Rusty, this is exactly what I mean. I'm no "anti gun" or clueless person. I have owned guns, shotguns and rifles all of my life. I first went to the shooting range at age 10 (49 years ago) and I learned gun safety in the shooting range in the basement of my High School. That's right, in my day we brought our .22 sport rifles to school on the school bus and used the shooting range in PE Class.

We need to be able to make the simple statement "let's have a rational National conversation with all intersts included" without having persons immediately label anyone wishing to discuss the issues as "anti gun" or clueless. Come on!

That sort of defensive, reactionary rhetoric just makes a person come off as fanatical, and sound like they "have no clue.

Don't be fanatical. Open your mind and be willing to discuss the issues of public safety. Make your points and stop labelling those with whom you disagree.

A persons right to purchase 100 round high capacity magazines is not guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment; get serious.

And your moment of inconvenience reloading your weapon at a shooting range is not more important than the lives of my neighbor's children at the local movie theater or shopping mall. Let's be sensible.

We're a society that glorifies violence in our movies and TV and yet when real violence comes to use we find that our taste for it lacking. Now tell us MPAA what is worse. A bullet riddled PG-13 or a R rated nipple?

@rusty. When was the last time multiple people where killed with a fish hook or golf club in a single incident?

"There is no compelling reason why any civilian needs to be able to purchase high capacity clips / magazines for firearms. The assault weapons ban which was allowed by Congress to lapse without renewal would have limited the number of rounds in a single clip / magazine and therefore might have prevented this murderer from being able to fire 100 rounds without stopping to change magazines. "

That statement, the first paragraph in your post Robert in Oregan, says you are anti gun. Your ignoring the FACT that he did not fire 100 rounds without stopping says you are anti gun as well. Witnesses said he fired about 20 rounds then changed weapons and fired additional times.

Mac, come on. Don't dissemble, and argue the specifics of this one incident (facts which are changing by the hour and still being determined) as if it is proof of a universal point. Address the issue raised, and don't label people.

As noted, I am not "anti gun". If it makes you happy to label other people, have at it. but you don't know ... so it just makes you look foolish.

If I were "anti gun" why would I own several rifles, shotguns and handguns? Your assumptions are off-base.

Why argue from ignorance of the facts, rather than discussing the points posed: Aren't SOME sensible limits and restrictions on type and quantity of weapons any individual can possess important issues for our society to discuss?

Do the rights of my neighbor to have unrestricted access to weapons outweigh my other neighbors and my right to life and safety?

@Mac-329110

"First Idoubt you own several rifles, shotguns, and handguns...."

Mac, do you typically argue your points by insinuating that others are liars, simply because they express an opinion with which you may disagree.

Goodbye.

How about Hollywood and the entertainment industry stop making violent films, Same for music and vidio games that set these nut bags off.

The long discussion can include the constant glorification of violence by the makers of Batman - particularly the kind where the dead turn up fine next week.

Why wont we know why? Is he dead? Is he mute? You should say we will never understand, but we will know why.

A persons right to purchase 100 round high capacity magazines is not guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment; get serious.

NOR is it restricted to a single shot 22 caliber of BB guns. So you get serious Robert. Do you understand the need for the second amendment Robert? It is there to protect the people from their government if needed. The Gun is what gave us our freedom, and it is always at risk when someone wants to take it away. You really want to blame the weapon in this too which is wrong.

Our society used to hold public hangings, not house these useless pieces of trash until they die in jail. No better justice or deterrent than hanging in public. If you house stinks you do not get a new one you take out the garbage.

The second amendment to the US Constitution that says:

"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."

is not intended as a bulwark against despotic government. Especially today with militarized police and sophisticated military weaponry (illegal for possession by average citizens) the idea of using pistols and semi-automatic rifles to defend against an armed government takeover is both hopeless and ludicrous.

The original is intent of at least one of the founders, Thomas Jefferson, was to model the amendment after the system that had been used successfully in Switzerland. Jefferson did not believe in standing armies during peacetime. He consider those to be one of the greatest threats to a republican form of government.

The idea was that every able-bodied male, like in Switzerland today where it is mandatory, would have a weapon in order to be called into the service of a state-controlled militia at a moment's notice to repel invaders. That is why the amendment speaks about a well regulated militia.

Every anti-gun nut going bat-shyt crazy because it happened in a single arena, when weekends in Chicago bring nearly the same "totals "...:

"Chicago---May 29, 2012

"10 slain, dozens injured in weekend shootings"

"According to the summaries, there have been at least 200 homicides so far this year compared with 134 during the same period in 2011. That's a 49.25 percent increase over last year.

Shootings are up nearly 14 percent over last year, according to the unofficial summaries. There have been 851 shootings so far in 2012 compared with 747 during the same period in 2011, the police data showed."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-9-slain-dozens-injured-in-weekend-shootings-20120528,0,2966984.story

______________________

"Chicago---March 19, 2012

"Weekend of violence claims 10 shooting victims across Chicago"

"At least 10 people were killed, including a 6-year-old girl, in shootings over the weekend in Chicago.

The slain were among at least 49 people wounded in shootings from 5 p.m. Friday to 6 a.m. Monday, according to information compiled by the Chicago Tribune."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-19/news/chi-chicago-weekend-shootings-killings-violence-crime_1_shooting-victims-south-winchester-avenue-west-rogers-park

_________________________.....I could post more links, but you get the idea....

Only when the guns are bought legally by someone who has obviously had a severe mental break with reality does the blame the NRA crowd come out in force and the Media goes into 24/7 Live Coverage for days.....

While, when illegal guns are used in the regular course of "business" in cities that have the strictest laws prohibition the law abiding from ownership.....It only gets an article in the paper....and brief mention on the Nightly News.

I'm not saying what happened in Colorado wasn't a horrible event for all involved, but going to the movies is still exponentially safer than being a clerk at the local Quikie-Mart gas station or sitting on your front porch in some neighborhoods...

Good on you Robert from Oregon and I think the vast majority of sensible people who have and care about loved ones are behind you .... but the scare mongering from people like LynardSky will never end. He only proves how foolish he is by claiming that his right to have guns it to protect him from his own government, firstly you have a right to vote for that and secondly if the "Government" is going to come and get you what do you think they are going to come with pea shooters??????

So in the end its another 70 men women and children, just going about their lives, that have been sacrificed on the alter of the Second Amendment. The supporters of this continued devastation should be ashamed of themselves hopefully there is a God and he judges you with the same level of mercy.

And before you start slinging it I am a gun owner and hunter and have been all my life.

I am no anti-gun nut, but this is just like the shooting in AZ of the Congress Woman.

Civilians do not have a valid need for 30 round Glock or 100 round Ar15 Beta or any other "super sized" magazine:

1. Hunting - no
2. Self Defence - only if you are in a Drug Cartel
3. Competition shooting - not allowed by Intl. organizations

Robert in Oregon

I am in general agreement that a DISCUSSION needs to occur. The problem is BOTH sides have their "moral majority" witch we both know is neither.

Just food for thought though... and it relates to your pause between reloads....

CO is an open carry as well as permits concealed carry. The chain that owns this, and other theaters, has a NO FIREARMS policy. Obviously the gunman paid attention to that sign... but just in case others had not he was in full body armor. I'm not saying someone would have taken him out sooner had they been armed but that needs to be part of the discussion as well.

There are three reasons a privately owned public place bans firearms. The feel good politically correct see I'm anti gun types. The we ban guns therefore our insurance rates are lower. The see we ban guns therefore our customers feel safe.

Perhaps some of that discussion is liability. Yet another fine line. I'm fairly certain the lawyers are already lining up to sue the theater for allowing this individual into the movie as well as the family of the shooter.. deep pockets attract flies.

A Yank in Australia

we have exchanged opines before and I will leave it at this. You gave up your right to comment on US firearms when you moved down under. When you choose to return then you are welcome to the debate. You are PART of the problem in the discussion. Your emotional insertions are the sort of things that galvanize the polar opposites.

I think we should have a sundown curfews, for all Americans...so that there won't be any crowds of people hanging around movie theatre after midnight...then we can ban violent movies and video games...and then we can talk about banning classes of weapons, which "you believe" civilians shouldn't be able to buy

@trust_verify

well it could be agrued, that with his armor and gas mask, he would have had a distinct advantage...but he certainly would not have been able to stand and take relaxed target practice if one or two people in that theatre was returning fire

Howy61

Civilians do not have a valid need for 30 round Glock or 100 round Ar15 Beta or any other "super sized" magazine:

Would that include police and other law enforcement? How big of a cow would you have when you saw that law enforcement was paying 10 or 20 thousand for a handgun because of limited production? I agree there needs to be a limitation on super sized I'm just not sure where the numbers should be. Problem is that the gun control crowd would have us without guns or having single shot only on ALL guns. There are already legal limitations on capacity for hunting. Then we go to California where simply because a gun is a particular model / name it is banned. Even gun collectors can't own a .50 caliber in CA. I could be wrong on that, it may be only the BMG and certain brands.

I was a supporter of the assault weapons ban, and even though I have since changed my stance on it due to the extremist views of people like Senator Launtenberg (who has no issue with his limousine liberal buddies having armed security, just commoners being able to own and possess firearms to defend their homes), I think we have an obligation to at least discuss the possible restriction of the sale of things like high capacity magazines and military style weapons in the wake of this latest massacre involving firearms.

I believe that this disturbing incident needs an extremely thorough investigation, including where this psycho got the funds for his arsenal, and that we have the obligation to have an open discussion about firearms after the report on it is released.

Just a weekly shopping trip to pick up some milk, eggs, and several thousand rounds for breakfast... okay, okay, he shoots at the range... A LOT! And of course no one can do without a 100 round barrel clip... I need several each week just to keep up with the squirrels in my yard. And the lead post here was wondering how he could afford it? He's a graduate student... he has access to funds. This isn't a money thing.

We may never know what drove him to this. A combo of violent films, dark films, hateful politics, a poor upbringing, an abusive relationship, a mental disorder... we'll land on something to rationalize this.

And there will be those that continue their rant that we all need more guns and multi-clips for self protection... if only the people in the front row had assault rifles, the killing could have easily been cut in half (or doubled).

The real question is when are we going to face up to the fact that we as a people have the most liberal gun sales and gun manufacturing and gun distribution and gun exporting laws on earth... ON EARTH!!!!!

We DO love our guns, don't we?

Defense my ass. I personally know of 3 relatives that have died in gun accidents in my life. I have no idea how many close calls there have been. I have personally been robbed twice at gun point... but I know of NO instance where someone successfully used a gun in self defense or to fend off a robber or rapist or other gun wielding opponent... NEVER. I know of NO instance where someone said "if I had only had a gun!"

Single shot for target practice or hunting or to feel safer at home (hear that trust_verify?). THAT is all we need. Anything outside of that is overkill... literally.

That "I've never known of an instance where someone used a gun in self defense" line is complete garbage. My buddy's neighbor had to use his 2nd amendment right to protect himself from a psychotic combat veteran turned criminal who was trying to smash his way into his house. While it's sad no one got the veteran the help he obviously needed, it would have been sadder if he had killed someone to feed his meth habit !!

Far more guns are used for successful self defense from criminals than are used to mow down innocent people. That doesn't mean that a review of gun laws isn't warranted in the wake of this massacre, but no way am I ever going to support ending our 2nd amendment, even if I can support some common sense restrictions on firearm and firearm accessory sales.

And I knew four people who have died falling down stairs. True. So what is your point?

I have the following observations:

I am not a gun owner so the shear amount of ammunition this guy obtained startles me.

• If he were a Palestinian in Gaza with these kinds of weapons and that much ammo, he would have been an international incident;
• A few years back a man with a semi-automatic weapon strapped to his leg was standing within 200 feet of Obama's motorcade. He had the right to carry an open firearm.
• By comparison, these examples make the Kennedy assassination look quaint and nostalgic. Imagine having to wrap a rifle to look like curtain rods to tote it to work within 50 feet of the Presidential motorcade and then having a debate about was that three shoots he fired, or four.
• Every try to move $10,000 of bank funds more than once in one month? It trigger the Patriot Act. They think you are supporting terrorist.
• Ever take a flying lesson lately--try going for your commercial pilot license. They want to make sure you don't fly into tall buildings.

These senseless acts of gun violence are the result of our liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment. In other words, its the cost of doing business. It's a price we pay as a society for this "freedom".

I think the only thing we can do is erect memorials to those have died in senseless gun violence as a testament to their giving up their lives in defense of the Second Amendment. The NRA should start a memorial fund, don't you think?

@b707302c

Yea I get that, and it is perfectly reasonable that a non- gun enthusiast would find that amount of ammo startling, and yes, it seems that it would have set off red flags...but no not really, because if you were a gun enthusiast, you might go to a range and fire several hundred rounds on a given day...and if you went twice a week, you'd probably go through his entire supply in a month or two, and if you were ordering your ammo on line, you might even buy it in bulk...ammo dealers wouldn't be startled at all by this much ammo...

howdy you are right there is no need for these high capacity clips mags drums or anything else. i own guns i carry 90% of the time. i also go to the range on a regular basis. most of the time it is with friends that are law enforcement. local state and feds. we shoot steel so you can get a reading on targets hit. we set up different courses so your not just standing still. that being said when i run most of the set ups i use a 9 mil with three 15 round clips. average time around minute 10. 45 shots on target why would anyone want anymore! now for my 2 cents. everyone looks to lay blame with the nra guns and everything else. not me im looking at parents i have two sons. every night for as long as i can remember wesat down for dinner at 530 no excuses. tvs were off music was off all electronics were off. our entertainment was we talked. i could tell when things were ok and when they wernt. was it a pain in the azz yes did it get boring sometimes yes. did we all like it all the time no. but we still did it. i can tellyou if my children started getting Quiet or wihtdrawn i would have taken some action. i get tired of these people saying ooh he was a loner he was withdrawn he was alittle odd but we thought he would grow out of it it was just a faze etc. people need to start taking notice and stepping in. im tired of the columbines v tech and all the other sensless shootings and hearing everyone say oh he was a little different. get to know your kids!

@fhill

I agree with you on both parts...High capacity clips make the weapons un-wieldy and unbalanced, not to mention that clip jams are common enough in standard clips, after a little use...but at the same time I would not feel it is my decision to tell someone else that they can't use them...and I also understand that those who want to ban them are also wanting to ban everything else

and yes, If your Child (though this guy was well an adult) or Friend, goes sideways, try to get them help if you can not help them yourself

and I am curious as to what events set him on this path...my guess...love lost or rejected

@D McMillian, What you posted is wrong on it's face. If you would just take a moment and think about what happened you know it's not true. If it were you, would you leave the most powerful and effective killing tool you had in the car? Furthermore, reading tells you he left a glock in the car.

Yep, restricting magazine size ain't gonna hurt nobody. It;s still an advance over muzzle loading.

Guns aren't going anywhere, thankfully. However, I see no reason why the sale of high magazine clips can't be banned. One last thought, this kid was very smart and assembling your own high round magazine clips isn't that hard.

If he used a credit card...

...wait for it...

I say we ban credit cards!

Who's with me?

Just a quick question for you robert, how would you get those magazine and clips sizes off the streets? There are over 300+ million magazines and clips that hold 30 or more rounds on the streets right now. Lets say you were to end production of such sizes for magazines and clips, how are you going to get the ones that are current owned out of their owners hands? There is quite frankly way to many 30+ magazine and clips that exist for a magazine/clip limit to have any effect whatsoever.

magazine size has zero to do with it.... if God magically made every magazine over 10 rounds in the entire world disappear, this guy would have still killed as many people as he could manage.... he would have just changed magazines more often.

human beings by nature are violent.... technology advancement makes it easier to kill.... but humans will come out and do this every day no matter what

gun control is ineffective.. if Congress repealed the 2nd amendment today it would have zero effect on the murder rate.... people would just invent new ways to kill.

welcome to life...... the anti gun lobby doesn't want to admit it, but the assault weapons ban, the new york and Illinois handgun control laws and whatever else you want to cite, hasn't worked...

making this yet another impossible to solve problem that is taking up way too much of our governments time is foolish.

Congress needs to get back to work, resolve economic issues, and get the country back on track...

because gun violence will never change.

Hollywood - Hollywood - Hollywood = BLAME

Hollywood - Hollywood - Hollywood = BLAME

Hollywood - Hollywood - Hollywood = BLAME

Hollywood - Hollywood - Hollywood = BLAME

LMarcT...(#1.23)..." but I know of NO instance where someone successfully used a gun in self defense or to fend off a robber or rapist or other gun wielding opponent... NEVER. I know of NO instance where someone said "if I had only had a gun!"

Here's TWO for you just last week in Florida, where I live....I can, but won't fill up lots of space with many more:

"Surveillance Vid Shows 71-Year-Old Concealed Carry Holder Opening Fire on Would-Be Robbers"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/

....I wonder if P.Obama had 2 more sons they would look like the 2 in the video....

_______________________________________

"Deputies: Teen burglary suspect shot by resident"

"PBSO spokeswoman Teri Barbera said a preliminary investigation revealed that the teenager broke into an occupied home and was shot by the resident.

Neighbors said they don't blame the man in his early 70's whom the Sheriff's office said did the shooting. They said there have been multiple burglaries in the neighborhood despite there being only once access road in and out."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48259902/ns/local_news-west_palm_beach_fl/

When will common sense enter into the question of "How much is enough?" Sadly, tens of thousands more need to die.

LMarcT...(#1.23)...Couldn't help myself from posting a few more...

"2nd person arrested in PHX home invasion"

"According to Phoenix police, Fiore was shot when he allegedly broke into the home near 51st Avenue and Baseline Road.

The boy, who was home with three siblings, ages 12, 10 and 8, refused to answer the door when Hinojos reportedly approached the home and pounded on the door.

The teen took his siblings upstairs and picked up a handgun.

As he went to the top of the stairs, the suspect broke through the front door and pointed a handgun at the boy, according to police.

The boy fired his weapon at Fiore who was struck and fell to the floor."

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/south_phoenix/man-shot-by-14-year-old-in-phoenix-released-from-hospital-booked-into-jail

______________________________________________

YOU--" I know of NO instance where someone said "if I had only had a gun!"

"Parents shot, 1 dead in Strawberry Mansion"

"By all accounts, 35-year-old John Paul, and his wife 39-year-old Sherrell Rhine-Paul, were decent people with no enemies.

Sherrell was at the top of the stairs when she was shot 8 to 10 times. John came running.

He was also shot multiple times, several of the shots fired as he lay on the floor

John was dead on the scene.

Sherrell was rushed to the hospital in critical condition."

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/crime&id=8568660

No actual quote that he wished he had a gun....A dead husband can't express reget...I wonder what the wounded mom thinks...

__________________________

YOU---"I personally know of 3 relatives that have died in gun accidents in my life."

Personally, I think you need to stay away from your relatives until they take some Gun Safety Courses....

LMarcT

What in hell is a "100 round "barrel" clip"?

I think you watch too many movies and listen to too many anti-gun nuts.

this is not A 'gun' thing...it is a nut case thing...he could have just as easily used a bomb!!!!! If you outlaw guns the nut jobs will use something else...wake up people!!!

old hamlet, please explain how Britian with their strict gun laws has such a low crime/murder rate? Your position makes no sense based on other countries.

Johnny, please stop quoting Glen Beck and Limburger. You guys and your scare tactics about Obama trying to ban all guns is getting REALLY old. IF you would for once check the facts, Obama has actually loosened more gun laws than your bud Dubya did in 8 years. This gun ban conspiracy is so absolutely ridiculous it isn't even funny. Many of you will drag up the international treaty Obama supports, but AGAIN, if you will read the facts, it dealt solely with types of guns allowed to be sold to rogue nations. NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE US. But, as usual, you guys never let a few facts get in the way of a good rant.

I'm a life-long hunter and gun owner (well, since age 13; I'm now 64) and a member of the NRA. I can't say it any better than Robert in Oregon has already said. I hope you will read his posts above.

Viewer_Ready

there is a 100 round drum magazine for standard ar15 style rifles

http://www.myspace.com/roguenationradio/photos/29009503

its a common, readily available, inexpensive magazine that basically combines 3 standard mags in one.

It's utility is to reduce magazine changes, but if it was actually used in this shooting (unlikely as there is reporting that he left it in his car) it would have saved him 2 mag changes.... about 10 seconds.

there will be a rush to outlaw guns or accessories that doesn't have any logic at all... people will just start killing with swords etc. been that way since the dawn of time...

NOR is it restricted to a single shot 22 caliber of BB guns. So you get serious Robert. Do you understand the need for the second amendment Robert? It is there to protect the people from their government if needed. The Gun is what gave us our freedom, and it is always at risk when someone wants to take it away. You really want to blame the weapon in this too which is wrong.

Do you really think that any number of guns, any number of machine guns, any number of grenade launchers can protect you from the military might that Obama commands? Or for that matter, any number of tanks? The US has enough firepower to boil the surface of every rocky planet in this solar system, including the entire earth. Several times over.

So like you said, let's get serious. The 2nd Amendment is not a death pact.

Defense my ass. I personally know of 3 relatives that have died in gun accidents in my life. I have no idea how many close calls there have been. I have personally been robbed twice at gun point... but I know of NO instance where someone successfully used a gun in self defense or to fend off a robber or rapist or other gun wielding opponent... NEVER. I know of NO instance where someone said "if I had only had a gun!"

Guns cannot be used for defense. Guns do not stop bullets. Guns can, sometimes, if you keep a level head in a critical situation, be used to shoot at the person who is shooting at you.

Let's imagine the case where everyone in the movie theater was armed. He shoots. Everyone else pulls out a gun and starts shooting. Except ... wait ... it's dark. So who are they shooting at? Well, the bad guy. How do we know he's the bad guy. Hey, he's carrying a gun. Um...well...actually, EVERYONE is carrying a gun.

Do YOU want to be the cop that arrives at a shooting scene and has to figure out which one of the 15 armed people is the bad guy?

Guns cannot be used for defense. They do not stop bullets. They do not stop the bullets from bad guys, they do not stop bullets from misinformed but well-meaning citizens who think YOU are the bad guy, and they do not stop bullets from cops who cannot figure out the same thing. And they do not stop stray shots.

The people who think that guns can somehow be used to defend themselves think so out of religious faith. They Believe In Guns. That's it. The facts, the observations we can make from these tragedies, the statistics, none of them support more guns.

If you want real security from gun violence, support gun laws. The idea that if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns is a lie. Cops will have guns, too. And they will know how to use them. Properly.

We are all stupid. Both sides. We used to be able to come to some understanding. A Judge once said "the only good judgement was one that no one was happy with" Our Great Country has been played by those in power. Weather it be gun control or abortion. We are being played for suckers by lobbyist, from the Gun company's and any other company that makes money and wants to unrestricted so they can make as much money as they can. The Truth always lays in the middle somewhere. The Left is not right all the time, nor is the Right. Our type of Government don't allow either side to have total control. That would be mob rule. We seem to have short memory. Look back when the Church tried to take over in the south. They were burning books, because the people in power didn't want anyone to learn to think for themselves. Its getting like that again, because we didn't learn from our mistakes. The same people that are anti abortion, they are the same ones that don't want us to teach kids how not to get Pregnant, then they don't out tax money paying to raise those kids, so in many cased they want these kids that no one wants, to be born, starve to death. That is better isn't it. How can one be Pro live and be for the death penalty. It don't make sense. But a house divided can not stand. If we don't get to a place where common sense takes over, then its all over for the USA. We the people, Remember us. We the people have to stand up again and take control of our government. We have to stop allowing people like the NRA, Koch brothers, Unions, and the people we elect tell us what is good for us. How dump can we be. Look at the health care law. It was put in place for the good of us all. We all pay for it anyway. The law says that if you are hurt or sick and go to the hospital, they can not turn you away. The bill is picked up by the government, ie the tax payers. So the new laws says go to your Dr. at $100.00 Not to the ER at $2,000 We the people save $1,900 How is that wrong. And Why is that its ok to be made to buy Atuo Insurance but not Health Insurance. There are many people that are just letting the rest of us pay there way. So much of the Health care law is things that the Rep's were for until the President thought they were a good idle. Mitt Romney made the blue print for this when he was Governor of MA. We all need to step back and see what we have become, See what we have allowed our country to become. We have set back and let the people we put into office sell our company's and jobs to Japan first then to India and China. How was that good for the American People and for America. We send all this aid to other country's, While we have people living in the streets going with out food right here in this country. How is that good for Americans and America. You know what, If everyone did the right things, we wouldn't need regulations. But we know that company's don't do the right things. Hell, 25% of walstreet said it was ok to break the law to make money. That is what we have become. Now the Rich like the likes of the Koch Brothers have turned people against each other. Look at what they did in WI. That was the Koch Brothers at work. What did they get from Scott Walker in return for all that money they gave him. Power plants, Timber, Unrestricted use of the land. There well never be enough money for these kind of people and they don't care who gets hurt in the process. They buy the people we elect to do what they want done. We have the power with the vote. Isn't it time we vote for what is good for this country, Not for what is good for those at the top. This Country is always at its best when it had a strong middle Class. I know the unions made that middle class, but like the government, Unions have always been run by the mob, and are no better the the Koch Brothers and others like them. Common sense is the only way. No one way is the right way. Somewhere in the middle is always the right way.

The Second Amendment was passed within the context that the U.S did not intend, nor could it afford to have, a standing army. As such, it intended to "draft" citizens and ask them to bring their musket with them. At that time, there was a real concern that the British might attack again (and they did in 1812) or that some threat might come across the border from Canada. The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that citizens could keep guns for this purpose. That is why the word "militia" appears in the Amendment. The militia was intended to be the Army and National Guard, of its time given the nation's budget constraints. Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers were somewhat sloppy in their wording, or they could not have foreseen that the U.S would eventually have a standing Army, or weaponry beyond the trusty musket. If they were alive today, the wording of the Amendment, if it would even have made it into the Bill of Rights, would likely be different. Having said, that, our society prefers a liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment and I see nothing in the horizon that will change that. So gun owners, relax. You and your guns are safe. Those innocent victims of gun violence should be looked upon a soldiers who have given their lives for freedom. Perhaps their families should be entitled to some type of veterans benefits paid for by a bullet tax, or such.

Brian-337051, Well anyone who read you comment knows way less about US history that's for sure. Your comment is correct and rational. The founding fathers did not want and feared a large standing army that would be subservient to the ruler or rulers of America. While not pro gun myself I have to admit that the idea of keeping guns away from the mentally ill or just plain evil people is all but impossible. Other than acting strangely there was nothing to exclude this @ss from buying the weapons he bought. The people at the theater were just lucky hat he did not pursue making that AR 15 fully auto. It is not that hard to do.

We have fun with our hobby same as a fisherman or a golfer

Sorry rusty jar head I'll agree with that when a fisherman goes on a killing spree with his rods or a golfer with his clubs.

peteMT,

Dafuq you talkin' about credit cards for?

The rifle with the 100 rd mag was not what he used. It was found in his car. The weapon used was a Glock pistol. If you are going to blame high capacity magazines for rifles for this, at least get your facts straight.

Just think about what this means. We know he wanted to kill a lot of people. But just think about what this means. A deranged, crazy MASS MURDERER decided that the rifle with the 100 rd mag was too much for him. He didn't take it with him.

Let me repeat that. A deranged, crazy, mass murderer LEFT BEHIND a rifle with a 100 round magazine.

What does this tell you about the kind of weapons that are freely available? A mass murderer thinks that they are excessive. He decided he didn't need it.

Is he crazy?

Or are we the crazy ones to allow something like this in our society?

got to love corgis,

the UK has a significantly lower homicide rate because there are a completely different society, their penal system is entirely different with a much lower prison population per capita and a different view of reintegration into society, they have a completely different freely available psychological help system, they have a national system of public area surveillance, they don't institutionally encourage crime as a way of life.... and that's just a few of the reasons....

the availability and type of weapons has virtually nothing to do with a county's homicide rate, weapons are freely available worldwide... what they are as a society and their governmental system and their policies towards mental health and rehabilitation and employment of violent offenders makes the difference.

Sadly, the US is poor at a lot of those functions.

Blaming the murder rate in the US on the availability of a certain type or class of weapons is, well, uninformed....

chuck-2111043 YOU ARE SO DEAD ON! The powers that be have no interest in any of the garbage they promote...that is to keep the fools busy while they run around and steal more money from us and our government. And I am sick to F&$%ing death of these morons who twist the consitution to satisfy what they want to believe or have. I have two guns, a shotgun and rifle and damnit I want to own them BUT THAT RIGHT IS NOT GIVEN TO ME BY THE SECOND AMMENDMENT! The second ammendment refers to the right of the states to arm and maintain militias which of course they do in the form of national guard. Only an IDIOT will continue to argue that gun control laws are in place to take "their freedoms". No you twits, as you can clearly see, humans are prone to snapping and doing really horrible and stupid things. By making it legal to purchase handguns and 1000 round clips for semi-automatic weapons you are merely taking away one of the last obstacles for some kook who has flipped out and has decided to take out 50 people with him in a blaze of glory. You can't stop people from being violent and flipping out but your can throw road blocks in the way by outlawing (and thereby making it MUCH harder to get an automatic weapon) automatic weapons. It is up to the states to decide what regulations to put in place. The NRA, which of course gets a lot of support from paranoid fools and gun manufacturers, needs to stop buying politicians and leave this issue to the people. I have had enough of Koch Industries, big Pharma, military contractors and others stirring up moron social issues to get paranoid, self-righteous, half-enducated fools all riled up over something to distract the conversation for their real goals: more control of the government and more money to over-power us!

I love how the blame game starts quick it's either video games, TV and Hollywood 8( all @!$%#ing lame lame lame.

Why don't we blame the sicko who did the shooting he is responsible not the guns, Hollywood or Video Games...

Violence has been steadily declining for years and it will hopefully continue 8)

This guy was a maniac and he deserves his trial then his execution.

I have been watching violent movies just like most Americans all our lives that doesn't mean were all going off the deep end...

Tom & Jerry and Bugs Bunny this was stuff I watched as a kid 8) I play violent video games all the time that doesn't mean that I am going on a rampage.

This guy has some serious mental issues he has absolutely no soul or it's full of evil.

First, I wonder what would have happened if several other people in the theater had guns too. They realized someone was shooting at them and they started returning fire!!!! How many more people would have been killed. NRA and anti-gun control people believe EVERYONE needs a gun to protect themselves from WHO??? From any one else that has a gun???

Secondly, people say guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well how about the ammo? Isn't that want really kills? If bullets/ammo were not so deadly then they couldn't kill people, no matter want kind of gun you are using or what kind of person you are!! Control of the bullets/ammo will not infringe on people's 2nd Amendment rights nor on gun controls. If a bullet can't kill then what good is it, right?? People can still target practice and what kind of damage could a non deadly bullets cause?? Don't the police use plastic/rubber bullets??

BIG how do we know if you are not going to go on a rampage. Do we know your state of mind? If you just lost your job or your family would you be in a good state of mind? And someone comes up to you and starts laughing at you would you be able to control you anger??? This goes for all people, who knows what will happen to your state of mind if something happens to you and you lost control and you have a gun or several guns and you want revenge!!!Guns are not just for protection they kill either way, protection or getting even with some one because they upset you or hurt you or hurt some one you loved!!!

those of you taking up the anti gun or anti large magazine stance are missing the main issue:

weapons of all types are freely available worldwide, yes even in the UK.... if a human wants a weapon, they can purchase or fashion one immediately.

homicide is a function of society and human nature.... with the US the way it is, our murder rate is going to continue to be high, end of story

it is a waste of time and scarce resource to attempt to control the existence of weapons because it won't ever happen... it's impossible... the brady bill and assault weapons ban proved that....

we need to improve our society .... right now

Ah, the Brady Center-- the quintessential source for misrepresentation of gun safety and legislation.

On Brady’s 100-point scorecard, Colorado scored 15. The states with the lowest ranking, 0, were Alaska, Arizona and Utah. California had the highest score, 81. According to the Brady Center, the score is based on laws that can prevent gun violence

So, let's take a look at their levels of gun violence (specifically homicide) per capita, shall we? (From 2011)

CA -- 6.67
AZ -- 6.28
AK -- 5.63
UT -- 1.90
CO -- 4.41

So, as we can see, California, the Brady Center's highest scoring state, actually has the highest level of gun murders from all of the states listed. Utah, one of their lowest scored states, also has the lowest level of murders-by-firearm.

I think the Brady Center needs to reflect on the fact that their approved legislation, which they contend will help prevent gun violence, isn't working. With these statistics, it seems that they have very little to do with the equation. No measurable decrease in gun violence from CA to AZ, for example, states with a Brady score of 81 and 0, respectively. Obviously the legislation they advocate is not an effective means to curb violence.

I, for one, am not going to sacrifice my constitutionally guaranteed rights because some wingbat decided to go postal. I'm also not going to fall for the deceitful rhetoric spouted by the Brady Campaign in the wake of such a tragedy. They obviously have an agenda-- and not a secret one either-- to ban private firearms ownership in America. Several of their members have even said as much publicly. They will distort and lie to the American people any way they can to remove this right under the guise of security. Reminds me of that oft-repeated quote from Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Don't let fear erode your liberty. We've had enough of that in the years since 9/11. We certainly don't need more nanny-politics governing our lives. Especially when those nanny-laws fail to appreciatively impact the danger it seeks to curb.

oldhamletman.

I know they make these magazines.

I was poking fun at the "100 round "barrel" clip" that, the poster above did.

He knows nothing about weapons.

Robert in Oregon..........Enjoyed your post. I too used to carry my rifle to school to shoot in matches, in a plain vinyl case, on a public bus and no one ever said a thing about it ! Having been a shooter for over 50 years and having once been an NRA member ( I resigned in disgust ) I agree that we have to have intelligent discussion about weapons, automatic weapons, etc. Anyone who even mentions reasonable weapons control meets with fury from the " religious weapons people". It has to stop,, we need a reasonable discussion and solution. The 2nd Amendment never anticipated repeating rifles or any advanced weaponry, and remember, it was an AMENDMENT ! which means it ca and should be changed. We have to get past the nut cases and have reasonable solutions !

oldhamletman

those of you taking up the anti gun or anti large magazine stance are missing the main issue:

weapons of all types are freely available worldwide, yes even in the UK.... if a human wants a weapon, they can purchase or fashion one immediately.

Err...actually, no...If a human wants a weapon in the UK, they can't purchase or fashion one immediately. It takes time to go to the store, to buy a knife, etc. Beyond that, it takes a lot of time and effort to fashion a weapon that can kill the way a gun can.

When was the last time you heard of someone kill 12 people and wound 59 others with a kitchen knife? With a car?

homicide is a function of society and human nature.... with the US the way it is, our murder rate is going to continue to be high, end of story

it is a waste of time and scarce resource to attempt to control the existence of weapons because it won't ever happen... it's impossible... the brady bill and assault weapons ban proved that....

we need to improve our society .... right now

Excellent idea. How about we take away fear? How about we take away the fear that if someone walks into a movie theater they are going to get killed? How do we do that? Well, by severely restricting guns.

So, as we can see, California, the Brady Center's highest scoring state, actually has the highest level of gun murders from all of the states listed. Utah, one of their lowest scored states, also has the lowest level of murders-by-firearm.

And the UK, which has such severe gun restrictions that not even the average cop carries a gun, has 1/50th the number of gun deaths as the US. The same is true of EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation in the world.

So what exactly is your point here? Because what it looks like is that California's laws don't go far enough. That is the argument you are really making.

Don't let fear erode your liberty. We've had enough of that in the years since 9/11. We certainly don't need more nanny-politics governing our lives. Especially when those nanny-laws fail to appreciatively impact the danger it seeks to curb.

It is not a nanny-state.

Governments are people too, my friend.

The government is you.

Let's dial it down a bit and stop the hyperbole, folks.

The vast majority of Americans, whether they like guns or not, whether they own guns or not, ALL believe in the 2nd Amendment and believe in the Bill of Rights. It is the rhetoric of the extremes on both sides of the "gun control" issue who are labeling and creating the image of what the other side believes. And this is happening because of the impossibility of having a sensible National dialog.

Why can't we have a dialog in our country anymore without immediately getting our backs up and pointing fingers at the other side and flinging insults, and calling those with opposing points of view "un-American" or "un-Patriotic"?

Why can't we have a dialog with all sides and interests represented where we don't have to couch our points in ASSUMPTIONS about the other person's real agenda? If we allow all sides and interests to be part of the dialog, we won't need assumptions. Each person's points and arguments will be known.

I may be the eternal optimist but I believe (or choose to believe) that the vast majority of Americans are moderate in their personal views. I believe most Americans intellectually reside far from the extremes of the Left or the Right that we see as the central focus of the media and American political rhetoric.

Aren't MOST all of us really turned-off and disgusted by the divisive vitriol we have seen dominate American rhetoric the past 20+ years?

Let's have a National dialog about the 2nd Amendment in the interest of preserving our National defense and personal safety.

Let's have a National dialog about what sensible measures we can take as a Nation within the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment which are in the interest of public safety.

How can it possibly threaten our freedoms and risk or damage our rights to .... talk about issues of National concern and interest for the American people.

If 55 delegates of broadly varied points of view could gather in Philadelphia in 1787 and discuss, and argue, and disagree, and make their points, and listen to other's points, and compromise and finally come together in consensus, why can't citizens of the Republic they founded find it within ourselves to have civil dialogs about the issues which are of importance to our Nation and fellow Americans?

In the 225 years since the founders gathered in Philadelphia, shouldn't the American people have learned a few lessons about civility and civil discourse and collective problem solving?

I'm just sayin' ....

You gave up your right to comment on US firearms when you moved down under.

Yank didn't give up his right to comment on American policy when he moved to another country. He is still an American. That transcends everything else.

This guy wounded 70 people, and twelve of them fatally. The only reason he was able to do that is because he had that 100-round clip. You can't hurt that many people with a pistol or rifle, or even four of them. Nobody needs a weapon like that for self-defense or for hunting. It's only purpose is to kill large numbers of people efficiently. The Brady law or something similar needs to be restored to ban them. But of course, we all knew that after the last mass killing in Arizona that killed six people and wounded several others including Rep. Gabby Giffords. The same thing will be pointed out again after the next mass killing with the same sort of weapon.

Houston, you are right. Makes you nostalgic for the Kennedy assassination. Was that three shots he fired or four. How did he squeeze off so many rounds in just a few seconds. Imagine what that assassination would look like today. And Oswald had to wrap his gun up in brown paper to look like curtain rods. Today, you can strap on the semi-automatic to your leg and get within 50 feet of a Presidential motorcade and if anyone questions you, you yell out "communist, atheist; liberal" and off you go!

I take my hat off to Brian for posting the second amendment. What I haven't seen is a right winger arguing about what it said. Its hard to argue when its right there in black and white. The only reason that we do not have a real gun control that works, is because of the NRA, They are the personal lobby for the Gun makers. All they care about is selling guns. They don't care if they are save, "As Rimingtons Rifle that fires when the safety is on and then spend all that money to try to hide the problem rather than fix it." Or like Ford did with the Pinto or Chevy and the corvar. No one does the right thing. No money in that. Its got so bad that we almost need to start all over from scratch and keep it against the law to bribe people we elected to office. They just call it lobbing and its ok i guess. It is not ok and we need to get it stopped. Question to everyone. Could we collect signatures to put it to a vote. Because that is the only way we will ever get that stopped. And if we could do that, I would dare the Supreme Court overturn it. We will never get this country back on tract if we don't get the money out of elections. This Money for fevers in return has ruined this country. People that give that kind of money get that money back 10 times over and more. Who does that help but those people. What about what is good for America and Americans? Maybe that is the Grassroots party we need right now. The Tea party had a good idle until it was Hi jacked by the Koch brothers. Now look at what it has done.

When the second amendment was written, guns were muzzle loaded muskets that shot one shot and took time to reload. Do you think the writers of the Constitution could even imagine the kind of weapon that was used in this shooting? If they could, do you think the second amendment would have been written the way it was? Those who insist that the second amendment gives them the right to carry assault weapons remind me of the old saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile."

The comments on this site clearly demonstrate the reason why banning guns will have no effect on gun violence in this country. Americans think that if someone disagrees with them, they have the right to vilify and disrespect that person. Civility goes out the window when disagreement is present, and those who are a bit to far over the edge easily translate that into rage and thinking they have the right to kill. It will take a consciousness shift to change the dynamic, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

got to love corgis wrote: "old hamlet, please explain how Britian with their strict gun laws has such a low crime/murder rate?"

You should check the facts before posting. In the 10 years after Britain banned guns, their violent crime rate rose 80%. They have the highest violent crime rate in Europe and it's three times higher than the violent crime rate in the US.

Especially today with militarized police and sophisticated military weaponry (illegal for possession by average citizens) the idea of using pistols and semi-automatic rifles to defend against an armed government takeover is both hopeless and ludicrous.

Call me crazy...but in the past two years, I can think of at least two examples, where ordinary citizens, using ordinary weapons, defeated the armies of their government, in order to end corruption. So, no its not hopeless and ludicrous.

Byron Raum wrote: "Guns cannot be used for defense. Guns do not stop bullets. Guns can, sometimes, if you keep a level head in a critical situation, be used to shoot at the person who is shooting at you."

Two studies done in the 1990's, one by John Lott from the University of Chicago and the other by a professor at Harvard show that there's around 2 million instances every year where people defend themselves with a gun from violent crime. The L A Times tried to whittle away at those numbers and could only get it down to 700,000 instances per year.

That means on average, there are between 2000-4000 instances every day where people protect themselves with a gun. The majority of the time all they have to do is show that they're armed in order to make the criminal flee. That means people with guns stop crimes without any shots being fired from either side.

You are completely wrong when you say guns can't defend people.

There is no practical reason to own an assault weapon. They are utterly useless for home defense and hunting. The only purpose these weapons...or more accurately, deadly toys...serve is to prop up the questionable masculinity of post-adolescent man-boys. Assault weapons, .50 cal sniper rifles, "street sweeper" type shotguns should be illegal to own. The Second Amendment does not protect the pathetic fantasies of immature wannabe Rambos.

d mcmillen

The rifle with the 100 rd mag was not what he used

WOW! If you could only learn how to read. The very first paragraph too.

"authorities say were used in the massacre at a Colorado theater showing of the latest Batman movie included a popular semiautomatic rifle, a .223-caliber assault-style rifle with a 100-round drum magazine."

The Second Amendment is a collective, not an individual, right. However, the question is really...how do we keep semi-automatics, and other weapons of mass destruction, away from the nuts, while not infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens? There is no reason why drug dealers, criminals, wackos and nuts who want to shoot up movie theaters, schools and other public places can go to Bass Pro Shop to buy weapons.

To those of you who think it's ok for a nut job to freely purchase a weapon to kill kids at a movie theater ought to be ashamed of yourselves...

Let's get a little context here. This video (link/URL below) is a weapon and high-capacity magazine similar to that described by the police as having been used in this mass-murder assault in a movie theater in Colorado. Watch the video, and then ask yourself the question below the link:

Shooting a 100 Round Beta Mag for a AR-15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOiOrI56WH8

Question: Does any civilian who is NOT a part of a state or federal "Well regulated militia" need the unrestricted right to "keep and bear" such an assault weapon and high-capacity magazines?

Can we have a little rational National dialog about this, folks?

I'm just sayin' ....

Gun Control tends to precede Genocide. A disarmed public is far more vulnerable to
the stupidity of government than a public who cannot defend itself.

"Gun Control tends to precede Genocide."

30,000+ people die in the US from gun violence every year. That sounds like genocide to me. The innocent are dying so immature wannabe Rambos can enjoy the right to possess deadly toys. That is the worst reason for genocide I could possibly imagine.

Jem, no one is arguing about disarming the public. But the time has come to use some common sense. Today, you cannot move more than $10,000 from one bank account to the other without tripping the Patriot Act. Try getting a pilot license. You need to show up with a passport just to get a check ride from the FAA. Responsible, well trained adults should have the right to own firearms. Waiting periods, periodic testing, licensing to own and carry certain weapons, all make sense. Of course, no matter what we do, someone will always fall through the cracks, but how many massacres per year and what kind of death toll are we going to tolerate?

....A lot of paranoid people here.

Lynanrdsky: ...........Do you understand the need for the second amendment Robert? It is there to protect the people from their government if needed

.......Part of the paranoia, but let's add to it, shall we. I agree about protection from our gevernment, for if the GOP/TP and its corporate elite benefactors takes total control, and continues their assualt on the Middle Class, we will certainly need to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, and take our country back, as Palin keeps preaching. By the way, I own 3 rifles, non automatic, and I support gun ownership, but I do not understand someone turning their house into an armory, there should be intelligent limits to everything, like not allowing people to drive Indy cars and funny car drag racers down city streets. .

@Byron, your right, a bullet can't stop a bullet. But it can stop the person shooting the bullet.

Sailcat, incorrect. An assault rifle is very effective in a home invasion, especially when there are multiple invaders. And at times the most handy one to have is a shotgun. And of those 30,000 +, how many of them were innocent victims? Here in New Orleans murder is an everyday event. And the vast majority of the victims are wanted murderers themselves.

GOP/TP and its corporate elite benefactors takes total control, and continues their assualt on the Middle Class, we will certainly need to exercise our 2nd amendment rights, and take our country back,

And leave it to an idiot to post such ignorance as this.

stonepipe

And I knew four people who have died falling down stairs

.....Mein Gotz! You actually knew (as in personally) FOUR people who died falling down stairs!! That would seem to be an abnormally high number for the average person, I'll bet the majority of people reading this don't even know one person who died in this manner. Is this just a matter of sheer, unfortuante coincidence, or perhaps did you give each of them a little push? Four? Four!

And to those who are for gun control. Guns were not the only weapon he used. And ask yourself, had he not had a gun would he have used something else. I don't know, say like a bomb. You know, like the ones they had to defuse today.

@Robert in Oregon

Why can't we have a dialog with all sides and interests represented where we don't have to couch our points in ASSUMPTIONS about the other person's real agenda?

I don't need to assume what the Brady Campaign really wants. They've publicly stated it:

"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
--Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

@SailCat

30,000+ people die in the US from gun violence every year. That sounds like genocide to me.

Then you have no idea what the word "Genocide" means.

And people, please stop using Britain as a comparison to the US vis a vis firearm murder rates. The fact is, their per capita murder rate was lower than the US even before they banned firearms. Demographics, social norms and other factors are far more important than what laws are on the books. See my comment above to reinforce that fact.

The Second Amendment is a collective, not an individual, right.

Not according to every supreme court ruling on the subject-- ever. That position also flies in the face of the founding father's own comments on the matter. Comments like these:

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence . from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ." Samuel Adams

Byron Raum

nobody can purchase a gun in the UK? you are unbelievably naive ....

In the UK, anyone can go to the right pub in the East End, Lambeth or similar places in any major city and buy a gun within an hour.... also there were nearly 3300 gun assaults in London alone in 2009.

You are also a typical whiner "how are we going to change?"

As far as change for the US? It's a huge problem, my point is that there are systemic issues that the US will probably never fully have the political will to change... but there are great places to start like making psychological help affordable and have it paid by insurance the same as medical procedures.... if someone has schizophrenia in the US, chances are nearly 100% that they have no more than $2000 LIFETIME psychological medical benefits.... so 99% of people that have dangerous psychological issues have no way to get help..... so we allow potential monsters to roam our society without help that many of them would like to have.

That's just one example where we can make big change.

where can't we make change? gun rights will never be politically defeated, gun laws have been very ineffective as is evidenced by Chicago's death rate, and even if they were banned outright, it would be a huge waste of political effort and tax money as is evidenced by the UKs, Chicago, New York's, and Washington DC's complete failures after decades of crackdown....

you, my friend, are the classic example of not knowing what you are talking about.....

And leave it to an idiot to post such ignorance as this.

......and I thank you, but it certainly is no more idiocy than what Lynyrdsky posted, which is why I responded the way I did, could you be somewhat biased in your opinion? To which chapter of the Tea Party do you belong, having taken such offense as you did?

"Then you have no idea what the word "Genocide" means."

Adj: The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation.

Use in a sentence: Our nation is being destroyed on the alter of the Second Amendment for the purpose of ensuring immature and irresponsible people will be able to possess deadly toys, the vast majority of which serve no useful function. It is genocide.

There now. Let me ask you a question. Are you capable of grasping the concepts of integrity, moral character, and personal accountability? Your pathetic ravings suggest you can't.

......and I thank you, but it certainly is no more idiocy than what Lynyrdsky posted, which is why I responded the way I did, could you be somewhat biased in your opinion? To which chapter of the Tea Party do you belong, having taken such offense as you did?

Not a member of any, and don't need to be a member of any particular group to see that your response was just as what I had said.

Jason: Sailcat, incorrect. An assault rifle is very effective in a home invasion, especially when there are multiple invaders. And at times the most handy one to have is a shotgun.

..........Jason, Jason, Jason.....I can't believe you posted this, for a shotgun is NOT an assault rifle, it is not even a rifle period, any person knowledgeable about firearms knows this. Now who is spouting ignorance?

Having clarified that, I do agree that a shotgun, even a 20 gauge, doesn't have to be 12 gauge, is probably the most sensible weapon to have if you are truly concerned about defending yourself in your own home. Aiming, especially in a dark environment, is less of a concern than with an assault rifle. I would also suggest sawing off the barrel to get a wider spread sooner, and you could also trim down the stack for easier handling. One very good point about the shotgun is if you live in an apartment building, the shot is not as likely to go through the walls and kill your neighbor next door, which would be especially unfortunate if he was getting lucky at the time.

Mea Culpa, make that "trim down the stock", not "trim down the stack", getting late on the East Coast and don't proof read that well right now.

There now. Let me ask you a question. Are you capable of grasping the concepts of integrity, moral character, and personal accountability?

Yes. And they are concepts that you cannot legislate.

Now, where in the world did you come up with that from me stating, unequivocally, that gun violence in the US is not genocide? For starters, the perpetrators of said gun violence have no semblance of cohesion one to another-- so there can be no "deliberate" attempt to destroy the nation nor a race of people, when taken in sum. These are non-connected events. You may as well say that the drunk driver in LA was responsible for the bus that turned over in Milwaukee. After all, they both involved motor vehicles, right? Obviously genocide. /Sarc.

And a point on "personal accountability" -- how can you sit there and demand legislation that negatively impacts millions of law-abiding, gun-owning Americans (such as myself) on the basis of a deranged lunatic's crimes? How is that remotely accountable? Your punishing the many for the actions of the few-- that's the exact opposite of personal accountability. You seem hellbent to blame all gun owners as being responsible for this tragedy-- that spreads the blame, dilutes it, rather than holding personally accountable the one individual who actually pulled the trigger. Do you think before you type? That's a serious question. Because it sure doesn't look like you do.

As for AR-15 style rifles being poor home defense weapons... I found this. Take a look:

Boy uses Dad's AR-15 to shoot home invader.

There is no practical reason to own an assault weapon. They are utterly useless for home defense and hunting. The only purpose these weapons...or more accurately, deadly toys...serve is to prop up the questionable masculinity of post-adolescent man-boys. Assault weapons, .50 cal sniper rifles, "street sweeper" type shotguns should be illegal to own. The Second Amendment does not protect the pathetic fantasies of immature wannabe Rambos

There maybe I should have posted the entire post to which I was responding to. There, does that clarify it enough for you?

Mike Brutus:

I'm making fun of the people who blame inanimate objects for violence.

By logical extension, if this man didn't own a credit card, he could not have used one to purchase the items used in the attack, thus (according to cowardly, irrational logic) he would NOT have committed this atrocity.

It's all about blaming THINGS, not PEOPLE.

Which is sad and hilarious at the same time.

In another threat I also suggested we ban Hundais - that's the car he drove to the theater.

Trust Verify....not sure when you were appointed the Sheriff of what tax paying American Citizens can and can not comment on no matter where they live. I have children and family living in the States and they are citizens too....do they not get to have an opinion because their parents have chosen to live in Australia.....get stuffed......you are the problem not part of it. That crazy decided that his feeling of the need to go out and shoot innocent people was more important than those innocent people's right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Your skewed opinions are no more important than any other citizens....the only difference between you and him is that he took a more dramatic course of action to prove that he was the only one whose rights and feelings counted!

I am not arguing with you, wouldn't waste my time as I have leaned never to argue with a fool they will bring you down to their own level....then beat you with experience. Yes I am being dramatic and emotional and maybe if a few more stood up and made a dramatic and emotional argument then something might be done about the senseless slaughter on the alter of the Second Amendment.

I reiterate....GET STUFFED....that's Australian for you know what.

houston we have lift off. according to reports he left the ar15 in the car. he took the most effective weapon for close quarters maxium effect a 12 guage pump. this guy did a lot of planning and studied a lot of tactical ops. of course this is only my opinion but time will tell.

roadhouseblues the feds really dont like it when people start cutting down barrels on shotguns

Motz in KC

LOL

It's an individual right Google Heller v DC and most agree as well as Obama begrudgingly said himself he believes in somewhat Individual right with exceptions hmm..

He is a liar anyways so hard to believe what comes out of his mouth.

I don't believe all the names of the deceased have been released yet. At least they were not a couple of hours ago.

@robert in Or.... and other gun control advocates:

I realize the tragedy (thoughts and prayers for the families, survivors) begs the questions why. And I admit when it comes to the human psych, I would not know how to answer. There is no excuse or reason for wanton murder. But the gun issue would not have made a difference:

Timothy McVeigh : planned in advance, had a political angst. Death toll: 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, (Wikipedia) No gun used.

9/11 : Held the occupants of the flight with "Box cutters" and then used the Aircraft as a weapon. Death toll: Stands at 3000. (various sites) No gun used.

If the "killer" used explosives (which he had, booby trapping his apt.) and the death toll would have been smaller OR higher.. it makes it no less tragic or murderous. Seeking to control the method does not control those who "go off the deep end." It won't prevent one murder, one death nor save one life... I can pull the figures if you like about how personal ownership of guns (ALL SORTS) have saved lives in the US. But I doubt that would convince people to own guns or that gun ownership is not the problem. Here is a un-intended consequence that many of you don't want to hear and I've not heard it said here yet. (I'm sure someone said it):

How many of the parents of the victims that were there are saying this: "If I only had a gun..." or went to buy guns after the incident. How many of you going to tell the grieving parent or spouse (that "You shouldn't buy a gun.. that's not the answer." You get the picture.

High capacity mags... let me dispel the rumor: as per the article... Shot Gun (6 rds. cap.) he bought 300 rds. Glock 9. (cap 13 avg) , "Assault Rifle" (Regular mag cap. 10) He purchased thousands of rounds. He had "enough" to do plenty of damage and death.... the "capacity" does not deter a determined killer. And he used Tear Gas to add confusion. There was nothing no one could do.. except one thing: If someone could have "answered" his use of force.

I don't think it's a case of "the life of the sports reporter is more important" at all.

Names are released after the family of the deceased have been notified. This is to prevent anyone from learning from the news that their child or husband or wife or loved one has died.

Whatever comfort you might get from it, it is at least a human being telling you.

I imagine the sports caster was first because everyone knew where he worked, so they were able to find his family the fastest, that's all.

It's harder when all you have is a driver's license to go with. It's nothing to do with importance.

There was nothing no one could do.. except one thing: If someone could have "answered" his use of force.

Yes, and if someone had "answered" his use of force, someone else would have answered THEIR use and before we know it, we have 71 people dead, instead of 12 dead and 59 wounded.

How many of the parents of the victims that were there are saying this: "If I only had a gun..." or went to buy guns after the incident. How many of you going to tell the grieving parent or spouse (that "You shouldn't buy a gun.. that's not the answer." You get the picture.

I will.

Just because people are grieving does not mean that they become stupid.

How many of the parents of the victims do you think are saying "If only this guy had never been able to buy a gun?"

Guns don't stops bullets. Only not having a gun at all stops bullets. The only way to guarantee no one could have got killed yesterday is to guarantee that there was no gun present.

I realize the tragedy (thoughts and prayers for the families, survivors) begs the questions why. And I admit when it comes to the human psych, I would not know how to answer. There is no excuse or reason for wanton murder. But the gun issue would not have made a difference:

Sure it would have. 32 people die EVERY DAY in the US because of guns. Look up the numbers of people who die due to gun violence. It is staggering.

Something like this happens EVERY DAY. It's just more isolated cases, 1 or 2 people, a jealous wife, a drug dealer, perhaps someone laid off and depressed. So the media covers it less, because it is perhaps less horrific. But those are the numbers. 32. Every day.

32 people don't die every day by home made bombs. Or any other type of murder.

Guns kill. Sure, there's a human pulling the trigger. But it's the gun that the bullet comes out of.

That's the reality Byron of living in a free society

The 2nd Amendment is here to stay and it will always be a fabric of American life

The 2nd Amendment is not a death pact. Sorry.

Ok, Byron, let's have it your way. We can scrap the 2nd amendment. But, then we have to insure that the illegal guns are found and confiscated.

So, we would have to scrap the 4th amendment. I mean we can't trust people to tell us they have illegal guns. And we need to be able to search them at any time. They could be armed.

And if we do find people with illegal guns, let's just send them straight to jail. No need for the 5th or 6th or 14th amendments in this case. So what if they self-incriminate themselves. Makes law enforcement easier. We could even beat information out of them, then.

And, now to think of it, we could save a lot of lives if we just didn't allow large groups of people to congregate whereever and whenever they want. Let's scrap the 1st amendment also.

Hmmm, it's beginning to sound like it would just be easier and safer, all around, to just scrap the lot. Then the government can dictate to us what we have, what we say, where we go, what we believe, etc.

Yeah, that's the ticket. The ultimate authoritarian nanny state would make us all feel warm, cozy and safe. Nothing to worry about, then.

Funny that all of you are claiming that guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people. Statistically speaking, countries with gun ban laws have less than 1 per 100,000 killed by guns (Japan had less than 1 in a million, and Chili had less than 1 in 1.5 million) where as the USA had 100 per million. Just saying, that argument is sort of a fallacy. Think what you will, but the argument that we are safer with guns than without is suspect. Since our military is made up of US, you can't really use the argument that the government will supress us, who would take up arms against their mothers and fathers? I think the paranoid gun toting xenophobes need to get a grip.

And furthermore, I have yet to see a gun toting armed citizen STOP a spree killer yet? Geez, for all of you gun toting armed citizens, you can't even do that right.

We are not Japan or Chili we are America 8)

Japan is a police state we are not.

And furthermore, I have yet to see a gun toting armed citizen STOP a spree killer yet? Geez, for all of you gun toting armed citizens, you can't even do that right.

Then you're not looking. Here's one, where an elderly CCW permit-holding civilian stopped a crazed killer from knifing several Walmart employees:

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

He was 72 years old and was a hero by all counts. This happens more frequently than the national press reports. You usually see these kinds of stories in local news. Still, every now and again, one like this grabs everyone's attention for few minutes and ends up being picked up by the MSM:

Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot

Stan...not sure what commonsense gun control on the shooting capacity of guns available to general public have to do with scrapping the 2nd Amendment. Obviously you are one of those all or nothing guys who claim that to even remotely limit the ability of people to acquire weapons to continue the slaughter on the sacred alter of the 2nd Amendment means that the entire Amendment must be completely scrapped....so in turn their should be no speed limits or limits on how drunk you can be before you go to the gun range in your muscle car, no limits no laws no protections for the innocent just open slather dog eat dog.....that is call anachy all the way to the right or all the way to the left you wind up in the same place. Hope you can protect your kids with that pea-shooter when they come with 50cals to take them away to indoctrination camps.

Big Al....when was the last time you were in Japan??????? or Chile or out from in front of your TV?

Obviously you are one of those all or nothing guys who claim that to even remotely limit the ability of people to acquire weapons to continue the slaughter on the sacred alter of the 2nd Amendment means that the entire Amendment must be completely scrapped...

Your flair for drama and theatrics is noted, Yank. Maybe you missed the part where violent crime has been decreasing since the 90's while gun ownership has been increasing? Seems to me that the "slaughter" you're referring to is going the other direction.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/gun-sales-violent-crime-down-again

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2011/5/gun-ownership-skyrockets,-while-violent.aspx?s=%22District+of+Columbia%22&st=&ps=

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

(I've used several sources so that you can't attribute some erroneous bias to the people reporting the facts-- including the source documents straight from the FBI).

But of course, only your opinion on what constitutes a constitutional right is all that matters, eh? After all, think of the children! With all of these bullets in the gun nut's over-sized clips and magazines on their high caliber penis extensions, why, the air will be as thick as fleas in a beggar house with live rounds! And these paranoid delusional freaks with their concealed hi-capacity handguns and it's the old west, shoot first mentality of the gun culture slaughtering our children. Think of the children! The children! The sky! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

Or... you know. It isn't.

So WMG I take you will be completely happy if your child is killed with bullett 15, 25, 50, 100??????? which is it where would you like to draw the line.

Picture this....

Husband and wife standing at the side of daughters coffin....Husband says be thankful dear she was killed with shot 15 and didn't have to suffer and be scared out of her wits to shot 100, oh and lets remember her death has had a purpose we still have our Ak 47's and our 100 shot clips....she was sacraficed for the good of all of us ..... on the alter of the Second Amendment.

Trying to correlate gun ownership with decreasing crime is a hell of a leap....and there is a large gap between stats and facts.....anyway you quote your stats to the dead, wounded, and changed forever in and out of that movie theater....I'm sure they will thank you for being so comforting and understanding of their plight, and will surely thank you for your wish that it continue to happen so that you can play with your........toys!

Uh, sure Yank.

First off, firearms are NOT toys, even if they are fun. Anyone who thinks they are needs to have their head examined.

Secondly, what about that DC sniper? He certainly didn't have a 100-round magazine, did he? But those people are just as dead. And what about McVeigh? He never even pulled a trigger, yet those people are just as dead.

You're a knee-jerk reactionary. Try this on for size:

Suzanna Hupp Testified before Congress

Yeah, those victims are all just clamoring to have their guns taken away ::rolls eyes::

(Disclaimer: Suzanna Hupp is not affiliated with the Aurora shooting, rather she was a victim during the Luby's Cafeteria Massacre where both of her parents were killed).

That's great for every incident of mass killing with automatic weapons in the hands of a nut case you can quote an incident where someone killed several people over a period of time with a single shot weapon.....except none of that justifies the need for automatic/rapid fire weapons with large capacity magazines in the general population now does it? If there is no legitimate reason to have something its a toy in the case of adults anyway (not sure if you fit in that category or if 21 is your age and what does WMG stand for WORLD with MORE GUNS?).

So one person testified before Congress that even though her parents were killed she thinks its a good idea to keep the general population armed and dangerous with rapid fire weapons....not sure that is what she said couldn't be bothered with reading it....for everyone you find whose parents or loved ones were killed by someone with a rapid fire weapon who thinks its a good idea to maintain the status quo I suspect there are 10 that could be located who would prefer not to have someone else suffer as they have on the alter of the Second Amendment.

I am not a knee jerk reactionary by any streach of the imagination I have been on this for a long long time and I am a gun owner and hunter and have been all my life. You on the other hand are a knee jerk as someone who is not prepared to accept commonsense limitations on the fire-power in the general population but rather claim they are going to take all our guns (toys) away oh no oh no "the sky is falling" "the sky is falling".....not.

Perhaps you would like to read what a very conservative former Prime Minister of Australia has to say about realistic gun control and a few other observations.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html

Mostly I would like you to see this part so I will add it in here in case you miss it ...... there have been no mass murders (4 or more) by firearm in Australia since the enacting of legislation as a result of the Port Aurthur Massacare which put regulations on rapid or multi fire weapons....get that 0, notta, none, get back to me when you can come up with some rebuttal to that dramatic and emotional stat.

BTW WMG-21 you didn't answer the question which bullett would you be happy to have your child killed with? Is that because you don't have children and generally wouldn't have a clue, or because the answer is none...but you don't really care if it is someone else's child as long as you get to keep playing with your toys? Or are you just full of BS generally if not then just come out and say it that your right to keep and play with your toys is more important that your child or anyone elses child's life....yeah I thought so.

I am not a knee jerk reactionary by any streach of the imagination I have been on this for a long long time and I am a gun owner and hunter and have been all my life.

Really? Then I assume that you can provide examples to support your statement below.

That's great for every incident of mass killing with automatic weapons in the hands of a nut case

 

Here is list from Wikipedia of ones in Australia. I don't see any that were committed with an automatic weapon.

 

Clifford Bartholomew massacre - A man shot dead ten members of his family in Hope Forest near Adelaide, September 1971.

Milperra massacre - Two biker gangs, the Comanchero and the Bandidos, engaged in a shoot-out in a hotel car park, killing 7 people in 1984, including a bystander. Only one defendant was acquitted on the murder charges.

Joseph Schwab - 1987, Schwab shot dead 5 people in and around the Kimberley region in Western Australia before being shot dead by police. [1]

Hoddle Street massacre - Armed with two rifles and a shotgun, Julian Knight shot 7 people dead and wounded another 19 in 1987 before surrendering to authorities.

Queen Street massacre - Armed with a sawn-off rifle, Frank Vitkovic roamed the Australia Post building killing 8 and wounding 5, also in 1987. When the weapon was finally wrestled from him, he committed suicide by jumping out of a nearby window.

Surry Hills massacre - Paul Anthony Evers killed 5 people with a 12-gauge shotgun at a public housing precinct in Surry Hills in 1990 before surrendering to police. [2]

Strathfield massacre - In 1991 Wade Frankum killed 7 people and wounded 6 others with a large knife and an SKS before turning the gun on himself when he realised he could not escape.

Central Coast Massacre - Malcolm Baker killed 6 people and injured another with a shotgun in 1992 before being arrested by police.

Port Arthur massacre - In 1996, armed with two semi-automatic rifles, Martin Bryant killed 35 people around Port Arthur and wounded 21 before being caught by police the next day following an overnight siege.

Childers Palace Fire - In June 2000, drifter and con-artist Robert Long started a fire at the Childers Palace backpackers hostel that killed 15 people.

Notice what was used in the last one?

Going Postal, Pre-Pistol
How did mass murderers operate before the advent of modern weapons?

The shooting spree that killed 12 people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater on Friday has sparked a public debate about the availability of automatic weapons. Gun control advocates argue that mass murder is exceedingly difficult without them. One source told the Washington Post, "It's kind of hard to be a pseudo-commando with a musket in the 18th century." How did people commit mass murder before the advent of automatic weapons?

Often with fire. Revolutionary War veteran Barnett Davenport is widely considered the first mass murderer in U.S. history. On the evening of Feb. 3, 1780, Davenport burst into the bedroom of his employer, Caleb Mallory, and began to bludgeon Mallory and his wife with a club. When the club broke in two, Davenport beat the couple to death with Mallory's gun. If Davenport had stopped there, he would be remembered as just an ordinary killer; most criminologists define mass murder as the killing of at least three people in a single incident. After beating the Mallorys to death, however, Davenport burned the house down, killing their three grandchildren.

Hundreds of other mass murderers have perpetrated their crimes without automatic firearms. Frenchman Pierre Riviere killed his mother, sister, and brother with a bill hook in 1835. In 1932, Julian Marcelino, a Filipino immigrant of relatively small stature, managed to kill six and wound 15 on a Seattle street using only a pair of blades. In 1915, Monroe Phillips shot seven dead and wounded 32 with a shotgun in Georgia.

Guns aren't even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

The U.S. mass murder rate does not seem to rise or fall with the availability of automatic weapons. It reached its highest level in 1929, when fully automatic firearms were expensive and mostly limited to soldiers and organized criminals. The rate dipped in the mid-1930s, staying relatively low before surging again in the 1970s through 1990s. Some criminologists attribute the late-century spike to the potential for instant notoriety: Beginning with Charles Whitman's 1966 shooting spree from atop a University of Texas tower, mass murderers became household names. Others point out that the mass murder rate fairly closely tracks the overall homicide rate. In the 2000s, for example, both the mass murder and the homicide rates dropped to their lowest levels since the 1960s.

A mass murderer's weapon of choice depends somewhat on his victims. Attacks with guns, fire, knives, and bare hands are far more likely to be directed against family and acquaintances than total strangers, while mass murderers prefer to use explosives against people they don't know. Also of note: Those who use firearms in a killing spree turn the gun on themselves 34 percent of the time, while only 9 percent of mass-murdering arsonists take their own lives.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/07/aurora_shooting_how_did_people_commit_mass_murder_before_automatic_weapons_.html?goback=%2Egde_91584_member_139027554

English man English..... automatic or multi fire weapons.....did you notice none since the ban on automatic multi fire weapons after the Port Aurthur Massacre, oops shot yourself in the foot. There will always be nuts who will kill other people sometime multiple killings at once, but you seem to want to make it easier for them to do it rather than harder. Please refer your rebuttal to the parents and loved ones of the people who were killed at Aurora I am sure it will make them feel so much better knowing that they were just one of many who needlessly suffered their fate and that you are happy to assure that there are many more in the future. That will be something to hang your hat on.

What is a "rapid fire weapon"? You can unload a revolver in about 2 seconds. I've seen someone empty a lever-action rifle in about as much time. Ever heard of Bob Munden? What about Jerry Miculek? There used to be a thing called the "mad-minute" using bolt-action rifles. The record, set in 1914, is 38 hits on target at 300 yards. Is that "rapid" enough for you? God I would think so...

Ultimately, you want all guns banned, and barring that, you want everything banned but muskets. You're describing a pipe dream. I, uh, don't know if you're aware of this, but... ahem... we're not living in 16th century England.

So one person testified before Congress that even though her parents were killed she thinks its a good idea to keep the general population armed and dangerous with rapid fire weapons....not sure that is what she said couldn't be bothered with reading it

It was a video link. Couldn't be bothered to click it at all, eh? Pathetic. I'll sum it up for you. She wasn't mad at the killer, because (she said) that would be like being mad at a rabid dog. You can't argue with psycho. What she was mad at was the fact that she had a perfectly good handgun sitting in her car that was legislated out of her purse where it could have stopped the entire massacre from happening. Because of her activism, concealed carry is now a reality in her state. And you know what else? Crime dropped immediately after the measure was passed.

BTW WMG-21 you didn't answer the question which bullett would you be happy to have your child killed with? Is that because you don't have children and generally wouldn't have a clue, or because the answer is none...but you don't really care if it is someone else's child as long as you get to keep playing with your toys? Or are you just full of BS generally if not then just come out and say it that your right to keep and play with your toys is more important that your child or anyone elses child's life....yeah I thought so.

This is exactly the kind over-dramatic whining I was talking about. No one wants to have their child killed by anything. Suggesting that I, or anyone else, would want that is grandiose stupidity. It's not even an argument, it's a pathetic emotional plea. "The children! The children!" You may as well have asked me which poisonous serpent I want to bite them.

Legislating firearms out of the hands of citizens won't stop kids from dying. That's a fact. And you may as well make peace with it. Someone intent on harming a child doesn't need a firearm to do it.
Most children who are murdered are smothered or beaten to death. What does that have to do with my 1911?

There will always be nuts who will kill other people sometime multiple killings at once, but you seem to want to make it easier for them to do it rather than harder.

Aha! There is brain in that fragile, battered little liberal dome you call a head. You know what makes it really hard for a criminal to perpetrate multiple killings? BEING SHOT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd3mzpsdG-Y

After watching this HERO, you need to watch Suzanna Hupp's testimony (above) that you just couldn't be bothered with. Unless you're willing to take into account the feelings, beliefs and opinions of the people actually impacted by these mass killings, then you can take your chicken-little philosophy elsewhere. These people lived through it. You? You've got your head clogged in that pipe-dream mentality of yours.

quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit: occidentis telum est.

You are a bonehead....look at the results in Australia when multi shot (more than 2) semi automatics and handguns were taken out of the general population.....no mass murders by firearm what's your argument to that pray tell....oh and BTW I don't want all firearms banned that is your emotional, boneheaded, NRA bluster, Right Wing, the sky is falling, outburst every time someone even mentions gun control....I have a gun and I hunt season after season with no problem but I play by the Rules.

And don't bother with your Wyatt Earp comparisons I know about all that stuff seen guys reload a dbl and get 4 ducks out of one flight.....but those people are not the ones that are going to kill a bunch of poor innocents going to the movies are they....they have a legitimate reason for having a gun.

And in case you didn't pass High School History when they wrote the 2nd Amendment all they had were muskets....if they knew what we now brandish on the back of the pick-up they would puke.

You want to base the feeling of all of the people who have been effected by mass killing on what one persons says "Unless you're willing to take into account" ALL "the feelings, beliefs and opinions of the people actually impacted by these mass killings, then you can take your chicken-little philosophy elsewhere. These people lived through it. You? You've got your head clogged in that pipe-dream mentality of yours." Hang your hat on what one person out of thousands says real smart are you always that dumb....you shouldn't be allowed to play with guns...even toy guns.

Oh if only I coulda got up off the ground and stopped peeing in my pants long enough to find my gun get the safety off point at who I thought might have been the shooter and pulled the trigger without pooing my pants I could have saved my child from being killed.....damn..... argue and call names all you want but you have obviously never been in a position to point and shoot at another human being....it aint Die Hard....go back to your Mom's basement and polish up the AK and think about the question you still haven't answered.

It seems it would be much easier to limit multiple killings by firearm by limiting access to the people killing weapons you seem so eager to allow in to society than it would be to make sure everyone is armed and dangerous so that when someone pulls a gun Quick Draw McGraw can gun him down without a second thought......I'll bet you dream about being that guy at night get your name in the paper and all.....who do think you are when are having that dream John McClain, James Bond, Buffalo Bill????

What a loser!

And in case you didn't pass High School History when they wrote the 2nd Amendment all they had were muskets...

History FAIL. Pepperbox firearms, blunderbusses, revolvers and even a crank fed machine gun all existed prior to the founding of this country. Look it up. Here, I'll get you started:

The earliest example of a revolver is a revolving arquebus, produced by Hans Stopler of Nuremberg in 1597.

James Puckle patented a revolving chamber gun in 1718. This gun, which had a 1.25 inch bore (30 mm), was tripod mounted, and the 11-shot cylinder was operated by a hand crank. It is often cited as the first machine gun.

So, you're wrong (again).

.they have a legitimate reason for having a gun.

And who are you to decide who and who doesn't have a legitimate reason for owning a firearm? You know the only firearm considered adequate to hunt wild boar are semi-automatics, right? Why? Because wild boars are known to attack even after being shot in the heart. Rapid follow up shots are recommended.

Wild pigs, which have become the second most popular big game animal in the country behind deer in many parts of the U.S., appear in herds so they require fast shooting rifles. Hound hunters who must take big game such as deer, boar and bear on the run will also find a semi-automatic rifle is a better choice than a bolt action.

From Fish & Game Magazine, and this:

Semi-automatic rifles offer one really obvious benefit to the hog hunter, so I’ll start with that… rapid follow-up shots.

Hogs are tough critters, and they can absorb a marginal hit from even a large-bore rifle with nominal obvious or immediate effects.

from a hunting blog. You can find thousands of more examples like this with a google search about hog hunting. There's a reason that AR-style semi-automatic rifles are the most popular hunting and sporting rifle in America today. I'm glad that you think all you need is a bolt action gun, but when a wounded, 600 pound hog is racing around the brush and you have to lose your sight picture to load a follow up shot, you'll wish to god you had that semi-auto to put it down fast.

As for your characterization of me as 1. living in my mother's basement, 2. owning an AK, 3. pissing & sh*tting myself in an emergency, 4. possessing fantasies of Hollywood style shoot-outs, 5. wanting to shoot another human being, you couldn't be more off-base. Just more fanatical "you own a semi-auto so you must be a crazed killer" stupidity from someone who is apparently terrified of modern firearms. Technology waits for no one. If you want to live in the past, so be it. Me? I'll keep up with the current evolution and I'll honor what my ancestors sacrificed for. (Hint: the 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting).

What a loser!

Spoken like someone who has nothing constructive to say and falls to childish name calling. What is this? The playground after school? If you need my lunch money that bad, I'll just give it to you.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722

Happy reading. (If you bother to click the links, that is... We all know your track record for that.)

You are wasting your time with your foolish arguements, links etc your dumbness is confirmed by you trying to justify your arguement that if everyone had a gun we would all be safer on what one person said (maybe as that has never been proven that she had a gun or was capable of using it) in relation to a mass homicide by firearm, only a complete dummy would try to make that stick..... meanwhile another 6 dead on the alter of the Second Amendment. We all wish WMG 21 was there he would have walked in with his Colt Ruger Glock 57.42 with 800grain bone buster bullets and shot the crazed gunman right between the eyes stood over him and said make my day MF.....oops there were trained Sr. police officers on site and one of them was shot....but not WMG he would have saved the day.....right after he cleaned the poo out of his pants. Dream on loser, a hero in you own little mind.

When you grow up and learn to take in to account all of the available evidence get back to me until then, keep your head down and your pants clean. Oh and BTW I have forgotten more about hunting and guns (including hogs) than you will ever know.

Colt Ruger Glock 57.42 with 800grain bone buster bullets

And you claim that you own firearms? I think the Brady blog is missing their resident kook...

Oh and BTW I have forgotten more about hunting and guns (including hogs) than you will ever know.

Not with the presentation you've put forth so far. Just a lot of huffing and puffing, but last I checked, the sky was still in place and as blue as ever.

When you get a chance you can look up the word facetious and try to put 2 + 2 together. Well it certainly is blue downunder we can go to the movies or church without having to worry about being shot with a rapid fire weapon or have to carry a gun to protect ourselves.....keep your head down mate and besides how would you know if the sky was blue from down there in Mom's basement?????

End of discussion!

Ah. Closing the "discussion" with another childish insult. Classy.

As long as we're busting out the ol' dictionary (and I should warn you, I've a certified degree in English complete with "distinguished university honors" attached), perhaps you should look up "Ad Hominem," particularly as it relates to "logical fallacy."

Who am I kidding? You can't even be bothered to click a link. I'll break it down for you:

Ad Hominem is a personal attack on someone during the course of a debate which is irrelevant to the case argued. Generally speaking, it is the refuge of someone guilty of fallacy-- that is, their argument cannot stand up under its own weight, so they resort to denigrating the person or persons providing the counter-argument. It is, essentially, a thinly veiled signal of defeat. I might also accept that it is a sign of emotional immaturity. Either way, it is not an accepted debate practice and reflects poorly on you.

Oh I can't help myself.....all that Ad Hominem would be great if this were a debate....only problem is it's not, it's me stating the facts and you making silly, out of context arguments with wild one persons statement based theatrics to try and justify an unjustifiable position - you know what they call that in English (Australian and or American) BS!!!!!

Sorry no more time for you or this instruction, if you can find a book on how to obtain commonsense please read it...keep your head down mate the bullets are flying in all directions.

Well, if this isn't a debate, then why are you so adamant to shove your emotionally driven point of view down everyone's throats? You also use the term "argument" rather repetitively for someone who isn't debating anything... maybe a sign that you haven't been paying attention to what you've been writing. Or are trying to backtrack it now that you've realized your argument has no merit.

As for theatrics, I think everyone can see whose argument was filled with greater emotional grandstanding and dramatic flair. I presented facts, criticized your (ahem) "facts" and your response was to make esoteric statements about blood sacrifice and altars interspersed with petty insults that may as well have been derived on the playground of a grade school.

As for bullets flying in all directions... hmmm... ::looks around:: Seems peaceful enough to me. But I'm also responsible for a sh*t ton of cash right now as part of my occupation, so I'll just keep this .45 handy in case some loon thinks these dollars belong to him. (And a note about that: anyone who handles a large volume of cash or jewels and doesn't carry a firearm is considerably lacking in "commonsense," so you can keep your final, petty insult and cram it "down unda").

How about limiting handgun and rifle magazines to 8 or less rounds and make them fixed to the gun. I've gone deer hunting and I have never had to shoot a deer more than once with my 44 mag.

MADNESS & DALE: Sure, it sounds great. Now trying getting politicians who are cowering in fear from the gun crazies at the NRA to have the guts to push legislation through. It ain't gonna happen. The NRA owns the entire GOP Congressional caucus and these weasels know which side their bread is buttered on.

If I hear one more to these cretins bring up the Second Ammendment again I'm going to wretch. NO ONE needs a hundred round magazine for any legal purpose. This is insanity but you'll never get the NRA to acknowledge this. "Guns don't kill people......... But bullets sure as hell do.

The shootings in Columbine happened while the assault weapon ban was in effect. And that included a ban on large capacity magazines.

STEVEN: So what is your point, that we should make things easier for these pyschopaths???

I daresay, you can walk into most gunshows in this country and especiall in the South and SouthWest and purchase some pretty lethal material with no questions asked.

This country is so hung up on this "second ammendment" bull@!$%# with the NRA convincing all of it's members what great patriots they are, they fancy themselves colonial militia men at Lexington & Concord (Michelle nutcase Bachman says this took place in New Hampshire) or perhaps one of Daniel Morgan's rifleman at the Battle of the Cowpens. This whole macho, jingoist mentality in this country is positively insane. And until it changes, people will continue to die needlessly.

So, if someone gases up their car and drives into a crowd at 100 mph, do we ban all cars that go over 25mph? Do we ban cars and everything else to include kitchen knives? Welcome to having someone else do all your thinking for you.............................. oh, wait.....

Understand what this is. It is a severely mentally ill person who did some tragic things. Blame the person not the instrument.

Too bad someone in the theater wasn't concealled carrying.

"If I hear one more to these cretins bring up the Second Ammendment again I'm going to wretch. NO ONE needs a hundred round magazine for any legal purpose."

Get out your mop and bucket. The Second Amendment says in effect we should be able to have the same firearms as the military.

Prove no one needs a 100 round magazine.

One well placed shot would have stop this nut. Andrew Jackson would have shot that ass between the eyes. This country used to have leaders as tough as nails. Now it's run by limp dicks. Old Hickory is rolling in his grave.

Wow. Did Fox ban conservatives from posting there, or what?

The Second Amendment, for more than 230 years, was limited to "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the defense of a free state." That is, it was never an individually held right until the NRA and the corporate-bought conservative court under Bush decided to overturn all prior interpretations. That is fact.

We are the only First World nation allowing general use of guns, including semi-automatic assault rifles, among the general population.

The NRA can effectively eliminate any candidate for public office who presses for gun control.

This nation's gun manufacturers are responsible for the slaughter of innocents not only here, but also in Mexico and many other countries.

But look how loudly, and with what anger & profanity, gun owners sling their opinions! They drown out all reasonable discourse. We're rapidly disintegrating as a nation, but the noisiest wheels always get the grease.

Those among us who understand the violent shifts in culture of the last 40 years, who understand the history of jurisprudence in this once great nation, who attempt to engage in discussions seeking real solutions, are simply drowned out.

THIS IS HOW NATIONS DIE.

Dee it is a right! Back then a gun was a means of survival. And all you bleeding heart libs out there, do you really think this will end chit like this? The nut jobs are the ones needed to be removed from society not the guns. And when they slip through the cracks as some always will you take them out not feed and house them at our expense for the rest of their lives.

And DEE Nations die when the few have weapons because tyranny steps in and you will no longer be FREE. My guns are here for a reason protection and sport. And don't tell me we have the law enforcement for that, by the time they get here the crime will be over.

What a bunch of inadequate little boys we have posting here. Even when a crowd of film goers gets mowed down by a lunatic with an assault rifle you all still cling to those imaginary 2nd amendment rights and dream you could have taken the guy out.

Get a grip. The police, who are trained to deal with this sort of thing, struggle in surprise situations. Come into the light children, step out of your angry easy chair or your mummy and daddy's basement and realize a video game is not real life.

Don't you get it? You're just as disconnected from reality as the shooter. He thought the same thing you think. He's one of you. A little boy with a big gun and huge feelings of inadequacy.

The only good news in this equation is the NRA is going to aid you in taking each other out. Hopefully you won't take a dozen other people or animals with you.

LynyrdSky: Insisting it's a right doesn't make it so. Over two hundred years of rulings by many Supreme Courts of our nation have disagreed with you--only one has agreed. I'm not a bleeding heart, either. I have over 30 years' experience in criminal justice and was a career felony prosecutor after working on a police force.

I encourage you to watch National Geographic: The Science of Evil. In 1971, Dr. Philip Zambardo conducted an experiment at Stanford by setting up an experimental 'prison' wherein some students who volunteered were assigned to be prisoners, and some, guards. Within 3 days, creative brutality and sexual sadism by the 'guards' began to be apparent. By the time 5 days had passed, the professor himself was walking around the Stanford University basement 'prison' with his hands behind his back, like Hitler reviewing his troops. Other neuroscientists stepped in to stop the experiment.

Every human being has the capacity for great cruelty and great good. A mother may smother her crying baby to death to protect her life & the lives of others when military raiders are hunting them down. Dr. Zambardo testified at the court martial trials of military individuals involved in the Abu Ghirab scandal that the system was to blame as much as, or more than, the individual guards not in command positions.

In short, any person may commit horrendous evil, given the 'right' situation.

Our own flawed human nature means we must address the means available to limit our bad behaviors.

I am against killing for sport; I enjoy skeet-shooting. When I carried a gun & a badge, the weight of my responsibility for human lives was always with me. I have prosecuted true psychopaths, but most mass murderers are no more crazy than you & I.

Whatever weapons you have cannot protect you from tyranny; you have already been conquered by the corporate agenda that owns government, and no shots were fired.

History argues that nations die in about 200 years when they attempt to police the world. We've had 268 years.

You do not have a personal right to own guns by anything written in the Constitution; as an attorney, I know that. Having studied all the years of Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd Amendment, in depth, I know that.

On the other hand, we have all lost many freedoms previously guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights because of the Patriot Act.

I am grateful you call me by my first name. I wish I could sit down with you and show you what two-thirds of a century of life & intensive study has taught me--we could have a meaningful dialogue.

Understand what this is. It is a severely mentally ill person who did some tragic things. Blame the person not the instrument.

I see your point, but then why shouldn't we all be able to purchase plutonium at WalMart?

Everyone in this entire thread of comments is looking at this thing the wrong way.

If you think banning large capacity magazines is going to solve anything (as far as preventing this type of thing from happening), you live in a fantasy world.

I don't expect people that have never handled a firearm to understand this, but, here goes anyway.

A magazine is a very, very simple mechanical device. It's essentially a spring loaded box.

I can teach anyone in this thread to either make a brand new magazine, or modify an existing one to hold how ever many rounds you want in just a few minutes. With stuff you have around your house, right now.

If you would like to argue that we need a law banning large capacity magazines so that we can add additional fines, or time to the sentence of someone caught using them, fine. That's one thing.

But if you think you are going to stop intelligent, creative people from having them, if they want them, you live in a fantasy world.

Dear MJ, Oh How Right You Are, When You Need An Armed Response, The Police Are Only Minutes Away. Think About It.

Dear Dee Turner-Please Take in to consideration the Quote by James Madison-

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html#ff92miuTgvumejJU.99
We currently dwell there now. Like it or Not, the 2nd Amendment is a Individual Right and Needs to Remain as Such. To Disarm a Population changes that Population from Citizens to Subjects.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained
in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country
Read more
at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html#ff92miuTgvumejJU.99

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the
citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people
with arms
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html#ff92miuTgvumejJU.99

Apparently You Missed some of these points made by James Madison in Your Studies ??

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained
in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
Read more
at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html#ff92miuTgvumejJU.99

The 2nd Amendment is not a death pact. Sorry.

So, if someone gases up their car and drives into a crowd at 100 mph, do we ban all cars that go over 25mph? Do we ban cars and everything else to include kitchen knives? Welcome to having someone else do all your thinking for you.............................. oh, wait.....

Yes...let's do some thinking.

Before I was allowed to drive, someone spent a few months teaching me how to do so. Then I had to take a test. Only after I passed the test was I allowed to drive on my own.

That is because a car can be used lethally, and is a dangerous instrument.

In addition, every single car has to have its own license plate. Every year, I have to renew the registration for my car. If I sell the car to anyone, this information has to go to the state.

Furthermore, I am required to carry car insurance in case I should accidentally cause any damage with my car.

These are reasonable restrictions. We accept them.

A gun can be used lethally, and is a dangerous instrument.

So I presume you support similar licensing restrictions for operators of guns?

In addition, I presume you support similar registration restrictions for guns?

And also, insurance requirements for guns?

If not, why not? You yourself used a car analogy.

What spin would the "blame the person, not the instrument" defense take if say Iran let loose a nuke upon Israel?

Well that was a horrible example....but the point remains.

Yes it does matter. The goal should not be to disarm citizens, the goal should be to make it more difficult for the crazies to kill masses of people. The UK has far fewer killings than the US. We cannot stop all the killings, but we can make it a bit more difficult.

STEVEN: How often do you hear of mass killings like this in European countries??? There are handful of them over many years. Canada which has many gun owners has a far lower rate of gun violence.

And I would point out that most people who have been personally effected by attacks like this, even people who were Right leaning have changed their tune in a big way. You have Ronald Reagan's staff member, Jim Brady, his wife is not a vocal oppenent of the NRA. There is the Congress Woman from Long Island whose son and husband were shot on the Long Island RR, who was a life long Republican but is now a Democrat. I've seen many interviews with survivors of various shootings and I can promise you that the vast majority of them think stricter gun laws are required.

"The UK has far fewer killings than the US."

The UK has always had fewer killings than the US even when firearms had very few restrictions in the UK. Killings along with all violent crime is increasing in the UK as their gun control laws have become stricter and both are falling in the US with our much less restrictive gun laws.

Uk did not have the issue for decades because other than hunting guns most firearms were either not allowed or had to be inoperable.

My Father was there in late '45 and 46. The British soilders were not allowed to bring home stuff like the Americans.

It's only it as more crimials have gotten weapons that UK police have started to up gun. Just like the US.

One reason some countries dont have killing like this is these type of movies and games are banned. They glorify killing , murder and meyhem. They glorify drugs, gangs and the killing of innocent people for fun. Guns dont kill people, people kill people. We need to address the what sets off these maniacs and put limits on the movie and game makers as well as hold them accountable for what they produce and the minds they are poisoning with their garbage.

The same movies we see here also show in the UK, the rest of Europe, Canada, etc.

The difference is that they have reasonable gun laws.

It is true that gun laws cannot prevent all murders. They do however, prevent a large percentage of them.

Dale3242:

We cannot stop all the killings, but we can make it a bit more difficult.

How Dale? Speak?

DOG: Typical NRA drivel which the gun lobby has been spewing forever. I've heard this stuff for decades. Why you people try to pass yourselves off as great patriots and the voices of freedom is beyond me. This country has a sick gun culture and we prove it over and over and over again. I can't wait for the next press release from the NRA. I'm sure it will be real beaut. Too bad Chuckie Heston is no longer around. He could do another one of his "from my cold dead hands" routine.

As if owning some firearms was actually going to hold off a tyrannical government should they decide to come after you. You really think you're going to hold off Abrams tanks and helicopter gunships??? Seems kind of silly if you ask me. No one has any intention of denying people hunting rifes and handguns with the proper registration. But large capacity magazines have no place in the civilian world. Even a lowlife like that draft dodger, Dick Cheney has acknowledged that these magazines should be banned. Hardly the opinion of Lefty.

old dog in al. - Not true - assault weapons are banned in only five states - most of the South and in the Southwestern states they are not banned

Also let's talk about background checks - in Arizona the Mayor of New York sent his police officers there to a gun show

One buyer said - oops could not pass a background check - answer that's okay son "show me the money"

Plus how about the underage kid in Arizona that bought $300,000 worth of guns - for the Mexican Cartels

So take your guns - who cares - old dog and in the interim I hope you don't end up shooting one of your old dogs

Obviously in the deep South news doesn't get to you - do they also ban Newspapers - or are you a Faux News affectioniado

Barbara Adams Jackson old dog never said they were banned he said they were restricted which they are. An assualt rifle is classified the same as a machine gun (which it is) and as such is greatly restricted. As far as the rest of your post, until you provide documentation your wild claims are considered as truthful as your ASSumption that old dog said Assualt rifles were banned.

Incase anybody isn't clear on the difference, let me explain:

Assault Rifle - Rifle chambered for an intermediary powered cartridge (.223/5.56,7.62x39,etc) capable of FULL-AUTO firing and that typically use a detacheable magazine.

Assault Weapon - term made up by the anti-gunners to confuse the masses between semi-auto-only rifles and assault rifles. The term "assault weapon" has absolutely no technical meaning whatsoever within the firearms community.

Submachine gun - Same as assault rifle, except shorter barrel & chambered for pistol cartridge

Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - Same as assault rifle except shorter barrel for easier concealment by security teams and CQB usage (still uses rifle cartridge unlike submachine gun)

Battle Rifle - Same as assault rifle, except with full-powered cartridge (.308,.30-30,.30-06, etc)

Your definitions are not correct either

• Assault Rifle capable of FULL-AUTO firing - requires a Class 3 licence that realitve few people have.
• Submachine gun - also requires a Class 3
• Battle Rifle .308 - basically the same as a NATO 7.62
• Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) - rifle cartridge to most people means something like 30-06.

My understanding is that "it depends". Background checks are required of FFL sellers(Federal Firearm License) But many people are not FFL sellers especially at gun shows. So, I can go to a gun show and buy from an unlicensed dealer and not need a background check or a waiting period. We also learned in Arizona, I can buy 100 guns and legally sell them 5 minutes later as a private person. Many guns are acquired this way. It's obvious our tobacco laws are tougher.

I guess that's why gun shows are so popular. They legally circumvent weak state laws.

As if owning some firearms was actually going to hold off a tyrannical government should they decide to come after you. You really think you're going to hold off Abrams tanks and helicopter gunships???

Absolutely they can, they did it in Iraq and Afghanistan against the US didn't they? Or are you claiming the Taliban are losing right now in Afghanistan? Was Iraq a victory for the US? Look at Syria, the rebels don't have tanks or helicopters or artillery and it looks like the rebels are going to win doesn't it?

Do you really honestly believe the US has enough tanks and helicopters to hold off 100+ of million gun owners in this country? Be honest, the US only has a few thousand tanks and attack helicopters, there is no way those weapons would be able to hold off 100 million armed civilians.

How many of those rebels in Syria have been killed? If the govt. goes Rogue no automatic rifle can save you. In Iraq they not only used tanks and helocopters but chemical weapons. There were no automatic rifles when our forfathers wrote the Constitution. There is no reason for any civilian to be able to fire 100 rounds before reloading. The constitution was written before we had cars, does that mean there should be no rules for the public's safety on the roads and you should be able to drive as fast as you want whereever you want? Get real. Yes we should be able to have firearms for sport and protection, but 100 round automatic was developed for the military not the civilian population! Next you'll be saying we should all be able to have nuclear or chemical weapons for protection from our govt. The Middle Eastern counties have been at war since time eternal. They are and have never been considered a civilized society,we are a civil society and have rules for the common good. These Rogue societies and govt. get their weapons from who to use on there citizens? We make money selling arms to both sides, does that mean we shouln't have rules for their use here?

Dear TDUB-There is no such thing as an Un-Licensed Dealer, if someone is a Dealer they have to be Federally Licensed. If someone is selling a Gun without a Background Check it is a Private Citizen, not a Dealer. Your Misinformation is only Surpassed by Your Ignorance.

Do you really honestly believe the US has enough tanks and helicopters to hold off 100+ of million gun owners in this country? Be honest, the US only has a few thousand tanks and attack helicopters, there is no way those weapons would be able to hold off 100 million armed civilians.

Yes.

The US has enough firepower to boil the surface of every rocky planet in the solar system, including the Earth. Several times over. If President Bush or President Obama or (possibly) a President Romney or a President Whoever decide to turn the US into a tyranny, all he or she has to do is nuke Houston, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas, at a minimum. And once they've done that, they will still have enough firepower to do it again, a few thousand times.

The US civilian population has zero chance against the US military.

It will stay that will until we can buy Plutonium at the local drugstore and make our own nukes.

It's funny how all these people who think that the 2nd Amendment allows firearms don't also support the right of every civilian to have a thermonuclear device in their basement.

I have to agree. On the other hand, a careful sociopath could gradually buy a lot of ordinance without any massive buy. I have deer hunted and I have yet to have to shoot a deer more than once with my 44 mag revolver. I think that civilian weapons should be limited to eight rounds and a fixed magazine.

Greg, thanks for pointing this out. The sad thing about it is that I'm feeling nothing but shoulder shrugs from several million NRA members right now.k

Dale - When I lived in Virginia - my neighbor had an enjoining 65 acres to my property - he only allowed hunters to hunt his land for deer with a bow and arrow

Not many hunters showed up

Also when I had my horse farm - the hunters shot and skinned a pony and shot and killed a little girl in a red outfit waiting for the school bus

Never caught those murderers

Second Amendments Rights - People should read the Second Amendment - it is the right to form a Militia - period

Our so called Founding Fathers - didn't know about airplanes - cars - internet - electrified and air-conditioned homes - tractors - and least of all tanks - and assault weapons

So I wish all these yahoos quit talking about the Constitution - it's just something the NRA uses to sell guns - and buy our goverment

@ Greg

I can see you have not done much traveling. I have been in more countries that I can count that will sell you much more lethal arms just for cash. Down at the market. IN bulk.

So not happy: First, I'm sorry you're not happy.

Next, are you asserting that because you think it's worse somewhere else, we should do nothing to limit shooting massacres here?

And maybe if these sales were tied to a network and triggered a check on him, just maybe some innocent people would not have been killed.

So not happy

I have been in more countries that I can count that will sell you much more lethal arms just for cash.

Colorado is not Kabul.

about time someone brought up the obvious. Sales of ammo in certain quantities over certain periods of time could be tracked and the person, perhaps having never bought so much ammo before(also trackable)could be questioned about said purchase. No problem with that, ya don't need 3K bullets for home defense or hunting. Authorities had seen this, i think someone would have put two and two together.

Also when I had my horse farm - the hunters shot and skinned a pony and shot and killed a little girl in a red outfit waiting for the school bus

What was the name of the girl?

What was the name of the girl?

32 people die from gun violence in the US every day.

How many names do you want?

How many would be enough?

You guys are so silly. Whether a person has 50 rounds or 1 million rounds, there is only so much a person can use at any one time. It’s like saying it’s outrageous that an obese person has 500 pounds of ice cream in the refrigerator.

We have over 20,000 gun laws already on the books do we really think adding a few more is going to make a change

NO

And Barbara the majority of Americans agree with the Supreme Courts decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) This was probably one of the greatest moments in American History 8) it's Constitutional Law 8) epic win.

The NRA is one of the oldest civil rights organizations in our Country they have lot's of power because Americans like myself let the politicians in our local communities hear it if they start acting like Stalin.

No other country on earth makes it so easy for a lunatic to arm themselves and take so many innocent lives in suburbia.

He wasn't a lunatic until he started shooting people in that theater. Unfortunately there is no way to know in advance what someone's mental state is; if there was we could prevent hundreds of horrific crimes from being committed by people who did not use guns. For example, Kaushik Patel here in Wheaton IL doused his two sons - 7-year-old Vishv Patel and 4-year-old Om Patel - with gasoline and set them on fire. Meanwhile, millions of US citizens own guns and buy ammunition and never go on a mass murdering spree.

By the way Byron Raum, I included the names of the murderer and his victims here so that anyone may check the veracity of the story; try verifying that "a little girl in a red outfit waiting for the school bus" was killed by hunters.

Actually, 4000 rounds isn't that big of an order. You obviously have no idea how many rounds some competitors and target shooters go through. It's also just cheaper to buy in bulk.

How about *any* homicide with a weapon that has a clip of more than 10 rounds is classified as a hate crime from now on? A 100 round clip would be considered a war crime and they'd then be subject to Bin Laden's "lawyer". ;)

Boro: Excellent suggestions. Kudos for seeking solutions rather than just ranting nonsense.

@Boro: I've never shot less then 100 rounds at the range at one time, and I have heard of competition and target shooters routinely buying 5000-6000 rounds all at once.

I buy ammo for my rifles in boxes of 500 and 100. The 500 round box is for my single shot bolt action .22 (no magazine or clip at all) and I go thru that box in a couple hours. I typically use three such boxes on any target shooting outing. The 100 round box is for the 30-30 (hold six rounds), and since I only take one box at a time I usually only get to shoot the 30-30 for 1/2 hour. So that's 1600 rounds in one afternoon. 3000 rounds wouldn't last a weekend. Limiting clip size is pointless IMO.

I can easily shoot 1500 to 2000k a day

Laura, so how are you going to accomplish that? Do you believe in any form of gun legislation? Any? Are you prepared to take some stand to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? If so, what will your position be?

The reason I ask these questions is that every time something like this happens I read posts that are exactly like yours. And after the impact of another mass killing dies down you all go back to your personal business until the next time it happens and then you come out with inocuous statements like yours.

Frankly, I'm sick of it!

Jack ....you are an idiot! I did state my position. I am for legislation to limit high powered assault guns/ammunition/ gun availability. Talk about inocuous....you didn't even state an opinion. Obviously, you don't read these blogs very often. If any one stands up for legislation, it is me. Not only that, I actually put my time and little money I have to support the politicians who support gun control What is it you do?

I don't even own a gun and never have....you probably have a stock pile at home.

A .223 a high powered round? Seriously the caliber is only slightly larger than a .22.

Mr. Johnson-A .223 is the same Cartridge our Military fights wars with, Duh !!

It still is not a "high-powered" cartridge. Only thing you can hunt with a .223 are varmints.

Apparently NATO and the US military think the .223 and the similar 5.56mm cartridges are much more than varmint calibers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

.223 / 5.56 are frequently used to hunt deer. Against anything larger than that, though, and I'd want something with a little more punch.

OK, you can use them to hunt deer, but that is really the bare minimum, smallest rifle caliber that you are allowed to use for deer. I would never hunt deer with anything less than a .243.

Agreed. It's actually illegal in some states to hunt deer with the .223, even though many hunters swear by it. It is absolutely NOT recommended for hogs, though. Me, I'm partial to the 6.8 SPC and the 7.62 x 51 (.308) for hunting, though my friend has a fantastic 7mm Mag rifle that's a joy to shoot.

BOB: Nice try but just more NRA propaganda. Your crowd always uses the inner city as a dodge. These are densely populated urban areas with very high crime rates as well as gang activity and you damn well know that. Please spare me the "Constutional Rights" crap, it's really tiresome.

The NRA will NEVER acknowledge that guns in this country are simply out of control. Owning firearms does not qualify you as some great patriot, contrary to what the gun lobby would have you believe. I recently received in the mail a packet from one of the gun organizations claiming that Hillary Clinton was going to sign an international pact to ban all guns worldwide. Are you people kidding me??? You always think there is some diabolical plot to take away your silly little guns.

The head of the NRA claims that because Obama has done nothing to infringe on your gun rights THAT IS PROOF THAT HE IS PLANNING SOMETHING SINISTER IN HIS SECOND TERM!!! These people are beyond absurd.

Well said Sir

The NRA is the biggest terrorist group in America..

Dear Ozzie-Take Your Meds and Turn Off the Machine, You are so Fricking Biased You are Blind.

You may find my civil rights tiresome, but the Supremes have ruled against you.

The 2nd Amendment is not a death pact.

Actually, per 100,000, Denver had 5.8 and New York only 5.6. So if you are going to argue stats, GET THEM RIGHT!

District of Columbia v. Heller

WE WIN

YOU LOSE

@Really? (here let me fix that for you) The NRA is the Oldest Civil Rights Organization Group In America.

Hey all you folks whining about guns on this post. Shut up !

The guns are not the problem. it is the person. A gun will not kill someone, a PERSON has to pick it up. If this Clown in Colorado didn;t have a gun, it sounds to me he was smart enough to make bombs, so he would have done that had he not a gun. Get off the gun thing. PEOPLE Kill not guns. People were killing PEOPLE before guns & will continue to do so with or without guns. Spoons make people fat, pencils make people misspell. Come on. REALITY! If some crazy is going to kill someone they don't need a gun to do. Guns are NOT the problem. It is our messed up society.

If some crazy is going to kill someone they don't need a gun to do it

True, but since the entire concept of a Gun is to kill, it does make it a lot easier. And then add in craziness of "super sized" magazines and body count can really soar.

We might as well say Drugs don't kill, Drug Dealers do.

A baseball bat is just as useful for killing at close range and it has an nearly unlimited "magazine".

Better yet, blast a perp with a fire extinguisher and chase him down the street with it. Non-lethal and effective.

Here you go: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/2-MGPWAR15-100

I think I will get two..........should have gotten them when I lived in Fairfax VA and gotten the NRA discount!!

Uh, MasterQ, I hate to burst your bubble but just by passing a background check and paying a $200 tax stamp, you can buy and own a machine gun in almost every state.

You can download the forms on the ATF website.

MasterQ, not only can most people buy full auto firearms as "So not happy" said, in some states you can also purchase tanks and even the shells for them (they're REALLY expensive though - each round may need to be individually registered & require its own $200 tax stamp).

@ So not happy & astro_wanabe

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is more to a CLASS 3 Lincense than just paper work and $200. You also have to be approved by local Law enforcement and waive some of your 4th Amendment rights for a starter.

So why can't I buy some Plutonium and make my own thermonuclear device, again?

The 2nd Amendment gives me that right. I have to be able to take on the US military machine. This is my Constitutional Right.

In many states colorado included one can own a automatic (machine gun) weapon. It's considered an NFA item, requires a special tax stamp and a lot more paperwork than a semi-automatic. Know what your talking about!

100 round magazine isn't really an issue, 3 - 30 round is amount the same and a trained person can change a magazine in an AR in about a second. Guns are a tool, they don't kill on there own. People using them kill people. FWIW one can kill another person with a PEN!

I AGREE !) Well said.

But there needs to be reasonable limits. "Super Sized" magazines are not a need or a right. It's mostly people who see firearms a toys that just WANT the biggest and noisiest toy.

Every State requires a Drivers License for a product designed to move you from point A to point B.

Guns, a product designed to kill have no licensing in many states.

And that makes sense how?

I am not anti-gun, but there needs to be some common sense.

Ones a bill of rights amendment the other is not would probably explain the licensing reason.

The problem though howy61 is that the "supersized" was not really used, according to witnesses the guy fired 20 rounds and then changed weapons.

What limit would you set? To me anything higher than 30 rounds would be restricted.

Several things bother me about the posts. First, the idea that new gun control laws would have prevented this from happening. Second, the idea that anyone needs to justify their firearms purchases or magazines to anyone based on "need" (to be determined against someone's preconceived idea of what is or isn't excessive). Third, the knee-jerk reaction to blame an inanimate object for the actions of the user. No one blames the car for drunk drivers, yet guns are always the problem. He wanted to kill a bunch of people, there are plenty of ways to accomplish this, a bomb, a car, etc.

I am sorry if you are bothered, but that is exactly what society is about. You have to justify why you "need" to be able to shoot 71 people in 5 minutes.

Your argument can be used against cars as well: Why do I "need" to justify owning a car to anyone else. Why do I "need" to be licensed to drive it. Why do I "need" to pay registration on it. Why do I "need" to tell the state when I sell the car to anyone else.

Why are you not asking these same questions about cars?

You accept these restrictions because these are reasonable restrictions. Because cars kill. Because cars can be used to help criminals commit crimes. So we place restrictions on who can drive a car. We place a visible marker on every car so that we can know who it belongs to. If a car is ever used in a crime, we want to be able to trace that.

Has this completely eliminated the ability of criminals to use cars? No. But it has made it harder.

Guns are more lethal than cars. How many times have you heard of a single car killing 12 people and injuring 59 others?

Even in a free society, freedom is not unlimited.

Well, considering that we are running at a pretty good clip of spree killing, nearly one every other year, perhaps we are past knee jerk, and we could be to rubber necking this, don't you think?

Bryan, you are arguing two separate arguments. The right to own a firearm was added to our Constitution in 1790, while there is no right to own an automobile. Cars, BTW, kill more people every year in the United States than guns. Government taxes are the reason why cars are registered, to help pay for the roads people people drive on, not because they are dangerous.

To use your cars analogy though, when, say an 86 year old man runs down 63 people at a farmers market (killing nine), there were no calls for anything. No one screaming, "There needs to be tighter restrictions on older drivers!" or "Buick's need to be regulated." Admittedly, that was an accident, but you asked for an example of when a car (a mid-sized car) was used to kill and injure a large group of people. Think about how many people could have been killed if he was trying to kill people or had a larger car.

When drunk drivers kill and maim tens of thousands of people, there aren't calls for restrictions on cars or even restrictions on alcohol, because it was the actions of a PERSON that caused the damage. With guns, people want to blame the gun. It isn't good or evil, it doesn't have a motivation. It's a tool made from steel, aluminum, polymer and wood. In the hands of a killer, it is a tool used to destroy. It is much more often used to protect others that to harm others. Far more often it isn't used for anything other than punching holes in paper or cans.

And where in any government document does it say I have to justify myself to you or anyone else about anything?

The truth of the matter is that I don't. I own two AR type rifles. There are millions in America today, and the vast majority are never sued for anything other than shooting targets or pests (they are popular with varmint hunters). I, like millions of other Americans, carry a concealed firearm. In sixteen years it has never been used to kill or maim any living thing.

The thing is, with Rights come responsibilities. As a gun owner, I have the responsibility to make sure my firearms are secured against unauthorized (by me) use. I have the responsibility to ensure that they are not used to harm people.

Mass shooters like Holms use guns because that is what is available. If somehow guns were no longer available, they would find another way. Most likely they would use some sort of explosive. How many people could have died if Holmes had brought in a pound of plastic explosives wrapped in screws packed with rat poison in a closed space? Dozens?

Colorado is not Kabul.

Did that stop this guy from building bombs in his colorado apartment howy61?

Are you sure you really want to make that argument?

Because we know that this creep wanted to kill people. He could have set a timer and exploded his apartment after he left it. He didn't bother. Think about that. The mass murderer chose guns.

Not the home made bomb he has shown he was capable of building and using.

He chose the guns.

Yeah, and what did Timothy McVeigh choose to use. Hint, it wasn't guns. I think he had a slightly higher body count too.

He could have set a timer and exploded his apartment after he left it. He didn't bother. Think about that.

Instead he booby trapped the door so they would go off when opened. He took the trouble to set the timer on his stereo to go on at midnight and blast music for 60 minutes. The woman living below him went up put her hand on the door, felt that it was unlocked which gave her a bad feeling and she retreated. They called the non-emergency police number and reported it.

He chose the explosives as well.

Just remember to aim for their heads.

Now divide that by number of Federal Agents in DHS and the fact that they have to qualify and that in many cases the ammunition they use is not off the shelf stuff.

This is not Barney Fife with his bullet in a shirt pocket.

Actually howy61 a lot of the ammunition they buy is in fact off the shelf stuff. In fact I'm willing to bet that the ammo they put in their m16's or m4's are the same ammo put in ar-15's.

Ok, McVey did what he did 17 years ago. This is happening over and over again in our cities every year. Wonder why we worry about this more? Oh wait did the facts confuse you?

. Lives were lost and there are folks out there who will never recover from their loss. How to help them is what is relevant

Yeah right, let's just ignore the cause and go on. Perhaps it will be your parent, child, spouse, friend the next time? How many people have to die before our country wakes up and does something to limit these high powered guns/ammunition?

Just when would the "right time" be, rusty-jarhead? Perhaps when this tragic story dies down in a few weeks or months? You could bravely bring it up then ... knowing it will fall on deaf ears because there would likely be no one to counter your position. Nice and safe.

I can see from the posts you cannot reason with a liberal.

Do you always start every discussion with an insult?

Your intention is not to have a discussion. I would guess from your statement that you either work for the gun lobby, the NRA or already have a closed mind.

Bottom line is that millions of intelligent, thoughtful, considerate and concerned citizens believe that we need to have strict gun laws. If you cannot understand that fact, you have no right to be heard. To speak, yes, of course. But to be heard, no.

You'd think.

But do you see the right problem.

Bass Pro should not have even needed to make a statement. They followed the rules.

Ban the guns?

No. Ban the mentally ill from purchasing guns as easily as bicycles.

I wonder if you'd be singing the same tune if you were in that theater.

The problem is the guns, more specifically the clips that go in them. Nobody needs more than 10 rounds at a time. 10 rounds can take out any domestic threat to your property and if you need more than a ten round clip to hunt with, then you probably should find a new hobby..

Maxx-1138: Really--I mean, really? Same old same old. Can you actually contribute something here?

We have more guns than people!! Are you hoping for more Zimmermans, or just free-for-all shootouts when kids go to the movies? Want the next Civil War? Miss the Wild West?

We are far more violent today. Really, what is it you want??

RTypo how are you coming to that conclusion? What evidence do you have that 10 rounds is more than enough especially against multiple attackers? If 10 rounds is more than enough for defense than why are cops allowed to have more than 10 round magazines? Also they are not clips they are called magazines get it right. I mean law enforcement is a defensive organization they are not offensive.

Also how would restricting the size capacity of the magazine prevent someone from just putting in another 10 round magazine, meaning the defender is now going to fire 20 rounds. The only way your argument works is if its illegal to own more than one magazine.

The detachable magazine is often erroneously-- referred to as a clip that hold only a few rounds to machine gun s that hold hundreds of rounds. ...

Ok so I don't know the terminology (I'm not a gun nut) but the idea is that at least the guy has to reload with smaller magazines. Walking into a theater with 100 non-stop rounds is unacceptable. In the Giffords case the guy had 30 round magazine. In both cases, if the shooter had to reload more often, lives might have been saved and/or less people would have been injured.

People with firearms and clips like those used in this shooting, Columbine, VA Tech, etc. commit massacres. A single individual cannot target, maim and/or kill this many people at one time with a gun NOT equipped with this kind of clip in a semi-automated weapon. You ignore the obvious. People use these weapons to commit mass-murder because they can pick one up while their shopping for bread and milk at WalMart -- and hilarously must do so before 10pm. Completely ridiculous.

DON'T Tell the NRA that a 100 cartridge clip is not an essential part of self protection........there could be 100 people coming at you or at least 10 big guys that need to be shot 10 times each to protect yourself..........Don't thread on the right to bear submachine guns or even more effective weapons because the Constitution says we can.....Doesn't it???

@RTypo

I can exchange my magazines in less than 2 seconds and I live in Commiefornia I deal with the 10 round max and guess what it's lame plus I have 15 round mags I purchased before the ban..

The scenario if 3 douche bags are going to raid your house of all it's goods and maybe the lives of your family 8( wouldn't you want the most firepower to protect them..

The M1 Garand Rifle also known as the Caliber .30
M1 truly was an American companion in three wars including World War Two,
Korea, and Vietnam. It continues to be an American Companion as thousands of
people across the USA avail themselves of the pleasure of owning a piece of
history that General George S Patton called "The greatest battle implement ever
devised".

The M1 garand holds 8 bullets. It's good enough to fight a war with but not enough to guard your home?

Well .30 is definitely powerful 8) but it will go through a wall and hit your neighbors family or who knows what...

The best is a 12G scatter gun like a Mossberg 500 8 shot then followed by a 9mm or .45 I guess .40 would do as well 8) The Judge is nice since it's 45 colt and 210 i think shotty shots

Over penetration is not good thing 8( The M1 is absolute American Battle Rifle 8) good for holding off a small incoming force 8p

mort44: This country was founded by people with post-graduate educations. Today, half the people in this country have IQs below 87; 80 is considered mentally slow.

So what should we do, arm children going to the movies? Arm all those mentally slow folks, let them shoot each other all over the place--we can stand the loss of innocents as part of the cleanse?

The Second Amendment was never intended by our forefathers to grant any individual the right to own guns. It refers solely to the right of the nation to have a standing army for national security. But what the hey, let's just eliminate the first half of the Amendment altogether.

They can shoot each other up, and let God sort 'em out--RIGHT?

many Public schools already have metal detectors.

You want them in every Mall and Theater in the country now?

So you think the Founding Fathers thought allowing a citizen free access to weapons in order to mass-murder other citizens was 'freedom?' I think John Adams and Thomas Jefferson themselves would laugh hysterically at that suggestion or have you tarred-and-feathered.

@LMarcT: Althought you may not personally know of a case where a hand gun was used in self defense, I invite you to visit and view :

Glad that the majority of Americans and the Supreme Court disagree with you Dee 8) it's Constitutional Law District of Columbia v. Heller

@impishparrot

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. — Thomas Jefferson

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. — Thomas Jefferson

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. — Thomas Jefferson

If Jefferson was around he would cry that current bunch in DC are crooks and far from patriotic.

You do realize that was written in Colonial times. Again, would today Adams or Jefferson approve of the WMDs -- Weapons of Massacre Deployment -- used in our country every minute to take a life, not for the pursuit of liberty, but for ideology or fame? Our Founding Fathers were into mano-a-mano fights. They did not use semi-automatic weapons as penis substitutes. They used the sword and the musket.

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. — Thomas Jefferson

exactly his point never ban firearms

Semi autos have been around for a very long time this guy was just a plain sicko

millions of Americans own high cap mags and semi autos they are not going on rampages 8)

Chris-374639: The logic of your statement is this: since crazy people do crazy things anyway, let's not bother trying to make our children & communities any safer by restricting access to the fastest, most immediate weapons available.

Yeah. Great thinking, that.

The one topic that is missing in these posts is the morbid movies like this that glorify evil, mayhem, death and destruction. These types of movies and games are whats poisoning the minds of our youth as well as making them unproductive in our society. They also glorify Gangs, drugs and the killing of innocent people.

If we going to continue to put restrictions on the 2nd amendment then we also need to put restrictions on the 1st amendment as well. If these movie producers, actors and game makers want to continue to make these type of movies, that's fine , but they should also be held accountable for the actions that those who kill like this maniac did. 1st Amendment rights need to come with certain penalties for the common good of the nation and the moral character that these people are making a profit on.

Dee, there are plenty of countries with a higher murder rate with strict gun control laws. Fix society first.

mean while, bass pro shops open tomorrow, at 12 noon!

i hear there is a gun sale going on. so stock up!!!

Please share with us your 'fix.' Government has not been able to do it. Religion has not been able to do it. Our many wars have not been to do it. The family - hetero, homo, who knows - has not been able to do it. Our academic institutions have not been able to do it. Military service has not been able to do it. Please, inform us.

If we going to continue to put restrictions on the 2nd amendment then we also need to put restrictions on the 1st amendment as well. If these movie producers, actors and game makers want to continue to make these type of movies, that's fine , but they should also be held accountable for the actions that those who kill like this maniac did. 1st Amendment rights need to come with certain penalties for the common good of the nation and the moral character that these people are making a profit on.

We have already put severe restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment has already been totally gutted. As of today, the entire legal arsenal that our civilian gun factories is capable of putting out is no match for the US military.

You are asking for more than is necessary. If we got rid of guns, all of this glorification that you decry would not be causing people to commit more crimes. Because it is not the movies that are involved in the commission of these crimes. It is the guns.

You do know there exists a 'rating commission' that places restrictions on who can and cannot see a movie? My point, Hollywood is regulated...perhaps more so than the banks or the gun industry.

AND there you go again. I did not say 'get rid of guns.' I only request a sensible gun policy. Did you know that the US is the largest black-market source of illegal weapons flowing into Mexico?

We have a problem and it is the NRA.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning these firearms...it's using them to murder individuals that's wrong. Someone goes on a rampage in a truck running over people at an outdoor mall, no one will question the legality of owning the car, it'll be the abuse of the right to own a car. I own either the exact same or very similar equipment to what this guy used including the 100 round mag drum. The only person who needs to fear it is those who would bring harm onto my family. Otherwise I use them for sport shooting and hunting(obviously not the 100 round drum for hunting). Just because one person abuses a right doesn't mean you should take it from everyone. It's like because someone speeds in a 30mph zone they lower it to 10mph to make it 'harder'. It could also be compared to taking my guns away because I might shoot someone as the same as cutting out my tongue because I might yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

@Dee turner:
You got all that from my post? I suppose if I posted that something was green you would say I said orange. Really though it sounds as if you are grandstanding. Going out and talking to and getting to know your neighbors better is something you can do now without waiting for legislation to be passed. Funny to use the word logic in your complete misquote. Do you even know your neighbors names? What I am saying is this guy was a recluse,unknown by his neighbors and that if they had reached out to him maybe they could have spotted something that may have prevented this.
Good luck with the new laws you plan on passing via web blog