Now if the gun law's that are on the book's were enforced it would help ! The Media FOX included and our Government call's an AR-15 and assault weapon and that Citizens do not need them ! This is the Law of Our Land And Our Right's ! ! As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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 I don't think I seen anything as far as what type of weapons we could have TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS Is What Is Stated . Pretty Plain and not hard to figure out just what it means
Seriously? This article is gross and anyone who actually hunts knows that people definitely use AR15s or other similar rifles. It's semi automatic, meaning one shot per trigger pull. The media paints it as an "assault weapon" and many times implying that it is automatic. It doesn't matter how many rounds are in a magazine…you can have all the rounds in the world, but unless you are accurate it doesn't matter. This so-called pro-gun Senator is obviously being swayed by the left's agenda, as he doesn't even know the proper name for a magazine. It's not a clip! Those where used in M1 Garands that ejected clips. While a citizen with a gun may have never stopped a mass shooting they have prevented them and have protected their lives and countless others. Where does it end? First the govt will tell us how many rounds to have in a magazine, then they will force all guns to be registered. That all sounds like it would make the citizen more vulnerable against crime and against the country's own military. The 2nd Amendment is for that reason. It doesn't say how many bullets we are allowed to have in our weapons. It doesn't regulate the type of firearm. Take away the citizen's guns the bad guys will take full advantage of that. An armed nation can defend itself if need be and take care of itself. Last but not least, GUNS do not kill people, PEOPLE kill people. Stop blaming guns. If this was the 15th century someone would slay people with a sword. We need to ask why people do this instead of how they did it.
I fail to see the issue. Hunters hunted just fine from 1994-2004 when the ban against assault rifles was in place.
Grow up fool. These are powerful weapons designed to kill HUMAN BEINGS. Spare us the semantics. That Bushamaster "semi-automatic" did enought damage. Go back to your cave.
Your name is quite appropriate. You need meds
Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what's happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.
Sign up for Capital Journal Daybreak