Comments

mrright

Ryan will ultimately follow Obama, if a vote is ever allowed and the 2nd Amendment rights are winning big, then Ryan goes with the 2nd Amendment, if it looks close then Ryan votes with Obama and against gun owners. It's just that simple

dstabt

The sit down with gun proponents is just a semantic. I'll pretend to hear and listen and even lead you to believe that your will have some impact on my decisions, but ultimately you don't and us liberal democrats will do as we please, as always.

NoBudButMe

A solution would be to stop GUN FREE ZONES (i.e. schools)...Not to limit law abiding citizens. Resistanceisfutile is right, for "we people" who strong believe in our 2nd Amendment rights for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government we will not comply. If these so called "assault weapons" are only looked upon as a weapons of war, then why should our local police department have these weapons? Who are they at war with? They are only to serve and protect. They are not at war. Let's take away their rights as well.

aeneid

"....you people are on a search for a solution to a problem that has been solving itself in large part."

So the shooting in Newtown is something you call "solving itself?" Or the massacre in Aurora? Or the one in Ft. Hood? The one in Tucson? I honestly can't tell if you're oblivious or uninformed, Mr. Moadus. These mass slayings continue, in part because of people like you that want to do nothing to stop them.

"....madness will always find a way."

A mind so consumed with it would give in to that kind of thinking, I suppose. I'd prefer to see laws that put a stop to a madman arming himself with a gun. Doesn't that approach make more sense than your pessimism, sir?

The entire first paragraph of your last comment is awash in denial. I know the facts on mass shootings and how you stop them is to make the weapons involved in them illegal.

Dmoadus

As I pointed out once to you "aeneid"; complaining about semantics only serves to deflect. You call it semantics because you can't define the term "assault weapon", but as I said, if you want to ban them you have to define them, and not with some nebulous description. Apparently, the point that we already tried the assault weapon ban with no success is lost on you. By the government's own admission the ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004 had no demonstrable effect on crime.

Also, you people are on a search for a solution to a problem that has been solving itself in large part. Violent crime has been cut in half in our country in the last 10 or 15 years. Except in our large (Democrat) controlled cities crime is on the wain. Killings as in Aurora and Newtown will never be eradicated as madness will always find a way.

You have to face up to the fact that you're free because of an armed population, and if you expect to remain free, we must remain an armed nation.

aeneid

Just as I predicted you would, Mr. Moadus, it seems that you wish to dismiss the sample definition of "assault weapon" I have provided for you. I can admire you for running for office but I cannot say that I value your sense of reason or rhetoric. On this issue you possess a feeble grasp of either.

If you want to continue the game of semantics regarding what defines an "assault weapon" I can direct you to the laws that govern Australia, a country that's figured out how to regulate guns and at the same time deeply values them within their own culture. I don't know if that will help you or not since you seem intent to engage in motivated reasoning.

Rest assured that in time sensible gun regulations will be enacted. And I'll happily suffer the insults of anyone panicking over this inevitability.

The logic and laws of other countries are something America can learn from. We can become better. We must.

FATher

It is just amazing to me the lack of civil discourse presented in these 'post a comment' sections of articles presented by the Tribune. I'm wondering if it a reflection of the school systems or the individuals who may have been taught but didn't learn.

NoBudButMe

FROM A NEWS ARTICLE(QUOTING TIMMY): U.S. Rep. Timothy J. Ryan issued a statement on Wednesday in support of Obama's proposals on gun control. "I am very pleased to see President Obama present a number of reasonable proposals for reform of our nation's gun laws. We must do all we can to prevent these tragic mass shootings and deaths that happen every day due to gun violence," Ryan said. "It will take a comprehensive approach that also addresses the core causes of violence in our society at large. This is a very positive first step." Ryan, D-Niles, claims the proposals and executive action is about strengthening the Constitution, not opposing the second amendment.

Dmoadus

As we now see, "aeneid" has the same problem with defining a so called "assault" rifle as the average gun grabber. Of course, she can define it anyway she chooses (any weapon like the one that killed the kids in Newtown) but she isn't a legislator. They must distinguish how assault rifles differ from run of the mill semi-automatic rifles if their proposed legislation is to have any practicality at all. So far the only way they have been able to define them is by appearance. Which serves to illustrate just how ridiculous their agenda's are

calamari1

Timmy will do whatever he is told to do. When it serves his purpose, he will parade around local gun events wearing his NRA ball cap. The reason he will not go against the leadership is because he knows there are plenty of idiots like Miss aeneid, to keep him in office.

aeneid

*And so Dan Moadus (possibly) descended from the heavens.... into a comments section.*

So flattered you've (possibly) taken to the trenches of your own column to debate me, Mr. Moadus. You want a definition, eh? I'm game. "Assault weapon" is a colloquial, generic term that I do not think is as abstract as you claim, sir. I'll keep it simple for this example:

Assault weapon: any variety of firearm bearing a functional likeness to the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle.

Quibble over my definition all you like. I've made the gun that was used to kill the 20 children of Newtown serve as the standard for my definition. I see nothing wrong with defining my example this way. But I see everything wrong with someone like you trying to make a cheap play at semantics to plug up the debate on banning assault weapons.

aeneid

Anyone looking for the very thin capacity of reason amongst gun fetishists can look no further than the other 2 wonderboys commenting on this article. With names like "Resistanceisfutile" and "NoBudButMe" what was I supposed to hope for?

Ignore the people that prize gun ownership above human life. Ban assault weapons, increase access to mental health services, and impose more widespread background checks. This is a problem that can be solved.

NoBudButMe

First of all AENEID, they are not "weapons", they are rifles. Secondly, no criminal/city thug will be going through any widespread background check, I can guarantee you that.

What a casual approach ("...and there you go, crises solved") on such an important issue, wouldn't you say? All I have to say is whoever you are, I pray to God you are not representing any government entity no matter how big or small.

NoBudButMe

U.S. Rep. Timothy J. Ryan issued a statement on Wednesday in support of Obama's proposals on gun control. "I am very pleased to see President Obama present a number of reasonable proposals for reform of our nation's gun laws. We must do all we can to prevent these tragic mass shootings and deaths that happen every day due to gun violence," Ryan said. "It will take a comprehensive approach that also addresses the core causes of violence in our society at large. This is a very positive first step." Ryan, D-Niles, claims the proposals and executive action is about strengthening the Constitution, not opposing the second amendment.