There is absolutely no purpose for these types of guns other then to kill as many human beings as possible in as short a time as possible. There is no need for civilians to own this type of weapon.

If you cannot see that guns like these make violent people more effective there is no hope for you.

@ dirp

That's not exactly true. While we don not have the exact language of what is being proposed federally, neither the expired 1994 AWB nor the recently enacted 2013 New York AWB made so called assault weapons that were already privately owned illegal (ie- there was no gun confiscation). I highly doubt a bill with gun confiscation will pass either chamber of the US Congress if NY couldn't do it yesterday.

alan-

If only we could ban mindless drivel that has no relevance to the topic being discussed.

How about we ban men. Every single mass shooting that has occurred it's a man/male doing the shooting.

It's pretty clear men can't be trusted with guns.

How about this one Haggis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

You can not stop crazy with laws but I hope it makes you feel good.

Amy, we should with Rush Limbaugh !!!

hey AM what was Harris and Klebold original plan for Columbine, what didnt happen that day. Hey what 'assault rifle' did each use and the size of the 'clips'?

Alan Static is right. Ban humans, this way AM will be happy (shes not human, she's a liberal therefore 'evolved')

For once i agree with Amy.

Anna Molly

It's all useless, when Columbine proves that all the would-be shooter needs to do is get someone else to buy his firearms for him, and Newtown proves that family members cannot always be trusted.

Which would be where the gun trafficking laws Obama is proposing come into play. Making a gun buyer responsible for their actions is a good thing. If a person can pass a background and psych check, why would they need someone else to buy a gun for them?

Rush Limbaugh being the voice of the GOP is now mocking the families of sandy hook, how can we get this heartless scum off the air, this clown is one sick dude !!!

[hey AM what was Harris and Klebold original plan for Columbine, what didnt happen that day. Hey what 'assault rifle' did each use and the size of the 'clips'?]

...talk about sticking your hands in the fan blades...repeatedly...

Oh! Oh! Straw man, right? Diverting to semantics this early in your shift? Remember, it's about cutting your losses, and quitting when you think you're ahead. Apparently you haven't made that New Year's resolution, or you haven't learned anything.

;)

Hey Mickey what does all these mass shootings have in common? (no one except the crazed criminal was armed).

Its a strawman argument because you dont agree with it. kinda like this morning when someone pointed out a political tactic used by the left is now used against the left. you seemed *shocked and disgusted*.

So now its all 'strawmen, shiny, ass handings, Fox news', and whatever silly words you want to use to describe me. It wont change the faux outrage from the left with 'Bushmaster', .223, 'Assault Rifle', 'clips' and 'hi cap mags'. All shinys for the left. So march on my proletariat friend. Bad people do Bad things and how many laws stop bad people?

I will agree voicing my opinions and beliefs on FR is sticking my hand in the blades if you will. We agree to disagree Micky.

So was the govt. mentally ill when they seized the guns from the Indians? Resulting in the massacre of defenseless men, women & children.....Does Wounded Knee ring a bell?

not true shelly. " i dont like mondays". brenda spencer 1979. just saying.

Wayne LaPierre.

That sounds French.

I thought Americans hated the French.

How did a "frenchy" get to be head of the NRA?

Speaking of be-head.......

Sounds like this is all a Socialistic Plot to me.

Salud

Wayne LaPierre.

That sounds French.

Bravo Holmes. now go find Carmen SanDiego

Newtown - verifiable nut-job & a mother that did not secure her weapons

Aurora - verifiable nut-job & a college that failed to warn the public

Tuscon - verifiable nut-job that should have never owned a weapon

Virginia Tech - verifiable nut-job that slipped through the cracks

Columbine - two verifiable nut-jobs that violated federal laws to purchase their weapons

LA Jewish Center - verifiable nut-job that crossed state lines & made an illegal purchase of his weapon

ALL of these murder sprees were FIRST OFF certifiable nut-jobs that should have had MENTAL tattooed across their foreheads preventing them from owning ANY firearm

[We agree to disagree Micky]

You got that right, because if I agreed with you, then we'd both be wrong.

You continue to make your strawman arguments for your "2nd amendment rights" and your skewed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but in the end, after the paint you use to paint everything with your broad brush dries, you are wrong. You just have a hard time accepting that, and you'll never admit it. Your responses to EDNYLaw prove it. You could have just accepted his interpretation and left it as that, but you chose to ignore anything he said.

Your answer? DO NOTHING.

Sorry caesar, not acceptable. But do continue your strawman, FOX "news" analysis of the issue. Because in the end, you lose the "debate".

It must suck to be on the wrong side of history, huh.

and your skewed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution

so says you. But the law stands so quit with the 'militia' argument. Its been proven wrong. The 2nd Amendment will stand and your Imperator will go down as the Despot you worship.

Mickey quit watching NBC and Maddow.

Your responses to EDNYLaw prove it.

He was proven wrong per the SC Mickey..sorry

Your answer? DO NOTHING.

not at all, I agree the mental health of most of these assailants is the root cause, you take the easy way out and blame guns. IHOP shooting was another unstable guy who acquired(stole) an AK47 shot and killed several people...Again you fail to draw the connection. and you have the nerve to call me a pussy. Again I own these weapons I have never killed anyone at any rate of speed. Have you do you? But hey you can call me a nut job and 'win' the debate.

It must suck to be on the wrong side of history, huh.

sure the Jews feel the same way.

How about we make murder illegal. Before you roll your eyes, tell me why making certain weapons illegal stops the crime, but making murder illegal does not?

This is pure speculative bull! "Hypothetically" we could posit scenarios where no guns are available whatsoever... We could also create hypotheticals that eliminate all crime, but are these serious considerations? So, please tell me what this proves, except to tickle the tiny brains of gun opponents.

[The 2nd Amendment will stand and your Imperator will go down as the Despot you worship.]

Of course you have just your "intellectual opinion" to go on, right?

Sure you do...shame...all that "education", and not a shred of commom sense. Reminds me of the PhD's I have to work around.

It still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

The gun issue is a conundrum. Likewise, determination of mental balance, representative of so many average individuals, is highly inexact, even by best measurement standards. Meanwhile, the US is the most violent society in the World. It is also the most criminal society on Earth. Additionally, US citizens are the most fearful of any, within the industrialized nations. Is it any wonder Americans feel more secure owning guns? Yet, "guns galore" are the tools of choice used in most violent, unlawful deeds. Use of guns often reveal individual mental deficiencies, previously undetected by either society or professionals. If, and until, we can effectively address and tame the tangible aforementioned demons that are as indigenous to us as eating fast food, we will never effectively solve the heinous problem of gun access by the wrong people. I applaud the Presidents sentiments, yet, as expressed, they fall far short of effective correction, but are an honest attempt at a needed national conversation relative to the psychology of American gun ownership. Politically, I am of a "Progressive" bend. I own a handgun, 2 shotguns, and one 22 rifle. Pretty good shot with all of 'em. Used to think I liked to kill Crows. Killed several over many years. Quit when I finally began to understand how smart they are. I never owned, nor wished to own an assault weapon. I do however, feel better, and more secure, having access to my guns. Regards

Shelley,

Laurie Dann, 1988

Hello folks, what part of the fact that the 2nd Amendment is a right not a privilege do you not understand. As you have witnessed the administration did nothing today to change the 2nd Amendment and for good reason, they know the people don't trust them.

All you anti-gun zealots are hypocrites! Where are the crocodile tears for the millions of children our government has killed and displaced in our name around the world. By not standing up and speaking out you are complicit in their deaths.

Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an excuse for anti gun lobbyists to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US government's murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton's immoral secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children. The Bush regime is just as guilty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to "progressives." Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US.

When I hear people talk about "gun violence," I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

Reminds me of the PhD's I have to work around

you're a neurosurgeon eh? Im going on limb and guessing youre pretty myopic looking down your nose all the time. My 250k a year wage pales in comparison to yours. Kudos

Of course you have just your "intellectual opinion" to go on, right?

wishing upon a star for your beloved Despot to sole rule wont make it so number 2. But there is also a case D.C. vs Heller. See Micks its not quite as simple as that and you know it. Again you fail to acknowledge the common denominator here. all the aforementioned mass killings have been by sick individuals. So we agree on that right? I can point to an apple and you'll point to an orange..

It still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Sigh, Fiat rule would not make me wrong, just a criminal and on the 'wrong' side of history. You have your 'intellectual opinion', I have mine. Congrats my friend, you didnt call me stupid outright...step in the right direction.

[you're a neurosurgeon eh?]

So, you think only neurosurgeons have PhD's? Reading comprehension still not your strong point, huh. Reread the sentence.

You're not a criminal if you abide by the law, correct? Just like I now have to make an adjustment and abide by the law here in NY. You're not living in the freaking 1700's.

But please continue with the Fox straw man arguments, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. Just because you have a problem with that, doesn't change a thing. An apple is still an apple and an orange is still an orange.

All of my guns are legal under that new law in New York. One is a replica of one that Gen. George Patton carried. That law needs to be made the national law.

The 2nd amendment was intended for southern militias involved in slave control. With slavery now illegal it has no purpose right now today.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Mexico has tighter gun laws than Obama has proposed. How is that working for them? I will tell you, the drug dealers walk up to their houses, kill everyone, and cut their damn heads off.

• The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!
• The same government that people say cant' do a single thing right, the same government that can mess up a one car funeral suddenly is capable of going door to door and taking away every single gun in the nation. Be afraid!! Be afraid!! Be afraid!! Be afraid!! The AFT will fly their black helicopters to your house tomorrow!!!

Seriously, the gun is merely a tool. The mentally deficient can be quite resourceful. Obamas list of actions are really empty when you consider his attack on the video games, guns, and a mention of addressing mental illness. The film industry has played a major role along with video games, to bring fiction to life (or death) in some minds. But there are political contributor that will not be included in his recommendations. So, with the absence of the film industry, is it seriously about solutions, or just to punish opponents?

Ten years ago, a Republican sponsored (Todd Tiahrt R-Kansas), NRA written bit of legislation was inserted into a funding bill. It gutted the ATF's ability to track firearms and enforce existing gun laws. It required that background check information be destroyed within 24 hours, restricts inspection of gun shops to once per year, cuts funding so that actual inspections only occur once every 17 years on average. It also removed any requirement for gun shops to take inventory or keep track of their products. Republicans have blocked Senate confirmation of a director of the ATF for the last 6 years. (this requirement was inserted into the Patriot act by John Sensenbrenner R-Wisconson. He won the NRA's defender of freedom award that year.) The total number of ATF agents has remained at 2500 for the last 35 years and they have 100,000 gun sellers to monitor, not to mention the alcohol and tobacco.

57% of guns used in crimes were traced back to only 1% of gun dealers. This information was obtained 20 years ago, but since then the ATF has been barred from collecting and using such a database. The NRA has little credibility after these attacks upon very reasonable gun legislation.

I've noticed that a vast majority of these mass killings have been committed by mentally unstable/ill individuals. Maybe we should start there?

miklkit

You could not possibly be more wrong. First of all the Daily Kos is a Left wing opinion blog, not an actual news source. Anyone can be a journalist on the Daily Kos.In fact the daily Kos far from being a non-partisan news outlet actually donated large sums of money to left wing Democrats exclusively. But I dont let a bias stand in the way of facts so here are the facts that prove you, and the Daily Kos wrong.

"The 2nd amendment was intended for southern militias involved in slave control. With slavery now illegal it has no purpose right now today."

Not true at all. Our founders were very clear on the purpose for the amendment And it had nothing to do with slavery. It had everything to do with the standard practice of the Royal authority seizing weapons in advance of suppressing rebellion as had happened in Ireland and Scotland and more recently in the former American colonies. In fact the battles of Lexington and Concord were fought specifically because the crown sent troops to seize weapons from the populace.

But more to the point

The slave population did not explode until after the invention of the cotton gin and so while the slave population was large before it did not represent the large numbers that existed leading up to the Civil War. As for slave revolts, they did exist, but they were relatively mall and usually did not garner much public attention. In fact two of Americas most prominent slave rebellions occurred before the American Revolution. After the Revolution we Have Nat Turners rebellion but this was relatively small and isolated to one part of Virginia. And the result was anti slave laws that gave greater authority to local law enforcement, not any militia.

There was a large slave revolt in Louisiana and the militia was called out but this was brief and was barely even reported outside of the state. And of course there is the Black Seminole uprising, but this was as much an Indian fight than a slave rebellion and part of the lager growing conflicts between Native's and white settlers in Florida, Georgia and Alabama.

But lets bring this back to the gun control debate. Each of the slave rebellions mentioned were suppressed in large part because the state and Federal government had strict gun control laws preventing certain people from owning guns. So if you want to advocate for gun control then you need to explain away the deaths of tens of thousands if not more Blacks and Native Americans in the US who died because the state said they did not have the right to own a gun.

Good article and had the laws been in place at the time, it could possibly prevented some of these murders. Unfortunately, we have criminals, who don't follow the law. In fact, they're hoping that everybody's guns will be taken away so there will be less resistance the next time they chose to break the laws of the land. And it will happen.

Either Mr. Williams is not a smart as I thought he was or he just thinks his audience is dumb.

Does anybody honestly think that an assault weapons ban would have prevented Adam Lanza from just using his mom's two hand guns to carry out his plot? Seung Hui Cho used two handguns, one of which had the politically correct 10 round magazines, the other, 15 round. In spite of having 30 round magazines, (TWICE the capacity as Cho), Lanza did not manage to kill any more human beings, than Cho.

Does Mr. Williams honestly expect a couple of frightened first graders to tackle a homicidal maniac during magazine changes? Add a couple of Columbine type homicidal maniacs to the equation, coordinating their reloads, and magazine capacity becomes totally irrelevant.

I however agree with Mr. Williams assessment that Loughner should have disqualified when he admitted to an Army recruiter that he used drugs.

QUESTION:

If your State's lax gun laws enables a gun to cross State lines (trafficing, stolen,given away) ... to become a weapon of death in a State that has stricter laws ..can one State sue another State?

If that gun was illegaly transferred to someone with a criminal record...and winds up firing at innocent people...what about a class action suit?

.

We NEED A NATIONAL GUN CHECK REGULATION

.

.

The "rights" of Mrs. Lanza ,,,,, are indefensible.

.

And Marco Rubio...saying the President doesn't doesn't support the 2nd Amendment.... indefensible.

.

NRA's ad using the President's children.... indefensible.

.

Enabling Criminals, enabling accidents, enabling the mentally ill, enabling violence, enabling stockpiling guns.... indefensible.

.

.

We are pitting our citizens against each other...over weapons of destruction.

What a ridiculous article to play this stupid what if the Kings rules were in place before this or that, nothing but a stupid article implying Obama could have saved the children he is using as pawns.

RI Mom...NRA's ad using the President's children.... indefensible

How about Obama using children in his speech yesterday as props to push his agenda, I say that is indefensible also.

1.42

So you were offended ...by the children ....

Maybe the 20 dead ones annoyed you too?

Who is this King?

.

.

Are you a law abiding gun owner? Are you licensed? Do you use safe gun practices?

If so... WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Looking at the statistics, there seems to be a relation between the number of Starbucks per capita & the number of deaths by gun...... DC is the highest on both categories......

Starbucks must be stopped

Uh, there's nothing in the Columbine section about how Obama's proposed changes would have affected it. Why was is brought up? As far as I can tell, his proposals wouldn't have affected anything with Columbine. Short answer, it's in there is make it look like Columbine would have been affected. How easily we're played....by the news media no less.

So if I pass a background check today and buy a gun, what about ten years from now? I still have the gun and I am mentally physco now. Then what? Plus all the assalut rifles that are already there...who's to say I won't steal one? What about all the laws in place now to prevent crime? Do they work? Also, do you think that mentally ill people don't know how to talk the talk to get what they want? Remember, most physcos aren't "stupid". Kudos for trying, but I just don't believe any of these things will prevent any more mass shootings or murders. There are too many firearms out there already and stealing is nothing new.

So what was the point of this story again? That we need background checks? I'm totally cool with that. Link the Feds and local databases together. That would have prevented almost all of these. There are a few problems with the facts on the ones it wouldn't have fixed. Columbine, for example, didn't have an "assault weapon" of any type used. They had 2 shotguns and (3) 9mm pistols (1 Beretta, 1 TEC9 and 1 Hi-Point 9mm Carbine). They fired 189 shots-- without "high capacity" magazines... So, no AWB would have made a difference.

Virginia Tech didn't use an "assault weapon" at all and was the bloodiest mass shooting in history. Obviously, mass shootings not going to be solved by a new AWB.

Background checks, closing private sales loopholes, mandatory safe storage (not sure why Obama never mentioned that one) and mental health reforms are the only way to make a real difference. I say this, not as a Republican (which I'm not), but as someone enjoys taking his son shooting at the range every other weekend.

As a Commie Pinko Liberal, I applaud president Obama's efforts at gun control. However, seeing as how so much of the noise surrounding this effort has to do with semantics, let's try this on for size.

Put a speed limit on ballistics, no ammunition allowed to be manufactured and sold to the general public with a mussel velocity of greater than lets say 1200 feet per second. I know that would reduce stopping power and hinder ones defense against a zombie attack, but at least it would slow down the carnage created when a law abiding gun owner decides to become an outlaw.

Every ballistic projectile sold in the United States should be micro tagged on its base. I don't believe it would be that hard and costly to accomplish. Manufacturer, batch, and perhaps even a serial number. When sold, that information passed onto an ATF data base. Sell a box of ammo and you better damn well better forward that information or you could be held liable in the miss use of ammunition that passed through your hands.

I do agree with the gun lobby that the term semi-automatic and assault weapon is kinda vague. If I understand the mechanism of a 19th century Colt revolver, it can fire six shots by just pulling the trigger for every shot. I may be wrong in that the hammer may have to be manually cocked for each shot, but if firing the weapon also cocks the weapon for the next trigger pull you now have a semi-automatic fire arm.

I think you have to go to Richard Rhodes book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" for a well worded description of the carnage created by the fully automatic machine gun. From the chapter about World War I titled "The Long Grave Already Dug"... "Against the criminally stubborn conviction of the professional officer corps that courage, elan and naked steel must carry the day the machine gun was the ultimate argument." He then describes battle of the Somme, on July 1, 1916, when at least 21,000 men died the first hour in infantry charges against machine gun emplacements.

He goes on to say, "The machine gun mechanized war... but what fed the machine was the conscription law..."

Policy works, for good or ill. It is the policy of the United State as set forth in the 2nd amendment that we have the right to bear arms. That does not mean however that a speed limit can not be posted over what you can do with that right. A high velocity light weight fire arm capable of making a group of people into hamburger needs to be regulated by government policy. Without appropriate regulations an internal arms race would sooner or later force me to obtain a weapon, and I don't have any desire to have one hanging above my mantel, or in a weapons safe if you wish to be picky.

67Stang,

Note 1.36 above,

The NRA and Republican congressmen have made it mandatory to destroy background check information within 24 hours. No coordination is possible without congress changing it back.

Dipocrats who only focus on guns are the exact same problem that the NRA radicals are. THE SAME.

A Dipocrat will try to tell you it is all about the guns. While an NRA radical will tell you it has nothing to do with the guns.

A Dipocrat is happy to watch kids die as long as they are split open with knives. An NRA radical is okay with kids being shot so they can keep their assault rifles.

Neither a Dipocrat won't give up rights so they can avoid monitoring of mentally unstable and dangerous people, just like an NRA extremist won't give up rights so they can go pew pew pew with an assault rifle. Not even if a bunch of kids are killed.

So your average, one party voting, extremist Dipocrat wants to save whales while killing kids with knives and allowing mental health issue people to run free without treatment, while your average one party voting, extremist NRA member wants to have kids shot so they can not learn how to use a different weapon to defend themselves with (i.e. actually learn to shoot).

I'm all ears, extremists. You go on and tell me how your impotent, one sided handling of the problem is all good. Try not to sound stupid when making your argument, as hard as that is going to be.

All of you potheads are probably @!$%#ting your pants by now, since that information could end up in a Federal database as evidence of a mental disorder.

@WJE.....

LMAO here... we already know where the gun and ammo came from that Lanza used...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

An entirely sane person, in a country with a ban on handguns and semi-automatic (and pump-action) rifles with a very tough licensing system for guns, using a double-barrel shotgun and a bolt-action .22 rifle with a 5-round magazine.

23 shot, 12 dead.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5259161/Raurimu-killer-back-in-custody

A mentally ill person, using an illegally possessed single-shot shotgun in a country with a licensing system for gun ownership.

10 shot, 6 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Borel

16-year old, using his father's .22 bolt-action rifle:

19 shot, 15 dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Dornier

Using a bolt-action rifle and a double-barrel shotgun:

22 shot, 14 dead.

And on and on and on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leung_Ying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

You can't stop mass shootings by banning certain types of guns or accessories. Proven fact, unfortunately.

Why does the gun lobby substitute anecdotes for statistics and even apply pressure on Congress to de-fund research on gun-related violence?

Thank goodness rational people are now talking about reasonable gun laws.

Implementing these new laws actually could work and should work to decrease the number of massacres like this country has been subjected to the last few years.

I am all for giving it a try!

REFLEXES

When
that
BANG
BANG
BANG

is pointed at you....
how FAST are your reflexes?

.

I'm amused by the ego-maniacs ...
so sure that they can out-shoot a criminal
or a deranged person intent on massacre .
.
.
Their foolishness invites more violence.

Step towards sensible gun controls ANGERS them.

REFLEXES...

NRA:76 directors.
The majority are nominated via a top-down process and elected by a small fraction of NRA members. A breakdown of the current board, based on their official bios:

87 percent are men. 93 percent are white.

At least 71 percent were nominated, endorsed, or selected by the NRA's Nominating Committee.
........

.
.because that just SCREAMS Fair & Balanced

.
.
.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/nra-board-members-selleck-nugent

Enjoy the list of NRA "players".

I'm going to play the side of the Left. I say we ban all "assault" rifles and high capacity magazines. Then we'll only have to deal with 10 to 20 deaths at a time instead of 20 to 30. Won't have to worry about Oklahoma City bombings anymore either. Oh, wait. That ain't right. Might have more of those. Oh well. Anyway, I feel better. Now I can go back to contemplating my navel lint.

For 22 years Wayne LaPierre, ever a devoted lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, has taken views so extreme that even President George H.W. Bush resigned his NRA membership after LaPierre called the feds 'jackbooted government thugs.'

Warlord Wayne pockets millions a year plus benefits from all those NRA card-carrying members, including many war veterans who probably have no idea that LaPierre dodged the Vietnam draft by having his family doctor write a letter stating he has a nervous disorder.

It is the height of irony that a man who pushes assault weapons and his agenda is to arm every man, woman, and child in America in order to protect ourselves, is too cowardly to serve his country in the military. You would think he (of all people!) would have been itching to use all those milita weapons and take a shot at the enemy.

silverton,

I didn't know about LaPierre's disorder, but I did see him frothing at the mouth on Meet the Press.

read 1.36

Bill Clinton dodged the draft by being a conscientious objector and by pulling some legal strings (can't say I admire him for that), but for LaPierre to claim he has a nervous disorder to keep from serving his country is an insult to every soldier and war veteran in America.

And hey ... does a nervous disorder count as mental illness? Does that mean that the CEO of the NRA cannot legally buy or own an assault weapon? Okay ... now I understand ...

Ed,

I re-read your post at 1.36. I have read similar information before and it is truly alarming.

The NRA has become a tyrant organization that has lost the vision with which it was orginally formed. It is now a dying dragon breathing its last fire in an attempt to destroy any opposition that seeks to invade its chest of gold.

Reasonable and rational thinking are enemies of the NRA.

Ok, so 30 round mags are out. Now I have to carry 3 mags instead.

Useless law that makes law abiding people criminals.

Ban large Cokes because 2-liters aren't available. Idiots.

The only thing that makes a law abiding citizen a criminal is the law abiding citizen voluntarily breaking the law. It's all about choice, so you and others should stop with that lame ass justification. Break the laws if you want to, but be prepared to face the consequences.

AlaskaGirl-759554

Break the laws if you want to, but be prepared to face the consequences

and men, if you are married, you should already be familiar with this concept.

It's the natural order of things.

Salud

AlaskaGirl-759554 - And what laws new or old would I be breaking if I have 3, 10, 30 clips that hold 10 rounds each? What law would I be breaking if I got a two liter pop instead of the banned "anything over 16" ounces?

None. The laws are useless and easily side stepped.

The portion of background checks on mentally ill is about the only thing I agree with. But this is also a slippery slope.

And freedom of speech should be REGULATED.... that's just COMMON SENSE...........

Don't laugh........ it will be next......

And freedom of speech should be REGULATED.... that's just COMMON SENSE...........

Don't laugh........ it will be next......

They are already working on it. Examining "violent media" is next on the white house agenda.

Blame anything except for the person or persons who actually committed the crime.

Statistically there is one chance in 28 thousand that you will be a victim of a firearm homicide this year. How much money and freedom would you personally give up to lower that risk by, say, 10%?

Similarly, there is one chance in 7 thousand that you will die from poisoning. Would you, therefore, give up four times as much money and freedom to lower that risk by 10%?

Two questions point up the difference between irrational hysteria and intelligent legislation:

"What level of public harm justifies expensive or draconian measures by the government that affect the entire population?" And the corollary: “What level of proof should the government offer that the measures proposed would actually eliminate that harm?”

Why am I going to pay for THEIR crimes? I have many guns. I have shot no one and don't intend to do so.

And who the F@#k lets a lunatic walk onto school property with a bushmaster without noticing anything?

And the NY Gun Law passed has now made hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens criminals, including law enforcement officers (they too are included in the "7 rounds/clip or magazine restriction (smart eh!)...

That is the issue here.

The law did nothing to change criminals into law-abiding citizens...They ignore laws anyway....

Nor did it address the mentally deranged.

Only infringing on law abiding citizens rights....

Any endorsement of this type of action by a government (federal, state or local) is opening the door for them to feel like they can also take away your rights (you can't drive with a cell phone, you can only buy a 15.5 ounce soda, you cannot eat salty potato chips, etc. etc. etc.)

The sad part is you don't even realize that is the unintended consequence of allowing anyone's rights to be infringed.....

""What level of public harm justifies expensive or draconian measures by the government that affect the entire population?" And the corollary: “What level of proof should the government offer that the measures proposed would actually eliminate that harm?”

Ask the Leader Draco the Lawgiver who passed laws so restrictive that any harsh law still bears his name. Why did he do it? Because a few people were victims of crimes and as a method of control the majority were made to suffer.

Oddly enough Draco would have argued in much the same language as Obama that if his law saves on life then it is worth it.

At least for every Draco that rises up there is a Solon to emerge and struggle to undo the "draconian" laws.

OK, let's see: Ban on assault weapons- did not stop the Columbine massacre. Also, a National Inst. of Justice study showed no benefit to public safety with the ban. Finally, a 2004 Univ of PA study did not show a drop in overall gun violence during the ban-criminals just switched to other weapons.

High capacity magazine ban: may be worth a try, but criminals/psychos likely to just bring multiple clips.

Universal background checks: Univ of Va shooter passed two of them. Sandy Hook killer took guns that weren't his - background check of no value there.

Mental health database: Sounds good except that it will put a higher stress on already overburdened mental health professionals to make the right call. Example- Woman is having serious issues with an abusive ex-husband. She is stressed and depressed. She tells her psychologist that her ex is stalking her and she is afraid he may want to attack her, so she is planning to buy a gun for protection. Does the psychologist now have a responsibility to report her and if so, does she lose the right to self defense?

Instead of focusing attention on an inanimate object, I would suggest we focus on our society as a whole. Broken down families, movies featuring violent scenes backed up by a high energy sound track, Video games that make you the killer, and an overall loosening of morality have had just as much negative impact as the weapons in the hands of the killers.

Have any of you actually read what was in President Obama's executive orders relating to gun control? They're actually pretty wimpy, in my opinion. So many people getting all worked up, but most of you have no clue what you're even arguing about! (sounds like the health care debate) You'd think the ATF was actually going door-to-door to take away ALL your guns. Oh wait, they have no director and basically no power to do anything, thanks to the gun lobby, so gun owners have nothing to worry about!

The Constitution was written by men who were surely smart enough to realize that permitting citizens to be well-armed would, sadly, permit a madman to murder innocents by the handful. But they also realized that forbidding citizens from being well-armed would permit a madman to murder innocents by the millions.

They wisely chose to protect our country from the far greater evil.

Freedom of speech has always been well regulated. Go into a crowded theater and start shouting "Fire!".

Go to a Teabagger rally and you will find that you will be restricted to a certain area far away from those teabaggers.

The 2nd amendment was originally intended to apply to southern militias engaged in controlling their slaves. No more slaves,no more militias. And guns have always been regulated, just not well at all.

Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

What the heck is on your head?

Kannin....they did and if you studied history or were taught history in school (and not the re-written history) you would know that "justice" for crimes against humanity (stealing, murder, assault etc.) were dealt with swiftly.

A bank was robbed, the community gathered a posse and chased them until they were caught.

Someone was murdered, they had a swift trial and sentencing (usually death by hanging) and that sentence was carried out swiftly.

Today, our prisons have 3 square meals, full gym, cable TV....all the comforts of home. In fact, they have access to more amenities than a lot of law-abiding citizens who are struggling in this economy that Obama has failed to address.

What is their disincentive? Get out of prison early, find no job, commit crime go right back into a lifestyle fully funded by you and I with no cost to them...

Think about it.

If you cannot see that guns like these make violent people more effective there is no hope for you.

Adrian -

But people kill people guns dont plain and simple

Actually, People WITH Guns Kill People.....

You seem to be missing the point that if the shooters mom didn't have those weapons and the high-capacity magazines at least some of the deaths could have been prevented.

I am afraid you are going to see someone who is going to be really effective without the use of guns. It is going to be an even bigger tragedy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Make all the laws you want. You can't stop crazy. In the end you will be getting screwed over. The founding fathers knew it but some people think they know better. Good luck to you.

Do you and others like you have any idea how idiotic you sound when the words "guns don't kill people, people do." Such a moronic statement, not to mention an ice cold one.

Morgs, nobody is saying it will stop it entirely, but some measures will sure as hell make it harder for some. Oh, but I guess we should keep it as easy as possible for the mentally ill and convicted felons to get the mass murder weapons rather than try and do what we can to stem the violence. Just as long as the 2nd Amendment is kept snow white. Sorry. No deal.

AlaskaGirl-759554 - I am not against taking guns away from bad people. But I am against how people are going about it.

This article points out 10 nuts in a 15 year span that have basically made every other gun owner a criminal. You are fighting the criminals tools, not the criminal.

When tyranny comes knocking, don't come crying.

Morgs: "Make all the laws you want. You can't stop crazy. In the end you will be getting screwed over"

You know what? You're absolutely right. We've got all kinds of laws on the books already about drunk driving. We have laws about needing a license to drive. We have laws about driving without insurance. We have laws about driving after dark with no lights on. We have laws against running red lights. And not ONE of those laws kept that drunken 16-year-old twit with no license and no insurance from stealing her sister's car and getting drunk and running a red light with no lights on at 10:00pm on New Year's Eve a few years back and almost killing me. So what good are laws, anyway?

End those fascist driver's licenses! Stop mandating car insurance! Let us responsible people decide for ourselves whether we're safe drivers or not! Surely, as adults, we can all decide when it's okay to zoom right through red lights and when it's not, right? And if I can see well enough in the dark, what do I need headlights for?

Hey, let's Legalize Drunk Driving NOW! I'll never get "screwed over" again!

JoAnne in PA - My comments obviously went over your head. I sure hope you aren't a lawyer as our constitution means nothing to you. But then again frivolous lawsuits about buying a 20 ounce pop is your bread and butter.

"My comments obviously went over your head."

Obviously. And mine went right through yours. obviously. So if we're done insulting each other now, could we get back to the question of why we bother having any laws at all if they're so patently useless? I really want to know.

P.S. - Around here, it's not "pop", it's "soda". And I couldn't finish a 20-ounce one if I tried. Even without the bread and butter.....

Sorry, Morgs, you lose big time on this one when you make silly statements like "made every other gun owner a criminal." It's those kinds of "we're the victims" comments that reflect poorly on anything positive or constructive you might have to say. JoAnne's comments have a lot more common sense in them than yours. The adolescent-level argument about "why not ban this or that" ends up questioning the wisdom of having any laws at all, and I believe that is JoAnne's point. Whether some of us like it or not, we ARE part of a society, and that society keeps getting more and more crowded every day. That means the dynamics of the society constantly change right along with the growth. If the founders were with us today, I think they would have enough common sense (to quote Thomas Paine) to look at today's world and say "you know, there's some tweaking we need to do to the constitution, because this is a different world than what we were confronting in 1780."

dksouthern - Actually, I kinda think I was getting a little adolescent there myself, but then, constantly smacking one's head over the inanity of some of these arguments will do that to you. Thanks for saying what I was trying to, only better. Sense is actually pretty UNcommon around here. :)

Did Wayne mention the new NRA "Practice Range" app that allows you to shoot at a body-shaped target with an AK-47?

The body-shaped target also has a handy red dot where the heart would be, so you can practice shooting at someone!

The NRA also says this app is suitable for "ages 4 and up" - Really?

All part of their effort to "educate" lawful gun owners.....

This is the fight of the century

And with these words the War on Terrorism slinks quietly into the good night. Oh goody, the marriage of black, Kenyan, Muslim, commie is almost complete.

The warning labels and age limitations regarding cigarettes bother the NRA quite a bit too... If someone throws money at them they'll speak up.... only an imbecile would take that "organization" seriously from a public standpoint.

blackcatwhitecat

guber much, gomer

hey Haggis, BCWC is on your side LOL....pay attention GUBER

Frivolous girlish panic runs in your genes Ms. LaPierre... Your choice to become the "Nazi Mistress" to the gun sellers certainly wasn't the result of bravery... You look and act like a sold out, bent over shill. So we won't accuse you of any pretense.

A couple years ago, I bought a bottle of NyQuil at the local Target store. The clerk asked for my driver's license, and while I was busy chuckling about the bureaucracy that demands age verification of someone who clearly hasn't been a teenager for 40-some years, she actually swiped it into some sort of database before I could grab it back. I've gotta wonder if the NRA would be as, umm, "up in arms" about my right to stop sneezing as they would be about my right to own cop-killing bullets? Wait, don't tell me - the constitution doesn't say anything about that well-regulated militia getting a good night's sleep, does it?

So fight on, Mr. LaPierre.....today it's your guns, tomorrow it could be your Alka-Seltzer..... :)

NRA = Stupid with a gun!

bcwc-

Oh goody, the marriage of black, Kenyan, Muslim, commie is almost complete.

Shhhhhh!

We are suppose to kept that hush-hush.

Salud

haggisbingo-2225582

blackcatwhitecat

guber much, gomer

Oh Gawd, if I have to start fearing blindness on my spectral side of the aisle I'll off myself to some Icelandic site where I can enjoy being misunderstood by all.

Give me a break! It's okay that children are allowed to play black ops and other video games but the NRA creating target practice on a human shaped object is reprehensible. What's the difference? I guess for SOME of you this hits a little too close to home. (please take my weapon because I'm afraid to use it, but don't mess with my video games) If you seriously think that changing the laws on gun control are going to keep crazy people from doing crazy things then maybe you need to be committed as well. This is just common sense and I believe that for most of you on here that tends to elude you. Any of these crimes could have been commited with numerous different weapons that they can get their hands on or even create if they so chose. If one or two of the teachers had the means by which to fight back, maybe this could have been less of a tragedy. I would rather be waiting with a gun to defend myself than covering my students hoping that would protect them. I appreciate the gesture that teacher at Sandy Hook made...but what a waste of life. We have to be able to defend ourselves. I know that I'm not going to hurt another human as long as I'm not put into that situation...but I promise you this, if it comes down to me or my children against a home invasion...someone will be planning a funeral and it won't be me. I bet if half of you idiots that are begging for gun control were put into a situation like any of the above mentioned, you would wish you had a weapon...that is if you weren't too chicken or incapable of using it. We really are a screwed up nation if the majority of this country believe that Obama and his Government are going to protect us. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid and dreaming happy dreams...because that's about as effective as gun control.

ww.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/ wish the media would stop lying

So by your estimation, should we just not do anything? Let things continue as they are and hope it doesn't get worse? Hope and pray to your lord above that it's not you or one of yours next time, or the next time, or the time after that, or the very next time after that?

AlaskaGirl-759554

So by your estimation, should we just not do anything?

AlaskaGirl. We should do a lot, we should quit coddling the mentality ill and dysfunctional people in our society. Simply put, if you can't cut it, go away.

This means real jail time so you won't do something again after you do it the first time. I really don't care how abused your life has been, you did something to someone else, so pay for it. The "someone else's" will disappear or at least be minimized if they are taken care of the first time they offend instead of currently being allowed to spawn and breed.

Yup, do something, and quit whining.

Firstly, Bill, my sincere questions were directed towards Dewayne and his comments,but as you seem to be the one answering for Dewayne, I fully agree with you about harsher sentences and lengthy sentences in regards to crimes being committed. I also agree that we need to deal with the mentally ill in a better and more thoughtful way. As far as dysfunctional, I would say most of that comes from the environment to which one is raised, so I would say that much of that would start with encouraging parents to be better parents and more responsible parents, unlike Adam Lanza's mother was. I will say that when people that commit heinous crimes do so, they are not thinking about how much jail time they are going to get, for the most part, but it is still a step further in the right direction.

Lastly, Bill in Oregon, I do hope that your last sentence was not directed at me, because I surely was not whining, and if you think a discussion on gun violence in our country is whining, then you sir, are a part of the problem, most certainly not part of the solution. If I am wrong about where your last sentence is directed, then I do apologize.

Actually for one I don't agree with tougher sentences, this is part of the problem, mentally ill people being treated as criminals rather than people who should be in a hospital getting help. Jared Loughner has to be the ultimate example. Clearly he is mentally ill, it took them over a year to get him coherent enough to even enter a plea, and the only reason he plead guilty to federal charges was to avoid going to State prison because in Arizona even if you are found not guilty be reason of insanity you still go to prison.

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,HRW,,USA,3fe482a57,0.html

DaHood... See post 8.3 please. I put your name at the end so you can recognize it.

You don't know the constitution or the second amendment do you. The second amendment does no such thing.

The 2nd amendment, as with the entire Bill of Rights is a "right" granted to the people that the government may not interfere with. It sounds like you are the one who doesn't know his history. The right to keep and bear arms isn't intended for sport or hunting but to keep the "National Government" in check. That same government wants to water down what type of guns we can own which directly conflicts with the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini all knew that in order to control the people, they had to first disarm them.

Just as our 1st Amendment rights don't allow us to slander or libel someone we can limit firearms to those best suited for sport and target practice or for obtaining food, if necessary.

If the gun lobby gets their way the current out of control situation will get worse and than people won't just be calling for banning military type weapons but everything.

I don't fear the government because I know that if I ever tried to fight them I would lose big time. Your little arsenal of assault weapons operated by you and, perhaps a few others, would be no match for any well trained military force. Remember we have drones with smart bombs that can be tarked to hit your anal sphincter before you even know what hit you. It would be done from a distance and you wouldn't see it coming. So the argument that you need those high power, mega weapons to protect you from your government is ridiculous. Not only that but we the people are the government and, pal, I have no intention of conquoring you or taking away your right to own a shot gun, single shot rifle or handgun.

lukewarm:

these crimes were not committed by law abiding citizens.

As far as I've heard, James Holmes was a law abiding citizen.....until he wasn't. The Columbine duo were law abiding citizens......until they weren't. By all accounts, Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen.....until he wasn't.

Your knowledge regarding what you speak of is at best... Lukewarm.

AlaskaGirl . . .

As far as I've heard, James Holmes was a law abiding citizen.....until he wasn't. The Columbine duo were law abiding citizens......until they weren't. By all accounts, Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen.....until he wasn't.

Great point. I would venture to say that all criminals are law abiding citizens until they aren't. wonder if lukewarm knows how to spot those headed to the dark side . . .

The 2nd amendment was originally intended to make it easier for southern slave owners to control their slaves, there being more slaves than slave owners at the time.

Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth?

can you show a source that shows the people involoved in the recent shootings were on a "mission from god"? a note youtube video blog facebook or twitter status

The problem is what can be considered an assualt weapon. We are not talking about full automatic weapons here. Those are already very heavily regulated and less than .005% of those which are legally held, are used illegally. If you take New York's 7 round magazine limit as the worst cse scenario, then you prohibit not only all magazines of over 7 rounds, you relegate to wall hanger status such rifles as the M-1 Garand and M-1 Carbine of WWII and Korean War Fame, many 22 lr lever actions, the Henry repeating rifle as well as modern copies, many lever action hunting rifles and many of the semi-automatic pistols sold today. Using Sen. Feistein's criteria, you would also see many bolt action hunting rifles in trouble because of their pistol grip stocks, which Feinstein equates with an assualt rifle.

Oh C'mon Adler!!! Where's the fun in not freaking out and imagining that big brother intends to walk PRIOR to the Zombies?? What possible chill can you get in your spine if you don't knee-jerk to every dog-whistle of a rumor?? How can you feel alive if you don't abandon reason and join the low info scaredy-voter vigilante party??

You just sit there, watching the actual action, seeing that it's no real big deal and has no affect whatsoever on the "rights" of any reasonable American, and pass judgement... Apalling!!... And Thanks!

Who's the real dummy?

Do you really think your cache of weapons has any chance against the military might of the USA? Seriously???

If we get to the point of tyranny in government, you're gonna need alot more than a few guns.

lukewarm

....Not that the founders envisioned an actual Revolution but they knew that a well armed citizenry would be the best deterent to someone like Obama, Pelosi and Reid from destroying our form of government.

Oh yes, our Founding Fathers had ESP.

They knew, that the day when we had a Black, Democrat President, was when the revolution would be on.

Perhaps the Mayans gave them a clue.

I guess you think the bloodless coup and an act of Tyranny carried out in 2001 by the Republicans was just fine by you and in no means a violation of our Constitution.

Next stop, KrazyTown, which is where you get off.

Salud

lukewarm: "Not that the founders envisioned an actual Revolution but they knew that a well armed citizenry would be the best deterent to someone like Obama, Pelosi and Reid from destroying our form of government"

Hey, I might just be a dumb-as-rocks liberal, but I'll point out the same thing to you that I pointed out to Wayne LaPierre above. Your fight is not with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Your fight is with ME - me and the millions and millions of your fellow Americans who - in case you hadn't noticed - recently re-elected President Obama by a pretty clear majority, and in so doing, gave him our implicit support. Are you really advocating that you and your fellow well-armed citizens take up arms against your fellow (unarmed) citizens? If so, which of us is really guilty of tyranny here?

Lukewarm... Your getting colder.

I think the second amendment was written specifically for me in regard to my delusional racist right-wing nut-case imagery that swirls 'round in my head... Our founding Fathers knew that at some point I would go off my nut and that plenty of heavy fire-power was the only way I could make the voices stop. So the second amendment is mine and I refuse to share it with any old run-of-the-mill NRA concubine. Sorry about your luck!

9BallPro Who's the real dummy? Do you really think your cache of weapons has any chance against the military might of the USA?

Tell that to the warlords in Mogadishu or the Taliban in Afghanistan. We have so many examples of a fed-up, armed citizenry overthrowing tyrannical regimes with standing armies, that your statement borders on the delusional.

lukewarm- Your interpretation of why the Second Amendment was written is completely backwards. At the time, our fledgling central government didn't have an effective standing army. The founding fathers- for the most part wealthy landowners- had a vested interest in the stability and security of their newly formed republic. Well-regulated militias were a way of putting down anti-federalist uprisings- and throwing a bone to the states at the same time. What makes you think they would shoot themselves in the foot by writing an amendment to promote the use of force by citizens to stop any supposed tyranny of their own government? You are not the only person who is ill-informed about the historical context- you just happened to say it more clearly than most.

The case is made that the 2nd amendment was intended to help southern slave owners control their slaves with local militias.

Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Yes- that bone that was thrown to the states was in the direction of Virginia and Patrick Henry.

"Do you really think your cache of weapons has any chance against the military might of the USA? Seriously??? "

We need only look back on events at Kent State University (Ohio), and Wounded Knee (South Dakota) to see the futility of resisting the military might of the USA.

Consider that the Mujahideen defeated the military might of Russia; The military might of the USA was defeated in Vietnam, and will be withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taiban will prevail. Some people refuse to understand the message "Resistance is futile".

Harry, killers will kill but we can prevent mass murder by removing the tools and means of creating such mayhem. Killing of other humans has taken place since Caine killed Abel and isn't likely to stop. Had the Connetecutt incident been the son killing his mother with a single bullet that would have been tragic but what made it worse was that he had the means to quickly kill and wound many more people, small children, innocents.

How exactly is an "assault weapon" ban going to save lives? I own a MAADI ARM which is essentially an AK-47. It was imported legally DURING the assault weapons ban. The flash suppressor is gone and instead of a pistol grip it has a thumb hole stock. It fires the same 7.62 x 39 mm round that does the exact same damage it did with a pistol grip and flash suppressor. Instead of a 30 round magazine I could carry three 10 round magazines (same weight and size) in it's place that take about half a second to swap out. Nothing changes either way.

The American way now means spouting off about subjects you have absolutely no clue about, conservative or liberal. We blather on and on like our opinions are fact and then desperately find someone or something to blame. We treat symptoms and proclaim political or Pyrrhic victory but never really correct any of the issues.

<SARCASM>Ban "assault weapons" and magazines over 10 rounds. Improve the background checks and link all the systems. Get rid of all these "violent video games" that must also be at fault. Don't bother with mental healthcare or actual firearm education because those are too difficult to deal with and don't sell ads or win votes.</SARCASM>

Since the shooting at Sandy Hook, 160+ children have died from abuse. We average 5+ a day in this country. That's 6+ times the number of children that died from the shooter. Apparently this isn't sensational enough for blame.

Daniel - any child's death is too many. And, with increased emphasis on mental health services I hope people will be helped in many areas. The difference is that we don't see the 5 children all in one place. If we did nothing to stop mass murders, we would not be doing our jobs as adults.

You're already not doing your job as adults. You care more about a few mass killings that amount to a tiny amount of deaths over the course of a year by comparison and choose to ignore bigger issues. Right and left propaganda causes knee-jerk reactions that in the long run infringe on everyone's rights. I find the idea of not being able to defend against religious, right-wing tyranny far more terrifying than a handful of mass killings.

Daniel, well said. Obama, Biden and the anti-gun advocates are trying to outlaw guns that are packaged to look like military weapons. Because a gun has a pistol grip on it doesn't make it any more dangerous as one without. Because a gun has a hand grip on the top doesn't make it any more dangerous than an ordinary hunting rifle. Because a gun has an adjustable, open stock, doesn't make it more lethal than than another semi-automatic weapon. The anti-gun coalition and the Obama administration are grasping at straws, trying to portray the illusion that the administration is doing something about mass murders. It's nothing but smoke and morrors and politics. I feel Obama knows this deep in his heart. He's only doing what he does best....grandstanding.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" That says it all.

no it does not say it all - if you are a person of intelligence, insight, compassion and vocabulary you would understand that this is a multidimensional problem. it cannot be limited to your sound bite. As I said yesterday. it would be nice to return to the days when a man's manhood was measured by the size of his car and not the size of his gun.

I'll respond when you offer an actual rebuttal instead of insults and opinions.

We have "assault" weapons now. Do we live in a nation where people use them to settle arguments? From what is reported on the news every night in the Chicago area, gang members seem to settle disagreements with handguns. If they did use an "assault" weapon, we would certainly hear about it.

I have heard some unconfirmed reports that the AR was kept in the trunk and that the damage was done with pistols.

Maybe you two ignorant knobs can get hold of some of the photos and analyze the shell casings scattered about the children... Then you sherlock effin holmes kiddy-club rejects could make better use of those decoder rings and not end up looking completely stupid as you stroke each others perverse psyches' with the deftness that only an experienced sociopath can muste... Oops! Too late!

Chick.....Maybe you should actually look at the facts instead of being ignorant and throwing insults. It is a fact that the assault rifle wasn't used.

PutAmericaFirst - YOU should NEVER talk about ignorance since yours is so evident. The Bushmaster was the gun used to kill the majority of the victims at Sandy Hook. The shooter killed himself with the pistol.

There still was no "Assault Rifle" uesed in this shooting.

Now the media is using the term "ASSAULT PISTOL." What is doing the assault?

Dont mess with me. I have an Assault bat!

I think it's Australia that bans private ownership of such guns but allows them on gun ranges for those like you that want to use them for sport. Seems like a more than fair compromise.

Jacquiethedog - use your assault rifle for your competition or at the shooting range then leave it there. See - that fixes the problem!

...until he decides he wants to take it home one day when he and the range officer are the only ones there and he kills the range officer with the rifle when he's not expecting it and then drives to a school and does the same thing Lanza did.

Can you see the absurdity of what you're suggesting now?

I would also like to know why a weapon that has never accounted for more than 2% of gun violence gets 100% of the media's, and many idiot's, attention. If you're really worried about saving lives in general, and aren't outraged because this happened to 20 white kids from suburbia, why aren't you calling for a ban on handguns? Statistically they're much more dangerous than an AR-15.

What part exactly of ...keep and bear....shall not be infringed... escapes you? The weapons Obama want's to ban account for less 10% of gun death's sure they get attention because these nutjobs use them in spree killings. That tells me that we need to address is the nutjobs, and their access to guns, not the guns, and certainly not the millions military style rifles that have never been used to commit a crime. Trust me if all of us who owned these type of firearms were the sort of crazies that some seem to think we are the chaos make the "epidemic" the media has painted this to be look like a stubbed toe by comparison.

Jacquiethedog - if you want to enhance your skills why not try archery

Sorry, but the Constitution doesn't protect your right to recreational sports.

Cars are Needed, Guns aren't. STUPID Comparison

Cars needed, speed , not so much. Somewhere around 11,000 automobile crash deaths a year are due to excessive speed. Cars should governed to less than 60 mph

Cars are not "needed"...There are millions of people that do not drive!!!

And more people are killed due to poisoning than from guns.

More people are killed with knifes than guns...

Now shall we take a look at prescription overdose's........

How about the Murrah federal buliding. 168 people were killed including 19 kids under the age 6, and not one shot was fired...

It was diesel fuel and fertilizer..... Did anyone want to ban diesel fuel or fertilizer?? nope!

Because people die due to overdoses is no reason not to do something about gun control. It just shows that both need to be worked upon.

What percentage of Americans own and use cars versus the percentage of Americans that own semi automatic weapons with banana clips? Fatal accidents involving cars are terrible. Deaths from someone walking into a school and murdering kids and staff are not accidental.

Can't remember a case of a car driver with any kind of car deliberately killing 20 kids and 6 teachers. Stupid argument. But you might be a NRA member and after listening to Keene today on CNN, I would not expect NRA members to be any more intelligent than their leaders.. loved the way he tried to back pedal on bringing in the president's children.

Thousands of people are killed every year by cars.

Thousands of people are killed every year by guns.

Cars and guns should be well regulated in the same manner.

It's not a stupid argument. A stupid argument is saying that we should ban AR-15s and expect any meaningful change in gun violence. About 100-200 people are killed by AR-15s in the US every year. About 6,000 are killed by handguns in the US every year. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The problem is all you idiots who are so angry about these AR-15s are not thinking logically. You're outraged over this (which you should be, I am, too) and are not thinking rationally. It does not make sense to say "the weapon that is responsible for 6,000+ deaths a year is just fine, but that one that kills 100-200 a year is just too dangerous to leave on the streets." It's absurd. It's even more absurd when you consider that under your proposal a person could buy a hunting rifle and eight 10 round magazines and do the same thing...it will just take him an extra 10-15 seconds to fire the same number of rounds. You people can't see the forest for the trees.

The only thing I can infer from most of the persons who are outraged by this is that they're incapable of any empathy for anyone outside their demographic, or you're stupid. You were perfectly content to let inner city black children get shot down in numbers that are much, much higher than what happened at Sandy Hook...but hey, these were good God fearing white kids from the suburbs, right? It's different! We can't let this sort of thing go on any longer.

Honestly this whole thing reminds me of the scene that takes place in the hospital in the Dark Knight where the Joker is telling Dent how illogical most persons are in...and he's right. As long as things meet the status quo it doesn't matter how bad they are; no one will make a peep. But as soon as something out of the ordinary happens they demand action, and typically action that makes no f*cking sense at all. Kudos to you all for being such rational beings.

I was hoping that I did not have to go this deep. My two major concerns with those who are advocating for outlawing "Assault Weapons" is one, do you know what it actually is that they are trying to ban. Putting a pistol grip or collapsible stock on a rifle should not make it anymore of a "Military Style" or "Assault" weapon. That would be like saying if you slap a couple of fancy stickers and a spoiler on your Toyota Prius you automatically have a "NASCAR" ready rally car. Why am I bringing this up because under the previous band, having two or more of the characteristic listed above deemed a weapon an "Assault weapon" I implore anyone who is weighing in on this topic to know what an AR-15 or Bushmaster rifle is. These are not the big, "scary" guns that Rambo uses to mow down bad guys in bad guy land or that you see in action films. The sad but honest truth is Adam Lanza could have walked into that school with a golf club, a bat or a kitchen knife and achieved his goal(read the article about the man who killed 20 school age children in china with a cleaver the same day as sandy hook). This is not meant to be insulting, but how intimidating can something like scuba diving or even snorkeling being until you have actually have experience doing it. How scary is driving a car before you get comfortable doing it? You do not have to own guns or even use them routinely to have an opinion on this matter, but I strongly urge you to either talk to someone who is very familiar with guns or at the very least do some investigative research on what these guns are, how they differ from actual military weapons and what changes are being proposed, before demanding change. Part II to follow.



Part II: "Why do gun owners care? When will you ever need an "Assault Weapon" to hunt?" This is where you really have to put your thinking caps on and where I probably differ from most gun enthusiast. I am in the military (navy) and am a qualified small arms instructor. You are absolutely right. Outside of work, there are not a whole lot of practical uses for a ninety-round drum magazine. I hunt often and go to shooting ranges even more frequently and it is great not to have to change my magazine after ten rounds, but would it be a big deal if I had to? No. The reality is, that is not what this is debate is about. This is not about the number of deaths from these types of weapons. "Assault Weapons" are used in very, very few gun crimes. Why? Because they are big, bulky, hard to conceal and even for people who use them often, they are cumbersome to operate. It would have been much easier for them to use a handgun. Only a madman, a literal mad man, would use an assault rifle to commit these acts. If someone who is clearly not in their right mind can waltz into your establishment with an "Assault Weapon", your establishment has a security problem and more can and should be done to ensure only responsible people have guns. But none of that is what this is about. This is not about you. This is not about how much you dislike guns because they are "big", "ugly", "stinky" or "scary" and you have never had the need to use them. This is about a textbook issue. As in open any creditable textbook that talks about America's foundation and you will find irrefutable proof that our founding furthers, the framers of the constitution, desired its' citizen to have guns. Their desire was not just that people would have guns so they could hunt buffalo or for sportsmanship. Guns where a staple of the checks and balances this country was famously founded on. The president is not a supreme ruler because of the checks of congress. Congress is not all powerful because of their own divide as well as the supreme courts ability to provide checks and balances to laws. Government, foreign or domestic, cannot continuously and blatantly terrorize American citizens because we have the ability to defend ourselves. The founding fathers were not implying that if you do not agree with someone or your government that you should simply whip out your "Assault Weapon" and shoot them and neither am I. There knew peaceful means was the only way this government would work. Americans owning guns where a deterrent and a part of the checks and balance system. I guess There will have to be a part III.

Part III:
Now is the time you will need to choose. Either our founding fathers, the framers of the constitution were "crazy, NRA like, anti-government, and conspiracy theorists" or they were the men of renown that we learned and taught our children about. You choose, But do not try to force feed me gun control horse crap and call it gluten-free chocolate pudding. Our founding fathers wanted us to work peaceably with the government on the notion of consent for the good of the nation. Yes, but the framers of the constitution were also very specific and adamant about ensuring that citizens had the right to bear arms. There were certain things that ensured us we were citizens instead of subjects, The right to vote, The right to own land and the right to bear arms. The musket excuse. In the time of our founding fathers they only had single shot weapons not "Assault Weapons" should Americans be allowed to have any type of weapon? There were also naval battleships during that time. The founding fathers did not include the right to bear battleships. It is clear that the founders wanted us to have the capability to protect our property and the resist the government should it become necessary. If every responsible Jew had a rifle before World War II would the holocaust have happened? Would they have been more equipped to defend themselves against such evil? I do not believe Barack Obama is anywhere close to Hitler, or that our government has become tyrannical, but you are only fooling yourself if you believe these things could not happen and history testifies against you. As I said before a lot of us have become self-centered and want new bands on guns because we don't like them, we don't use them and the band does not affect us. It is not about you, frankly, it is not about the lives we have lost to gun violence (there are other methods to prevent such), it is not about guns. It is a fundamental argument about what kind of nation this is. That's why?

Rawlins outlaws!!!!!!

You must have missed the part where he gave the CDC the green light to start studying the causes of violence in American society again. The NRA had been blocking it for decades, by threatening politicians and scientists.. Thats basically looking into how much games movies etc effect people, and especially children.

I get the feeling you only hear and see what you want to hear and see.

500 mil in the wind

MoreJustice,

The part about the CDC is nice I will grant you but why did he not SAY entertainment industry at some point in the who discussion. Words have meaning and by not saying anything about the role that they have in these things he gives them cart blanch in and allows them to wash their hands of the whole thing. Your non sequitur ad hominem comments on me aside, I wonder how much you your self would like to read the tea leaves here and see something that may or may not in fact be there, namely the CDC studies. Did the president give them some sort of direction on this or is the CDC left to its own devices to investigate or not investigate what ever and whenever it would like to. Call it out and say we have a problem here that is cultural and that means EVERY aspect of culture, from the guns used to the media that glorifies its use.