Oh, that's right. If the school secretary was packing heat, she could have put a stop to this. BRILLIANT!!!

Go into a closed room with the families about to bury their children and say that.

Which single element removed from this scenario averts another gun massacre of defenseless children - the perpetrator, the innocents, the weapon.

Spare us the Libertarian theology, Harold - the shooter was carrying an AR15.

You should be worried, we're coming for your semis and full-autos.
It's just a matter of time.

It's more than a little offensive to have some concrete Hillbilly defend gun rights in front of an inverted American flag, when 20 little kids are going to be interred instead of opening Christmas presents.

You're either with us Americans, or against us Harold.
Which is it?

Clearly the answer to the multiple choice question is, A: the perpetrator.
Using your logic, you could say that the Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden, guns did.

Maria,
That was the best post ever. Well said.

Naome he wasn't carrying an AR15 he was carrying 2 9mm pistols. you think that guns are the problem tell that to the parents of the 22 kids stabbed in school in China this week. These nut cases will find a way no matter what you do. Man has been killing man as long as he has walked the earth. If the law agenst murder does not deter these people what makes you think a law agenst guns would do any better. My question is why wasn't the school secured to begin with. In this day and age no one should be able to just walk into a school.

We should lower our standards to that of China, is that your position?

"...you think that guns are the problem tell that to the parents of the 22 kids stabbed in school in China this week."

This happened in Chengping - ever heard of it? It's a festering hell-hole in the middle of nowhere. We should lower our standards, is that it?

You do realize that NONE of those stabbed, died.

"These nut cases will find a way no matter what you do."

If they aren't carrying a concealed weapon - it may be easier to spot them.

" Man has been killing man as long as he has walked the earth. If the law agenst murder does not deter these people what makes you think a law agenst guns would do any better."

It would certainly make it more difficult for them to kill so many, so quickly.
This is indefensible, and claiming that you're in the right, reprehensible.

"Clearly the answer to the multiple choice question is, A: the perpetrator.
Using your logic, you could say that the Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden, guns did"

Bin Laden was responsible for the death of thousands, the individuals charged with bringing him to ultimate justice were trained, vetted and responsible.

Selling a Glock 9 and AR15 to the general public is now a clear health hazard.

That was a "brilliant" statement. Where do you come up with this stuff? How does Washington figure into this? What about the NRA d***heads?

The "brilliant" statement was directed at Harold Ryan

Naome, Bin Laden was responsible for the death of thousands and he didn't us a gun he used commercial airliners. By your logic we should outlaw all planes.

@ Robert Trager ... in "clearly the answer" . Is this the same R. T. formerly of Hope High? K B ... Calif

"Naome, Bin Laden was responsible for the death of thousands and he didn't us a gun he used commercial airliners. By your logic we should outlaw all planes."

That's an inductive fallacy. Airplanes are not intended to kill. The misuse, accidents at high speeds and mechanical failures account for airline fatalities.

Guns are designed to kill.

This act was indefensible and will be the end of easy gun ownership in America.
The place for semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons is the battlefield.

20 kids died in an elementary school.

I have three children, all in elementary. While this is sad to hear I do believe each school should have armed security. Yes I do believe that armed security could have stopped this before so many were killed. It is disturbing to see how the anti-gun crowd comes out so fast just to use this as ammunition for themselves. I have kids also, but I don't blame the firearms. The gunman is responsible. He could have used any weapon. It is the failure of the schools to protect the kids. We have security protecting shopping malls, but we don't have security protecting our children? Some highschools have a police officer which deters criminals, why not the elementary schools? I guess it isn't within their "budget".

@ NK... and you ARE NOT, of course, advancing YOUR political agenda .. are you??? Your commentary, as you so eloquently (sp) have put it, is not tasteless....
Your flat, no feeling comments under these circumstances are out of place here.

No one let him in, Nicole.

They had excellent safety policies, but apparently, the shooter was able to force his way into the school. He seems to have broken or shot out glass, maybe a window, as part of the process.

I think I must be misunderstanding that last part...the shooter's father can't be president of the Town Council in Newtown. He is divorced and lives 40 miles away. The Council chairman for Newtown seems to be an unrelated man named Jeff Capeci.
Did you mean, "will people bend the security rules for someone they know"?
Still a good question, even if that wasn't the problem here.

la_mouffette: I was talking about how the Little Compton School Department, and everyone in the town, for that matter, just overlooks the fact that we have a boy/man in the school every day who has NO business being there, and the reason it's allowed seems to be that his father is the Town Council president.

Ohh, I see, LC is Little Compton!
What does this person do there, just hang out? Visit teachers?

"Lastly, the doors to the classrooms should be steel with strong deadbolt locking to protect those in the classrooms."

Where, exactly will the money to make all these safe rooms arise? Bake sales?
Perhaps it would be cheaper to get guns off the street?

Bill, some pretty good points......My only worry would be that when they were evacuating, they could still be moving targets for someone with a weapon. Sometimes sheltering in place is the way to go. As far as the other comment made by Naome, I would think that as a line item in the budget for school safety, deadbolts, and maybe even a door bar could be fabricated to keep these people out, would be a little cheaper than trying to erradicate guns in this country as a whole.
In all honesty, maybe a little more should be done to take care of the mentally ill patients in this country? I don't see alot of mentally capable people walking around shooting cops, popping off rounds in the sky at malls, and slaughtering innocent children,,,,,it's usually the people that are just a little off that do these things? Right?

"Once security protocols are in place and agreed to, then it should be budgeted
and not a question of money." We can't get new schoolbooks, and the staff is pressured for wage concessions.

It's always about money. What's outrageous is that we're STILL having this out.

It's not news. It's a National disgrace.
http://billmoyers.com/2012/07/30/the-politicization-of-guns-too-soon-or-too-late/

ridiculous comment. The makers have no control over who buys perfectly legal weapons. Put them out of bussiness? Just how will that stop anything other than people having a job. We are not the only Country who manufactures weapons. Do you also wish to sue the manufactures of any company that makes something that a criminal or eveil person uses to commit acts of violence? Think about this a little more NL. Your better than this on debates with out the knee jerk reaction please.

You can file suit until your hearts content Naome. It doesn't remove existing guns from current owners. I myself have several firearms locked away in a safe. I use them for recreational target shooting. I'm the type of person that people like to victimize in these cases. The people that obey and follow the law. The weapons used in this case were purchased and registered to one of the victims (the shooters mother). The mall shooting in Oregon last week was w/ a weapon stolen from a friend of the shooter. I would bet my bottom dollar the day after a sweeping gun control bill or all out ban on firearms is passed, somebody in this country would die from a gunshot wound the next day. I'm not saying it's right or justified. The fact of the matter is, it's people that commit the act. You can't have something that you can posses in your hand leagally one day and it be illeagal the next and expect the problem to go away.

Peace.

Yes and we should sue Ford every time we get into a car accident. And don't forget to sue Exxon Moble without their gass the car wouldn't run. In an earlier post you talk about a Glock 9 there is no Glock 9 the 9mm glock is either the g17, g19 or g26. You have no idea what you are talking about and are hardly an expert to be commenting on this.

"The makers have no control over who buys perfectly legal weapons."

You're absolutely right, Jack. That is the implicit message of gun control.

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction, it's a simple reduction: a semi-automatic weapon is for battlefield issue. http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the-connecticut-shooter-used-a-bushmaster-rifle-like-the-dc-snipers-2012-12

"Yes and we should sue Ford every time we get into a car accident. "
Automakers are routinely sued over defective products that pose a threat to
the general public. Unsafe operators have their licensing revoked, and incarceration results from reckless use.

The major difference between intentional use of a motor vehicle as a weapon is that they're designed for safety. Guns are designed to kill.

Inductive fallacies such as the relating of car accidents to intentional shooting
of children in an elementary school are an logical inaccuracies.

People don't get into a car and turn the key to kill a room full of kids.
"In an earlier post you talk about a Glock 9 there is no Glock 9 the 9mm glock is either the g17, g19 or g26. You have no idea what you are talking about and are hardly an expert to be commenting on this."

You're right - I'm not an expert on murdering 1st graders.
I'll leave that to you to defend that, Robert E.

20 kids died in their classroom.

I'm not sure suing the gun manufacturers will accomplish much. They probably cannot be held liable for crime or tort in this situation. However, I agree that the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. The 2nd amd was created so that, in the absence of a standing army, the U.S. could form a strong militia-based army. Now that we have a standing army, and a darn good one at that, it seems that we don't need militia. So the 2nd amd. no longer provides the benefit that it was designed for.

Those who do not want gun control suffer from an affliction called paranoia.

"All the victims of the Connecticut elementary school shooting were killed up close by multiple rifle shots, a medical examiner said.
Dr. H. Wayne Carver said at a news conference Saturday the deaths are classified as homicides. He said he believes "everybody was hit more than once." JACK please do some research before unloading more of your pro gun talking points on us. And why not have some respect for the families instead of trying to turn this tragedy to your pro gun benefit.

BTW, update. The Ct ME says that ALL victimes were shot MULTIPLE TIMES with the assault rifle.

As usual, we have gun lovers such as Jack Baillargeron blabbering about gun ownership, and gun owners rights, etc., etc.

Please Jack, let these victims rest in peace, and save your gun loving comments for your next NRA meeting. It's time to pass comprehensive gun control legislation NOW, before more innocent lives are lost.

John this why I say wait till the investigation is done. It is Ironic that CT has some of the strictest rules in the Country on banning their definition of an assault rifle. His mother is said to have been an avid collecter also. As I said he was under age to have hand guns according to CT law. Don't know the wording for the bannedweapons though.

The ME would definatly know the weapon for sure. But I have now read they found 4 different handguns in the building and they originally said the rifle was left in the car. I was merely correctng NL on what an assuat weapon is and by the true definition it must be automatic which is illegal.

Semi-auto rifles like this have been made and sold since the vietnam war when the M16 was invented and people wanted a civilian version (Semi-automatic). There are a lot of things to argue ablout this terrible act besides banning honest law abiding people from owning weapons. Never in history has that prevented gun violence and it never will.

We have become a society that is slowly spiraling down with no morals, bad education, un caring parents, and anything else we can think of that cause these things. But we must also look at the fact that there is evil and some people are just plain evil like this man was in my opinion.

Jack B says"John this why I say wait till the investigation is done", but you are already spouting off your pro gun crapolla with out having waited or even thought past your right to own a gun. You are getting dopier and dopier week after week.

"We have become a society that is slowly spiraling down with no morals, bad education, un caring parents, and anything else we can think of that cause these things. But we must also look at the fact that there is evil and some people are just plain evil like this man was in my opinion."

True enough.

Take the Bushmaster .223 out of his hands, and he's still evil - and
20 little kids go home instead of to the mortuary.

You can't hide behind this one, Jack.
Remove the weapon from the equation and it's an assault - we're the leader of
the Free World - it's about time we act like it. This was a preventable massacre.

20 little kids dead in what, three minutes?

This is how we lead the World to freedom?

So how do you do that NL. Take the weapons out of the equation. Stop producing them? What all do you ban that can be used to do these things? Not to mention materials that can be used to do much worse. It is a slippery slope to start banning things that will accomplish absolutly nothing. Evil people will find a way. No different than terrorist did on 9/11.

You cannot legislate away evil by penalizing the good people who follow the laws and regulations. Granted if you want to change the Constitution it is your right to try. But I do not see that happening anytime soon I hope. A disarmed population is the first step to genocide and history proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"When people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is freedom".

Your anology of if he didn't have that weapon it would not have happened. So again what exactly do you deny the honest person from having, because criminals do not abide by bans of any kind. You not stop the manufacture of every item that could be used to cause these types of things period. Plain and simple.

NL; Would also like to know how it was prventable? That is a bold statement that makes little sense in my opinion.

"Would also like to know how it was prventable?"

Jack, if he doesn't have a weapon in his possession, a GUNman is just a man.
Guns make killing easy, that's why they were invented.

Guns are readily available in the USofA, in huge numbers.
(Multiples of the population are in active condition.)

The Corps won't let new Marines handle live rounds until the 7th week of basic
training - a reasonable precaution to make certain that those handling weapons can take basic instruction.

If we require the acquisition of firearms to have rudimentary handling and safety
instruction examinations, as with motor vehicles before the owner may take
possession of the firearm, we'll see fewer weapons purchased.

It's not only easy to fire a modern handgun, it's all too easy to procure one.
Given the access this shooter had to several weapons, I assert this was
preventable by stringent qualification exams.

After all, the US military effectively exchanges the recruit's freedom for the privilege
of carrying live ammunition into harm's way. The same exchange should be applied to the casual gun owner.

It's a toxic brew boiling with the most vehement "Liberty or Death" adherents
also claiming their right to amass an arsenal in defense of any threat to their
definition of liberty.

It's not liberty if you must deprive another of their life to have it.
That's tyranny, by definition.

Very true Joe sadly

@ Jack, off the cuff...all gun lovers are not necessarily tea baggers now are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HorjwiT1Xy8

The primary difference is that each of your attempted associations are designed for neutral purposes; natural gas to provide heat, automobiles to transport people and materials. The purpose for the Bushmaster .223?

" Your obvious ultra liberal, anti-gun bias, know-it-all attitude about firearms is insulting." What's insulting is that 20 kids will be buried and the parents have probably got wrapped presents WITH A DEAD CHILD'S NAME under the tree.

You're defending your rights when we should be talking about responsibility.

Take away access to weapons like these and what happens to the outcome of the Columbine/Virginia Tech/Aurora/Sandy Hook shootings? They don't happen.

Do try to limit your Strawman arguments to something that doesn't involve the
slaughter of childern, won't you?

"Hopefully whenever you are accosted by a criminal with an firearm, you will be able to talk him or her into submission." Perhaps if there were fewer in circulation
this ridiculous notion would die a natural death.

Let's be plain, TNKA it's understandable that if you're a full grown man with penis envy that you would like to handle something hard, heavy and powerful.

I think it absolutely legitimate to defend the 2nd amendment if it's enforced in the original format - with regular militia training, including disqualifications for those
that can't meet standards. Standard issue should be a 6 foot muzzle loader.

20 kids died. You can't hide from this, anymore.

Calling a gun a tool is disingenuous. Guns were invented for a single purpose: to kill. And they excel at that goal. They are not tools. They are weapons. Tools are used to build and construct, or to demolish and clean. All good things. Guns merely kill.

Comparing guns to cars is also little more than a clever distraction. They are both technological inventions, true. They both cause death, true. But the primary purpose of the car is transportation, while the primary purpose of the gun is to kill. In that respect they are very different inventions.

The only things that the gun is really comparable to is the sword or the bomb. These all fall into the category of technology invented for the purpose of killing people.

Tired of NK antics: The fact that you invoke God at the end of your irrational and illogical screed says it all. You are no more a genuine religious believer than you are a loyal denizen of America who understands what values our country embodies. You are just another selfish and ignorant popinjay who lacks a basic education in the fundamentals of logic while accusing others of being illogical. The 2nd Amendment was clearly and obviously drafted for a time when the nation had no standing army.

I assume you consider yourself a 'law-abiding' citizen, like so many gun fanatics claim. Really now? So do you intend to continue to be a 'law-abiding' citizen if and when gun possession is outlawed? Or would you move to some war zone that would better suit your gun-worshipping needs and provide a more cosseting environment for their use?

Your uncapped natural gas is what's killing me!

@ Portent...your screen name is all I needed to see...you fancy yourself some kind of "omen" or some sort of prognosticator...talk about hot air....gimme a break. You have no idea what kind of person I am, so please lay of the personal attacks and stick to to subject matter. Your rotten personality is the smell that is blowing back in your face. I am sure i am at least as law-abiding as you are. I never once mentioned the second amendment. And we both know, gun ownership will never be outlawed. It will never happen. Good luck to you in your quest, and may God bless you as well. As we are all Gods children.

Silly whiney liberal.... anyone that supports the second amendment is labeled a racist...I really feel sorry for you. You see, it doesn't matter to me who inhabits the White House. Anyone that wants to limit my freedom will be a "person of interest" to me....including you.

"Anyone that wants to limit my freedom will be a "person of interest" to me....including you." - Tired of NK antics

That's the classic Fascist response, if you don't get your way at the ballot box -
threaten violence. 20 little kids died, to keep your "freedom" alive.

Some patriot.

Wow. Tired of NK antics calls himself a patriot, when he is more concerned about his gun hobby than he is about the safety of our streets? That's not patriotism - that's ego-centrism.

Spare us the Fascist theology.

There are how many guns in the US? The careless use of these has become a public health issue. It's no longer about arcana in the US Constitution.

It's about 20 dead kids.
In kindergarten.

2 weeks before Xmas.

Face it, this is indefensible by reasonable people.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/335-156/12554-58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us

@ NK ... Seems to me that those countries were all dictatorships ... were they not? That sets the U.S. apart not only by many years but from their beliefs. However, we came close to being ruled by a dictator with Bush, W.

....somebody doesn't like the truth..... Just sayin'.......

Hey NK: I AGREE with You. I am not your enemy..

How so, because we don't like the fact that easy access to guns has lead to the slaughter of 20 kindergarteners - in their school?

Are you Charm school graduates members of the Anders Breivik fan club?

20 dead little kids.

All the guns in the world did what to protect them, exactly?
Plenty, probably right there in that neighborhood.

@ tired of NK... you just can't leave politics out of this mix can you. Can you say *no politics*?
I don't recall reading of any death threats in any of these comments. You must like to hear yourself talk and spout off.
As stated somewhere in these comments .... the voters have spoken loudly and clearly about the way they want this country to run. Give it up until next election. Your comments are just redundant.

"I am an experienced and educated gun owner NL. I and those like me do not have "cleaning accidents".

Nancy Lanza was an experienced and educated gun owner, too.
She was, apparently, a prepper anticipating armageddon and social turmoil.

Ironic that she was the provider of an arsenal for her own demise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9749217/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanzas-mother-was-preparing-for-disaster.html

You consider the relentless litany of facts and recounting of gun violence whining?

"I am an experienced and educated gun owner NL. I and those like me do not have "cleaning accidents".

Nancy Lanza was an experienced and educated gun owner, too.
She was, apparently, a prepper anticipating armageddon and social turmoil.

Ironic that she was the provider of ordnance and weapons that caused her demise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9749217/Connecticut-school-shooting-Adam-Lanzas-mother-was-preparing-for-disaster.html

"We've met the Enemy, and he is us."
- Walt Kelly as Pogo

CATO institute, not NRA, which I am NOT a member.

First off, I am appalled at what happened in CT. No parent should have to bury their child.

I see that you think taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens will stop something like this from happening. Well, a few years back, there was this crazy guy who blew up a building in Oklahoma . There was a class of toddlers that didn’t survive. No gun used.

Kyle, you're right. Sadly, taking guns away from people will not prevent murder. But you're also wrong, because it will reduce the occurrence of murder, just as it has done in other societies that have banned or severely restricted firearms.

"I see that you think taking guns out of the hands of lawful citizens will stop something like this from happening. Well, a few years back, there was this crazy guy who blew up a building in Oklahoma ."

Thanks for the history lesson... we covered this earlier, but since you can't be bothered to read an prior posts;

After Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma city Murrah building, concrete pylons and screening perimeters were erected around State and Federal buildings.

Sales of fertilizer in high quantities is now closely monitored.

Security measures adapted to this threat to prevent the recurrence.
Since 1995, the only attack to take multiple American lives using a vehicle was September 11, 2001.

Again, security measures were enacted to address that threat mode.
Multiple steps screen people intending to board an airplane.

Swab detectors are used to search for bomb precursors.

20 children were killed last Friday with a semi-automatic weapon. Such weapons
are easily concealed and nearly impossible to detect in a public place.

It's not the first time a single gunman has killed unarmed defenseless people
in a public place with a weapon designed for the battlefield.

Are you suggesting that we should not adapt to this?

"You really should solidify your argument before you blabber on about something in which you have limited knowledge and experience. In the vernacular that is known as diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain."

My, aren't we clever. It's a simple notion - guns are meant to put holes in people.
It's not something civilized people need, it does seem to be something that a
play-acting wannabe badass might enjoy collecting, like GI Joe dolls.

There's no debating someone willing to resort to violence, when they're challenged.
Fascists like you aren't welcome, anymore. It's time for you "my freedom first" loudmouths to get with us Americans or get out.

Remember it's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in that order.
This gun collecting is a death fetish, no more, no less.

The problem is that it's spilled over from fantasy to causing actual death.

"If you read what you wrote, you will realize the key element in your statement is people, not guns." Every one of these murderous acts was committed by a deranged GUNman. Take away the gun what remains?

Perhaps I'm "blabbering on" about the obvious.

You gun nuts are worried about your stash.
Go Galt, already.

You won't be missed.

wow....now THAT is original...you have cut me to the quick. How will I ever recover.

No, what I need is to see some measure of sanity concerning weapons.

That's not on display, here.

If you don't like what you see, look elsewhere.

@ tired of NK.. .. First off... you are an instigator ... every few statements of yours is directed at inflaming the liberals. Don't you think that you fall into that same category? Hmmm, talk about someone who needs a time out here. Give it up for a few days and give us and those parents etc a chance to grieve. Your one sided *implants* are redundant, un-welcomed and out of place. It's a wonder that you are not threatened by someone.

"...big time out for Naime Lixes."

That's the ineffective discipline for children, much like the 20 gunned down Friday.
You can't hide behind the 2nd amendment on this, getreal.

"Guns also gave america our freedom with lost lives of brave men and women who fought for us,,," This is what you think they fought for?

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" how does YOUR gun ownership help
20 dead children with any of these?

Please explain to one of the Sandy Hook parents how your freedom to bear arms trumps the life of their child. You cowards can't hide behind the 2nd amendment.

I'm pretty sure that there were three minutes of Hell, right there in the 1st grade class.

"Everyone just shut up and show some respect!"
Not a good time to talk about gun control? When will it be time?

I agree with you Fred. Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of event that mobilizes the gun control crowd. There is no need to have that debate right now. Let people grieve. However, our President and our own Jim Langevine are out in front pushing gun control in the wake of this tragedy. One can not simply ignore that.

"I agree with you Fred. Unfortunately, this is precisely the kind of event that mobilizes the gun control crowd. There is no need to have that debate right now."

No kidding. This is precisely the right time to have this discussion and get baby killers off the streets. So was the day after Aurora, the day after Tucson, the day
after Virginia tech, the day after Columbine...

You can't hide behind the Constitution any more.
Deal with this for what it is, gun violence.

Any less is cowardice.

After Oklahoma city, we put up pylons around Federal and State buildings to keep truck bombs further away, reducing possible blast effects.

We quickly identify abandoned packages at public transport as threats.

The police were on the attempted Time Square bomb in minutes after street vendors picked up the smell of smoke. Chemical agents such as sarin are similarly interdicted at the points of dispersal, enclosed spaces with crowds much as
with standard explosives.

The difference between large scale devices and guns is portability and ease
with which they can be concealed; the very same qualities prized by those
that concealed carry in self-defense.

It's no longer defensible to claim that the unmeasurable protections afforded
by these weapons offsets the murder of innocents. If Americans want to carry
weapons in self-defense, they should be large enough as to be obvious.

Businesses should then be free to refuse service to anyone carrying a weapon.

Face it, Joe - this kid didn't climb a tower or park a truck full of fertilizer in the gym.
He walked into a school full of 1st graders with a semi-automatic rifle.

Enough, already.

Good point, Joe. We should ban those practices, too.

Oh wait. We have. And it turns out they happen MUCH less frequently than murder by firearm.

Joe, are you suggesting that the United States government had something to do with this Bushmaster 223? Do you know something we don't?

This is a contemptible diversion - worthy of retraction.
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15935397-mom-of-suspected-school-shooter-first-to-die-was-avid-gun-enthusiast-friend-says

Jim. I agree with 100% It is the destruction of the American family. We may ask ourselves where have all the Real Men gone who stood up for true family values? Or have we all just been neutered so we do not offend anyone. A major issue of contention is the removal of anything to do with GOD from our schools by both political parties. This is motivated by the progressives in the Republican and Democratic Party. Progressives are scared of anyone believing in something more powerful then the centralized goverment is a danger to their power. May we all take a moment today and remember those families that have lost someone on Friday.

"Take an honest look at our society."

Teen pregnancy didn't kill 20 kids in their classrooms.

"Taking away Christian values and making God a bad word. The music the kids listen to, glamorizing the "gangsta" lifestyle." That sounds like nostalgia.

Nostalgia for the Wild West and John Wayne movies feeds the gun fetish.

"Is it really any wonder things like this happen? Really? Take an honest look and think about it." I did. How many kids would the shooter have killed without a gun?

"A major issue of contention is the removal of anything to do with GOD from our schools by both political parties." Surely the victims must have prayed for rescue.

They'll be buried because we didn't have the courage to take guns off the streets.

"This is motivated by the progressives in the Republican and Democratic Party."
You're a Tea Party Hyena, Fred. At least vultures have the decency to wait until the dead are buried before their meal.

"Progressives are scared of anyone believing in something more powerful then the centralized goverment is a danger to their power."

Do you suppose that reasonable people might see a deadly weapon in the hands of people like you as a threat, Fred? You can't hide behind the Constitution.

This was a gun killing.
20 children died.

Spare us your heresy Fred. I do believe God enjoined the Israelites against this.

Jim, I also fully agree with you! My heart goes out to the families affected by this unspeakable tragedy. I believe that NONE OF US will ever be the same again after this and all the other incidents that have happened in this country. There is no place in our country that we can feel safe anymore - not in our schools, not in the supermarkets, not in the malls, not in movie theaters, not even in our churches where people have also been killed, and not even in our own homes. Those in this country who belittle Christian values and who want God eliminated from everything are destroying our way of life. Unfortunately, the only one we can control is ourselves and the way that we behave. Let's not be afraid to stand up for our religious beliefs. Let's not be afraid to say "Merry Christmas", if that is what we believe in. If we are people of faith, let's return to our churches and pray unceasingly for our country. And that decorated tree that sits at the State House - it's a CHRISTMAS TREE and for those who object to that because they do not believe than please do not celebrate OUR holiday.

" Those in this country who belittle Christian values and who want God eliminated from everything are destroying our way of life." Do tell.

A Christian response to this would be condemnation of those violating the 10 C's.

A Christian response might include eradication of devices intended to maim or kill.
I'm still looking for a reference in the Bible that justifies owning something that
has the singular purpose of ending another person's life.

It's not like Jesus was packing.

Naome "It's not like Jesus was packing."
John 18:10-11
Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”

It doesn't state weather Jesus was or was not packing but has followers were.

But who do we follow? Jesus or Simon Peter? We follow Jesus (in part) because he told Simon Peter to put down his arms.

Robert, you can't be both Christian and condone violence.

Are you familiar with the Ten Commandments presented to Moses?
It's unnerving that so many avowed Gun Huggers are also claiming their right
to use weapons to defend a heresy as spelled out in the Bible.

Do you know another group of heavily armed religious fanatics willing to spill
the blood of children for their cause? I do, we're fighting a war with them still.

If you're going to align yourself as an American Taliban, there will be no hole
deep enough for you to hide - no cache secure enough that we won't find.

Automatic and semi-automatic weapons belong on the battlefield.
This killer used a weapon of war in a 1st grade class room.

Implying that the followers of Jesus would condone the slaughter of children
is revolting and worthy of a retraction. Be a man, admit your mistake.

It's cowardice to hide behind the 2nd amendment.

Actually, I would like to see fewer dead children.

That's the point.

It's never the right time to talk about gun control in America.

John Lennon gunned down (can we talk about guns, now?)
Ronald Regan and Jim Brady shot with a handgun (now?)

Columbine (too soon?)
Virginia Tech (another foreigner - it doesn't count)
Aurora, in the dark, at a movie theater (he was just crazy)
Sandy Hook, in an elementary school - what EXACTLY are we waiting for?

Do you gun hoarders, preppers and "sovereign citizens" think your right to guns more important than the lives of 20 first graders?

I don't.

It's just cowardice, when you can't face this for what it was.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/gun-control-newtown-school-shooting/60006/

@NL
You continue to prove and exemplify exactly what I stated above. You obviously do not know the meaning of the word dolt. In the dictionary I believe your picture is next to it.
I don't own a gun. But it is not the implement that is the problem. It is our society and their unwillingness to face behavior that is outside the collective accepted norm. The lack of backbone to act upon or against that aberrant behavior, in whatever form, has given us a soulless society. The bleeding hearts who want to cuddle every out of step misfit might have a different opinion if they were in the same room with some of these people.

"You continue to prove and exemplify exactly what I stated above. You obviously do not know the meaning of the word dolt. In the dictionary I believe your picture is next to it."

This is a public forum. If the gun nuts want to step in here and defend their
rights, they deserve no quarter. People like me sat on the sidelines while these
throwbacks ran the country off the rails.

No more.

If you don't have the stomach for this, you're an exemplar of the problem.
I want my country back from these idiots.

"The bleeding hearts who want to cuddle every out of step misfit might have a different opinion if they were in the same room with some of these people."

I'm not advocating any such position. I do believe that access to guns made it
possible for one individual to kill the defenseless. If you're aligning yourself
to defend that - there may be another dictionary entry for you.

You're lecturing me on decorum after an obscenity was committed.
Spare us your Libertarian theology.

I think you're hanging the wrong perpetrators on the gibbet.

Clearly, those that sell semi-automatic weapons to the general public know the risks.

If the death of 20 children doesn't mortify them, desecration won't either.
We won't end this kind of violence with more violence - look at Pakistan...

Two wrongs don't make a right. Hatred and revenge beget hatred and revenge, John. Look to your namesake.

Nothing gets past the goalie.

I would block a shot for you, Mike.
That's only because I'm too slow to get out of the way.

Let's run the experiment, then.

Take assault weapons and the munitions they fire off the streets (an outright ban)
including confiscation of registered weapons such as the one used to commit
this atrocity for ten years.

Let's calculate the data then, shall we?

Naome only handguns have to be registered there would be no way to know who had so called "assault weapons" unless you want the polito show up and trash every home in the country. there would be no way to find the banned weapons.

How many guns were used on 9/11? How many were used at OKC? Remember the daycare center there? How many guns are used to kill the 14 year old victim of a rape under Islamic law? Evil people find ways of doing evil things. For instance, you are using the deaths of children to promote your agenda.

Hey Bill, as are you.

Bill, the killer did not fly a jumbo jet into the school gym, nor park a cube truck full of explosives into the cafeteria - he carried a portable firearm into a classroom.

In the aftermath of each such atrocity, our security response changed;
the concrete pylons and screening cordon around State and Federal buildings,
the screening at our airports. Are you suggesting that after this latest gun
massacre, in a public place, against an unarmed crowd of innocents that we should not take further precautions?

As to the killing or Hena Akhter, you are aware that this happened in Bangladesh?

Do we, as the leaders of the free World, aspire to better than a backwater in one of the poorest places on the planet - run by some literal reading of an ancient scrip?

" For instance, you are using the deaths of children to promote your agenda."
We've sat quiet about this for too long. You will note that my opprobrium was
raised after Harold Ryan's first assertion that more guns would have made
these children safer.

It's ludicruous, the insistence that this act would have been carried out with
any other method. Guns make killing easy.

Semi-automatic and automatic weapons don't belong anywhere but the battlefield.

20 children died.
They were in their 1st grade classroom.

Two weeks before Christmas.

Naome, I am stating (not suggesting) that a person or people bent on doing harm will do harm. What if this psycho drove up, blocked the exits and then threw molotov coctails through the windows? What if he made a pipe bomb? What if he waited until there was an assembly in the gym and crashed his car into the wall rigged to explode? what is the common denominator? Hint, it's not the guns.

"What if this psycho drove up, blocked the exits and then threw molotov coctails through the windows? What if he made a pipe bomb? What if he waited until there was an assembly in the gym and crashed his car into the wall rigged to explode?"

Lanza did none of those things. He broke into an elementary school and gunned
down 20 1st graders with a semi-automatic weapon.

Look at the mass murders in America since Columbine.
" what is the common denominator?"

Semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines - like these...
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/MAG-097

Can we deal with reality, or are you incapable of facing facts?

Oh thank you for enlightening me. I was unaware that every mass murder since Columbine was a result of semi-automatic weapons.

Thank you.

Let's start with getting the guns off the streets, for the betterment of society.

Let's be clear, there's nothing political about a threat to public health.

I have no quarrel with original interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, so long as period appropriate equipment is the issue. Feel free to keep your Blunderbuss.

As to the presence of semi-automatic and automatic weapons, didn't you get enough of hostiles shooting at you? You were active duty, under fire - right?

"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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Note that these passages precede the Amendments, and these fundamental considerations are superior in directing the law to all that follow, including the Amendments.

Naome,
The preamble you are quoting here is not part of the Bill of Rights. It is the preamble to the Constitution. They are two separate documents.

I have read many of your posts. For the most part, you appear to be one of those who believe that the Constitution is a "living" document. Therefore, you can't know turn around and claim that the intent was to allow muskets but not more modern firearms.

That being said, the 2nd amendment was never meant to "allow all guns in all hands". It clearly delineates possession to "a well regulated militia" as evidenced by the National Defence Act of 1792, which defines "militia".

Townie you are incorrect in my opinion. You ignore the comma making it 2 different clauses which the Supreme Court has reaffirmed it to be.

(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 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 would point out also the Bill of Rights is an addendum that was meant to spell out rights of the people along with the Constitution. So for me anyway they are one and the same. Well the Constitution can be considered a Living document since it can be amended. The founders made it extremely hard to do it so the Constitution would not be amended out of the existence of its true meaning and rights. Least in my opinion anyway and the way like I said the SCOTUS have interpreted it over the years.

Ah Jack, the comma, now that's the rub. If, as you say it should be reated as two different clauses, then what is the point of the first clause? I would submit that both clauses are inter-dependent. And as such, the NDA (1792) comes into play which defines "militia".

OT - the preamble describes the reason for the document.

It's the "mission statement" of a newly formed government.
Consider the Declaration and Constitution as the FAQ for the USofA.

Everything that comes after demonstrates the steps on how to put it together.

From what I can see about this case, most threw out the instructions right away.

".. 1940's or the 1950's? There were more guns round then than there are now."

You're remembering a Norman Rockwell version of America that never was.
That's delusional, and part of the cowardice averting serious change in America.

Cite your source, that sounds like something you want to believe, rather than know.
There's the Truth that can be proven, and "truthiness" that has lead us here.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-america-statistical/story?id=17939758#.UM3v66zXtrU

"Things will not change if we don't take a hard and honest look at how we deal with people, young or old, who are not right mentally."

It could be persuasively argued that anyone defending the possession of handguns when 20 children were slaughtered at school are "not right".

"Before you start typing a venomous reply take a moment and be honest with yourself..."

Okay.

I think you're full of crap. That doesn't hurt your feelings, right. You're tough.
You're also not burying one of these kids - ARE YOU.

Take the gun out of the GUN-nut's hand and it's just another nut.

Seed & Soil, I do agree with a lot of what you say. Background is Early Childhood and psychology interest. Factual based points you share about the exposure to violence. My only question is (I haven't researched it yet), what Japanese/China and European countries allow as far a bloody video games, T.V./Media sensationalizing the negative (albeit I understand we need to know new), Music. It seems to be our testing in schools changed a couple of years ago and children stopped enjoying projects/arts etc. Teachers stressed with new policies. Do the successful other countries (many of which have higher education than we now do in this country) conduct themselves in this manner?

Families are stressed and both parents work, single work 2-3 jobs and children are made to be more resouceful in some ways and in other ways the "Life Lesson" opportunities to help children are gone. There are so many things gone and stressing people out, many don't have the time to learn that Coping mechanism. Anger Management, Mental Fatigue and disabilities run ramped. For me, Semi-automatic weapons should NEVER EVER be sold to civilians. Countries mentioned above don't have these problems. Why, our legislators need to start modeling after thee successful countries.

Our with friends for dinner last night and this was naturally the discussion. It was said, that there should be no death penalty as that enforces killing. I disagree, but it should be without a doubt evidence & no appeals.

shaking your finger and believing your are influencing anyone is all about ego...you went from a gun safety advocate to a home defense uh..well person with knowledge ..which of these are you a subject matter expert in?

Both, rather than try to belittle me, why not try to argue the point if you think I'm wrong. What's the matter?

Would not orked in this act. He killed the owner of the weapons first (his Mother) obviously since he was an adult living in the home, pretty sure he wouhave known where the keys were in anycase. Trigger locks are very good and I agree with you that with young childrenin the house they should be used or weapons locked in a safe.

what ever weapon you keep for your home protection out should always be on your person with the safty on and no round chambered. Responsible owners know these things and do them. All guns are always assumed to be loaded and chambered. Any gun only who does not follow that common sense rule is not a responsible owner.

Has nothing to do with ego, for the vast majority as you lump people into. How many do you know that is the case? Do not talk about name calling if you are going to lump all people into one catagory and mind set, as that is obviously foolish and accomplishes nothing on the debate other than ruin credibility of your post in my opinion.

Leave RI,
Please tell me what legitimate purpose a handgun with a hi cap mag has?
Hunting? Yeah right. Home defence? Not effective. So why? And as far as assault rifles go, the have NO legitimate use in the civilian world.

That was the point. Now put your Haband velcro shoes on, pull your baby blue pants up around your chest and quietly listen to your fragile eggshell ego slowly cracking...wow you just reminded me..there's a Burt Mustin film fest on..

OldTownie..ok..YOU said that YOU were the subject matter in gun safety AND home defense..Yes?..look down a little..a little more..and there it is. Now you're asking my advice or opinion on high capacity magazines?..or is this the Jeopardy category of
"Questions I Can't Answer" for $500..
PS
I posted the answer to your "argue the point" issue but it didn't post in the position I thought it would. I can't fix it but that's where it was supposed to go just so it doesn't seem I wasn't understanding you.

Leave RI
Please believe me when I say this, I would NEVER want advise from you. Your a clown.

BTW: The NRA says I'm a Gun Safety Instructor. And Home/Personal defense instructor. Next question?

..that's you're a clown..not your... NRA and G.E.D. I see now..that settles that.

Oh Leave,
Your wit is too much for me...As if.

Unless one advocates for the warrantless search and seizure of every American's home, guns are here to stay. People that are willing to die during the commision of a crime, will always be able to do horrific things. I'm sure that beefing up security at schools is going to be the path we take in the very near future. It is sad that we may all have to get a pat-down to go see our own kids.

The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with this. It was an evil crime commited by an evil person. When you figure ot how to stop people from doing evil then you will have something. If it had been propane bombs like the Columbine guys had but did not go of thank goodness. What amendment would you blame for that?

I could site examples all day of various ways to cause mass violents acts like this with common items that can be bought with out any age limit. You cannot legislate people who are criminals, mentally ill or just plain stupid. That is a fact of the human condition. Laws only keep honest people honest as they fear the consequenses of breaking them. Criminals do not. So that anology does not work either.

Very true Robert very true and history proves evey single time that has been done genocide results soon after.

"If it had been propane bombs like the Columbine guys had but did not go of thank goodness." The point is that in that case, and in all the others that followed -
it wasn't propane bombs or anything home brewed...

Columbine -
TEC-DC9 assault pistol, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine, Savage 67H pump-action shotgun, and a Savage 311-D 12-gauge shotgun

Virginia Tech-
Glock 19 and Walther P22 (both semi-automatic)

Tucson-
Glock 19 with expanded capacity magazine

Oak Creek Wisconsin at the Sikh temple (forget that day, did you?)
Springfield 9mm semi-automatic

Aurora at the movies-
.40 cal Glock semi-automatic

Sandy Hook-
You get the picture? They weren't throwing grenades, deploying Sarin gas or
driving a vehicle full of explosives - they ALL used guns.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/07/us-usa-wisconsin-shooting-weapon-idUSBRE87606820120807

http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/semiautomatic-weapons-used-in-aurora-tucson-virginia-tech-newtown-connecticut-shootings

Do I think the deranged of tomorrow would seek out another means if they
were denied access to handguns? Perhaps - but it would make it more difficult.

Handguns are called equalizers because they pack so much power into a package
that can be handled by the casual user. It's too easy to kill with one.

Enough, already.

"Unless one advocates for the warrantless search and seizure of every American's home, guns are here to stay."

It would be entirely feasible to make ammunition for these weapons expensive.
The Aurora shooting was planned including 6000 rounds.

The Norwegian killer, Anders Breivik purchased his munitions online -
from a US supplier. His weapon of choice? A .223 semi-automatic rifle.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/28/282174/breivik-gun-clips-united-states/?mobile=nc

"Very true Robert very true and history proves evey single time that has been done genocide results soon after."

Right, the United States government will mobilize our military forces to collect the guns from the gun nuts, and then cart us off to the FEMA detention camps.

Rather than deal with an hysterical notion that undoubtedly fits into the Gun Myth
that gun ownership is all that stands between the government and our freedom can we deal with certainties? Do you think that stricter gun control laws are precursors to Genocide?

Certainly Israelis are familiar with pogroms and history.
They disagree. The Swiss are famous for their readiness to repel invaders.

Them too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

It would appear that the same people hiding behind the 2nd amendment don't think the Patriot Act applies to them because they have a weapon on hand.

The percentage of people that own guns is stable in the US but the per capita
ownership (total number of guns divided by total population) has risen.

There are more guns than ever, not that any of these held by "responsible" users
did 20 dead children any good at all.

Let's look at the facts.
These children were murdered with a semi-automatic rifle.

Each preceding mass shooting since Columbine was committed with what, exactly?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/gun-ownership-us-data

Tim I agree. However many high schools in the inner cities are like that now and yet they still have incidents. The hardest criminal to stop is the lone criminal bent on violence of any kind. With out mind reading it will never be preventable. People must realize there are evil people in the world and this guy was one of them. I do not subscibe to the excuse game of bi-polar, autistic, mental issues etc. there are literly millions with these conditions always cited by Lawyers in defending these people yet the incidents are rare. I have never heard of millions suddenly deciding to do these acts.

"Rationality is paramount."

Would you claim that easy access to hand guns, as a right, is rational?
In Israel, a Nation under constant threat from neighbors, you need a reason
to get a permit - there's no sense that more guns would make them safer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

It's not rational to insist that having so many guns around makes America safe.
20 children died over this demented notion.

Right - more guns will make us safer...

More guns means more murder.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

You can do math, right?
It took less than three minutes for Lanza to slaughter the room full of children.
How long between this theoretically armed "principle and or one of the teachers"
recognizing the threat, unlocking the stored weapon, donning body armor and approaching the killing ground?

Take the gun out of Lanza's hands and how much time is needed to stop him
from shooting a room full of 1st graders?

All the time in the World.

I suppose we could park armed guards at every window, door and vestibule.
Will you pay additional taxes to support this elementary penitentiary, John?

It might be easier to get the guns off the street.

Naome Lixes A head shot or multiple leg shots would have taken this nut out. I also wish some one in that school was trained and armed. You can be a lamb for the slaughter if you chose .

"You can be a lamb for the slaughter if you chose ."

There were 20 lambs, Joe. You do understand that in the Aurora theater shooting,
even a metal detector wouldn't have stopped the shooter - he went through the back door. If we plan on turning schools into elementary penitentiaries, how
are we free?

You're all about freedom, right?

How is having MORE guns the way to that?

"If the government were to make all guns illegal then only the bad guys would have them." Including Lanza, he got his from his mother's arsenal of registered weapons.

This notion is just painfully stupid, and insulting.

Name ONE instance where these nefarious "bad guys" thought it would be good for their criminal enterprise to shoot a room full of children. It doesn't happen.

" Including Lanza, he got his from his mother's arsenal of registered weapons."

Which he stole. Illegally.

"This notion is just painfully stupid, and insulting."

Funny, I've said the same thing after reading every single one of your posts.

Suzanne a dog is good but remember Criminals are smart. They feed the dog poison or sleeping pills and wait to strike. An NRA training course in fire arm safety is a wise investment in your personal security.

It isn't the weapon...it is the sociopath that stole it. You make good points...but it is much easier for the ideologues to push an agenda than to deal with the real issue...our changing, coarsening culture. A culture that celebrates narcissism and breeds and accepts people who do physical violence and with words, e.g., insults, lies and derision. One need only read some of the posts on this site to see some of this ilk.

Switzerland 100% have guns it is required by the government. Which of course disproves the theory of yet again that ownership is not the problem same as banning does not work in Coutries that have that either. It is a social and society is not an inanimate object, it is the people themselves where the blame mostly lays for me anyway.

"Switzerland 100% have guns it is required by the government."
That's wrong. Swiss men, age 20 to 30 are trained as a militia and after passing qualification exams are issued an automatic rifle with 72 rounds.

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Note that since 2007 it has become a requirement to provide a reason to retain the weapon after active service ends for a Swiss.
Both the weapons and the issued rounds are checked by the militia officers
on a regular basis with jail time waiting for those that sell or misplace their charge.

http://csgv2.blogspot.com/2011/03/truth-about-guns-in-switzerland.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

"Suzanne a dog is good but remember Criminals are smart."

No, they're not.

http://www.brewright.com/teaching/THE%20MOFFIT%20DEVELOPMENTAL%20THEORY%20OF%20CRIME.html

"It isn't the weapon..."
Yes, it is. This was a GUN massacre.

"...it is the sociopath that stole it."
Without the gun, he's just another sociopath. Plenty of those around.

"You make good points...but it is much easier for the ideologues to push an agenda than to deal with the real issue...our changing, coarsening culture. "

By coarsening I take it you mean someone willing to defend the rights of Americans to own weapons that are involved in every one of the mass killings in the past
15 years? 20 little kids gunned down in first grade and you're prattling about
YOUR rights. That's coarse.

"A culture that celebrates narcissism and breeds and accepts people who do physical violence and with words, e.g., insults, lies and derision."

You've earned it, you're tough right? You can handle being called an apologist
for a baby-killer, can't you? That's what you're doing here in a public forum.

"One need only read some of the posts on this site to see some of this ilk."
It won't be the last time, you're making lots of new friends here.

You'd be wrong about that Joe. I thought you were supposed to be ex-military? What did you do cook? What's the maximum capacity of a semi auto shotgun? 5? 6? And the mag size of the Ar-15 that was used? 30. And, the original assault weapons ban did not allow shotguns with a pistol grip.

"The 24/7 running of this story . The copy cat effect has to be addressed . If a sick individuals think it will make them famous it will happen again. The news outlets have to be more understanding of their part in this."

Right - we can't speak of this, out of respect for the dead.
- we can't speak of this because that makes a killer infamous.
- we can't speak of this because it raises uncomfortable questions about
who owns guns in America, why and the all too frequent result.

If we're not going to have a meaningful discussion about this, not after Columbine/Virginia Tech/Tucson/The Sikh temple/Sandy Hook - when?

"As far as the weapons go a pump shot gun could do the same damage and would be exempt from any assault ban . " Lanza used a semi-automatic rifle.

"People who have knowledge of guns can see right through politicians that are trying to make points using a tragedy like this ."

If by "points" you mean acting like the leaders of the Free World and putting an
end to a National disgrace - sure.

Face it, your defending the slaughter of innocents on this one.

"So go back to your formula, take guns away from Adam Janga and find out what happens to those 20 children and 6 adults. Probably the same thing."

Now THAT is ridiculous. What else would Adam Lanza use?

In the countries where handgun ownership is either banned outright, or restricted are there instances of this sort of mass murder by other means? Name them.

Feel free to explain how innocent people were killed by all these hypothetical,
non-existent means. Is there EVER an instance like this without a gun?

Yes, Naome, there was an incident in Oklahoma a few years back where many people were killed in an instant, including a daycare full of children. Not one bullet was fired.

How about, found with weapon designed to kill - displace incarcerated pot smoker?

How about making it a little harder to buy munitions than going online?
How about coming right out and saying it, weapons with a high rate of fire
don't belong in general possession - they're weapons of War.

"Guns are here to stay, so leave the subject alone and get some needed medication, and sleep." This is a public forum Bob.

If you don't have the stomach to deal with the facts - 20 first grade children were
gunned down in their elementary school, you're a coward.

Be a man, face the facts, this is no longer about the Gun Hugger's rights,
it's about the responsibility you've shirked to preserve the Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness for the victims.

Personally, I don't care if you're squeamish about an obscenity.

If you own a gun, and still think that is more important than the public welfare
you need not lecture me, you're hiding behind an anachronism.

I don't think GOD has much to do with the murder of 20 children.

Do you?

Naome Lixes will respond shortly.John...not to worry. One thing about Naome..he is never at a loss for words..

Gee whiz John - opposed to killing the unborn, but good with it afterwards?

What's it like, being a genius and all?

Naomi says...Gee whiz John - opposed to killing the unborn, but good with it afterwards?

What makes you think he is good with it afterwards? Are you really that twisted that you think that people who are against abortion are monsters?

We live in a culture that is superficial, selfish and pleasure seeking and sadly we will continue to see more of this evil as we continue to push God out of our lives and tell Him, He is not welcome. We have a cancer growing in our society and in our families and it does not stem from video games, guns, or broken families.

I will be headed to one of the funerals this week and Naomi I think it is obscene that you continue to politicize this evil tragedy. But it doesn't surprise me.

"Sadley:" you're pretty much useless.

Go fix me a sammich or something you actually have the capacity to do.
Set the parking brake on the double-wide? Turn your monobrow into two?

Take a twelve-step hike off an eleven step pier?

Calling you stupid would be an insult, to stupid people.

Peggy - explain exactly what I should get, then go over to the Newtown patch and repeat your message. They look like the future of America too.

Perhaps you like the idea of repeating this past week - I don't.

It has been conclusively demonstrated that semi-automatic and automatic weapons preserve neither. You're in the wrong on this, and the Congress will act as such.

Let me post the only one that really matters.

We're coming for your guns.
It's just a matter of time.

It's not as if handguns are useful as hammers or rifles make handy plant stands.
This tired trope leaves out one glaring fact, these killers don't use other weapons.

Do they.

"The main purpose of the second amendment is to keep us free."

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.

There's nothing well regulated about individuals owning these weapons.
There's nothing resembling a militia in America.

The only thing well regulated about gun ownership is that you need a wifi connection to purchase ammunition online.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/aurora-aftermath-how-easy-is-it-to-buy-ammunition-online-really-easy/

If you want to institute mandatory militia service as in Switzerland, that's one thing.
Only qualified recipients on active reserve are issued rifles, with 72 rounds.

These must be kept in working order and accounted for by militia officers.
Fines and jail time await those that fail to comply to standards.

There are no standards in America regarding weapons such as the Bushmaster
.223 used to murder 20 children in their elementary school classroom.

I'm all for responsible gun ownership as described by James Madison - single shot muzzle loaders that are a minimum of 6 feet in length. That's a literal interpretation.

It's not as if handguns are useful as hammers or rifles make handy plant stands.
This tired trope leaves out one glaring fact, these killings don't use other weapons.

Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The "well''-regulated militia" is completely separate from the rights of the individual.

I know you don't believe in inherent individual rights, only those bestowed on you by the State. So none of that made any sense you.

"keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens... " Yes, like the "law abiding" mother of the shooter, who kept unsecured firearms in a house with a son that had mental issues.

"Like a typical liberal your gonna stand and pound your fists and stamp your feet and thin your intimidating people who don't think they way you do."

You mean by calling out Fascists that defend the murder of children.
Well, yeah.

"They will of course attempt to regulate them more and keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens... oh ya.. how'd that operation fast and furious work out for the govt anyway?" Are you suggesting, as did an earlier poster, that the US Government distributed this weapon?

Do you know something we don't?
You're delusional, but not paranoid.

We ARE coming for your guns, D-bag.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/calling-out-gun-nuts-bill-moyers-tak

So you agree that restricting access to semi-automatic weapons is reasonable?

Perhaps you think that crazed homicidal maniacs will start attacking schoolchildren
with lawn and garden implements or household cleaners?

This isn't a debate. You're a Gun Lover and you feel threatened.

So did 20 little kids, just before they were shot dead by a gun lover.
You a member of the Anders Breivik fan club, too?

Some patriots, hiding behind the 2nd amendment.

"Oh goodness what will I do now.."

Other than taunt those of us incensed by the murder of children?
I dunno, type with one hand - like always?

Stop using dead kids to promote your fascist political agenda NL. Progressive nuts like you have been dying for an opportunity like this, and you're going to milk it for all its worth. The more people you can make dependent on government for their very existence, the better off you are politically. Makes me want to puke.

"Never let a crisis go to waste." Rahm Emmanuel

"Stop using dead kids to promote your fascist political agenda NL."
I think you might want to consult a dictionary.

"Progressive nuts like you have been dying for an opportunity like this...."
Twenty 1st grades died for you to populate a fantasy world.

"The more people you can make dependent on government for their very existence, the better off you are politically."
Sovereign citizen, I take it?

If you can't live with us in a country that puts Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
in that order, do us all a favor and Galt-step off somewhere else.

"Makes me want to puke."
The slaughter of children with a semi-automatic rifle did that for me.

Here's a handy guide for recognizing fascist tendencies.
Post it on your shaving mirror, for reference.

How's that little mustache coming?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

Spare us the Fascist theology.

Go to the Newtown Patch and say this.
You're brave. You think you're right.

G'head.

Bruin,
I am a long time gun owner. Please explain to me why it is necessary for a civillian to own M&P style handguns? Home defense? You need 13/15 rds? You are a terrible shot. Get a shotgun. How about an assault rifle? And please spare me the hunting fairytale. Nobody uses a 30 rd mag for hunting (BTW: It's against the law).

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2FGzUPfCm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

We lead in the category that matters to the parents of 20 dead children.

Gun murders. Per capita and total deaths -it's not even close.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

so as long as the violent death is not caused by guns, then it is acceptable NL? The point is violent crimes are not eliminated by eliminating guns. I can explain for you, but I cant comprehend it for you. You need to be less myopic to do that.

Did you actually read the article?

"'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. That is why last year we published 'Saving lives. Reducing harm. Protecting the public. An Action Plan for Tackling Violence 2008-11'.'

"In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured."

"Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning."

Bar fights, I take it. Affray is also known as simple assault.
UK tallies 1.49 Homicides per 100,000 residents.

The US tallies 3.25 Gun Homicides per 100,00.

It's an interesting article you quoted.
Perhaps you should consider reading it.

"...so as long as the violent death is not caused by guns, then it is acceptable NL?"

Where did I imply this? If you read your own quoted article, the UK sees 1.49 homicides per 100,000 people. That's LESS than the US 5.5 per 100,00.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Less is better, right?

Perhaps you can't comprehend this for me because you're wrong.
It would seem that in the UK, where guns are effectively banned their assault rates have fallen and murder is vanishingly rare. That sort of sounds like success.

Perhaps by myopic you mean, read the charts and do the math.

Lixes has done this in many other discussions. She cites references and links to information that she apparently has not read herself which is contrary to her own arguement or which is outdated. She does this as a means to further her own radical political agenda and viewpoint.

What is most disgusting about what she is doing here, and what others are doing here, is the use of the horrific murders of 20 innocent babies to make a political rant.

They are disgusting, self interested, creatures who will go away if you do not give them your attention.

I suggest that everyone just leave this discussion and allow Lexis and the other self absorbed buffons to themselves.

You do know that these figures came from the Dailymail article you linked, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

"They are disgusting, self interested, creatures who will go away if you do not give them your attention." You think revulsion over the murder of children is self interest?

" She cites references and links to information that she apparently has not read herself which is contrary to her own arguement or which is outdated. "

The link was posted by TNKA, above.
The quotes are taken directly from the Dailymail article.

"I suggest that everyone just leave this discussion and allow Lexis and the other self absorbed buffons to themselves." If you don't bring anything to the discussion
that sounds like a good idea Joe.

"What is most disgusting about what she is doing here, and what others are doing here, is the use of the horrific murders of 20 innocent babies to make a political rant." I couldn't agree more. Harold Ryan called for more guns to prevent
recurrence of gun violence.

You're on the wrong side of history again, Joe.

Mexico is in the midst of a drug war amongst the narcotrafficantes.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-27/world/35509536_1_drug-war-drug-violence-drug-fight

Last year, 55% of all Mexican homicides were committed with guns.
Their total, 11,309 .

America does not have the same sort of drug gang warfare as seen in Mexico.
60% of all American homicides were committed with guns.
Our total, 9146. Presumably, many of these are gang related.

Their homicide rate by firearm is 9.97 per 100,000 people.
Ours is 2.97 per 100,000.

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean.

Note that all of the competitors for this prize are third world countries.
Compared to the developed World, we actually lead at something.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Gun ownership is still legal in Mexico.
http://rollybrook.com/guns.htm

Gun ownership is legal in Mexico and the purchasing process is difficult.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/25/world/americas/in-mexico-a-restrictive-approach-to-gun-laws.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Do you just make this stuff up TNKA?
It took me maybe 30 seconds to search for the facts.

Doesn't what you're saying kind of make the case against stricter gun laws then? Mexico's gun laws are strict, like you said, but they have a homicide rate 3 times what ours is. In Jamaica the laws are also strict and require a very expensive yearly permit but they has a worse murder rate via firearms. The laws are also very strict in El Salvador. Stricter laws don't change anything as evidenced by the examples you've given.

Taking away the publics guns does nothing but help politicians get elected and give us a false sense of security. Take a look at Britain, they've severally restricted gun ownership. They now have worse rates for violent crime than the US and South Africa. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html How could that be, they have strict guns laws there?

"The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609." The UK, 2,034.

Ted: you're not taking population density into account. 100,000 people in the US are much more spread out than 100,000 people in any of those countries. Just imagine how high the gun violence rate would be in the U.S. if we had the same population density as those other countries.

So if the US were more densely populated the rate would be higher? But it's not so what is your point? Our violent crime rates are 4 times less than the UK.

The point is that the population density is increasing, so this issue will only get worse.

Ted -

Note that these comparisons are being made to third world countries with little to show in the way of infrastructure, public safety or medical care. Are you seriously comparing the results of failed states to the Leader of the Free world?

If you could be bothered to read any previous posts, you would see all these concerns raised in association with the Dailymail article are addressed in the body of the article itself. I'm guessing some Wingnut apologist blog has linked this article to bolster your untenable position.

It's a false equivocation to claim that those advocating gun control think exchanging one sort of violence for another is progress.

"'Violent crime in England and Wales has fallen by almost a half a peak in 1995 but we are not complacent and know there is still work to do. "

"In Britain, an affray is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured."

"Experts say there are a number of reasons why violence is soaring in the UK. These include Labour's decision to relax the licensing laws to allow round-the-clock opening, which has led to a rise in the number of serious assaults taking place in the early hours of the morning."

Bar fights, I take it. Affray is also known as simple assault.
UK tallies 1.49 Homicides per 100,000 residents.

The US tallies 3.25 Gun Homicides per 100,000

These notations are directly from the Dailymail article.
You did read it, right?

A reasonable comparison could be made between the US and Australia with similar demographics, including education levels and population distribution.

In 1996, after a mass killing with a semi-automatic rifle in Port Arthur - an outright ban and compulsory buyback program removed such weapons from the streets.

Registration and purchase of legal weapons has become much more rigorous.
Presumably, the illegal gun trade is unaffected by changes to their legal code.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=491

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

What has changed? Since 1996 there have been exactly ZERO recurrences of the slaughter at Port Arthur. After Columbine, we've had FIVE.

Zero is less than FIVE, right Ted?

"Are you seriously comparing the results of failed states to the Leader of the Free world?" Come on now Naome, I didn't even bring them up! Remember, you did! Seriously, read what you wrote. You brought up all those states. I only responded to what you wrote. "But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people " That is directly from your post!

First and foremost, we need to get rid of the Gun Show loophole. That doesn't punish law-abiding gun owners. I'd also like to find out if there are any loopholes for internet sales.

After that, try to get the magazine and assault rifle ban reinstated permanently. This will be a tougher sell, but at least it's been done in the past. It's a bit easier to get moderate gun owners to accept this, since they tend to understand that you don't hunt anything but humans with an assault rifle.

In addition to legislative action, we really need to have an open discussion of what the 2nd amendment means in the 21st century. One of the selling points for a national health care system was the Harvard(?) study that quantified how many people died due to lack of health insurance (or underinsurance). I think we have become so inured to gun violence that only horrible mass casualty incidents like the Sandy Hook one even register. Lets have a national campaign to quantify the impact of current gun violence.

I think we also need to confront the NRA. Let's call them out on being a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers and sellers, not gun owners. Like their GOP enablers, make them offer up suggestions for preventing the deaths of any more children. If they don't, then publicly call them out for condoning the current carnage.

Jefferson also owned slaves...so what's your point?

That's not the only time Jefferson was wrong, NK.

Which one of us has been incarcerated, Joe?

If you're NOT incensed by the murder of 20 children in an elementary school,
kindly stay away from ours.

" People like NL. clearly have no grasp in reality."
Here's the list of the Sandy Hook shooting victims:

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
- Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
- Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
- Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
- Dawn Hochsprung, 06/28/65, female
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
- Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
- James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
- Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
- Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
- Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
- Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
- Lauren Rousseau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
- Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
- Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
- Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female

All of them were killed by the same shooter, in less than three minutes.
Is that real enough for you?

Attempting to divert this, and call me a threat is craven.
That's about what I expect from Fascists in training.

If you keep posting trash, I'll bring the orange bags.

@Naome: thank you for your posts, and thank you for keeping the focus on the victims of this tragedy. For some reason gun owners on this thread think that they are the victims. They could not be more wrong. They sound like little children whining because their parents threatened to take the xbox away. Gun ownership for these people is really a hobby that they don't want to give up. And they are willing to endanger innocent lives so that they can continue playing at their hobby. Seems to me like there are some priorities out of whack.

It must have been you who was incarcerated . Most likely for mental illness .

That's not true at all Jack. The Continental Army was formed June 14th, 1775. The 2nd amendment was ratified Dec 15th, 1791.

The RI Constitution makes it very clear. Article 1, Section 22. "Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No mention of a militia at all in the RI Constitution.

If you're curious though RI does define what a militia is in the RI general laws. "30-1-2 Male members. – The militia of the state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the state and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, resident within the state, and who shall be more than eighteen (18) years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five (45) years of age, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein. "

There are 4 classes of militia in RI, the National Guard, the Naval Militia, Chartered Militias, and the unorganized Militia. Per RIGL 30-1-4.

People think of militias differently today but reading the RIGL you can see what the militia meant back then.

You are both somewhat correct. An army did exist at the time the 2nd amendment was written. However, the newly formed U.S. did not want to spend money to maintain a standing army. The 2nd amendment was enacted so that, in the absence of a standing army, the U.S. could form a strong militia-based army. You can see that this ties in with the RI definition of militia.

So, since we now have a standing army, what good does the right to bear arms do us?

We have had a standing army since 1791. At no point did the standing army drop to zero, correct? In 1791 Congress authorized 2,000 troops. Jack's argument was "no Army existed at the time it was written." That is completely false.

In the decade following the ratification of the bill of rights the size of the standing army grew by more tripled. (1801, 7108 troops) So they were spending money and then some on the standing army.

"What good does the right to bear arms do us?" I'll take the bait. It allows us to protect ourselves. Not everyone is fortunate enough to live in peaceful RI. What if you found yourself in the middle of civil unrest? Say, the race riots that took place in LA. Wouldn't you want to be able to protect yourself?

Let me ask you this, what good does taking away firearms do? They have been successful in doing that in the UK. Their violent crime rate is more than 4 times what ours is. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html Guns absolutely can cause violence but the correlation between the two isn't what you think.

OK. So let me amend, smart guy. In 1791, when the 2nd amd was written, we had no standing army to speak of. In fact, all we had was 2000 people. Since a 2000 person army could never defend our nation, the 2nd amendment was enacted so that militia could. Since congress didn't want to (and couldn't afford to) maintain an effective standing army, this was their solution. Arm the public so they can defend our borders. Now that we don't need the public to be armed to defend our borders, the 2nd amendment is antiquated. It is the battle cry of the gun hobbyist who doesn't want his toys taken away.

Guns in the home do not protect us. Statistically, people with guns in the home are more likely to die of homicide, and to die of gun-related homicide, than those people without guns in the home.

The UK has almost 3 times our population density. That might have something to do with their violent crime rate. With such a high population density, imagine how many gun-related homicides they would have if they allowed people to bear arms.

And come to think of it, I do think the standing army was disbanded sometime after 1791. But I'm not sure. I would have to check on that.

Perhaps if we had some stricter population density laws we could really make an impact?

Anon, you're mincing words. There was standing army. 2,000 men. What did Jack say? "no Army existed" How hard is that to understand? Come on now... I don't care if it couldn't fight it's way out of a paper bag. It was there, it EXISTED!!!

I'm not trying to mince words. I'm trying to talk about the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Whether the continental army existed or not, the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to maintain a militia force that could defend our borders. We no longer need militia since we have the most powerful military on the planet. So doesn't it follow that we no longer need the 2nd amendment?

We do have the most powerful military in the world. Right now. Perhaps my crystal ball doesn't work as well as yours. Will it still be the most powerful in 20 years? 50? Look at that happened in Vietnam, Iraq, Afaganistan... Even the worlds most powerful military can run into trouble. Does the US have the financial resources to fight a large prolonged war? A WWII type conflict?

Read the RI Constitution makes it very clear. Article 1, Section 22. "Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." No mention of a militia at all in the RI Constitution, correct?

So you're saying that we should keep a militia force just in case, at some indeterminate time in the future, some other country has a stronger military? I think the argument for strictly controlling guns to protect present-day public safety is more compelling.

I don't understand your point about the RI Const. It doesn't really matter whether it mentions the word militia. Or are you saying that because the constitution says people have the right to bear arms, that the right is infallible? It's not infallible. Just change the Constitution. Take that right away and then it won't be an issue. Or don't change the language, but instead impose strict limitations on that right. For example: restrict the right to bear arms to those in the military or police force. That wouldn't infringe because anyone can join the military or police force if they want to, and then they'd be able to bear arms.

"anyone can join the military or police force if they want to, and then they'd be able to bear arms." That's not true and I'm sure you know it. Tell that to someone in a wheelchair, see the look they give you.

Good luck changing the Constitution. Fortunately reasonable minds will prevail at the end of the day. Look at all the people on here complaining who couldn't be bothered with gun control on Thursday. I posted earlier about how Chicago with it's very strict gun laws had 37 shootings in in a weekend (their black market works well). No one cares when it's a bunch of inner city people that get shot but when CNN tells people to care they come out of the wood work. What happened in Newtown is the evil work of a very sick and troubled person. Same in Chicago. If you think more laws will help keep you safe there is something wrong there.

And some people collect endangered species. The difference is that collecting cards and cars does no harm. Collecting guns and endangered species does. Because of this, I hope that my legal right (and yours) to own guns is taken away - just as we have no legal right to collect endangered species. Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. It probably will not happen until our population density increases to the point where these tragedies happen more frequently.

Joe,
Don't you have a criminal past? you should be the first to lose your guns as you have shown yourself to be irresponsible.

Especially with the AR-15. You can now print them. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/579913_3D_printed_lower___yes__it_works_.html The "lower" is the actual firearm part. 3D printers can be had for less than $2,000 these days. Buy one and you can print out the lower and the rest of the gun can be ordered on the internet.

Banning them will do very little. Not to mention, no one is talking about taking the existing ones away, so even with a ban there will still be many of them out there to purchase.

If anything it will make matters worse. I'm not very fond of the AR-15 or any gun which still has "forward assist" as a feature. If you look at the shootings that happens at the mall and in the theatre the gun jammed up both times. If anything a ban will force the crazy people to rely on a more dependable firearm.

But - over time it will reduce the amount of guns extant. Also, black market will always be smaller than an open market. So banning guns would certainly have a beneficial effect - even though existing guns will not be taken away and a black market will emerge.

Anon, by definition the black market will provide firearms only to criminals. It will serve to increase the number of guns that criminals have compared to non-criminals. Criminals are precisely the people we want to keep guns away from.

I don't understand. Are you saying that you think a black market will provide more guns than an open market? No black market will be as large as the open gun market. Also, black markets have a barriers to use, so it's harder to buy on the black market. Therefore, there will be much fewer guns for anyone to get their hands on - criminals or no. Therefore, a black market is preferable to an open market because there will be fewer overall guns in society, and it will be harder to get guns than it is under an open market.

In other words, a ban on non-military ownership is best. Under such a ban, a black market will rise. But even if it does, it's still better than having an open market because it will still be harder for anyone, criminal or no, to get guns under this scenario.

Anon, I'm saying it tilts the balance of power towards criminals. It will be a smaller market that catering exclusively to criminals, by definition. I don't see that as a good thing. Fortunately it will never happen in the US.

That's a good point, Mr. Geisel. It's too bad we can't just melt all the guns. Then there'd be no issue because no one would be able to get their hands on these machines of death.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and later updated in 1968 regulates specific firearms (Machine guns, Short-barreled rifles,Short barreled shotguns, Silencers & Destructive Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc). All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The US should add assault weapons to and other weapons that hold more than 6 cartridges to the NFA list.

Ralph,
Go back to history class. German gun control was implimented under the Weimar regime. The National socialists seized power in spite of gun control. (They used the ballot box). Under their leadership the gun control act was expanded to include Jews.

The simple conclusion is that there are no lessons about the efficacy of gun control to be learned from the Germany of the first half of this century. It is all too easy to forget the seductive allure that fascism presented to all the West, bogged down in economic and social morass. What must be remembered is that the Nazis were master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. There is the danger to which we should pay great heed. Not fanciful stories about Nazi's seizing guns.

I agree with Old Townie. Ralph I don't know if this qualifies as a Godwin's Rule posting since I don't go up and down on this too often. That comparison about the Weimar Republic and now doesn't balance with today. That went out with Red Dawn in 1985 (as well as the hair styles thank God). Your emphasizing of hook phrases like.."and the Nazi's took the guns away...or .."and the Commie Soviets took the guns away".. how did that work out..are just that. Hook phrases in an attempt to emphasize your own point..conversley you will see this on the other extreme by the phrases...'tell it to the victims.."tell it to the parents" etc. You will see it (both) again a few times.

One weekend in August there were 9 killed and 37 wounded in Chicago. Were was the outcry? How many people here even knew it happened? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/chicago-shootings-9-kille_n_1833306.html The media could care less. Chicago has very strict laws regarding guns.

When you really look at the problem you realize it's much more deep than guns. It's our values as a society and even more so the values that are prevalent in the cities.

Wait, aren't you a criminal Joe? why do you have a say in this?

" Use your energy to help make the world just a little better."

That's a good idea.
Let's start with confiscating semi-automatic weapons and their ordnance.

I agree Tiverton Dad. People on here actually need to get a life

" People on here actually need to get a life."
- Cape Crusader II

That's sort of the point, the shooter made that impossible for his victims.
You're going to be part of the solution or perpetuating the problem, CCII.

Consider this the Patriot Act for Parents.

Errr . . . don't give this guy a firearm!

WFH writes " Then igorent citizens lacking an education that provided independent adult critical thinking skills. Having been brainwashed / conditioned by the competing group think isims."

Wow, thank goodness the Constitution defends even the ignorant.

".. Guns do not make the top ten list of dangerous items!"

Which of the top ten did Lanza use to slaughter 20 children?
It would appear he used the tool designed for killing.

It concerns me that the same people defending the presence of these weapons
sound both paranoid and delusional regarding the US Government.

The brew is toxic, and it's past time to limit access to the main ingredients.

20 Children were assassinated as a result of this ludicrous idea, that anyone who wants a weapon should be granted access. It's too easy, and too deadly.

*cope.* That's supposed to say cope at the end of the 3rd paragraph.

I should also mention that I lost a loved one because of gun violence. Because of a legally owned firearm. The freedom to bear arms led directly to the death of my father. Because of that I have been a long-time proponent of stricter gun laws. I sympathize with those families more than you might know.

"There are already strict laws regarding gun ownership..."
Not strict enough to stop a determined killer.

"...responsible parenting is given a lot less attention than responsible gun ownership. " The immediate consequences of careless parenting are rarely fatal.

Bad parents can make your life a trial. That can make for a long dinner at Denny's.
Guns can end a life. That can lead to a funeral.

You do understand that the degree of response is proportional to the threat level?

"TV programming is called that for a reason and the programming of late is producing some really crappy kids AND parents."

Robert, this is (yet another) attempt to divert us from the facts.
Lanza did not kill a room full of children with reruns of Barney.

He used a semi-automatic rifle.

Agreed. Somehow, the 2nd has morphed into an "Absolute" right. And as we all know, the SCOTUS has put limits on rights before. "Fire!" in a movie theater, anyone?

I personally do not believe in throwing out the 2nd. But, seriously strict rules need to be placed at the Federal and State levels to curtail the ownership and subsequent use of M&P type firearms. It is much easier to defend one's home and person with a good shotgun, than it is with a 15 rd semi-auto.

I'm not a big fan of original intent arguments. But I agree that the founders probably would note have endorsed placing such devastatingly destructive power in everyone's hands. I like OT's point that there is no absolute right in the constitution. Strict gun control laws do not remove the right to bear arms - they just create more hoops that people have to jump through. More hoops is probably a good thing. Longer waiting periods, bans on certain types of arms, more in-depth background checks. If there were a law stating that people could only own 22 caliber long guns, wouldn't people still have the right to bear arms? The would - they would just have to limit their arms to 22 caliber long guns.

Personally, though, I would be OK with repealing the 2nd. It will probably not happen in my lifetime, though. I hope it happens for my kids.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas Cooley was probably the leading constitutional commentator of the late 1800s. In 1898 he wrote Principles of Constitutional Law. He comments below on the right to keep and bear arms.

"The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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."
"The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation."
" The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited."

Assualt weapons are the exact type of weapons the 2nd Admendment was designed to protect.

Robert -
Are you saying that you are worried about our military taking over the government, and that's why the people should be able to bear arms? Even if that were a valid worry, do you think that the military, if it tried to take over the government with its planes and tanks and nuclear weapons and bunkers and forts, would be phased one bit by a militia of citizens bearing arms? Maintaining a citizens' militia that can oppose a rebellious military seems like a silly reason for having a right to bear arms, at least in today's society.

"In 1898 he wrote Principles of Constitutional Law. He comments below on the right to keep and bear arms."

Perhaps the conditions that lead to this opinion have changed.
Since 1898 we've got indoor plumbing, electricity and motor cars.

At least we do where I live.

Are you still hunting Possum for dinner, Robert?

Throwbacks that insist on a literal interpretation of divine scripture and an adherence to Gun Justice to settle matters of law have a name.

We call them the Taliban.

How many more children have to die before you can see your in the wrong, Robert?

Dad if you don't want to face facts thats your problem.

Your belligerent revision of history won't absolve us of complicity in this, Robert.
When we failed to act, in the FOUR previous instances like this, we set the stage.

20 children were assassinated in an elementary school.
You can't hide behind the 2nd amendment, any longer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9751588/Connecticut-school-shooting-two-US-Senators-call-for-assault-weapons-ban.html

I, for one, am tired of self-proclaimed Constitutional experts clanging on about their
rights without mention of their responsibilities to the commonwealth.

Semi-automatic weapons pose a clear threat to public health and general welfare.

"Dad if you don't want to face facts thats your problem."

Which facts are those, Robert?
That 20 1st graders were slaughtered with a semi-automatic weapon, or
the apparent resolve of Gun Huggers to deny their part in this?

Either way, it's cowardice.
Be a man, face the facts.

You treat owning an arsenal like an entitlement.

No one is entitled to carry a threat to the general welfare. We have stronger regulations on teddy bears and toy guns than actual weapons.

http://www.wgbh.org/News/Articles/2012/12/17/What_Gun_Control_Could_Look_Like.cfm

My previous post was deleted, so I'll recap "Robert E's History of the United States." The American Revolution was fought over gun rights. The Second Amendment was designed to protect assault weapons. These are the "facts" that Robert says that I don't want to face.

Joe Sousa says: "People may like to shoot them at the range".

If that's how you and your fellow gun nuts get your jollies Joe, you might want to consider purchasing an X-Box, or similar video game console, where you can play soldier/hunter/mercenary without endangering the lives of your fellow citizens. You can still get the thrills you so desperately seek, without using a weapon that slaughtered 26 innocent lives in Newtown.

Hopefully you were watching President Obama addressing the citizens of Newtown on Monday night, when he promised them and the rest of the country that he will utilize the office of the president to enact strict gun control regulations, so a tragedy such as what occured in Newtown will never happen again.

Face the facts Joe-very soon the ATF will be knocking on the door at 49 Hancock St. to confiscate your arsenal, and the country will have one less gun nut to worry about.

Joe-Since last month's elections, did you ever stop and think about your candidacy, and why you were NOT elected to the town council? People simply need to come to this website and witness your angry, confrontational, and sometimes dangerous personality for themselves.

Reading your posts shows you have quite a bit in common with the crazed Newtown "gun enthusiast"-very troubling indeed.

"tired of nk antics"-You are the perfect example of why this country needs to get serious about enacting strict and comprehensive gun control measures.

You can bloviate till your heart's content about supposed legitimate uses for killing machines such as the Bushmaster .223, but the fact remains that weapon and similar weapons are simply replicas of military style firearms that were designed to quickly and efficiently slaughter human beings on the battlefield.

Maybe you always desired to be a soldier, "tired of nk antics", but were not accepted for one reason or another, and playing with assault weapons was the next best thing for you, but here's some advice-get your jollies playing commando now, because the government WILL be outlawing the purchase and use of these killing machines VERY soon, thank goodness.

The Bushmaster .223 is a civilian version of the AR-15.

The current version of the AR-15 is the US Army M4 carbine issued to the infantry.
They fire the same rounds.

Your link does not answer the basic question - what is the purpose of this weapon?
The US Army isn't hunting squirrels with the M4.

There is no defensible reason for a civilian to posses weapons off the battlefield.

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/Articles.asp?ID=124
http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons

You're defending the slaughter of innocent children, TNKA.
That's worthy of vilification.

@NL and bkaj: seems you didn't read the link at all or at the very least not thoroughly. I am trying to educate you and others on this. The .223 is a caliber of cartridge. AR 15 is a style of rifle. The AR 15 you like to reference is a military-style rifle that can be chambered for various caliber cartridges. It is designed for hunting at long distances for "varmint" and predator hunting. "Varmints" such as groundhogs(woodchucks) and predators such as coyotes. Both are typically hunted at long distances. Because it is a replica of a military rifle seems to be your biggest beef. And guess what, you get no arguement from me. If you want to ban military-style rifles, fine. If you want to ban high-volume clips thats OK too. But you will not be able to ban the .223 caliber cartridge, because there are many more conventional-style rifles that use this(an example would be a bolt action rifle that comes to the mind of many when discussing hunting rifles). Nor will a ban on semi-automatic weapons in general because that encompasses so many different guns it would be impossible.
@b kcaj, you are a misinformed and bitter dolt. Do a little research before you spout off about others intentions please. I DID serve and saw active duty(no need to thank me) and NO I do not own an AR-style rifle. I do enjoy hunting with my .223 wooden stock bolt action rifle. I am not a member of the NRA or any other gun organization either and do not belong to a local gun "club".

Nk-
I am not on here talking about taking away your BA rifles, no matter what they are chambered in. What we are talkingabout is banning the ownership of military/police assault weapons. The AR-15 Bushmaster is not a "replica" of a M&P rifle, it IS an M&P rifle. Designed from the start to inflect lethal damage to humans. And ultimately, approved by the military for use in combat.

I too served (so you won't get any thanks from me), and I also know the difference between a civillian use firearm and the Bushmaster. There is no legitimate purpose for a civillian to own a rifle or pistol with a hi cap mag. We both know it. How much less damage would have resulted if the shooter had been carrying a Rem 700 in .223 (Max 5 rnd cap)?

townie the shooter could have inflicted more damage in that confined space just by using a simple shotgun.

"Naome The current version of the AR-15 is the US Army M4 carbine issued to the infantry.
They fire the same rounds."
The rounds used by the army is not the .223 it's the 5.56×45 if you use military 5.56 in a .223 it will jam. Again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Robert,
You would be wrong about that. The Bushmaster can use both rounds. All weapons marked by the manufacturer 5.56, can alternatively use the .223 Rem round. Up until approx 15 years ago, that same could not be said for weapons marked .223 Rem, however, all the major manufacturers (including Bushmaster) now make a small headspace provision for this. But that was a really nice try.

Although there have been reports of reduced accuracy when using .223 Rem rounds in a 5.56 Nato firearm.

Almost forgot, the shotgun. Really? with six rounds at best? And a long reload time? Are you one of those people that thinks a shotgun kills everone in a room with one shot? I assure you, it does not.

"The rounds used by the army is not the .223 it's the 5.56×45 if you use military 5.56 in a .223 it will jam. Again you have no idea what you are talking about."
- Robert E

From the Bushmaster FAQ -
"As the site notes it is safe to shoot 5.56mm and .223 ammunition in our rifles. The Modular Carbine has a 5.56 NATO chamber as marked on top of the barrel. You can use both the 5.56mm and .223 ammunition safely."

http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/afmviewfaq.aspx?faqid=2056

Anything else you think you might be in the wrong about?
Casket sizes? How loathsome you are to defend this?

"The rounds used by the army is not the .223 it's the 5.56×45 if you use military 5.56 in a .223 it will jam. Again you have no idea what you are talking about."
- Robert E

From the Bushmaster FAQ -
"As the site notes it is safe to shoot 5.56mm and .223 ammunition in our rifles. The Modular Carbine has a 5.56 NATO chamber as marked on top of the barrel. You can use both the 5.56mm and .223 ammunition safely."

http://www.bushmaster.com/faqs/afmviewfaq.aspx?faqid=2056

Anything else you think you might be in the wrong about?

You sovereign citizen have been railing against the UN carrying weapons here, but seem ready to defend a homeowner having a one just like theirs in her closet.

You can't hide behind arcana, or reduce this to gun trivia -
20 children were murdered in their classroom.

"From a physical standpoint each and every school needs to have a main check point established for everyone to be searched/ID validated etc."
Lanza forced entry to the building.

"Simply, do you think the US President Obama has to REALLY worry about his two little daughters (of course not) they are monitored each and every second by trained professionals with the authority to act in good judgement to protect them with their own life's if needed pro actively."

The Secret Service budget is $1.7Billion dollars to protect less than 50 people.
A great deal of this budget interdicts counterfeiting, but this sort of protection,
scaled to all Public Schools and venues is not manageable.
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Secret-Service-Obama-Iranian/2011/10/17/id/414749

Even the TSA - with controlled points of entry - does not detect all weapons.
http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/12/70-detection-failure-rate-being.html

"There have been multiple MAJOR shootings in the last twenty years some in public schools and some in colleges (with Police departments) and they occurred because no established security perimeter was in place."

It should also be noted that they took place because the shooter had a concealed
semi-automatic weapon in their possession.

No gun - no shooting.

"...unfortunately the criminal element (GANGS) don't exactly check into the police department to register their machine guns or apply for a carry conceal permit."

When was the last GANG shooting in a public place? It doesn't happen.

The theoretical protections you describe keep us "safe" from a non-existent
threat. The same weapons providing these "protections" were used on children.

These weapons pose a demonstrated risk to the general welfare and public health.
It's long past time for their recall, seizure and destruction.

"The fact remains that no one can say with any certainty why this happened."

It would appear that yet another young white man with access to a semi-automatic weapons carried them into a confined space and killed innocent people.

Again.

" I would suggest some people need to educate themselves."
Good idea.

"Congress can not pass a law that would require gun owners to surrender their weapons regardless of what type they are."
Yes, they can.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/usatoday/article/1774549
It's just a matter of time.

Call your Congressman and State Representative. We've waited too long.

How interesting Joe-It appears you have deleted 3 of your previous gun lover rants-why would that be? Have you realized the error of your ways?

In any case, Congress CAN and WILL pass comprehensive gun control legislation that will prevent you and the the rest of the Adam Lanzas of the world from purchasing and owning assault weapons such as the one used to systematically slaughter 26 innocent victims last week.

President Obama made it very clear in his remarks on Monday night that strict gun control measures will be coming soon to this country, and not a moment too soon.

Technically, congress can pass such a law. But politically it would be very unpopular.

If they were bought "legally" that implies there is a law that allows it Joe. To that end, if there is a law that allows it, there can (and most likely will now finally be) a law against it as well.

In 1920, when the 18th amendment was passed, it required the destruction of all alcohol. Including that which had been previously bought legally. Therefore, the legal precedent has been established. When it comes to education, Joe, yours in hostory is lacking greatly.

Let's be clear about something - I'm only concerned about the presence of
semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, the hoarding of ordnance and
the ease with which individuals may buy at gun shows.

As has been shown above, there are some grave misconceptions about what constitutes a preventable threat, and remedies to prevent them. There is also a pervasive concern among many that feel the necessity of a firearm, out of proportion to a genuine risk assessment.

It's impossible to convince someone who thinks they are the exception that they're
contributing to the problem they intend to solve. Nancy Lanza amassed a weapons
cache to prepare for social unrest and catastrophe.

It's sad that she became one of the frequent statistics of gun violence, killed by
a family member. It's tragic that her guns were used to slaughter children.

It's a National disgrace that we haven't enacted a meaningful ban since Columbine.

My concern is that people like Joe Sousa are just the public face of this.

Arguing with the American Taliban is pointless, they're genuinely fearful that the
World is about to end - they just can't see themselves fulfilling the prophecy.

There is no place for stockpiles of weapons in a civilized country.
Do we want to be our best, or emulate Somalia?

Joe apparently has built his bunker and no one will convince him to step out.

Hi, all - please, remember to keep it civil here. Also, no swearing. Thanks!

And don't forget the teachers and staff. Especially Victoria Soto. Her story has touched me deeply. She was the best of us. She is my hero. Thank you, Victoria, for saving those lives. We wish you were here with us.

Agreed. Teachers are everyday heroes, and sometimes they are spectacular heroes.

Dad auto accidents are the no. 1 killer of children after desese I don't see you calling for car control cann you eve name 1 child that was killed in a car accident. you are using these children as pawns to further your political agenda. I can just imangine how ecstatic you and Naome must have been to have these martyrs for your cause.

Robert,
In your post is the difference. Auto "accidents". Not Auto "acts of violence".

Tell me again why you need assault weapons? Hi cap mags?

The NRA (of which I am currently a member) has used the 2nd Amendment as a shield for 40 years. And you want to talk about agendas?
To make the allegation that someone would be estatic over this shows what a small person you are.

Additionally, automobiles undergo very strict regulation. Much more so than guns. And cars weren't even designed to kill, like guns were. Would you be OK if safety and regulations standards similar to those imposed on cars were imposed on guns? I'd be OK with that. In particular:

Mandatory licensing for ANY driving (shooting)
Periodic safety inspections for all cars (guns)
Restrictions on types of automobiles (i.e. can't drive a Formula 1 on the road or use an assault rifle)
Minimum age requirements for using cars / guns (not owning or purchasing)
Mandatory safety features like seatbelts and parking brake (like trigger locks and safes)
Extremely stringent manufacturing regulation
Ticketing for minor infringements
Registration of every car (gun) with the state
Etc.

So only the rich should have the right to own guns. Got it.

When will it be a good time to discuss this, Phil?

We sat quietly after four prior incidents. That lead us here, 20 little white coffins.
If you don't have the stomach to deal with an obscenity - in plain, clear terms
you're perpetuating the problem. This is precisely the right time to end this.

20 children were murdered in their classroom.

So, when is the appropriate time? A week? A month? After the national pain of this tragedy fades? No, now is as good a time as any.
And this is exactly where we need to discuss it. It public. No more backroom "exceptions" and "loopholes". In the light of day, all the cards on the table.

So what's your solution Phil-sweep this massacare under the rug so we can quickly forget about it so gun nuts can continue to amass arsenals that could equip a small army?

The time to address this Phil is NOW, while the wounds on the 26 innocent murder victims of this madman are fresh. To address it a "little later", as you suggest, is nothing but a slap in the face to the victims of this horrible cowardly act, and a slap in the face to their relatives and friends.

It's time to enact strict gun control NOW, before the next gun nut gets their hands on an assault weapon and commits another massacare.

So, Phil, when should we show respect for the dead? When the news and urgency have passed and Americans return to their natural, somnambulant condition? What greater respect could be paid the victims' families and their community than having a full-throttled, wide-ranging, open discussion of the gun issue, which is a symptom of a highly dysfunctional, undereducated and un-selfconscious society and culture? These parents might find some solace knowing that multitudes of fellow Americans heretofore lulled to sleep or intimidated by the gun fanatics and the NRA are finally awakening to address the moral question of the national catastrophe of violence and guns? Americans in general never believe unpleasant discussions, whether of religion, politics or death, etc., are appropriate under most circumstances because we remain a fundamentally anti-intellectual nation awash in unexamined and unquestioned pieties.

Good Year,
You and I have been on the opposite sides of many issues, and I was going to make a smart butt remark about "Welcome to the dark side".

Instead, I'll just say, For the most part, nice post.

How many of these hunters are hunting with fully- or semi-automatic assault weapons?

sheesh @NK Parent, semi-automatic guns are PERFECTLY LEGAL. Go back to whining about school lunches will you?

Just a quick current events lesson here. The only country doing any invading for the last decade or so is US!

OldTownie, you would be incorrect. Also, you would be way off topic.

So does that mean that ZERO hunters are using fully- or semi-automatic assault weapons while they're hunting?

I'm not for banning all guns but i've already written a bunch of letters to our Senators and Representatives about getting serious about gun control again and at the VERY LEAST reinstating the assault weapon ban. There is no reason for the public to have easy access to such weapons.

Could I buy a missile launcher if I wanted one?

I'm off topic? A pro-gun supporter is on here talking about a 30 million "hunter" army that is supposedly protecting me. Keeping us safe from an "foreign invading army"....Where is Patrick Swayze when you need him? Oh no, the Russian are coming! And I quote "America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower." Red Dawn was a MOVIE, (and a bad one at that). Not real life!

Ok, I'll play. How do you think 30,40,50 million out of shape, beer drinking deer hunters would fare against the current Russian army? 1 million standing, 22 million reserve? I know literally hundreds of hunters, and I have a suggestion for you, go back to the couch and drink a few more beers.

By the way smart guy, the government already has "CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS".

Joe-Of the hundreds of ignorant posts you have made on this and other websites, this one has to take the cake when it comes to the most ignorant. The media did not kill 26 innocent women and children last week-A high powered military style assault weapon DID.

To blame the media for every senseless killing due to a lack of gun control is a cop-out and a cowardly statement if there ever was one. People would actually respect you more Joe if you told the truth and admitted that until this nation gets serious about gun control, the type of massacare you saw in Newtown last week will surely be repeated. Until then, keep on getting your jollies by buying and playing with more guns, but act fast, as the groundswell of support for comprehensive gun control is gaining more and more momentum, and soon your ownership of guns will be just as illegal as your transportation and sale of illegal cigarettes down at your social club.

Sorry Joe, but the NRA has a lot of blood on its hands, and so do its members, many of whom--I know--were appalled by this tragedy. Roughly 70% of the funds raised by the NRA, including member dues and contributions, goes toward opposing gun laws and supporting politicians who oppose gun laws.

Well said.

Better yet, Joe. Maybe you should ask to see the crime scene photos. Each victim was shot multiple times by high caliber ammunition. One 6-year old was shot 11 times. Keep that picture in your head for a few days, and then come back here trying to convince people that it was the "right" of that child killer to possess a gun that can cause that type of damage to a human being.

TD, why should I lose my rights because of what someone else did?

Liberals always want to take guns away from the people who didn't do it.

You're using this document the way a drunk uses a lampost - not so much for illumination as support. If you dig a little deeper, you will find that violence went up in accordance with their reporting methodology.

Simple assault without injury, as sustained in a barfight (an affray) is now counted as a violent crime in the National Crime recording standard, adopted 2002.

Until you define your terms, you're just ranting.

In the year Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.

By weapon type:

Long-barrelled shotgun = 406
Sawn-off shotgun = 202
Handgun = 3,105
Rifle = 74
Imitation firearm = 1,610
Unidentified firearm = 957
Other firearm = 670
Air weapons = 4,203

Note the absence of mass shootings, since Dunblane in 1996 and the absence of firearm crimes committed with Semi-automatic weapons.

Perhaps you're squeamish about exchanging a rise in simple assault for the
safety of people in public places? Perhaps you're concerned about gang violence.

I'm genuinely distressed that Gun-rights advocates can calmly assess the loss
of 20 children in their elementary classroom as a statistic.

"Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations."

The United Kingdom has a total recorded crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people; the United States of America records approximately 80.

If you compare the same offenses according to the US Penal code, you'll find that the US still leads England in both crime per capita and homicides.

Is that the way you suggest we "lead the Free world" Robert?

Face it, the UK has suffered one such attack since enacting meaningful legislation
controlling access to guns, in Cumbria where Derrick Bryd killed 12 people in four hours with a sniper rifle, over an area the size of Aquidneck Island.

He was a legal owner of his weapon, for more than 20 years. He used his responsibly for hunting, until he determined to hunt people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283633/CUMBRIA-SHOOTINGS-Derrick-Birds-killing-spree-sparked-family-feud-petty-row.html

Lanza needed three minutes.

You're not man enough to face this, Robert. The UK is VASTLY safer than the US
and has a near infinitesimal rate of gun homicides, 0.1 per 100,000.

We're the leader of the Free world, shouldn't we behave that way?
Gun control works there, and will work here.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

"transplant"-Maybe you could hitch a ride to Newtown this week with your fellow gun nut Joe Sousa, and look the parents of a dead child with ELEVEN bullet holes in the eye, and tell them why you should have the right to purchase and posess a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. It would be quite interesting to see what those grieving parents would say to you.

Here's some advice for you "transplant": If you're so intent on fondling high powered assault weapons, join the army or apply for a job at your local police department.

People like you are disgusting, "transplant".

""Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
- Transplant

A legal weapon deprived 20 children and six adults of Life and Liberty.
It also ended the pursuit of happiness for their families.

You're in the wrong here, Transplant and unwelcome.

Right, more guns will make this stop.

Was the weapon legal, and registered to the child's parents?
If it's the same case mentioned below, is there verification that he was sent in
with this weapon? In one case, it's felony endangerment.

In the other its' careless disposition of a firearm.

http://news.msn.com/us/utah-boy-brings-gun-to-school-cites-newtown-fears

I believe that this argument can be parsed neatly;

How many with children are supporters of the status quo?
How many with school age children don't?

"Fake names raising fake arguments ."
Feel free to refute anything you consider false, if you can.

I think it prudent to remain anonymous to anyone that brags about their arsenal.
It's an embarrassment to have you living nearby, Joe.

Move North a few blocks, and double the IQ of both towns.

b kcaj that question has already been answered you just choose to ingnore it.
Naome you would have put the gun in the hands of the shooter just so you could have had maytrs for your cause.

Looks like you've found a new hobby Joe-building homemade explosives. You can add this new hobby to your other hobbies, such as fondling high powered assault weapons and selling illegal non-taxed cigarettes at your social club.

I wonder if the ATF is combing these discussion groups?

That would be a useful application of NSA search capabilities.
- especially handy with those that so willingly identified themselves.

Conservative estimates place the TOTAL number of privately held Russian weapons at 470,000. Best estimate of legal weapons in the US is 370,000,000.

That's in a country 1/2 our size. They are ranked 6th in urban population, we're 3rd. The Russians rank 6th in total crimes reported, we're FIRST.

We have more guns, per capita, and more crime.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Russia/United-States/Crime