I missed Vivian's comments. Must be because I put her on Ignore.

This message is for Theo who is one of the people that don't understand common sence either. You can ban every brand of gun in America,and it's not going to stop crime. Why are you people so hard headed to understand the criminals are still going to be just what they are. You are to quick to forget the old man in China who went in a school and cut up over 20 kids with a knife. If you want any good to come out of Cont,and CO. and the rest of the places,it's because the children who were shot died quick. They didn't have to suffer like the kids in China. Them poor kids have to live with that fear the rest of their life. I will tell you the problem. The guy who shot up the theater was in court today to see if their was enough evidence to try him,six month's after the act. My God man they caught him red handed. He should have already met a firing squad.If this crime and violence is going to stop,then we are going to have to meet violence with violence,and get these kind of sicko's off the street. How many murders are in some countries that cut your hands off for stealing. Lock them up and after afew years of being put away,and then add up their time off for good behavior,and they are back on the street. You handle your justice the way you want,and leave the people alone who have a better idea as to what to do. Thanks

Bill-36 My understanding was that none of the kids in the China incident died. Had that assailant had a gun I'm guessing some would have been killed which in my opinion is more traumatic than being cut. There is no good that I can think of that comes from children dying.

I agree that fair justice could be meted out much quicker in our country. It doesn't help that we don't want to pay enough taxes to provide a higher level of apprehension, and prosecution and that we clog the system with drug war foolishness.

Unfortunately I don't think there's any empirical evidence to support your theory that meeting violence with more violence provides the hoped for result of less overall violence. There is not evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent either. I say lock them up and throw away the key.

Sounds like a hit. First off an apartment with multiple gun shots and no one called to report hearing gunfire? Very strange

I'm a gun owner myself and have to agree with you Theo. I just applied for my concealed carry permit becuase I no longer feel safe out and about without a gun. It's really becoming the wild wild west out there again.

theo- thats just it, have you seen anything they have proposed that would have prevented these tragedies? i mean i heard they want to stiffen the sentence for bringing a gun on school property. the guy killed himself did he care what the penilty was for bringing the gun on the property. sure the smaller magazine might help but lets get real 10 rounds or 30 does it matter he just gets more of them. harder back ground checks the guy wasn't the owner of the guns that wouldn't have helped. closing the gun show loophole i am for that but in my opinion you would have to be an idiot to buy a used gun from someone you don't know. you have no idea what the gun has been used for and once its in your possion hey you are guilty. i am for it as well but they haven't said anything yet that has any help for the situation we are in. the guns were all purchased legally under the current laws. hows registration going to help they knew who owned the guns in both newtown and aurora. everyone wants more laws but we aren't enforcing the ones we have and once again. the law only applies to those who will follow it. in both of the latest cases i believe murder carries the a high penilty right? they don't care about the laws.

Theo - well spoken. It's time for responsible gun owners to take the lead and drown out the ignorance of people like Vivian. Tragedies like this are made worse by irrelevant comments from the inane. My heart goes out to the families involved.

Gun control people are not after your guns, they want to outlaw your ammo. Guns will become expensive paper weights.

I would understand your rationale if you knew what weapons were used in this tragedy. However, if this crime was carried out with a .38 revolver then your ban would do absolutely nothing. This is an example of what the pro-2nd amendment group is talking about when they mention knee jerk reactions. 100% of all gun purchases should include background checks and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue against that.

seriously- back ground checks are performed with all gun purchases unless its between two private sellers. any registered gun dealers must do a back ground check. doesn't matter if its a 44 mag or a 22 or a shotgun they all must go through a back ground check.

I am sure this is done in most cases. I'm more concerned about ensuring compliance with the current law and closing the gun show/private sale loophole. I know that in Texas that the background check is not on a federal level. How effective do you think that is? I do not support banning any weapons. Just bringing forward a more common sense approach to the laws that are currently in place with some revisions.

...Theo,

You can ban every gun out there, no more production of guns. This "bad guy" that shot these 4 women WILL get one, whether its a hunting shotgun or .38 revolver. You libs are beating a dead horse, lets enforce the laws on the books, put people away for good that use guns in any crime, rather than letting them go after two or three years, and preserve a freedom that people have fought and died for....before we lose the rest of them as well.

Hey there Theo....

How large was the assault rifle used in the UT Shooting years ago?

Oh my, wasn't that a bolt action?

And if memory serves me, a Russian made bolt action was the supposed TOOL used to assassinate a President.

WHY do you continue to blame the TOOL instead of the INDIVIDUAL COMMITTING THE CRIME?????????

The right wing will never get it. Australia had a sniper attack in 1996 and rolled in some relatively serious gun control. You can own guns, but to a limit. Yes, bad people have guns and there occasionally is a shooting. The chance of being shot in Australia is reported as 00.3% compared to being in the US. Evidence? Sanity can work. Only in the US is there an alternative universe emulating the lawless middle eastern war zones, and claiming to be right. Well many in the US are right. Far right and would be happier living in a cabin in remote Montana or the Dakotas to protect themselves from reality.

Australia doesn't have the 2nd amendment either rendering any point you think you have moot.

Well...because the law is the law. The only law that is law is the Constitution. Anything against that is null and and void, peroid. This is a Republic, not a democracy. That law that is the law pretty much states, "the right to have any and all guns shall not be questioned." You can't go picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you like. If you don't like it, take a hike Jack, and don't you come back no more.

You people and your debating. There is nothing to debate about. The Constitution of the United States of America is the law. This is a Republic, not a democracy. You can't vote the Constitution out, it is supreme...unlike your brain.

ArghONaught

The crime rate in Austrailia also increased exponentially after that.

Additionally, the Austrailians don't have the US Constitution or the 2nd Amendment to that document.

Please re-read my post with comprehension. I said I don't expect to do away with gun deaths, but merely hope to reduce the severity and frequency of such tragedies over time by adding more restrictions on capacity, effectiveness and better checks on purchasers and other measures. That's really the best we can hope for, but it's a worthy goal.

XDm9mm - The two work in tandem - the tool and the individual. You can't hammer in a nail without a hammer.

Jon Carr - I commend you on your brilliant response.

actually theo you are wrong guns do not kill people.the bullets do the gun is just the tool,so are we now gonna ban bullets, lets ban everything that kills and lets start with you anti-gun nuts cause your killing me

People keep comparing Australia to the US.

Australia has perhaps one fifth the population density. Second, has crime "against persons" decreased since the ban?

Theo-3270314

As I'm sure you are aware, there is a document called the Constitution of The United States. Subsequent to that, there is a supplemental document containg the first ten amendments to the Constitution. That document is referred to as the Bill of Rights.

Contained in that Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment which states in part......

"......the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" THIS part of the Amendment can and does stand alone.

The preceeding element of the Second Amendment.... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..........." cannot stand alone.

ANY restriction is technically an infringement. However, society in general and firearms owners have accepted some "infringements" only because they have not been fiercely contested in the courts.

And yes, the two work in tandem. However, please show me ANY other CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that has been infringed on. People claim you can't yell fire in a theatre. Not true, you can. HOWEVER, that does not mean you can do so without reprecussions. Your FIRST Amendment right permits you to do so. However, you can be held liable AFTER the fact for the results of your actions.

What anti-gun fanatics want to do is to punish ME by restricting MY rights for the actions of others.

There are 80 million firearms owners in this country. WHY do we need to suffer for the consequences of one, ten or even a thousand? Why can we not HOLD the INDIVIDUAL responsible.

You might be willing to relinquish your Constitutional rights, I and I will submit the vast majority of legitimate firearms owners like myself will not.

If you want to infringe on my rights, AMEND the CONSTITUTION. If you can.

PS: John Carr, while trying to make a statement, you have proved that if you can't support your position with logic and reason, resort to prepubescent name calling.

Here Here!

I support Theo and his desire to remove the weapons of mass destruction from the streets. There is not going to be a mass round up of guns but we could stop being hoodwinked by the NRA into buying MORE guns that have no redeeming value other than to kill lots of people in public places.

A ban on assault weapons would have no effect on the validity or practice of the 2nd Amendment, we already are denied access to fully automatic weapons except under extremely strict situations. The NRA in the mid 90's figured out a way to get around the law of the land at that time by getting the courts go go along with a ridiculous claim that an AR15 with a high capacity magazine is NOT an assault weapon. The Supreme Court should be thrown out on the streets to have to deal with their foolish interpretation mano-a-mano. I bet Scalia would change his mind pretty fast, LOL..

Banning semi-automatic and fully automatic assault weapons will NOT violate the right of a citizen to bear arms. Such a ban would only limit the arms they bear to rational weapons. Do we have to point out that you cannot have rocket propelled grenade launchers either, and that does not violate the 2nd Amendment. Why is the NRA so opposed to rational gun legislation? Because the self admitted crazy in control of the NRA has determined that it would cut into the NRA marketing strategy and his $1M+ salary is at stake....

Here is a compromise that will not forcefully take any guns away from any law abiding citizen but would start to reduce the insane number of guns at the access of criminals and the mentally unstable. If someone wants to buy a new gun, require the buyer to turn in two guns to be destroyed. If you have a gun and want to get another one, denying you that purchase because you dont want to participate would not violate the 2nd Amendment, you already have a gun. If you dont have a gun and want one, buy two used guns from the local gun shop and turn them in for the right to purchase a new one. PS, the average gun owner has more than four guns, how many can they use at one time?

tex2c2...I vote you to be the "collector."

xdm9mm "ANY restriction is technically an infringement. However, society in general and firearms owners have accepted some "infringements" only because they have not been fiercely contested in the courts."

Actually I think they have been contested, but my question to you would be are you opposed to civilian ownership of fully automatic guns and RPG's? If so then we aren't arguing about whether there should be restrictions but rather where to draw the line.

tex2c2...Bolt action rifles and single action revolvers is all you approve of. Please tell me I have read your comment correctly. If this is the case, do you think police officers should get to continue to use semi-automatic weapons? And if so, why would a police officer need a weapon that is superior to any weapon that a civilian is allowed to carry?

Poison doesn't kill people.... knives don't kill people.... cars don't kill people.... lightning doesn't kill people.... a 2x4 hitting someone on the head doesn't kill people....

Hey, all you anti-gunners out there, you better go march and all that stuff to make sure poison, knives, cars, lightning and 2x4s are all banned!

tex2c2;

Ther is a huge, major flaw in your "reasoning". You say "If someone wants to buy a new gun, require the buyer to turn in two guns to be destroyed. If you have a gun and want to get another one, denying you that purchase because you dont want to participate would not violate the 2nd Amendment, you already have a gun. If you dont have a gun and want one, buy two used guns from the local gun shop and turn them in for the right to purchase a new one."

If a person is required to turn in 2 guns just to be able to buy one, how the hell are they going to be able to buy two guns to begin with? Your "logic" is illogical.

Oh, and this part: "PS, the average gun owner has more than four guns, how many can they use at one time?" How many cars/hammers/saws/knives/bowls/spoons/forks/cups/etc do you happen to own? How many homes? How many of each of those can you use at one time?

Theo-3270314

I think you missed the part where people can actually already own fully automatics. I am in PA. I can go, apply for a license, and guess what? Go and buy an M60 hell even a Bushmaster min gun...even...a silencer. So? These things are legal, and they would be the prime weapons to do all these "mass" killings with...why don't I hear of these crazy killings in my state every day done by "actual" fully automatic weapons?

Theo is the type of person that accepts the penalizing of all for the transgressions of a few. If one kid screws off in class nobody goes out for recess. Meanwhile, the kid that F'd over everybody feels there is no real penalty and crews off even more. They don't have detention for the kids anymore because that is too demeaning. And so it is the same with our society - soften the penalties and punish everybody. That always solves the problem.

but if banning assault rifles and high capacity clips and magazines and tightening purchase and ownership requirements and background checks prevents just one of these tragedies,

Truth is, we have no way of knowing if any bans or further restrictions will prevent any such crimes, nor will we know if any were prevented after such bans or restrictions are enacted. We don't know anything about any mass killing until shortly after it happens. We also have no way of knowing the coincidental factors behind any mass killings. In all cases I'm aware of, which is most of them because I've been studying them for years, an autoloading rifle with a high capacity magazine has never been necessary to commit the crime the way it was carried out. Taking full advantage of the increased ammunition supply and potential rate of fire such a rifle (or even pistol) offers has required more skill than those who perpetrate mass killings have been using. It would be somewhat akin to having or stealing a Corvette and then leading police in an O.J. Simpson style low speed chase. In all mass killings to date, the victims have been concentrated in a relatively confined space they either could not readily escape from and were literally hunted down or else they were packed in so tightly that discharging any type of firearm several times or even discharging both barrels of a double barrel shotgun loaded with buckshot would result in approximately as many casualties. The relatively few people who have the ability to aim, fire, hit, reacquire a sight picture on the next victim (possibly now in motion trying to flee), fire, hit, and repeat the cycle just have not been committing these crimes. Oftentimes, the interval of shots fired and victims killed has been such that the fact the gun was an autoloader was almost moot and the same thing could have been done with a breakbarrel shotgun and a pouch full of shells if the killer had wanted to or if that was all he could get. If they're not able to get AR-15 pattern rifles or Kalashnikov pattern rifles, or even high capacity service pistols, then we might start seeing some of this.

I know that in Texas that the background check is not on a federal level.

The National Instant Check System check that all Federal Firearms License holders (firearm retailers) are required to submit prospective firearms purchasers to after they fill out BATFE Form 4473 is administered by the FBI. How is that not a national level background check? The only real issue is that some states have not been very good at submitting mental health related information. To the best of my knowledge, they've been pretty good about sharing the identities of convicted felons.

How large was the assault rifle used in the UT Shooting years ago?

Oh my, wasn't that a bolt action?

If I recall correctly, it was a Remington 700, chambered in 6mm Remington. I understand he also had a .30 carbine M1, though it may have been a commercial copy, plenty of ammunition for it, and maybe a shotgun he sawed off and several handguns. I don't recall that Charles Whitman used any but the hunting rifle. I do remember that his autopsy revealed a brain tumor which was regarded as certain to have killed Whitman within the following several months had he not been shot and killed by Officer McCoy.

And if memory serves me, a Russian made bolt action was the supposed TOOL used to assassinate a President.

Actually, an Italian M1891 Carcano rifle in 6.5mm, fitted with a cheap scope in mounts of dubious quality, purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods, a subsidiary of Pepsi.

The NRA in the mid 90's figured out a way to get around the law of the land at that time by getting the courts go go along with a ridiculous claim that an AR15 with a high capacity magazine is NOT an assault weapon.

Hardly. The law defined the features that made a rifle an 'assault weapon' versus a standard rifle and the manufacturers complied by deleting bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, forward pistol grips, and collapsing stocks. As if those features had any impact on the actual function of a rifle, eh?

Do we have to point out that you cannot have rocket propelled grenade launchers either,

Those are classified as a destructive device under Title 26 United States Code, Chapter 53, and are classified as offensive weapons under most state codes. They are not regarded as firearms, are not considered to have a valid use for either sporting or personal protection applications, and have nothing to do with the Second Amendment whatsoever.

Theo-3270314

The existing laws regarding civilian ownership of full auto firearms were also a knee jerk reaction to some situations in the late 1920' early 1930's.

However, interestingly enough, those laws never seemed to stop the criminals from using.... full auto firearms.... Thompson submachine guns come to mind.

Of course, there are those who DO own those types of firearms, but do so legally.

Personally, they're nice to own as a collector piece. However, to me, they have no practical purpose, and it can get very expensive to fire at a range.

The current shouting noise is about "assault weapons". What most people are too ignorant to understand is that there are no "assault weapons" in civilian hands. I don't know any individual that LEGALLY owns a US M-16, M-16A1, M-4 or M-5. I DO know people that own civilian models of those military firearms that LOOK LIKE military weapons, but not one has a selector switch making that firearm capable of firing FULL AUTOMATIC.

I do have several semi-auto firearms which many would "classify" as "assault weapons" only because they are black, or have picatany rails, or night sights, or silencers or folding/telescoping stocks or any multitude of other accessories that for lack of a better term just scares people. They don't know what they're looking at but it LOOKS SCARY. One rifle in particular has most of those items plus a few more. But my wife also fires it. Do you think a telescoping stock might be advantageous for this firearm? I'm just over six feet tall and have an appreciably longer reach than my wife who stands 5' 2".

Hell, the Ruger 10/22 my wife uses at the range can be classified as an "assault weapon" per some radicals in office.

And please tell me what is considered a large magazine? I personally don't have a use for more than a twenty round magazine in my rifle(s). But some say anything more than 5 is too much. I often go hunting for wild pigs. I've seen pigs hit 5 times continue a charge at a man. Have you ever seen what a pig can do to a man?

Oh, and on a personal note, I've intervened in a crime in progress. When the "youth" turned on me, I was forced to draw. Although they likely would have run anyway, do you think they might have been a little more brave if I only had a revolver instead of the 19+1 XDm I was carrying?

Oh... have you ever fired an RPG? It's a royal PITA and those rounds are astronomically insanely expensive.

Didn't read thru everyones posts however I think when they talk about banning they are attacking the problem from the wrong angle. How about instead strengthening our criminal justice system that keeps violent offenders permanently locked up verse the revolving in/out of prison door. I could add more but the point is there are other options that can be explored that would stand a better chance at actually saving lives and helping keep firearms out of the hands of unfit individuals without penalizing the law abiding.

Four women are dead, and the best you folks can do is argue gun ownership? What a sad lot you are. A violent, murderous person did this crime. Debate that. That's the cause, that's the be all, do all, have all. A violent person killed four people. If it hadn't been a firearm, it would have been a club, a knife, a stick of TNT. Murder is murder. A violent person did this deed; whomever used a tool to do it. I would be more worried about this evil creature out wandering around than worrying about what gun laws you can enact against law-abiding citizens. The last time I checked, you couldn't charge a crime to a tool. It's a person who is the criminal. That's what I would be afraid of, because this PERSON/MONSTER will not hesitate to slit your throat from ear to ear with a razor, knife, barbed wire, garrote, switchblade; bash in your head with a club, rock, brick, hammer; shoot you with an arrow, firearm, or atlatl. Murder using any tool (or even bare hands) is still murder. And the being who did it is the one to be punished--not me, nor any other legal and law abiding citizen.

Many condolences to the families of the deceased. This is a terrible tragedy. Please accept my sympathies for your loss.

WHY do you continue to blame the TOOL instead of the INDIVIDUAL COMMITTING THE CRIME?????????

The Right Tool for the Job

"Every tool has a purpose, and conversely, a place where it's of no help whatsoever."

Job = Murder. Interesting. Again, the sweeping generalizations are mind numbing. 'Splains a lot.

A violent, murderous person did this crime. Debate that.

What's to debate? Is there any disagreement about this?

Many condolences to the families of the deceased. This is a terrible tragedy. Please accept my sympathies for your loss.

I'm sure that your sympathies just mean the world to those dead people.

That's the cause, that's the be all, do all, have all.

Clue # 1: Guns are not innocent bystanders in so many murders. Guns are how we kill in the US. Capeche?

A violent, murderous person did this crime.

Is it easy for a violent, murderous person to get a gun? If you answer 'yes' to that question, what can we do about that?

I've owned a gun for fifty years. This is to the stupid guys who fetishize and worship guns: they have nothing to do with your freedoms except the freedom to feel like an even bigger putz.

Stupid Argument 1. "only criminals will have guns." Where do you think they get them, Latvia? They get them from the completely anarchical, yet legal gun distribution system.

Stupid argument 2: Guns don't kill people. Yes they do. I know you can kill someone with a teaspoon; you can kill someone with your bare hands. So what? Guns kill more people faster and more easily than anything else. Except, perhaps, McVeigh's weapon of choice. Will the NRA and other gun idolaters include a van full of explosives as part of our "second amendment rights?" Which, we might note includes a right never mentioned - the right and requirement to be part of a regulated organization in order to enjoy your rights to mayhem.

Stupid Argument 3- "All we need to do is enforce existing laws." - We don't have gun laws. We have a set of incoherent, loophole ridden, unenforced local sayings. Here's coherence: license, for a fee, every gun in the country. Create a national gun transaction database. Outlaw auto and semi-auto weapons. Outlaw high capacity magazines/clips. Move towards outlawing handguns. None are new ideas; none have been tried. And these should be national laws. A law in some city banning guns cannot succeed if anybody, law abiding or criminal, can drive twenty or thirty minutes and get whatever gun they want.

Stupid Argument 4- "That won't solve the problem." The problem can't be solved. This is the most vicious advanced western country on earth. But the problem can be ameliorated, the situation can be improved.

Stupid Argument 5 - "I need to carry a gun to feel safe on the street." This goes beyond stupid, straight to the realm of schizophrenic hallucination. Some guy out to get you isn't gonna come up to you little Wyatt Earps and say, "draw."

Stupid Argument 6 - "A good guy with a gun will stop these horrible mass shootings." You really need to check out friendly fire deaths. You need to check out the number of shots fired vs. the number of aimed at targets hit in stressful situations - by trained cops and soldiers. Not bozos who took a half day class.

Stupid Argument 7 "the second amendment the second amendment the second amendment and no we never quote the whole thing." The second amendment stipulates regulation. Well, let's try a little regulation. (7a) "the supreme court the supreme court." Has become a bunch of political hacks afflicted with conflict of interest in half their decisions.

Stupid Argument 8 - "Law abiding this and that." You guys deserve the J.T. Ready award, maybe a bobble head doll. Everyone is law abiding until they're not. Everybody is sane until they snap.

And there are more, but this is useless. Gun worship is driven by the paranoid fantasies of a poorly educated public, which creates our present condition of unlimited availability of guns, which, in turn, fuels the paranoia. And so the whole thing becomes a vicious circle of derangement and stupidity and the status quo remains, the situation cannot be improved.

Study after study shows that greater availability of guns correlates with more gun deaths, even one from the medical library of the U. of Utah (!):

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

The fact is if you favor the current or greater ease and speed of access to handguns, you are in favor of unnecessary death.

um, ok

davey, go somewhere else to troll. You certainly are busy giving your all here.

Obviously, you have not read the previous comments. Further, "I'm sure that your sympathies just mean the world to those dead people." If you could read, you would note that "families of the deceased" was the direction. And it is an APPROPRIATE statement, unlike your little diddling.

"Is it easy for a violent, murderous person to get a gun? If you answer 'yes' to that question, what can we do about that?" The answer--just as easy as it is to do anything illegal. Sadly, those of us who do things LEGALLY must jump through a number of legal hoops to achieve our wishes. We go the extra mile. Perhaps you can explain why I must be penalized for the actions of criminals.

Why can't they background check the 13,000,000 illegals that steal US resources?????

What resources are they stealing? Their are doing the work that Americans won't do. Come to southern California and see the Mexicans working for minimum wage while others beg for a hand out. How about we stop sending high-paying IT jobs to India. They are the ones stealing American jobs that people actually want! Been there!

Theo, you said: "And if the argument that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is a valid justification for not having more restrictions, then it is also a valid justification for not having any laws at all."

I say: STRAWMAN!

Stole this from someone who pretty much summed up all anti-gun arguments:

40 Reasons For Gun Control
Significant portions of this article are excerpted from Michael Z. Williamson's excellent and witty piece, "It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control"

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Perhaps you can explain why I must be penalized for the actions of criminals.

I do not think you should be penalized.

You are putting yourself forwad here as a rationale, sane person. OK then, rationale same person, show me where i said or even implied that you should be penalized.

I will wait for your rationale and sane answer.

If you find yourself at a a loss to explain your comment, please use this to understand how dificult it is to have a sane and rationale discussion about gun control. And, for you to try extra hard the next time you discuss this, to be sane and rationale.

I see a few are attempting to engage Davey here. Better luck talking to the drywall across the room.. At least you understand why it gives you the same blank look LOL.

LOL

LOL

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/former-gen-mcchrystal-assault-rifles-are-for-battlefields-not-schools/

"You can't hammer in a nail without a hammer" yes you can.. I have used the palm of my hand a few times and when i was a kid i used rocks and bricks when my father would no longer let me use his tools (because i would lose them or leave them out in the rain)

No, vivian wasn't being funny -- only stupid.

YUP!

explain to me how spot, if the killer in conn had 30 magazines that held 6 shots each whats to stop him in that situation?only takes 3-5 seconds to pop one out and pop anouther in

only takes 3-5 seconds to pop one out and pop another in

Why are you having lunch in between magazines?

Spot-1951183

Restricting the semi-automatics, fully automatic-s and expanded clips might not stop the killing, but it dam sure will decrease the body counts.

Year over year for the past 20 plus years the body count has DECREASED. Even more so since the Brady bill expired.

There was a gun in the home. It was used to kill the 4 people.

And it is more likely that the gun purchased for home protection will kill someone in your family than a perp. FACT!

tex2c2....remove suicides from those numbers and the statistic is more realistic. Goes to show that you can twist statistics however you want to meet a specific end.

FACT!

Proof? So everybody should rely on the cops to provide protection. That is like saying it is more likely the car in your garage purchased for transportation will kill someone in your family than if your rode the bus.

Maybe they did have a gun in the home. Maybe locked up safely so that the 4 year old wouldn't get a hold of it? Because if it wasn't locked up and the 4 year old shot himself, I'm sure that everyone would be screaming about how stupid the gun owner was. So saying that the homeowner should have been armed is stupid. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean that you're going to be prepared when someone points a gun at you.

and avon sales are going down too...

no, i blame you.

There is no need to blame the left wing media - they know they contribute to the problem by giving the perps their 15 minutes of notoriety.

I think that would be 15 MONTHS of notoriety, thinker.

...and more soldiers have committed suicide than have been killed by the enemy. How about the whole war is not even legal? I don't recall Congress voting to declare war.

What is it about "........ shall NOT be infringed" that is so difficult to understand?

I've voluntarily agreed to acquire a carry permit, although I believe it is technically unconstitutional.

Technically speaking, ANY regulation is unconstitutional as it is an infringement. HOWEVER, I do understand there are some restraints which society and even firearms owners have acquiesced to and accept those INFRINGEMENTS on a Constitutional RIGHT.

Damn right. Disagree with the restraint part. Fix our jacked up - disconnected society...won't have to worry about "some restraints." The number of bad things would be so low...wouldn't have to worry about it.

9mm, kinda lost in the argument again?

Look, 'shall not be infringed' are not the only words in the 2nd amendment and the 2nd Amendment is not the only part of the Constitution. If you expand your vision and look at all of it, you have a chance to see that there are some more important parts of the Constitution, particularly the Preamble that says the entire document is dedicated, among other things, to the idea to 'promote the welfare' of the American people.

Some of us can stand back and see the bigger picture here. We can recognize that the blind dedication to the 4 words you seem so hung up on is violatiing a more important part of the Constitution as protection of all of the American people, not just the ones still living with an 18th, or at best, a 19th, Century mentality. Where did this contradiction in the document come from? From the undeniable fact that the framers of the Constitution had NO IDEA what kind of weapons were coming down the pike from overzealous gun manufacturers. I cannot believe that they would have been so careless with the wording if they knew that the streets of America would be filled with millions of assault weapons that can easily get into the hands of the mentally ill.

That is why we see the shootings in the schools as a bigger threat to our way of life than anything your guns could do that is good. And we blame the NRA and its fanatical leadership in promoting access to those weapons that are used to commit these tragedies.

I remember when the smokers screamed bloody murder when they were told they could not blow smoke into everyone else's lungs. You and your gun blind supporters will scream too, but we must not allow your whinning to continue to threaten our children.

Take alook at this bigger picture:

"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, occurences 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
First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

I am sure that you understand the Constitution better than the Founders - right, got it.

I know the Constitution by heart, as well as the Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, and the Declaration of Independence. How much of it can you recite by memory? The Gettysburg address too, but I blame that one and the Federalist Papers on one of my teachers.

So what the hell is your point about the preamble? I can't decipher actual text from the sh%$ your fingers type.

There is no bigger picture to figure out here. No debate to have. Again, this is a Republic. There is no debate about the Constitution, it is what it is. As said earlier, amend it, or stfu.

MPA...

THAT IS THE FINEST I HAVE EVER SEEN IT PUT, AND I TELL YOU, I HAVE SEEN IT PUT A FEW TIMES.

tex - you deride 9mm for his literal translation of the constitution but you do the same thing by trying to read into what exactly the framers wrote. Could it be that they wrote it in such general terms that they did foresee the advancement of technology? Could they have written it so that they wanted the people to remain aware of the reign of oppressive government rule based on their plight? Do you not think they saw any advancement of weaponry in their own lifetimes?

The NRA doesn't promote access through fanatical leadership any more that the politicians promote knee-jerk reactions to some fanatic. The NRA supports the preservation of rights. Some perceive this preservation as promoting access. That is like saying if you don't lock your front door your are inviting in the burglars and rapists.

@mopa - Whoever you are addressing understands twenty-first century america better than the founders. And, you might note, none of the apothegms you quoted are from the constitution. Thus, you might note, what you have to say is irrelevant.

love your statement, media bias with an agenda.

Please furnish us with some examples that you think might satisfy your comment. Leave out the origin of this thinking, please, we have already heard enough from Limberger and his ilk.

Hey tex2c2 -

Weren't you banned this week under the name tex2c?

We'll miss you when your're gone - NOT!

To piggy-back on your notion: I've never heard of a drive-by stabbing. Have you? If people want to adhere to this ridiculous notion, then follow-through with its logic: Guns don't kill people, people do - WHICH IS WHY WE NEED STRICT GUN CONTOL LAWS!

Ya sweetie. And when the THNIC is packing you in the train cars like Hitler did to the Jews, wish you had your gun then. Ya, that is right, that is whole reason those "gun nutty forefathers" wrote that gun stuff in the Constitution. It is a wonder to me how people like you have survived past the age of 3.

KorriA, be careful they are coming to get ya. LMAO Unbelievable. It is a wonder to me KorriA, being that paranoid how you sleep at night.

LOL....continuous fear mongoring gets you nowhere! Ever wonder why your so paranoid? ObamaCare will get you the help you need. See, THNIC is actually looking out for even your DUMBA#$

Not paranoid, and sleep well. Seems the repeated history in..well...all of history says a lot. If you had paid attention in class you would recall that these type of "paranoid" thoughts have occurred over and over again. So, what do you think? Because we have the internet and electricity that is some how going to keep all the bad people from taking over and/or running the government...and not killing people in mass? So the over 1 million dead in the middle east doesnt count? Stfu, comment once you have a grasp on repeated human history.

Isn't American Idol or something coming on? Don't you have something to do, maybe shop or something?

Not fear mongering. Again, repeated history time and time and time again. If you count reading a history book fear mongering...well I have nothing to say. I'm not saying that peice of @!$%# is ACTUALLY coming, but it doesn't mean it isn't a possibility.

If you think Obama Care is going to help anyone, you are gone mentally.

Do you even know what the Bill is about? Apparently not.

*Meant to type THKIC, not NIC. That was honestly an accident. I wouldn't be that low, actually have some character. THKIC as in, The Head Kenyan in Charge. K and N are right next to each other on the board.

kori, you managed to say it twice, eh? That and your other comments suggest you are that low, despite your opinion about your own character. In fact, your comments suggest you are afflicted with paranoia, besides being a semi-literate POS.

I can count, and only see that I typed that ONE time. So try again. If I meant to say that I would not have corrected it. That would make no sense. I was trying to make a acronym on Morgan Freeman's famous line. I had what I wanted to type in my head, but what I did type was entirely different. I'm not the first nor the last person to have done that, as far as mistyping or misspeaking is concerned.

Again, far from paranoid. Very far. I sleep extremely well.

Secondly, you and a few (unfortunately it seems like many) live in this fairytell world where no bad can happen. I hate to break the bad news, but as I said before, just because we have the internet and electricity doesn't mean some seriously bad sh%$ can't happen.

If you are calling me paranoid for saying something like that can happen...

You are basically calling every founding father a paranoid fear mongering terrorist. I am simply regurgitating the same things they have said, just not word for word. It has been warned time and time again...to watch out for the type of behavior that we are seeing presented by the government today. If that makes me paranoid, then Eisenstein was paranoid and delusional for leaving Germany before the genocide started. That's right. One of the greatest minds in history saw that some bad crap was hitting the fan and said, "it's time to roll out, it's getting deep."

Not going to continue to defend a honest mistake in my typing, nor my actions for thinking extremely rationally.

What, is everything supposed to be like a nice Disney movie? What about the million plus innocent people the U.S. has laid waste too in Iraq and Afghanistan? Oh that's right, you are American, and they don't count. So based upon what I said, not only am I not paranoid, but the hypothetical actions that I am paranoid about have already taken place. Just like you call the war in Iraq and Afghanistan...a war. Well, as stated, in fact it is an invasion. Congress didn't declare war either time. Nor in Syria...nor in Libya. The President nor NATO has the authorization to send troops. Only Congress...which is ran by the people. That alone makes Bush and Obama (Clinton too) Presidents that have committed treason on the highest degree...combined...killing almost as many as Hitler.

So once you actually wake up and see what is going on around you...and once you are being herded like the sheep you are to your death...I have a feeling...you are still going to be calling me, paranoid.

Oh ya, one last thing. Here is some food for thought. If you read some of my other posts...you will see me being "arrogant" as far as being able to recite from memory...several important documents. If I recall correctly...the United States of America is NOT legally allowed to have a standing military outside of a Navy. So just the fact that we have an active Army is illegal in itself. You probably think the United States is a democracy...and you my friend...are the exact reason we are not one.

do you really think this shooter bought the gun legally?

you can buy a pistol off any street corner along with a cheap hooker in any city across america.

your STRICT GUN CONTROL laws will not affect the sale of street guns.

Diva,

Tell me, oh wise one....How strict? As strict as they are in Detroit, or Chicago, or DC?

Tell me.....How strict?

Anyway, I have an idea........Let's ban murder. Or, let's ban MASS MURDERS!

Strict gun control, ya mean like they have in Chicago?

We need stricter murder laws.

Obviously the ones we have are not working...

do you really think this shooter bought the gun legally?

The point is that SOMEONE bought the gun legally. Get it? And, in doing so, helped the NRA get their blood money from the gun and ammo industry that pays their $1M+ salaries.

tex2c; I am an older gun owner. If somehow all guns could be destroyed by people who think like you, I have a lathe and a drill press in my garage. Because broaching the barrel rifling would be a tough job, maybe I could make a decent crossbow? Will you outlaw machine tools also? Or maybe erase my knowledge of using a lathe? It begins to sound a bit like Orwellian thought control. If you and the others who think like you, want only police to possess weapons, then keep working at it. I (nor you) will live to see it happen. I will retain my guns and behave in a responsible manner as I have for more than sixty years. (since I was twelve)

Me too...I have owned guns responsibly since 1954 as well.

I am, however, aware of the frothing around the mouths of many who have fallen for the NRA marketing scam going on right now as they buy up as many assault weapons as their credit cards can support. Been to a gun shop lately? I do not want to destroy all guns, just those that have no purpose whatsoever except to kill lots of innocent children at a school. I have watched the NRA change from an organization run by rational people dedicated to the support of its members (mostly hunters) to an organization run by fanatics dedicated to supporting the gun and ammo industry. You?

What could be more ridiculous or treasonous than to promote a bunch of paranoids into thinking they could overthrow the US government by buying up hoards of AR-15's?

What could be more ridiculous or treasonous than to promote a bunch of paranoids into thinking they could overthrow the US government by buying up hoards of AR-15's?

More ridiculous would believing that it would NEVER be necessary.

The attacks on AR-15 are a symptom of the problem with the gun control folks. Like saying all those who drive red pickups are back hills rednecks. If YOU and others can come up with operational descriptions rather than cosmetics or "names" then many gun enthusiasts would be willing to discuss the topics. The PROBLEM is that "looks like" or "Know one when I see one" is NOT a valid argument and as Handgun Control Inc states.. they are looking for a "first step" in a series of steps to ban ALL firearms.

NO I don't want a Gatling gun. But if I did there are legitimate ways today to obtain one. That OPTION should remain open to collectors. Capacity limits are bogus without specifics. 10 .22 can kill but 10 .50 meets the same count yet is far more dangerous. A sling shot is almost as lethal as that .22. Is silent and much easier to conceal. What would you like to ban next?

I and others TIRE of the nanny state. We especially tire of our integrity being questioned for the actions of a VERY few. YES you tire of the automobile argument. 16000 people a year are killed by DUI and a large toll beyond deaths. Perhaps EVERY vehicle should have a $2000 breathalyzer installed that requires the driver to breath test every 30 minutes to prevent anyone from driving drunk? Or is your argument that DUI injuries and deaths are "less" important than those from firearms? The real solution is to prosecute those who commit crimes... prosecute EVERYONE on an equal basis.. be they someone from the lowest rungs of society or the most powerful and connected. Get TREATMENT for those with mental "challenges" but eliminate the get out of punishment by reason of diminished capacity or my daddy/mommy is someone important.

Back to the AR-15... please explain to me and everyone how the AR-15 differs from a .22 LR semi-automatic with a 20 round capacity. I ask that due to the way the previous ban and existing ones in CA are written. MOST 9mm today are either 10 or 16 capacity.. but I can pack a .22 handgun with a lot more and it makes sense for target practice for starters. MOST revolvers have a capacity of 6 but can be fired near as fast as a semi-automatic and reloaded by someone who has practiced quick enough to not make a real difference.

Fully automatics have been heavily regulated for years, since 1934 as a matter of fact, and again in '68 and again in '86.

Only one lawfully owned fully automatic has been used in a crime since 1934, and it was by a cop.

Now, let's say you do all that, ban 'em all, do you really think that with people able to pour in over the southern border that weapons and magazines will not find their way here via the Mexican cartels?

If you answered yes, you need to check your meds.

And even if you discount all that, do you have any idea what kind of damage can be done with a "hunting" shotgun?

That's the problem with the Fudds like Theo above, they say nobody needs a semi-auto and they are fine with banning them, so fine say it happens, then what will become the weapon of choice for the insane? Easily obtained hunting rifles and shotguns...

Sorry to hurt your brain with facts and logic.

why ban those, instead just put age restrictions on them, like you must be 50 years of age to purchase.

it keeps them out of the young hands doing the killings and allows those who are mature responsible too own them without pissing anyone off

Are you concerned with gun violence in general or just with the mass homocides? What about all of the guns that are in circulation now? Do you think our border problem down south is going to make the proposed legislation effective?

How old was the mother in Conn that was killed by her son and then he stole her guns to go on a rampage?

The answer is security and for liberals to stop vilifying an inanimate object. Add on top of that, have the media stop making these shooters infamous, just call them murderer and never release their names or pictures.

JS, get over it, NOBODY is vilifying an inanimate object, what is being explained to you is that the ubiquitous access to guns put on the streets of America means that flag waving NRA fanatics in the NRA leadership, whose only real interest is in SELLING guns, are the villains.

The guys in the NRA are not twisting anybody's arm. People purchase those weapons of their own free will. As long as their will remains free anyway.

Restricting the semi-automatics, fully automatic-s and expanded clips...."

I suspect you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.. Study the subject, consider the rebuttal. Then comment. Until then, be still.

seriously?!-2570893

Do you actually think you are immune from NRA marketing paranoia techniques? I bet you fell for the RNC platform of disinformation as well.

Good luck! LMAO...

or a pimp/hooker confrontation.

Has anyone else noticed that racist and gun fanatic often go hand in hand?

What did you see in the comments above that implied any racist thought?

I believe the statistics show that about 70% of gun violence is committed by gang members. (Chicago anyone?)

Here's an idea: "BAN GANGS!"

tex2c2 - have you noticed that anti gun and moron go hand in hand?

seriously?!-2570893

What did you see in the comments above that implied any racist thought?

Are you awake yet? pimp/hooker confrontation. What would prompt him to say that if he were not racist?

anti gun and moron, what do those two things have in common except in the minds of the paranoid illiterates?

just how is pimp/hooker racist? Last I checked no race or gender for that matter had a corner on either "profession". Perhaps YOU have a bias view on the subject?

did ya read the part were the 4 year old was there...so there maybe is alive witness...

The last handgun I purchased was from a Texas retail gun store, that store was required to do a background check on me. Any store selling a firearm is required to run the standard background check. They use a thing called a telephone or a computer. Did you think an FBI/Homeland/BATF agent came out and interviewed you? Not so refreshing that people post without some knowledge of the subject.

I think we should focus on education. Then maybe people will know when to use "our" or "are".

I think we should ban "Air thieves" who appoint themselves grammar cops!

I agree, Woodysr. Except when the person being corrected is claiming intellectual superiority. Then it is acceptable. Mitchell1204, exactly. It would also cut down on the need for so many psychiatric drugs.

Given the paranoia being spewed out by FAUX, Limberger, the NRA, and other right wing fanatical organizations, we will see emotionally disturbed kids coming out of puberty with greater frequency than we can deal with. My vote is to reduce their access to weapons of mass destruction in any way we can as we try to help them recognize that the world is not better dealt with by fear, violence, and hatred.

tex2c2

Given the paranoia being spewed out

seems nbc is participating in paranoia and fear mongering as well...

access to weapons of mass destruction

Ryder truck, fertilizer, diesel fuel. Please tell us what you are willing to accept to reduce access to those materials. We already have TSA for THAT other weapon of mass destruction.

Need we point out that fertilizer bombs are already illegal. Unfortunately, they can be made from materials that are not. Assault weapons, on the other hand, cannot be just made in the barn. It would be a lot simpler to reduce access to assault weapons than to reduce access to fertilizer.

I have never heard of a maniac carrying a fertilizer bomb into an elementary school, you? Can you get a grip on that?

Assault weapons,

Please DEFINE assault weapons.

Also didn't you state "weapons of mass destruction"?

I have never heard of a maniac carrying a fertilizer bomb into an elementary school

Seems some maniac simply parked a truck in front of the building .... no need to "drive in". He managed to kill quite a few children and adults.

It would be a lot simpler to reduce access to assault weapons than to reduce access to fertilizer.

You must live in some ivory tower to make that statement.. Ever been to feed store? Lawn care products? They don't even ask for an ID, even if you use a credit card.

so true, just more incomplete news reporting from nbcnews. in such a rush to get a story about a gun killing that they forgot to be journalist.

AgaintTheGrains

Please explain why you have trotted out 15 posts on this subject in the last couple of hours then.

LOL good one tex2c2