text:
High-Capacity Ammo Magazines Should Be Banned, Senator Says
U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg will ask Congress to approve a ban on ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. Do you agree with his proposed bill?
In the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced plans to reintroduce high-capacity magazine ban legislation in the 113th Congress.
Lautenberg's bill, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. It also would ban ammunition magazines that could be readily converted to accept more than 10 rounds.
"In light of yet another horrific shooting tragedy, it is clearer than ever that there is no place in our communities for deadly high-capacity gun magazines and I will keep working to pass my bill to reinstate the ban on them," Lautenberg said in a statement. "If we don't pass a high-capacity magazine ban this year, it will be the first bill I introduce when the new session of Congress begins in January."
New Jersey's senior senator cited the Newtown shootings—in which the gunman used a high-capacity rifle in his murderous spree, killing 20 children and seven adults—as reason for the reintroduction. But it goes beyond the Dec. 14 shootings to other mass killings in recent years, he added.
"These high-capacity magazines, which were used in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Virginia Tech, and so many other tragedies, were designed for one purpose only—to shoot and kill quickly," Lautenberg said. "We must take immediate action to ban high-capacity gun magazines and assault weapons so that we can prevent the next massacre."
Lautenberg introduced the same legislation in the current Congress. It stalled after getting referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar House of Representatives bill, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), fizzled after getting referred to the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also pledged immediate action in the 113th Congress, but her bill would go further in seeking to ban all assault weapons, plus high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Almost immediately after the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown, public and online debate over gun control laws raged. Some posit the shooting rampage wouldn't have been as deadly if the Sandy Hook Elementary School staff had firearms. Others decry laws that allow access to such high-powered weapons.
President Barack Obama weighed in when he visited Newtown on Sunday, saying, "No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this."
Tell us: Do you support a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines? Would a ban go too far or not far enough?
tony g2010
5:02 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Great idea, right now, people are literally running out to buy all the weapons that they think will be banned, purchases that they would otherwise NOT have made. People will buy them because they don't think they will be able to get them, they will want what they cannot have. The result is tens of thousands of more weapons in private hands, that probably would not have been sold. Don't ban them, make them so expensive that most people will not buy them even if they are available.
tony g2010
8:28 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
did not even take a day, this is just what is being reported.
Put a $1,500 surcharge on every high capacity magazine.
6:01 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
As always Lauthenberg woke up from his hibernation after the fact.
What was he thinking about all that time?
Cashing in on free publicity.
Why didn't he think of it 10 years ago?
7:37 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
well said, you are 100% correct. Late is better than never.
Stupid answer
6:07 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Should high capacity magazines be banned? Are you really asking a question that stupid ? I know, let's allow people like adam lanzas idiot mother to keeping buying weapons with no practical application except to kill people. While we're at it let's have weapons training classes geared toward mental patients so we can be assured of a repeat of this kind of horror.
10:23 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Why is everyone talking about banning an inanimate object??????
The crux of the matter is the PERSON who is mentally ill....
Does anyone else know the story of the guy who killed more than 20
people with a KNIFE in China, the same day this happened in Conn....???
Look it up!!!! Its not the guns people!!!! Wake up don't loose sight of your freedoms
10:33 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
DM, please tell me you're joking.
The deranged person in China who attacked people at a school with a knife WOUNDED 20.
NO ONE DIED. Not one person. Zero fatalities.
In addition, the shooter in CT gained entry to the LOCKED school because he SHOT his way through plate glass. Good luck doing that with a knife.
THAT is why we are talking about better regulating guns.
7:34 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
It a great idea to start with. Thanks for all politicians opening their eyes. Also need to discuss do we need guns in this modern society. Protecting of citizens is government responsibility. Authorities should look forward to ban all kind weapons totally. The GUNS ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTIONS, civilians do not need them.
10:26 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
How does the government protect citizens exactly? Sorry, but that's a pretty uneducated statement right there.
12:51 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Actually, no they are not WMD's. Wait... maybe this is what Bush meant when we invaded Iraq. He thought any gun was a WMD.
8:09 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
As usual...
Cars - primary purpose is transportation. Guns - primary purpose is killing.
9:14 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
ok heres one simple question sir:
Cars are needed for transportation to get to work, school, etc... what is an autamatic assualt weapon needed for?
9:35 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Again. Another stupid comment. How can you compare the two?
John Z
12:27 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I actually support zero tolerance to driving under the influence of alcohol -- one drink, you drive, you go to jail.
12:53 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Actually, my gun's primary purpose is to put some food on the table for my family. I go hunting and kill animals for food all the time.
I guess you are saying that's so last century, too.
1:02 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don't shrug and say, "Cars don't kill people, drunks do." Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America's traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s. Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don't treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure." - Nicholas Kristof
Karen P
4:11 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
If you need that big of a gun to hunt your a sh*tty hunter ... get some practice!
4:13 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
>> If you need that big of a gun to hunt your a sh*tty hunter ... get some practice! <<
Karen, we need big guns to fight oppressive government, not hunt deer. Do you suggest we start practicing now?..
Karen P
4:24 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
"Maxim" did I say that? I said if you need it to hunt .... Move to another country if you feel our government is "oppressive"
8:02 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
>> "Maxim" did I say that? I said if you need it to hunt .... Move to another country if you feel our government is "oppressive" <<
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, Karen. If you see the word "hunting" there, lay off the bottle and move to Cuba, in any particular order.
Caldwell Resident
9:09 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
All guns need to be banned. There is no reason in modern society for any citizen that is not in Law enforcement to own a gun. The right to bear arms was created in a time of frontier, when the average family needed weapons for protection and hunting. This Amendment needs to changed for the protection of people.
A ban on magazines of more than ten bullets magazine is not enough.
9:37 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I totally agree with you, Caldwell Resident. Why do we need guns in our homes where young children are? People who love guns should see the danger in this. How many of our beautiful angels must be slaughtered for people to wake up? Ban ALL guns. They are not necessary. Just killing weapons.
rusty corvair
9:54 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
There are not enough police to protect you. They respond after the crime has been commited.
12:57 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I go hunting all the time. Why should my right to go into the woods and kill a deer so my family can have dinner. You are saying that this should be illegal?
And I agree with Rusty. What if there was an armed security guard in the lobby of the school. The kid would have been taken out right away and the security guard would have saved the lives of all those children.
Larry Huyler
11:38 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Why do I own a gun - simple. When my safety or that of my loved ones hangs in the balance of seconds, I know that the police are only minutes (try to find a response under 10 mins) away. Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.
As for wanting to change or do away with the 2nd Amendment, let me caution you and the rest that think this way. Once that process starts, others will be changed or eliminated too. I take it that by you placing a comment on this blog that you enjoy your 1st Amendment right to free speech and freedom of expression? How will you, and everyone else, react when they want to take that away? A chip taken here, a chip taken there, and next thing you know, there's nothing left to take. The bottom line is this - if you don't want to own a gun, fine, don't own one but don't take away my right to have one. While you're at it, feel free to exercise your 1st Amendment right (while you can) and post a sign in front of your home telling everyone you are unarmed. Lastly, why does the President and his family get be protected by those with assault guns and I can't?
paul r
1:32 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Why are guns needed to hunt? People did it for thousznds of years without them, didn't they?
9:20 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Firearms are used for target practice, hunting and self defense. In the wrong hand, they kill.
Vehicles are used for transportation. In the wrong hand they kill.
Steak knifes are used to cut steak. In the wrong hand they kill.
A straight edged razor is used to shave. In the wrong hand they kill.
A baseball bat is used to hit a baseball. In the wrong hand they kill.
A golf club is used to hit a golf ball, In the wrong hand they kill.
A brick is used to build a wall. In the wrong hand they kill.
A hammer is used to drive nails, In the wrong hand they kill.
I can go on and on about what can be used to kill a person, but I hope you don't think we should ban all these things?
Even if the Government went door to door confiscating every firearm in the U.S., people would still be murdered by other means.
4:13 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A) so far,every single mass shooting that has ever occurred in the history of man, a gun has been involved. If golf clubs were used in 16 mass killings this year like guns have, we can start to think about banning golf clubs too.
B) the argument that "people will still be murdered" does not hold any water. do we make heroin legal because "people will still be getting high on other substances"?
C)If the only reasons that you need a gun are for "target practice or hunting", other hobbies can substitute.
D)If you need something for self defense, use a car, steak knife, straight edge razor, baseball bat, golf club, brick, or hammer. apparently they are just as effective.
9:15 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Vehicles, steak knives, razors, baseball bats, golf clubs, bricks, hammers...every one of these items has a primary purpose other than killing.
Guns primary purpose? Killing.
Defending yourself against a firearm is harder than defending yourself against any of these other items when they are used as weapons. Murder with a firearm is easier than with the other items...you don't need to be strong or big or even within arms' reach.
9:32 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
if lanza used a steak knife, a razor, a brick or any other idiotic object you compared to an automatic assualt gun do you think so many people would have been killed?
last week when a man attacked a school with a knife 22 people were injured. what do you prefer 22 injured or 27 dead?
9:39 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Badbul. You are right. However, not in the manner in which guns and assault weapons are used. Killing so many in so few minutes. That is the difference. If you cannot see the difference, you had better look a bit harder.
12:57 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
LVresident - So far every mass shooting has taken place in a gun free zone. Ironic, don't you think?
1:05 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Chris, the so-called correlation between gun controlled areas and higher violence is a myth sold to you courtesy of the NRA. The fact is, the U.S. has some of the most lax gun regulation in the developed world, and has the highest rates of gun violence in the world.
1:11 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jersey: No this is not a myth perpetrated by some NRA people. It is a fact that I read in the paper.
"Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone."
Fact from USA Today.
3:44 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Chris, I can also show you the fact that Japan, which has the strictest gun bans/controls in the world, has the lowest amount of gun violence. My point is, it's not that simple.
If you're interested, read this - I'm not seeking to change your mind, but since you clearly are interested in the topic, you might find this worth taking a look at.
(For the record, I am not advocating a Japan-level gun ban at all, though I am interested in better regulation. Think MADD... I don't want to take away cars. I wants to beef up our legislation and policing so they kill fewer people. That's all.)
5:11 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jersey, that is a very interesting article you posted. Some good things and some bad things. I agree with the tougher screening to get a gun. I mean, its a pretty simple process right now, but I agree with the fact that people should actually have to go to a hospital and get a mental health screening. I am sure that there are def crazy people out there who shouldn't have them.
But to outright ban guns. I mean, sure, if we take all the cars off the roads, then there will be no traffic accidents, too! And I def don't want to travel to Hawaii just to shoot a gun.
But, one thing we have here in the United States is a ton of open land with a plethora of wild life. I guess nobody in Japan goes hunting? Are there no farms in Japan? My friend has a farm with horses. She has to has a gun to protect herself and her horses from bears. She has never shot or killed anything, but a gun shot is enough to scare a bear away. If that bear came and attacked her, are people saying that she shouldn't be able to defend herself? The only thing pepper spray does is make it even more mad.
Now, of course, not many people live in the rural area's of NJ and not many people go hunting, but why should those of us who do have to have our rights and freedoms taken away because of the stupid actions of some fool?
9:07 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Chris, it would appear that we're closer in our points of view than we are far apart. I think that's the case with much of the population on this issue, thankfully.
My husband has a firearms license and hunts. I've been trap shooting (and I'm actually a pretty good shot). I don't seek to take the right to hunt or protect one's home away from responsible citizens.
My husband and I would happily undergo mental health screenings to buy a gun. We'd wait though background checks, get referrals, not buy 10 guns at a time, etc. We don't believe in 30 round clips on semi-automatic weapons. You may disagree with that one - there is a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree on these "gray" areas.
The important thing is to try and get a handle on the situation in a reasonable, measured way. I mean, Ronald Reagan supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban for God's sake. Today, the NY Post - the POST - editorialized that it's time for change.
God willing we can do something to prevent these kinds of massacres in the future.
12:37 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Chris, that is probably the most well stated argument I've ever read. I have always been on the fence, so to speak, as far as how much gun control is necessary and you've really made some great points. Perhaps you should be the voice in congress. It's nice to see someone be able to argue their case without name calling and immature nonsense.
3:02 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Wrong badbul. Guns are designed to kill. Period, end of story. In any hand they kill.
Larry Huyler
11:47 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
LVresident, your myopic argument shows your prejudice as it just references shootings, how about other mass killings that have been committed by poisonous gas, bombs, tainted kool aid, machetes, strangling, arson, etc., etc.? Regarding your "D" comment, I guess you've never heard that criminals have GUNS, and only a fool try to stop one without a gun. So if you take the guns away from the law abiding citizens then the only ones with guns will be the nogoodniks.
Karen P
4:33 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Machine guns and guns with high-capacity ammo magazines are made to kill .. not for "sport" or self defense (unless you are a soldier at war)
Karen P
4:36 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
none of those items can kill that many people that fast ... its an idiot response really ... its not proving any point but people defending those kinds of guns are idiots ... its really sad that this is the best you can do to defend your point .... please go tell the parents of those children that if he had a steak knife or bat or hammer he would have been able to kill all those people ... PLEASE go tell them that!
9:52 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
You may be correct, the impact may not be like Newtown shooting or other recent shooting.
Please suggest for discussion one reasonable and constructive suggestion for gun control and how to manage humanly these weapons of mass destruction.
10:10 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Let's think differently - insurance:
1:10 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I've got a couple, if you don't mind.
(1) Close the gun show loophole. Require background checks for all purchases of firearms. There is NO reason a felon should be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a weapon, no questions asked.
(2) Prohibit the sale of firearms to people who are on the Terrorist Watch List. Sound like a no-brainer? The NRA has strong-armed D.C. on this one, if you can believe it. People connected to terrorist groups can legally buy a gun, because to prohibit that would "threaten the 2nd Amendment".
(3) Require mental health screenings for any person who seeks to purchase a semi-automatic or automatic weapon. No need to seek mental health records (which is tricky from a privacy standpoint and can be useless if a person never sought treatment). But submit to an assessment. The military requires it prior to arming soldiers, as do police forces, why not?
My husband has a firearms license, we support responsible gun ownership. But it is time to set limits. You don't need 30 rounds to shoot a deer. A schizophrenic person should not have an AR-15. A terrorist should not be allowed to buy any gun.
These suggestions seem reasonable to me.
1:23 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jersey, even I - a staunch 2nd Amendment rights supporter - won't argue with the first point. The gun show loophole is ridiculous. Do we even have them in New Jersey?
Terrorist Watch list is a trickier business. There is zero public control over it, and (naturally) zero transparency as to how names get into it. There's a notorious DHS instruction to consider preppers, anti-abortion activists, people criticizing the President, and even combat veterans as potential terrorists. Nothing would prevent the government to add, say, all its political opponents onto the list.
The third point is also a bit slippery. Brain functioning is a very subjective matter. Whether the evaluations are run by governmental or physicians, they would have incentives to bias their decisions, either for political or commercial reasons.
Unfortunately, there is no legislative replacement for eternal vigilance.
3:51 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Maxim, fair points.
I would think that the Terrorist Watch List issue could at least be resolved with a more thorough review process of the applicant. Much like how it leads to additional screenings at the airport, perhaps we could just require some additional background checking for people on the list. I think it's a little conspiratorial to think that any administration would just start adding names to screw with people, but that's just me. There could be a way to say, look, the CIA has seen this guy all over the internet supporting terrorist plots, let's slow the process down and look a little closer before letting him buy a Glock.
As for the mental capacity, also a fair point. But subjective decisions have to be made all the time. The military and police require people to pass mental fitness exams, and they make the call. There has to be a way to do it. Maybe you leave personality disorders and/or mild depression out of the mix, maybe you target mental illness that causes lack of capacity to understand right versus wrong. But it IS worth talking about. I really think that a country this advanced can make the determination that if "the voices" are telling you to go get an AR-15, you're going to get a big "sorry, no way. Not happening"
4:07 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jersey, doesn't issuing a NJ gun permit, as of today, require a psychiatric history review in addition to criminal record check? It is the main reason why issuing takes so much time, but that's a nuisance I'm willing to cope with. As for TWL, I definitely don't want to entrust my in-state rights to a federal agency. Also, real terrorists don't give a rat's arse for laws and will obtain guns even if it means killing a cop for it. Therefore, whatever restrictions TWL imposes on gun ownership will be pointless.
If I were to suggest a measure, it would be mandatory range exam, say once in 3 years, for every registered assault weapon owner. We impose same on drivers, so the general public won't object, and NRA may actually support the idea. It will decrease the stock of "idle" firearms that are most prone to theft and misuse, take dangerous toys out of hands that can't use them, and instill the sense of responsibility.
5:21 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Maxim Sapozhnikov: In the state of NJ, you have to apply for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. Separately, you also have to apply for a Permit to Purchase a Handgun.
The ID card says that you can go into a gun shop and buy a long gun (i.e. a shotgun, rifle, ar-15.. whatever). With the ID card, you can buy as many long guns as you want.
With the handgun permit, you have to apply for a permit for every handgun you wish to buy.
Furthermore, you also have to register your gun with the local police department.
So technically, they do and do not issue a permit to own a gun. It depends on if that gun is a hand gun or a long gun.
5:36 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Chris - thanks for the information. I applied for both ID card and handgun permit simultaneously so didn't remember exactly which form is for what. I was told by the local cop who took the forms that psych history review is a part of the background check now.
9:15 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Chris, thanks for that info.
Maxim, my understanding based on my husband's experience in attaining a license for a handgun (not a hunting rifle) is that in NJ, you have to submit to having your mental health records reviewed. That's different than submitting to an affirmative mental health screening. The difference is this: Someone who has never been diagnosed or treated for mental illness would come up clean in NJ's system. But perhaps they'd be snagged in a screening.
Incidentally, I find it crazy that once you have a firearms permit like my husband has, you can go out and buy an AR-15, but you have to do more for a handgun. I get it, handguns can be concealed, but this may be a point worth discussing.
2:13 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
In addition to the mental health background check (which is currently illegal under HIPAA laws) - do a prescription drug search. Insurance companies do both before you get coverage. We'd know who needs treatment, who is or isn't getting treatment and who is addicted to prescription drugs. All should be part of the background check.
Karen P
4:29 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Why is it we are required to take tests and learn how to operate a car safely yet there is no need for this to get a gun? All the idiots who are now running out and getting guns and have no clue how to use them safely .... its easier to get a gun then it is to get a drivers licence .... your personal doctor should have to sign off on the permit that you have no mental illness at this point ... Im a supporter of guns BUT ... Im sure the constitution didnt mean machine guns....
Graeme Hardie
10:47 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Not enough Senator! Be Bold Senator! It is time for a GUN FREE USA! Nothing less is worth fighting for Senator!! Be unequivocal - we don't need compromise on this issue! We have compromised for too long!!!
10:55 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Well said, I like it. "O" guns in USA. Let hem start with that idea of FREE USA from Guns.
9:43 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I agree totally. Enough of this crap. Guns are not toys. Maybe as a parent, I went a bit too far when my children were little but I refused to ever purchase a toy gun or even a water pistol for them. The meaning of these things was only for shooting. So call me a bad mother. I felt good about it and I raised three wonderful and caring boys who turned into wonderful and caring men.
The Stig
10:47 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
How about banning fossils pretending to be United States Senators?
11:25 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
Do you mean aged senators?. My be we need young clean blood in administration.
Tony BEE
11:20 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
You can take away all the guns people will find away to kill,so keep the guns at least you will have a fighting chance.Just maybe if some of the teachers had a gun and were trained to use one,Adam Lanza's family would be the only family saying goodbye to a love one.
11:37 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
what a bunch of morons. take away our guns is raking a way what AMERICA is. and that is freedom. can you tell me what states are most of these mass killings are happening in? the ones wirh the strictest gun laws. I was raised around guns I would never kill another human being unless they where going to kill or harm any of my family. & I would give my life protecting anyone specially any & all children. and civilized citizens do neeed guns to defend them selfs & family & friends from criminals & the over powered government.
9:46 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Freedom to go out and kill 20 innocent 5 and 6 year olds and 6 innocent and wonderful adults. Is this the freedom you are referring to? If so, hardcorebiker, stick to your bike and get a brain. This is what you are missing.
John Z
12:33 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I am not sure Americans are so civilized. Moreover, Russia, China and most other modern nations were also founded on guns.
Gene Osso
3:04 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Great idea senator. This way law abiding citizens who harm no one cannot have something a criminal will have. So, when do we ban smoking since about 500,000 people a year die from that, it is harmful to everyone and its a tremendous burdon on healthcare costs? While youre at it, hack away a few more of our freedoms you opportunistic joke of a politician.
9:47 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Smoking was YOUR choice. It could kill you and you were warned about the danger of smloking in many different ways. How can you compare what happened on Friday in CT and a stupid person smoking?
Gene Osso
2:55 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I dont smoke but I have to pay for those who do.
As a matter of danger to people's lives, smoking is the no.1 preventable cause of death in America. Why is it still legal if 500,000 people a year are dead from it? 2nd hand smoke is alos a danger - pregnant women who smoke kill ther babies and harm their health - that's not the child's choice. What are they supposed to do?
11,000 people die in drunk driving accidents a year - the innocents who die - was it their choice?
3:00 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I like your smoking analogy, but people will always argue that it is off topic because while it kills exponentially more people than guns, it takes more time to kill someone with cigarettes and doesn't produce an emotional news story when people die from it.
2:16 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sorry Gene obesity has topped smoking as the #1 preventable cause of death. Also the biggest fiscal burden we have as a nation - in health care costs, hospital retro fitting costs and disability payments.
Larry Huyler
11:58 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
OK, so the logic here is take away the guns and less people will die. How about using that same logic to take away spoons? Obesity is the #1 killer in this country now, so if you take away spoons people will eat less and less people will die.
Give me liberty
6:23 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I do not know what the answe is. It seems to me that like a gun a car or truck , a plane, fertilizer, chemicals, home made explosives can and have killed large numbers of people in this country. I think we need to figure out the underlying reason people would commit such horrible acts and try to understand the reasons. With out that we are treating a symptom and not the cause. This I believe is much harder than banning guns I don't own one and probably never will. I have used them at ranges and I do not want one. Guns no matter how controlled will always be available to people regardless of the law. It might make it more difficult to get. Look at the current administration putting guns on the street in neighboring countries. How would someone feel living near our border and having a criminial that has easy access to weapons come accross the boarder and they no longer have a gun because the US took it away and they can not defend themselves. A very difficult issue. Hollow point bullets are illegal and people still get them. So we can pass as many laws as you want I don't see it as a panacea or effective way to stop violence against anyone.
Mark Lipinski
8:39 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Just listening to NPR this morning. Interesting that New Jersey Congressman, Frank LoBiondo (whom the NRA has in it's back pocket) was too much a coward to even make a comment on discussing his involvement with the NRA and steadfast refusal to compromise on any kind of gun control. His stance not just the nation's problem but he is OUR problem as New Jerseyans. I called his office, tweeted him and wrote. He works for the citizens of New Jersey NOT the NRA. If he's going to take a hardline stand, then at least he should have the spine to defend it - - or get out of office! http://lobiondo.house.gov
Arthur. Gartenlaub
8:50 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Doesn't anyone remember the disarming of civilians in Germany circa 1940? Is it possible to repeat history? Banning high capacity magazines makes sense, making tougher gun laws may make sense ( e.g restriction on allowing people who receive certain Rx, people with specific criminal records, etc)...but banning all weapon removes one of the freedoms upon which this great nation was founded.
9:13 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Carried weapons save lives and property of their owners every day and the so-called "mass media" never lets out a squeak, but every deranged shooting turns into a month-long hysterical bacchanalia. Liberals sure know how to exploit a crisis.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamen Franklin
10:02 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
i find it almost comical when people try to bring up the 2nd ammendment. i have the utmost respect for our finding fathers however i understand they were not fortune tellers. the constitution was written in 1787 it is now 2012. when the second ammendment was written they meant every man should have the right to bear arms, mainly to protect themselves from a british attack or indians which was a likely possiblilty in 1797. by arms they meant Flintlock pistols and Flintlock Muskets which were the type of guns that were avaliable then.
if you really think the 2nd ammendment was intended to give a middle age women the right to have a collection of guns including assualt rifles in a house with a child with mental illness and behavior issues then i thnk you misunderstood what are founding fathers meant.
if you conservatives really cared about the constitution you must consider bush the worse president of all time. the patriot act is the most anti constitutional law EVER passed. however most logical thinkers realize our founding fathers did not think terrorists would be flying planes into skyscrapers when the consistution was written in 1797
10:07 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Bush actually was second worst President in my adult memory, though I'm sure Lyndon Johnson or Woodrow Wilson could give him a good run for the money.
As for the Second Amendment, it was given to us so the President wouldn't decide one day that he doesn't really need our consent to rule, and that he much prefers the Chinese form of government. Perhaps they *were* fortune tellers, those Founding Fathers, huh?
Duncan Munchkin
10:10 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
>> Carried weapons save lives and property of their owners every day <<
You must be referring to incidents like that teacher that shot a "masked" person in "self-defense" and found out it was his own son? Think he is still glad he was packing heat that night and didn't try something else?
Or maybe that guy in Minn who executed two teens who sneaked into his house...admitting to cops that "he had fired more shots than necessary." He was just "protecting himself" when he fired a handgun from under her chin up through her head as she lay on the floor gasping.
10:24 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
No, Mr. Munchkin, I am referring to these:
Want another few thousand examples? Guns are like blades. They can kill, and they can save lives, depending on who uses them.
I am Spartacus
10:28 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Nobody caries around assault weapons for protection or needs a high capacity magazine to protect themselves or their property.
12:40 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
agreed with spartacus. Arguing for high capacity magazines is absurd.
10:46 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
(0) does that mean freedom of speech only applies to spoken word and print, the only ,means of expressing an opinion at the time? Does it still cover anonymously posting on the internet?
Pete Sesnick
9:57 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." —Adolf Hitler, 1935
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Perhaps those of you who wish to deprive me of my Second Amendment rights can tell me how taking away a law-abiding citizen's means of self defense makes us all safer.
In the Twenties, the Progressives banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol; today, we have banned certain drugs and restricted access to others. The principal result of both actions was the establishment of enormously powerful and ruthless criminal organizations - armed to the teeth. Criminals, the insane, and government agents (there's some overlap there) will always have access to high-powered, high-capacity firearms. Law-abiding citizens should at least have access to equivalent fire power for defensive purposes.
The Justice Department estimates that each year in the United States there are between two and two and a half million instances of firearms being used to deter crime. Obviously, in the overwhelming majority of cases, no shots are fired. The mere presence of a firearm was sufficient to prevent a crime from taking place.
Instead of taking firearms off of the streets, how about making an effort to get the criminally insane off the streets - grandstanding politicians notwithstanding.
1:21 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Pete, you left off the first phrase of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment has historically been seen not as providing the right for an individual to bear arms, but rather, the country's militias. As the NRA morphed from a gun safety organization into one of the country's largest lobbying contingencies, it started to push HARD for a different interpretation. It was only recently that Scalia decided to lead the way to change over 100 years of caselaw on the issue (in Heller). Thank your lobbyists.
The NRA, through its propaganda, often refers back to Nazi Germany as an example of why we must keep guns in the hands of our people. But the analogy doesn't work for a number of reasons. Most importantly.. If a tyrant of some sort rose to power such that he was able to take control of the government, he would have the U.S. Military, FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals and police forces under his command. The civilians would be doomed.
On the other hand, if such tyrant was taking over other civilians, those military and law enforcement groups would handle it.
Lucretia G.
10:00 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Tragically, three thousand people die every year from food poisoning. By anyone's math, those numbers dwarf the casualties of all the highly-publicized mass shootings combined. Perhaps we should institute a ban on food? A few people might starve, but it sure would help with that obesity problem—and the political parasites that thrive on tragedy could bask in the everlasting adulation of simpleminded sheep.
10:15 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The purpose of guns is killing. The purpose of food is life.
BTW, guess you are suggesting that we need more government regulation of food.
I am Spartacus
10:27 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The number of homicides committed using firearms in this country far exceed the number of people who die from food poisoning.
Lucretia G.
10:44 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Dear, I was being sarcastic, but I guess that went ovine your head.
Lucretia G.
10:54 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I am Spartacus:
I was referring to mass shootings where the media and politicians descend like vultures before the bodies are yet cold—not Saturday night in Newark.
A. Newarker
10:04 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
With the Newark Police Department grossly undermanned to the point it can't respond to routine auto accidents, short more than 300 officers (214 just in 2011) and crime up in 2011 10 percent, We need more guns not less in the hands of armed citizens capable of treating criminals as their superiors and not the other way around.
Dazed not Confused
10:14 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Every gun owned by a citizen is a another opportunity that it will end up in the wrong hands. Did we learn nothing last week?
Deleted because of harassment
10:20 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Studies done by the BATF found that most concealed carry permit holders still lacked the training to effectively use their weapons in an emergency to defend themselves against similarly armed attacker. Gun ownership to defend yourself requires constant, continued training, not a gun in a closet that gets fired once a month, if ever. Gun owners are equally likely to be overcome or their weapon used against them in a confrontation; they are professionals and know what their intent is while the gun owner is only an amatuer. We need to ban high powered paramilitary guns from civilian hands, the ability to fire more than 6 shots at a time without reloading, the caliber and destrutiveness of ammunition. Must of this can be done by simply taking the ammo and clips off the market and banning their ownership by individuals. We also need full and complete background checks prior to purchase and serious criminal penalties for those who violate the gun laws or curcumvent them. A firearm of any kind without ammo is a paperweight or a piece of decor to hang over the fireplace. We can not remove the human impulse to kill, but we can make it harder to give in to it. Our right to freedom depends upon it.
10:48 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
i have a friend who keeps his gun in a safe in his bedroom, he has kids so he keeps the gun in a safe at all times. he tells me the gun is for his families protection incase someone breaks in. i always think what if youre in the basement or kitchen when someone breaks in, are you gonna ask the robber to be excused while you go get your gone from your safe upstairs? what if its more than one robber with multiple guns?
technically if a robber came to your house your family would have a much better chance of surviving if you cooperate and give them what they want instead of trying to get into some kind of shoot out with them.
10:51 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
(0) What about in cases where what they want is not something you are willing to part with? What if they are there to harm your wife or children? What do you do then? To think these are unlikely scenarios is a bit naive.
10:55 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
(0), when a robber breaks in, you should show him to your valuables, then kindly inform him that you are against gun violence and voted for Obama in both '08 and '12. See if it works, and report back to the forum.
11:10 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
maxim- if i took your suggestion my family would be much more likely to survive. when a robber breaks into your house pull a gun out (if you can get to it in time, pretty sure robbers dont call ahead to make sure you got your gun ready) once he sees you have a gun he will immmediately strat shooting even if that was his original intention.
11:27 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
(0), New Jersey law forbids using (or even brandishing) a gun unless one's life is in direct and imminent danger - see, Democrats value safety of violent criminals higher than that of homeowners, they have to protect their faithful voting bloc. What you suggest me to do is breaking the law, which I will not do. A baseball bat or a machete will have to suffice unless the intruder pulls out a firearm, in which case I'm free to shoot.
John Z
12:36 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
We a robber breaks in, I would say: "here are my valuables, take them."
My valuables are insured. At full replacement cost. I would probably be ahead of the game... ;)
But more important, only a psychopath would justify killing a person to save their bling.
John Z
12:40 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Deleted. You have the most sane post here. Odd are very much in favor of an armed attacker being more versed in handling guns. Statistically speaking, gun ownership does not make an individual safer from violent crime -- it increases the risk, especially for women in households where guns are owned.
10:23 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
i understand a gun for hunting or if you want one for persoanl protection. but i just really have no understanding why anyone would need an assualt weapon and why they are avalaible to the public. when i say i think assualt weapons should be illegal i am considered anti gun and anti 2nd ammendment when this is not the case. so if anyone can tell me why anyone would need such a weapon and not just because it is thier right i would appreciate it.
people also say they will just get the guns illegally, i agree some people will like gang members who usaully use their guns against rival gangs. most of these sick school and movie theater shootings are done by nerdy white kids who keep to themselves. i find it hard to believe lanza would have dealt with or been in contacf with the type of people where he can get a gun illegally. if anything he would have gone to the ghetto and have his money stolen while trying to obtain an illegal gun.
10:36 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
(0), I repeat for you and others who keep asking the same question. Private citizens need military-grade weaponry to use it against the government, in case said government decides to cancel elections and impose a regime change. If you believe such move to be impossible or even unlikely, I suggest that you re-read some history books, and listen to the current President who openly praises the superiority of Chinese political regime.
10:40 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Maxim, unfortunately people in America are so blind that they don't even consider that a possibility. "It would never happen in America." I fear this country is going to learn its lesson the hard way.
11:06 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
so maxim, we should ignore these horrific incidents and keep allowing 20 yr olds with mental problems to be able to obtain guns just incase obama tries to become the next hitler?
11:13 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
(0), we need to keep the weapons out of the hands of mentally incompetent people and, failing that, protect our schools better. "Gun-free zone" poster discourages a murderer about as much as a "Free stuff here" poster discourages a welfare queen.
As for Obama, he's already far down that way. Not that Bush was much better...
9:50 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Maxim, respectfully, that argument is dead. That is, the argument that we have to be armed against a government.
Here's the thing. Our "government" is never going to impose a "regime change" because that doesn't even translate into today's U.S. government. What are the scenarios here, really?
- An elected President decides to "cancel elections" - um, no. Not without our legislative branch and judicial branch signing off.
- the legislature goes bonkers and tells the CIA, FBI and military to do their bidding. Good luck, they can't even agree on tax reform.
- Some tyrant comes in and shoots up the capitol to "take it over" - good luck agains tour military.
Anyone who does pull a successful coup in today's U.S. government would have to take control of our military, ATF, FBI, police forces, etc. Good luck to any civilian group using any available weapons against a nuclear military.
Be rational here.
10:23 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jersey, a very possible scenario of a regime change may present itself in a very short future. If the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling (unlikely yet possible) and Obama refuses to cut spending (as likely as sun in August), Obama will (again, quite likely) instruct the Treasury to ignore the Congress and issue T-Bonds. We'll have a full-blown Constitutional crisis that may usher in a regime change, or at least an attempt thereof (sample case: Honduras, 2009), possibly with some shooting and rioting involved. To answer your other argument, the Army will not interfere in such crisis but will likely attempt to mediate between the sides to prevent massive bloodshed (sample case: Egypt, 2012).
Another, somewhat less likely scenario that will spiral down into a regime change is Obama's attempt to run in 2016, either as a President (sample cases: USA, 1941) or Vice President (sample case: Russia, 2008); the latter may arguably be legal. The Republicans in the Congress reject and denounce the attempt (likely) and cry foul, whereas the Democrats will nominate him nevertheless (very likely).
Yet another, even less likely but still possible scenario, involves emergence of unambiguous, publicly acceptable proof of Obama's foreign birth (assuming, of course, that it exists). That will immediately lead to a constitutional crisis, with the Democrats shielding Obama from impeachment procedure and the GOP calling for his figurative (and possible literal) head on a pike.
10:23 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I could come up with other unlikely yet possible scenarios that don't involve a tinfoil hat (dollar collapse, for one). In each of them, I would rather cling to my guns rather than a flimsy hope of police protection.
10:59 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Maxim, I'm going to respectfully spep away. I'm an attorney. I'm a person who has studied history and Constitutional law in great depth compared to the average citizen. I don't proclaim to be a scholar in this area, and trust me, I learn more about it every day. But your scenarios are so disjointed that I don't even know where to start.
The paranoia you live with is exactly the problem with this country. I'm not stupid or unaware of the history of other nations. But there is no rational reason to think that President Obama (as black as he is) is going to cause a national uprising.
Hell, the man has done NOTHING to control guns. Clinton passed or signed a number of gun control measures (oh and P.S., Reagan supported Brady as well as the Assault Weapons ban too) and yet here we sit, everything in terms of our government structure is intact.
Ugh I am so tired of talking to people who are paranoid from NRA pamplets/magazines (I've read them, they are insane).
11:21 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jersey, none of the scenarios I outlined is likely, but saying that they are impossible is outright stupid. You say you're an attorney and a Constitutional scholar? And I'm a Chippendale dancer and a millionaire. Yeah, about as likely. This is Internet. You can claim whatever you want, especially when you don't sign your real name. Either your capacity for logic doesn't match your claims, or your political bias clouds your judgment; in both cases, your legal office wastes a salary on you.
PS: Oh, and allow me an extra kick at your butt. I'm neither an NRA member nor even a supporter. In fact, I don't even like them. As for my experience with assault rifles, google up "IDF".
9:44 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Maxim, I suggest you read more carefully. I said I am an attorney. I am. I understand your skepticism as you're right - I could claim to be anyone. But I said I DON'T proclaim to be a scholar in Constitutional law - just that I've studied it more than the average person. This would make sense, as Con Law is a requirement for all attorneys, first year. I was also a poli-sci major in undergrad where I took courses on Con Law. That's all I was referring to.
My original point stands. In terms of citizens protecting themselves from the U.S. military, the Second Amendment is essentially moot. Even Rupert Murdoch has come to his senses on this one.
Furthermore, I didn't say the scenarios you presented were "impossible". I said there was no reason to believe any of them would happen. That they are paranoid scenarios.
Seriously, I suggest you read more carefully. You have made some good points in some of your posts, and I have said as much. It's disappointing to see you flip your lid and call me stupid because you're putting words into my mouth. (Incidentally, are you 10?) Perhaps you just have a political bias clouding your judgment.
10:15 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jersey, you have no reason to question my age since I have a picture attached to my profile, and quite a few people on this board can testify that it is my real photo. I apologize for expressing doubt regarding your intelligence, your job, and your qualifications, but you have to accept it as a price for being anonymous (and liberal).
Any quote from NY Mag in an allegedly non-partisan discussion is about as valuable as that from The Onion. I wouldn't trust a glossy so rabidly liberal if they recited a multiplication table. As for Rupert Murdock, invoking his name carries zero weight with me; last time I watched Fox News was during debates. In fact, I'm not even a Republican, and I did not vote for McCain in 2008. Does it take my political bias out of the debate?
The scenarios I outlined are not paranoid. If you get out of liberal echo chamber (hint: NY Mag is a part of it) you may realize that some of them are horrifyingly realistic. Ever saw "credit card denied" blinking on a register? There are plenty many people who will flip off when the whole country runs out of Bernanke's funny money. And you've seen a few days ago what flipped-off people are capable of, with or without large magazines.
10:24 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Maxim, my question about whether you were 10 was sarcastic.
Look, regardless of your impression of what a screaming liberal I am, I actually look at news sources across the spectrum. I think MSNBC is generally as useless as Fox News, though I watch both so I know all of the arguments. Of course NY Mag is a liberal rag, just as the NY Post is crazy right-wing. My post was only to show that the NY Post editorialized that the 2nd Amendment is obscolete.
Thank you for the apology. Again, I think you make some interesting points. I just cannot wrap my head around any reasonable situation where the government goes into tyranny mode and bands of citizens go up against the whole of the U.S. military and all of its weaponry and stands a snowball's chance in hell.
But I'm also pretty pro-military and pro-police; that makes it hard for me to believe that our armed forces and law enforcement would be turning their weapons on our citizens anytime in the foreseeable future.
10:57 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jersey, they say that "denial is not a river in Egypt". For many Americans, 9/11 came as a horrible shock because they could not imagine such an atrocious act; for an Israeli, it was a day to day routine. A regime change, or a currency default, are equally hard to visualize if you haven't seen one, but I did, and lived through both - in Russia. See, triple citizenship comes with some experience baggage.
I can't say for military - google up "Waco siege", by the way - but our "law enforcement" is turning their weapons against citizens daily, with death toll far above that of all mass shootings combined. A significant fraction of those deaths (larger than reported, I suspect) are innocent. So no, I would not call myself pro-police.
Martin Wolff
10:36 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
It's pretty simple. The US has way more guns than the other developed countries and, not surprisingly, WAY more gun homicides (not to mention mass killings). In fact, the US population is about 1/2 of the other 22 rich nations, but we have about 20 times the number of gun homicides of all those nations COMBINED. Really, this is absurd.
Jim Mitchell
11:11 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Is the agenda here to shift gun violence to murder with blunt instruments, or to reduce homocide. Perhaps we should look at overall homocide, perhaps look at similar demographics, gang prevalance...adding this data takes it out of the rhelm of agenda based soud bites and makes it a real discussion about root cause and prevention. Making weapons HARD to obtain illegally makes MASSIVE sense to me...making them illegal to posses only removes them from the hands of law abiding citizens.
There are all sorts of rational things we could be doing to protect schools, treat mentally ill people, balance the budget, fix educational challenges, etc... but they all require we work together...
If we are to pass a law here, let's make sure it effectively targets the problem, and that it can be implemented without a civil war. If you want to remove the 2nd from our Constition, or amend it... there is a process for that... if you want to pass new laws, propose one that is fact based, logical and can be implemented. A ban on hi cap mags would not have stopped the CT shooter...nor would a ban on assault weapons... he had two pistols. Had the school been constructed to resist forced entry, like it was constructed to resist fires, the exchange might have been between him and the police instead of him and tiny children. We need to stop the next one from getting through... a feel good, do nothing law will not get us there
11:21 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
i agree with what you said, however he did not use the pistols he used an assualt weapon. im not saying things would have been different but if he was just using pistols there could have been a moment when he was reloading to tackle him. assualt weapons should be illegal because of the amount of harm it can do in so little time.
12:29 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> In fact, the US population is about 1/2 of the other 22 rich nations, but we have about 20 times the number of gun homicides of all those nations COMBINED. Really, this is absurd. <<
That might have something to do with those urban minority folks that liberals cherish and adore so much. Diversity and tolerance come with a blood price. Do you perhaps have statistics stratified by race?
Jim Mitchell
10:55 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I believe if you take another look at the US Second Amendment, you might find that the intent was to arm the people in order to allow the formation of a militia...which is a military force. Perhaps military style weapons were intended to be the arms protected? The Second is a buffer against a corrupt government event...not a right to go hunting. I imagine we could look back in history at the number of innocents destroyed by governments that siezed power by force... I'll toss out a number of maybe 25 Million for just Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin... and the motives of our 18th century Amendment authors seem validated. I'm not sure what the future holds...our actions today will dictate that...
Prentiss Gray
11:42 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
When you really think about it an armed citizenry is exactly what a belligerent government would want. That way they can use extreme force and blame it on the citizens. Even a house full of assault rifles can be mortared from a safe distance. Look at the difference between what happened in Egypt and Syria. Egyptians didn't use weapons, short conflict, Syrians did, long and bloody conflict. Of course when the second amendment was written and passed, there was no standing army. Now we have a two million man force that wouldn't break a sweat wiping out the few pockets of resistance that decided to fight with guns. More and more successful revolutions are peaceful, because they don't play the Government's game. Just something to think about.
11:52 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Prentiss, it is a very wild assumption that the U.S. Army will shoot at its country's citizens at the President's behest. That's why Obama declared - a direct quote here - that "we've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as U.S. Army. Though such army would unlikely include artillery or tanks, is it your suggestion that citizens deal with this kind of force with handguns and hunting rifles?
Prentiss Gray
12:21 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I don't mean to suggest that the US government ever would attack it's citizens, just that thinking that an armed revolution based on civilian weaponry would be anything but a loosing blood bath is wrong. We already have a system set-up for changing the way the country is, it's called voting and we do it peacefully all the time.
12:30 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Prentiss, the Germans had the secret ballot in the 30-ies, the Soviets had the secret ballot, and so do the Russians and the North Koreans of today - you knew that, right? The right to cast a vote gives you exactly squat if you can't verify or enforce the results. No rogue dictator can prevail while this country has "a rifle behind every blade of grass" waiting for his henchmen. So the first order is, of course, to ban those rifles...
9:23 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jim, if we're being honest about the Second Amendment, it was written for the purpose of arming militias. Militias, in the sense of what was sought at the time, have been replaced by the U.S. National Guard.
For over 100 years, the government, justice system and general population of this country saw the 2nd Amendment as a right for militias. It was not until the NRA decided to change from a gun enthusiast and safety group to a radical lobbying group that we saw a change in sentiment. Good job, Heller turned the 2nd Amendment caselaw of over 100 years on its head.
And for those Republicans who claim the right to call themselves Strict Constructionists - BULLSHIT on this issue. Because if you read and understand the Heller case, Scalia literally ignored the first clause of the Amendment. He said as much, that's not some radical left-wing interpretation. Read it. It's absurd. (You probably won't think so b/c it supports your opinion - but the man decides that the first clause, written in a Latin construction and indicating that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of militias, is tossed out and ignored.)
11:04 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Don't you realize that if all the law abiding citizens give up their guns the only two groups that would have arms would be the government (fed and state) and the criminals? That gun free zone sign really stopped that psychotic young man from slaughtering those children, oh wait, no it didn't.
The Bill of Rights is individualized for a reason. It guarentees us free speech, fair trials, protection from double indemnity, freedom of religion, ect. Do these freedoms belong to the government and military only? No, they are for the people, individualized, and so is the second amendment. Those people willing to give up one right, do you not realize there is no way to defend ourselves against losing the rest of them? Our founding fathers may not have been able to predict what we have now, but they fought against things that we, as Americans, have NOT faced. But some of the things they fought against we are seeing again, unfair taxes, persons held without charge, unreasonable searches and siezures. We must cling to the Constitution, all of it, and not depend on the government to care for us, but to do it's actual job. We must be adults, responsible for ourselves and caring toward our neighbors. Beware of giving up rights, it's a slippery slope that can only lead to worse places.
11:44 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
No elected or police official anywhere has requested that "law abiding citizens give up their guns", merely they've suggested limitations on the sale of semi-automatic weapons and/or ammunition magazines that could be readily converted to accept more than 10 rounds. Let's not over-dramatize this into a stormtrooper scenario whereby you lose everything dear to you.
11:56 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Nancy, you do not really need at least 2/3 of your handbags and shoes. You have to donate them to underprivileged women on welfare for the public good.
Oh wait, perhaps I shouldn't judge which of your private possessions you need, and which you do not...
12:14 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
maxim, go explain to the parents of those poor children why it was within this womens right to own a semi atuomatic weapon in a home with a mentally disturbed child. to compare a weapon that killed 27 to handbags as things you dont need, shows how idiotic you are.
Jim Mitchell
12:19 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
How would have an assault weapon ban or hi-cap ban have stopped the CT shooter? From what I have been able to gleen, he reloaded multiple times, shot each victim multiple times... and...he had two "non-assault weapon" pistols with him. There are laws that could have stopped the shooter, ask the experts (LT Col Grossman for one)...
12:23 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
As soon as you explain to them why none of the teachers or custodians had so much as a handgun to protect their children. In a gun-free zone, only criminals, madmen and policemen will have guns - and "when seconds count, police is only minutes away".
Ojo Rojo
12:30 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
An assault weapon ban and ban on high capacity clips would have reduced his rate of fire and might have let a few more people escape. Really, who needs an AR-15 or high round clips? Are people really suggesting honest law abiding gun owners would be harmed by outlawing those? I am no fan of the left but even I think it is completely idiotic to allow the sale of those items.
12:34 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Nancy Duggan - I was not suggesting that officials are at this moment calling for a complete ban. I was responding to the comments on this article that are indeed calling for a completely gun free America. I do not believe that I am over-dramatizing anything, and I am still entitled to voice my opinion.
My major concern right now, given that the major shootings are being committed by the mentally ill who should not be on the streets (or home), is the lack of calling by voters and government for better access and facilities for mental health care, particularly for teens and young adults. I believe our time would be better spent looking at that issue and the other actual causes, rather than a tool. I don't understand blaming and further regulating an inanimate object, instead of the humans who commit the crimes.
And thank you Maxim!!
1:04 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Ojo Rojo, I can reload a regular-capacity magazine in my semi-auto in about 3-4 seconds, and I'm by no way an action hero. A madman with a pocketful of loaded mags will be exactly as efficient as one with a powerful rifle. In fact, a madman with a buzz saw will be even more efficient. Anyone here for banning or licensing buzz saws?
Governmental monopoly on weapons is an inevitable stepping stone to every tyranny. Do I have to remind you that, according to history books, tyrannies eventually start slaughtering their original supporters, whom they refer to as "useful idiots"?
1:09 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Red, again you jump to the most hyperbolic and slightly self-pitying conclusion. Where was it suggested that you weren't entitled to your opinion?
Ojo Rojo
1:15 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
And in those 3-4 seconds between clips, people have more time to get the hell out of your way. Nobody and I mean nobody needs high capacity clips.
1:34 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Ojo Rojo, in case you failed to read my earlier posts... You no more get to decide what people need and what they do not than I get to decide how many pairs of socks you can own. Think of it: you want to exercise control over someone else's needs and private property. Think what it makes you. That's *exactly* why powerful weapons have to remain in people's hands: in case someone with the same inclination as you goes a bridge too far in his desire to control other people.
1:49 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Nancy - I don't believe that anyone who says "The issue is not wanting guns, the issue is not wanting to be killed by them." should be calling anyone else an exaggerator. I have not called you names of any sort. Yet you have said that I'm hyberbolic, self pitying, and over-dramatic. If you have a contrary opinion on my post, please feel free to share relevant thoughts. Otherwise, all that's there is name calling and reguritation of the original article, not peoples views on the article.
I am simply suggesting that the elected officials look to the actual causes of violence of this nature, not the tools that are used.
clyde donovan
11:53 am on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Get dangerous mentally ill people off the street. That's the issue here - not guns or gun magazines.
12:12 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
another issue is allowing a women who has no need to for a powerful assualt weapon to be able to obtain one and keep it in a house with a mentally disturbed child. but i guess thats her "right", i would love for one of you defend her right to one of those childrens parents
12:40 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
clyde - Exactly!!!
(O) - As a gun owner and parent, I completely agree with you. To me, Mrs. Lanza made a very bad decision. I don't understand her thoughts on that either. I certainly can't defend her decisions, but I didn't know her and have no idea what she was going through.
But there are so many parents out there who don't know what to do with their out-of-control children. There are very limited resources for them, the police often tell them to press charges so that the child can be sent to jail. Very few parents are willing to make that choice and so they end up hiding their child, shielding them as best they can, until that child bursts out into the public eye in ways that no one can truly predict. That is the problem.
Jim Mitchell
1:30 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
When you purchase one of those EVIL assault weapons in NJ, you are required to sign a document explaining that it is a felony to allow children to gain access to the weapon. I signed and fully understood the responsibility. Mrs Lanza may have signed a similar document... I don't know if the law is only in my state or if CT has similar. I suspect Mrs Lanza was murdered by her son as the result of her Felony crime. There is certainly a sensible gun law in the making here that could also comply with the USSC Heller ruling. It might even work to prevent future child murders..unlike a feel good ban
5:26 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Jim, he was 20 years old, not a child. Granted, she should have had it secured.
Tom G.
12:05 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
There is a new show on A&E called "Panic 9-1-1". I watched an episode last week where there was a woman in Oklahoma who was home alone. A drunk, beligerent man came up to the house, eventually smashed through a window, and broke into the house ready to attack the woman. This was in rural Oklahoma and the nearest police officers were 30 miles away and the nearest neighbors were several miles away. The woman had a shotgun and was able to shoot her attacker, likely saving her own life. I'm not a gun advocate, but this is one example of a legitimate use for a legally owned gun. If you were in this woman's shoes would you still think there should be a full ban on guns?
12:10 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
no problem with a women owning a shotgun for protection. however i am against a women being able to own an assualt riffle in a house with a mentally disturbed son. no one is trying to ban shot guns or logical guns, the main cry is to ban assualt weapons
John Z
12:30 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I agree with the comment below. I do not have any problems with a shotgun for defense or hunting. As well as a bolt-action rifle. The issue is assault rifles and other semi-automatic, high-capacity guns.
12:34 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Again: there is no call for "a full ban on guns" and no need for melodramatic anecdotes.
Tom G.
12:54 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A selective ban on guns will make no difference in preventing these types of crimes. The guy could have walked in with a pistol with 6 bullets in the chamber and killed 6 people. Does that make it any better? Or he could have carried in 3 pistols all fully loaded and still killed 18 people. The "only ban high capacity gun" argument really isn't going to make any difference. You either ban guns or you don't.
1:49 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"The guy could have walked in with a pistol with 6 bullets in the chamber and killed 6 people. Does that make it any better?"
---tom, this is utter nonsense. you REALLY don't see the difference between 6 dead and 20+ dead? are you that heartless a human being? how sad.
"The "only ban high capacity gun" argument really isn't going to make any difference. You either ban guns or you don't."
---this is ridiculous absolutism---the only way you can justify (however pathetically) having assault weapons that you have no need for.
Tom G.
8:50 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Ummm, Arbetto - My point was that this would have been a horrible tradgedy if even 1 person had died, let alone 20+. So what you're saying is if only 6 people died instead of 20 this wouldn't be as much of a tragedy? Who's the one being heartless...?
People are focusing way too much on "assault" weapons. Any gun can kill no matter how it's labeled. Fine, ban the assault weapons. Then when, god forbid, some other tradegedy occurs as a result of a small pistol we'll be having this same argument later that the non-automatic guns should have been banned too.
Non-Moron Hypocrite
12:13 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. For instance, I don't like abortion, so I don't get one.
12:36 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The issue is not wanting guns, the issue is not wanting to be killed by them.
12:41 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Does anyone actually read the 2nd amendment? "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."
To what "well-regulated militia" did he belong? Everyone ignores the first phrase in the amendment assuming anyone can bear arms. I believe the amendment limits the "right to bear arms" to those who are part of a "well-regulated militia" and I don't mean some cult in the woods living off the grid playling at war games and planning to wage war on the government.
12:55 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Actually, all 10 amendments are meant for the individual. If you make a case that the 2nd is only for the army, does that mean that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, fair trials, only belong to the armed forces? Do you truly believe the average gun owner is planning to wage war on the government? The majority of gun owners are average citizens who want nothing more than to go to work, raise their children, enjoy their vacations, live an average life.
The two most common definitions of militia are: "The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." and "A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government." Do either of those sound like America's armed forces, or does that sound like citizens ready to defend themselves?
Jim Mitchell
1:34 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The US Supreme Court in a recent ruling (try Googling Heller USSC) re-affirmed the interpretation that the 2nd is an individual right not bound by association to a Militia...there is actually a metric ton of fact based information to totally and completely debunk your position..
9:29 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Red, incorrect. Jim, Heller didn't "reaffirm" - it OVERTURNED over 100 years of caselaw supporting the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment was for the protection of militias, not individuals. Scalia, the so-called strict constructionist, decided that the first clause of the Amendment didn't "matter" or whatever.
That opinion made me laugh out loud before I almost cried. Strict constructionist my ass.
Here's the reality. In today's world, if some tyrant or crazy person tries to "take over" or invade the citizens' property in some way, the U.S. Military, FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals and police forces are there to respond. If that crazy is in control of all those groups/divisions, no civilian group stands a chance. They have nukes. Drones. Tanks.
I mean, can we be serious here??
New Jersey Lawyer
12:10 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Heller did not overturn anything. It AFFIRMED the longstanding view that the Second Amendment applies to individuals. There has never been a ruling on this topic by the Supreme Court precisely because the right was explicit to most people with a functioning frontal lobe. not until the outright handgun bans in D.C. and Chicago did idiots take it upon themselves to challenge enumerated Constitutional rights. I really wish more people were educated on the Second Amendment, but most people are willfully ignorant of many things.
Dan Grant
5:42 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A Coroner on the witness stand in a murder case was asked how he knew the victim was dead by the defense He replied that the body was on my table and had shown no signs of life. The defense asked him "Does that mean you are sure he was dead?" Reply "Yes" the defense" couldn't you be wrong about that " "No I am a trained Coroner his brain was in a jar" Defense" Could he not still be alive without a brain?" answer I suppose he could be practicing law somewhere " The point is that half the lawyers who go to Court are wrong. This question is for the Congress and the President to design legislation that will stand Constitutional muster. Scalia is a wingnut that also gave full rights and personhood to the pieces of paper that form Corporations.
5:48 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> Scalia is a wingnut that also gave full rights and personhood to the pieces of paper that form Corporations. <<
Dan "Golden Age" Grant strikes again, misses as usual. The majority's opinion in Citizens United was written by Kennedy, not Scalia. Now wipe foam off your mouth and get your foot out of it: you've managed to make a fool out of yourself yet again.
1:07 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
If anyone has ever shot a gun before, you know how easy it is to just drop the empty clip and put a new one in. Takes less than 1 second to do this if the clip is pre-loaded. So really, whats the difference on having 1 loaded clip with 20 round in it or 2, 10 round clips.
Pretty much absolutely nothing.
3:23 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
As i have said before...no, it isn't that easy or that fast, especially when there is adrenaline involved. Ejecting the empty magazine, taking the full one out of the holder on your belt, inserting it firmly into the weapon, chambering the first round. etc.
The difference is the 5-10 seconds it takes, that may allow an officer to take down the shooter. Or a victim to escape.
Imagine yourself in the crosshairs and then count...one-thousand-and-one, one-thousand-and-two...
5:25 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I would disagree. Sure, when you are calm, standing at the range, you can do it pretty fast. If you're psychotic, on the move, I doubt they are that efficient. It would give someone the 5+ seconds they need to close the distance and tackle him or get away. Incidentally, 20 round clips are already banned in NJ.
9:32 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I've shot a gun. Here's what I've read: As soon as the shooter heard the police storming in, he killed himself.
If he was only allowed 5-round clips, he would have had to reload at least 4 times (but really, way more as we know he put 3 - 11 bullets in each victim).
He may have only killed 18. Or 15.
Maybe you don't think that matters. But ask the parents of the last few kids who were killed if it did. They would probably disagree with your assessment.
1:12 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
>> So really, whats the difference on having 1 loaded clip with 20 round in it or 2, 10
>> round clips.
Chris, you're talking to people who support banning 32 oz Coke bottles in NYC. The idea that someone may buy two 16 oz bottles never cross their minds. :)
1:46 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
ha ha! talking about mixing unrelated issues. note how you cannot debate the issues---you can only fall back on tired tea bagger tropes.
you don't have a compelling need for assault weapons and you know it.
3:13 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Within days of the Newtown massacre you have the nerve to compare the regulation of ammunition designed to kill and maim humans and supplied in a way to maximize the number of humans affected... to limiting the size of sodas in NYC?
3:29 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Arbetto, FOAD. If you need to rant somewhere, write on your toilet wall. Using sexual slurs is not acceptable on this board.
S.G., please spare me the emotion and the outrageous outrage. Both bans are cases of a government-empowered tyrant pressing his will on his subjects regarding the issue that he perceives as beneficial for them. At least with Bloomberg, we can assume that he legislated the ban for benevolent, if possibly misguided, reason. With Obama, I wouldn't be so sure - the guy is measuring for the crown.
4:01 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Arbetto you still haven't provided a compelling argument for a NEED to ban "assault weapons". The Virginia Tech lunatic killed 32 people and it was with a handgun, not an assault rifle. The Gab Gifford shooting took place with a handgun, not an assault rifle. You can walk down the street concealing a handgun in your pants, but not an Assault Rifle. Please be articulate in telling us why there is a NEED to ban assault rifles when almost all gun related violence is caused by handguns.
5:22 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Yes it did, but fat people are lazy so it solves the issue.
1:35 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Why does it all of a sudden have to be extreme measures like banning all guns? What ever happened to responsible ownership of them? Children would not be in danger of guns in their house if parents properly locked them up. We don't need a bunch of DC crooks who walk around with a security team everywhere they go dictating who does and doesn't need a gun, and we don't need kneejerk reactions from others saying that their neighbors shouldn't own guns. Move to Chicago or NYC where there are some of the strictest gun laws in the country and see how that works out for you. Not everyone lives in upscale neighborhoods with zero crime. If guns were banned, a thief or rapist wouldn't have to think twice before breaking into a house that might potentially have one. Also, there are already regulations in NJ on how many rounds can be in a clip and what type of ammo is considered legal. This whole shooting should bring up the question of responsibility and parenting rather than gun ownership. If this mother really had concerns about her son's mental health, why did she have them accessible to him?
1:42 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"Why does it all of a sudden have to be extreme measures like banning all guns? What ever happened to responsible ownership of them?"
Right... but how do you control that?
Prentiss Gray
1:43 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Again, no one, no one, is suggesting banning all guns. It wouldn't have a chance of becoming a law in any state, let alone the federal government. Why does the idea of banning the sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines frighten people? We're not even talking about, making current ones owned by citizens illegal. Your freedom is not being threatened, we're trying to enhance our safety.
1:43 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"Why does it all of a sudden have to be extreme measures like banning all guns?"
---it's not sudden, and no one is seriously talking about "banning all guns", you paranoid freak. but what is the compelling argument for allowing assault weapons on the streets legally?
1:48 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Prentiss, the safest place on Earth is jail. Just hand over the keys.
1:53 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"Caldwell Resident
9:09 pm on Monday, December 17, 2012
All guns need to be banned. There is no reason in modern society for any citizen that is not in Law enforcement to own a gun. The right to bear arms was created in a time of frontier, when the average family needed weapons for protection and hunting. This Amendment needs to changed for the protection of people.
A ban on magazines of more than ten bullets magazine is not enough."..... yes you are right... no one on this thread mentioned anything about banning all guns
2:06 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I believe a few utility knives ended up killing over 3000 people 11 years back. The answer wasn't to ban all utility knives was it?
Scott Greenstone
2:50 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Actually no, the airplanes and collapsing buidlings was what killed all of those people, not the utility knives.
3:53 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
No. The answer was to more strongly regulate utility knives such that they are no longer allowed on planes.
clyde donovan
2:22 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Put the mentally ill who have the potential for violence in secure institutions.
5:20 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I tend to agree, but no parent and wants to send their kid to one of those places and who would willingly check in? You want to encourage people to get help and I don't think it's the right way to do it. Increase the access to treatment from a psych professional and stop allowing physicians to prescribe anti-depressants without a talk therapy program.
2:32 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The day the GOVT. decides to redistribute all your belongings ... your food, your home, etc. You'll want the right to have your GUNS! Don't think it won't happen, it's already started !!!!!!!!!! Protect your family and your home .. it's your right!
3:53 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Susan, it seems that the Newtown shooter's mom shared the same sentiment. THAT worked out well.
2:58 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Scott, wrong again .. airplanes and collapsing buildings didn't KILL the people on Sept. 11 (or utility knives) .. it was TERRORISTS that hate America that killed Americans on Sept. 11. People that want to harm/kill people will find whatever means to do it .... knives, hijack planes into buildings or use their mother's weapons. As others have said ... the mentally ill need to be treated and if necessary removed from society; so, they don't harm/kill others.
3:02 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"Assault weapons" a media coined phrase. What is an assault weapon? If I pick up a rock and bash in your skull, is it an assault weapon? The truth is any thing you can inflict harm onto another person is an assault weapon. You can never protect innocent people from being harmed by insane or evil people.
One way I would suggest is that your average, law abiding, sane citezens should be able to carry a concealed weapon. Imagine this. A crazed man walks into a theater with an assault rifle and starts to shoot innocent people. He isn't stopped before he has taken dozens of lives..... Same scenario but now there are 50 or so average people with concealed weapons.... He starts to fire and is brought down within seconds by those same individuals, limiting the innocent lives killed.
You will never get rid of guns. When you legislate gun control, the only people affected are the law abiding people. They lose their guns. Criminals will always have guns. You must be able to protect yourself and your family without relying on the government.
3:56 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Steve, it seems to me that very few people are talking about getting rid of guns. We're talking about better regulating them.
Cars don't kill people, drunks using cars do. So MADD took up the cause and fought like hell for better awareness, regulations, criminal law and law enforcement in the area of drunk driving. They didn't ban cars - they regulated their use. And drunk driving deaths have plummeted as a result.
It's not an all or nothing issue.
4:35 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
"U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg will ask Congress to approve a ban on ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. Do you agree with his proposed bill? "
No, I don't support him or the bill.
stewart resmer
5:02 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Insure Domestic tranquility sound familiar? It should, its in the preamble to the constitution. In my view that means silence the fire arms not the congress. Whats wrong with the congress when it comes to insuring the domestic tranquility.
5:15 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Yeah, let's not focus on the fact that in EVERY SINGLE CASE. The shooter was severely mentally deranged. Keep talking about guns though, mental illness is too scary and it might cost money to properly treat people. So let's just bury our heads in the sand and hope it will just go away.
We've had access to semi-auto weapons for close to 100 years and we have stronger gun laws than ever before, yet this is still happening. Ask the obvious question, "what's going wrong in America in 2012?".
Solve the mental health issues and how they are viewed and treated by society, law enforcement and the health care system and it will solve the root of this problem.
I have no problem with a law abiding citizen who is responsible and owns it to protect his family in case the police aren't right at his front door when someone tries to break in.
11:07 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
I agree 100% that mental health needs to be addressed in tandem with gun regulation. Absolutely. Our mental health services are a joke.
That said, let's be clear about something... Not all of the shooters have been severely mentally deranged. Some have - I'm talking, they hear voices, think they're the Joker, totally whack-job nuts. Not all though. This is a really complex area that deserves attention, no question. But the fact is, if these people had less access to legal guns, we'd have less carnage. (The perps of mass shootings tend to acquire their guns legally - they don't know how to get them any other way - let's be serious.)
stewart resmer
5:49 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
isnt it hilarious, the way conservatives pretend to care about liberty and the constitution when the Democrats are in power?
9:52 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I find it hillarious when someone like stewart here start in with political affiliations. How do you know what my political ideology is? Oh yea, conservatives like guns. You're right , we do, and we fight to keep that right. If it wasn't for conservatives, you know, the people who make up most of the military, people like you and me would not have the right to voice our opinions. And another thing, the right to bear arms was written into the constitution not only to give one a means of providing for and protecting themselves and their family from attackers BUT also to keep the government in check should another revolution be needed to return power back to the people. Look into it.
Jim Mitchell
7:11 pm on Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Facts in effect today.
The most lethal school mass killing in the US involved NO guns
The gunshow loophole is closed in NJ and impacts PA, not sure about CT
A mental health check and criminal history check is required for both pistol and rifle permits in NJ
The Brady check at time of purchase requires firearm purchases to be verified by the NJ State Police. This likely involves another check of the buyer each time they buy.
Pistol permits in NJ are one time deals...the serial number and make is recorded each time and the buyer is linked to the gun.
NJ limits magazine capacity to 15, no matter what the weapon.
A 10 round mag limit will cause most manufacturers to retool and will render most gun owners out of compliance at best, at worse, it will make them vulnerable to unfair prosecution. Mind you, only law abiding people adhere to any of these laws...
The reason most owners of Assault weapons would be to fight off someone with an assault weapon. If we don't need them, neither do the police...they face the same threat only with greater frequency. I'm afraid you will not find many people with any high degree of training that will agree with you that a non-semi auto is adequate in a two way gunfight...the FBI learned that the hard way in Miami years back.
10:07 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
There is a big difference between a regular citizen being equipped with an assault weapon with the aim of defending against a bad guy or a group of bad guys with similar weapons and the police force with assault weapons. What a joke. Do I really need to spell out the difference???
Thirty Four
2:13 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
".. teachers or custodians had so much as a handgun to protect their children." If I know any teachers and custodians have guns at school, I'll pull my kids out of the school immediately. For the rare occasion like someone with an assault weapon spraying bullets in the school, these teachers and custodians may slow the bad guy down for a few seconds because he has to focus on shooting down those with weapons first. And we know there is no way to fight AR-15 with handguns.
For the majority of the time, who knows what crazy things those teachers and custodian with guns on the belts will do to the kids. Be more realistic.
10:00 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Whats the difference between a police officer and a trained custodian? Are there not armed police in some of our schools? There is no difference. They are people. What if the cop went bad? The fact of the matter is no group can be 100% trusted. There are always going to be incidents. Look at how many police officers take their own lives each year. Compare that to custodian's. who's more trusted now? Just saying. Arm every law abiding citezen. Israel does.
Thirty Four
2:40 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Also if I got the facts right, the Tucson shooting was not in a gun-free zone. It was also in the state with one of the most lax gun laws. Practically anyone can carry as they wish to that event. Yet, after killing 6 people, no single one of the "law abiding gun owners" came to shoot that guy down. He was taken down only when he reloaded his 33-round magazine and someone hit him with a chair.
So tell me, even in the place that is not in a gun-free zone, no "gun owner" heroes can be found. Where had they been? The fact is that the majority of people just don't carry all the time even though they are allowed to.
So the whole argument about what if someone has a gun to fight back is more like a fantasy.
9:29 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
There was someone with a concealed weapon in Tuscon. He came out of the store and saw the man holding a gun. He was ready to pull his gun out and shoot him but thought if he did he might be confused for the gunman and get shot himself. Luckily, he didn't shoot because the man holding the gun was the person that wrestled it away from the shooter.
The Empire State Bldg shooting that killed 2 and injured 9: The killer assassinated one person, during his getaway the NYC police killed him and injured 9. The shooter never fired another shot other than the one to kill the first person.
In Steve's fantasy of 50 ppl in the movies, how are they to know the other 49 shooting aren't part of the attack, especially when they miss their target and shoot innocent ppl?
M. Justicel
8:33 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I have spent the past few days reading close to every post about this subject. Many people unfortunately miss what the real problem is. Many people say what do you need an assault rifle for with a magazine of 30 rounds? Why do we need guns at all? My answer, because I want one and I want a specific type of protection. Why does anyone need a 500 hp Corvette? Why does anyone need a $2000.00 Louis Vuitton purse? Because you want one! I would never dictate what you can and cannot own. I have a certain preference for specific firearms. I will not be judged or scrutinized because I have a simple like. This is America so stop the banter! With that said, let me say who does not need a firearm, a felon, the mentally disturbed, anyone with a domestic violence conviction, anyone under 21. But wait, those are already the rules! Lets now dissect where the crack is. Felons and domestic violence subjects are, for the most part, tracked with their records. The age of 21, obviously need identification. Mental health records? SEALED! The failure in our society falls on the shoulders of the mental health professionals who have no responsibility at all in any of these situations. How many school shootings involved a suspect who had some type of mental disorder? Why in this day and age are their mental capacities not made known to anyone other than the parent or mental health provider or doctor?
1:16 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
"Many people say what do you need an assault rifle for with a magazine of 30 rounds? Why do we need guns at all? My answer, because I want one and I want a specific type of protection. Why does anyone need a 500 hp Corvette? Why does anyone need a $2000.00 Louis Vuitton purse? Because you want one! "
I couldn't say it any better! Two thumbs up.
M. Justicel
9:01 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Continued......Because of their rights. And because of those specific rights, more have perished and no accountability. So what's our next move, go after the firearm owners and restrict what they can own. Are we serious? We don't go after Ford, GMC, etc. when someone drunk gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. We prosecute the person. We don't go after the pharmaceutical companies and doctors who make and prescribe pain medications that will eventually cause possible addiction and death. We go after the person who is abusing them. Many people in this post want to blame the gun and gun manufacturer. Why? Because its the easiest thing to do. Can't go after the doctors because of patient / doctor secrecy? It's all a big secret to the people who really need to know. I'm not suggesting their entire record be plastered on a billboard as you drive down the highway. Their record needs to be entered by a health care professional into a national data base so when they or any family member applies for a firearm, there is a flag which would cause further investigation. No longer can we sit by and allow this secret mental society to hide behind their "right" of secrecy. If anyone on this post wants to argue taking rights away from people, why not start with mental health patients? Why should they be protected anymore when another 20 children and 7 adults have been taken from us?
10:02 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
You are saying if there is a mentally impaired relative or family member living with someone who is interested in having a gun, then a process should be in place to make sure the situation is "safe". Fair.
Lets assume for a second a family member of yours has recently developed a mental disorder with aggressive and unpredictable behavior and you currently own some guns. Since your "database" system is not in place yet, what would you do? Do you make independent assessment on the situation yourself without the benefit of a third party opinion or do you want to play safe by getting rid of those guns?
M. Justicel
9:17 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
This post really spells out where people's thoughts are. You have many different views and opinions. Personally, I want solutions! I want actions to be taken but it doesn't begin with a firearm rant on who needs to own what? I want strict firearm control. I am a law abiding gun owner and agree there needs to be control, but not the control many people suggest in this posting. Solutions are what we need. Posting ignorant comments doesn't help this situation at all. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families of Newtown!
Jim Mitchell
9:25 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Gun Laws violated in CT shooting
-Mother of shooter did not secure her weapons properly - Felony
-Son, age 20, took possession of firearms - Felony
-Son murdered mom - Felony
-Son entered school with firearm - Felony
-Son murdered 25 more people - Felony
-Son shot self (suicide) - Felony
The facts in this case are not yet public... was the weapon used in this shooting an evil assault weapon or did he use one of the two handguns? Was a high capacity magazine in use? What does current CT alw permit in terms of magazine capacity? In NJ, the limit is15...no exceptions.
Implied facts to date
- Shooter shot each victim multiple times (if true, many magazine changes would have been required, suggesting that hi-cap mag ban would not have been in play)
-Prinicipal of school attempted to subdue shooter (if true, one has to wonder what would have happened if she was armed, it sounds like she had the mental strength to make a stand). CT is a conceal carry state, but guns are not permitted in schools, even for the pricipal...no amount of training changes this)
-Shooter entered the school through a window (construction of structure was such that easy access to kids was possible)
-Shooter had a history of unpredictable episodes, was no longer attending school, medical history remains sealed...he could be a diagnosed sociopath for all we know.
Changes listed in order of ease
-alter school building codes
-review gun storage laws
-mental health laws
9:44 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
you indicate that the mom did not properly secure her guns. Actually you do not know anything about what really happened. Probably never will.
If you lock up your car and later realize it is stolen and used illegally, can we assume you did not properly lock up your car?
Isn't that the same logic here?
9:48 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
also, what does altering school building codes have to do with this? do you want firemen get into the building in case there is a fire and front door malfunctions?
what mental health laws will help in this case when the shooter reportedly was paranoid of going into a psychiatric hospital? This is a like a normal person being anxious of going into an elective surgery. There are no laws that can alleviate fear and paranoia.
10:01 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Although you probably will never know if the guns were properly secured, it is safe to assume that they were not. "Properly Securing" a firearm means the gun is unloaded and not only has a trigger lock/chamber lock (which are supplied with most guns), but is also stored in a locked location (whether it be a locked cabinet or a gun safe). If the mother was aware that her son had enough mental issues that he couldn't be left home alone and he still had access to these guns, you can assume that they were not properly secured. No kid is going to crack a gun safe, and if he was provided with the code, responsibility falls on the mother.
10:10 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER if anyone other than the owner can access those guns they are not secure, end of story. If the key to the safe is stolen that doesn't change that as a fact.
Ed Dantes
12:52 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Brer, Any decent gun safe is either a combination or Bio-metric. I have both types as stated on the other thread.
This falls on the irresponsibily of Nancy Lanza. She knew her son was unstable for many years and records have verified this already. Nancy kept guns in the house with a mentally disturbed son (her choice, I wouldn't as already stated to you) mistake # 1, Nancy's son accessed her own firearm and shot her with it! Thus unsecured guns, no if, ands or buts. If they were in safe, she provided the code or key to him. Mistake # 2, It is also documented that Nancy Lanza took Adam to the range and allowed/taught him how fire these guns. (She knew his mental state, and that the state would never issue him a Firearms ID card) mistake #3. Nancy's poor choices allowed this to happen.
Thirty Four
9:59 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jim, agreed with your points. It would only help if the school constructions are improved to give better protection from attacks. Not only from crazy people, but also from terrorists. Gun storage law and things that control who should have access at home should be considered. Definitely something about mental health need to be seriously improved.
However, these changes won't eliminate all possibilities entirely. A little bit of everything helps. That includes limit on what type of guns and ammunitions should be allowed.
10:08 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jim, under modern criminal law, suicide is no longer a crime. The CT criminal code for felony murder specifically pertains to killing another person or forcing someone to commit suicide under duress, not killing one's self.
Additionally, you don't seem to have all the facts of the case.
- We know that each victim was shot 3 - 11 times.
- We know that the shooter was able to gain entry to the building by shattering the glass adjacent to the door. He was able to do that by shooting the glass.
- We know he used a semi-automatic Bushmaster to kill the victims. We know that he used magazines with 30-round capacities. He then used a Glock to hill himself.
I agree that school security and mental health are high on the list of issues that need to be addressed. But we need to look at gun laws too. For example, if the shooter only had 3-round capacity magazines, a couple of those children would probably be alive today. He'd have had to reload numerous times. He killed himself as soon as the police arrived, so he wouldn't have had enough time to kill those last few kids.
10:11 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Sorry Jim - forgot to mention that based on what I've read, CT allows 30-round magazines. Legislation proposing limiting magazine capacity to 15 was shot down. No pun intended.
10:17 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Madisonresident, the distinction between 99% correct and 100% correct is extremely important. Just because terrible things have happened, it is still not right to convict by suspicion.
This mom lives with an impaired person with a very high IQ. There are many ways for a smart person living in the same house to figure out ways to gain access to the guns, including ways to find out the code.
M. Justicel
2:28 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Yeah how BRER, did he read her mind after she memorized the combo or did she write it down somewhere and he found it, or did she give him the combo? Minus the vulcan mind reading, it still shows and responsibility flaw!
M. Justicel
10:17 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER, of course it becomes my responsibility and individual assessment to ensure no one has access to my firearms. If I couldn't, I would have them placed somewhere else for safekeeping. That's all part of being a responsible gun owner. The responsibility of gun ownership doesn't just stop at the purchase of a gun. Common sense!
10:42 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
My point is that it is common sense even responsible individuals like you can make mistakes. On a daily basis, we make mistakes deciding things we can do well and then realize later we actually cannot handle as well as we have previously thought.
Thirty Four
10:18 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
When someone compares assault weapons with high-end LV bags, it just does not make any sense. Assault weapons is designed to kill as many people as possible. Bags don't.
Also comparing assault weapons with any sort of vehicles does not make sense either. The design of all vehicles on streets is for moving people from one place to another. If the main design of such vehicles is to kill, then those vehicles should not be allowed to be owned by civilians. Such vehicles are currently off limit to us as tanks because the main purpose is to kill.
M. Justicel
10:29 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
That's not the point Thirty Four! It was my comparison to the individual wants and needs. It's not comparing assault weapons to LV bags or vehicles. What you think I need or want is your opinion. If I think you don't need a LV bag, do I have a leg to stand on. Of course not. Again it's not comparing anything. Please read and not assume!
10:32 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
One thing many people here do not appreciate or understand enough is the extreme difficulty living with family members with mental illness. In this case, it is made particularly hard when a mom has raised her child who has difficult functioning normally in this society. I don't think people will understand her pain and suffering, unrealistic expectations, guilt, inner struggles on many levels. How to love the child and at the same time treat the impaired child clinically? How does a parent ever accept that her own child is truly capable of being a monster?
The death of all involved saddens me. I am not particularly against guns or people who love guns. Personally, I do find it uncomfortable watching clips where people shoot animals for fund and trophy. I also find it alarming when some of the most favorite video games involving shooting guns on a massive scale, while american's youth become less and less competitive in global competitions (except video shooting perhaps). I do believe in the research done that shows that kids who are chronically involved in video game shooting tend to become more aggressive in real life. I also believe that if he had only access to a knife, the killer would not have killed as many.
I think it is karma of some sort that the mom has amassed a cache of weapon for protection and end up far from being protected...
M. Justicel
10:48 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Of course people don't understand what it is like living with a person who has a mental illness. A responsible parent should know that the family member needs the required help. Failing to do so results in Newtown! So you are suggesting because of the selfishness and self absorbed pain that a mother feels warrants not getting the required help?
Aggressive video games? We have been down this road before and it means nothing. My child has and currently still does play those type of games. It's not the video games or movies. There is something wrong with the individual!
Thirty Four
10:33 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
For those people who think the amendments give the unlimited rights, there are in the wrong. There have to be a line. The first amendment is not unlimited, as so too the second.
Imagine if I really want to own a M79 grenade launcher. It will be fun to shoot some grenades as target shooting. It's like a high-end Ferrari of weapon to own. Perhaps that can be uses for self protection too. Exact same argument with what AR-15 owners would say. Would my M79 be covered by the right to bear arms? So what's the right limit?
Thirty Four
10:39 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
So if I need/want to have M79, you should not have any say? If you think I don't need to have M79, do you have any leg to stand on? True, in case of bags, you don't have a say. But here again we are talking about a totally different thing. We are talking about weapon of mass killing (not just simple guns). People have a lot to say and demand an end to those things.
10:46 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
You really should not be that paranoid that bad elements will come after you with M79 fire power. Consider switching your line of work and be happy with automatic weapons:)
10:48 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Eric, you wrote :"If the key to the safe is stolen that doesn't change that as a fact."
In that case, the fact has changed,,,big time:)
10:57 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
We can discuss and compare irrelevant issues all day long. It will not correct the problem. We as individuals are ultimately responsible for housing weapons safely and in a secure manner. It is up to the individual gun owner to decipher what measure are needed to achieve these results. Bottom line is all issues which result in any tragedy are ultimately the result of some act of irresponsibility. Unfortunately, there is no cure for the irresponsible.
11:40 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
So you decide what is relevant for us to discuss? Name them then.
Your bottom line that ALL issues which result in any tragedy are ultimately the result of some act of irresponsibility is laughably inadequate. Many people are tragically affected by Sandy. Who is irresponsible about a hurricane???
M. Justicel
10:59 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I don't have a right to tell ANYONE what they need or want regardless of what it is. This is the USA. We have the rights we do because of the many people who have died fighting for those rights. Live somewhere else if you don't like our freedoms. Don't try to rewrite the rules for me because you think it's appropriate!
11:37 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
No you don't if what you are saying is not factual and in fact what you are saying is in fact not factual.
11:00 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
M justice, you clearly demonstrate what I am saying, that people-in this case, you- fail to understand people living children with mental illness. It is not necessarily the mom strives to be irresponsible. In fact she was being responsible by trying to send him to professional psychiatric care. She has no control over how and when he will snap. I have no idea where you came up with "selfishness" and being "self absorbed"
Aggressive video games? Yes, that is my stand, supported by research when looking at large groups of kids. Perhaps some kids have that hidden genes that are waiting to be aroused by the hours of shooting in front of the monitor!
My kids spend their extra time doing volunteer work helping others. To them, playing video games is very boring.
11:10 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
M justice, you sure don't sound like you don't have a right to tell people what they need or want regardless of what it is. What do you call yourself calling others irresponsible without knowing all the facts? You just want to play your way, isn't it or you just whine like a baby?
What do you know about freedom? What specifically have you done for this country to maintain its freedom???
M. Justicel
11:20 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Not that I have to explain myself to anyone, or lower myself to a person like you, but I have and currently do more than you will ever do in your entire lifetime for this country. You have no idea who I am and just made the most ignorant comment in this posting. You are obviously part of the problems we have in this country. Lastly, I would never resort to childish name calling as I hide behind the Internet. You call yourself a parent, please grow up and set a good example for your children.
M. Justicel
11:13 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
"I don't think people will understand her pain and suffering, unrealistic expectations, guilt, inner struggles, on many levels. How to love the child and at the same time treat the impaired child clinically." That is what you said! That's personal inner turmoil and a self absolved issue which has nothing to do with getting the child help! So we are to worried about how we feel and not what needs to be done?
11:13 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
M justice, why don't you gather up a few gun huggers on those forum and drive up to Newtown CT and offer condolence to those parents by telling them, guns don't kill, people kill? I think that will be the responsible thing for you to do considering that is how you feel.
M. Justicel
11:23 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Keep going with your unjust comments! I never said that or believe that!
11:21 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER, reread what you posted. You validate the point that M.Justicel's is trying to make. You have also managed to degrade someone involved in a spirited conversation because you didn't like what they had to say. Seems to me name calling is childish and unnecessary. As far as Im concerned, your unkind words are a perfect representation of the example you are setting at home. You should be ashamed!
11:35 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I have no idea what you are talking about. M justice was being extremely insensitive to parents with mental illness children and calling them irresponsible without any facts to support his nonsense. I am not ashamed to tell M justice exactly what I think. In fact, you should be ashamed to make a very vague post about nothing in support of M justice. Shame!
11:24 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
M justice, stop twisting things around or is it you really have problem with basic comprehension?
I will spell it out one more time for you. For you, one with normal functional kids who enjoy shooting video games, good for you and good for them.
For that CT mom with a highly dysfunctional kid, we don't have enough information to label her as being irresponsible to his care or even with gun control at home. She has related to a few that she trusts that it is very difficult to handle his care. I can imagine she has to go through a lot of inner struggles to make emotional ends meet. I shared with you one incident that speaks to her being responsible is that she was trying to hook him up with long term care at psychiatric in hospital. The price to pay for being responsible is perhaps what we have here!
11:48 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER no one has said that this CT mom was irresponsible in seeking psychological intervention for her son. What is being said is that she was irresponsible with everyone else's safety knowing he had explosive uncontrollable tendencies and she still chose to leave her arsenal in a place which was assessable to him. Furthermore, by definition insensitive means "feeling no concern for others' feelings". The content in M.Justicel's posts indicate nothing but concern for others. Seems to me your name calling and criticizing others opinions is insensitive.
M. Justicel
11:36 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER, you want to act like an adult, then do it. Nothing needs to be spelled out for me. I have no clue where you are getting your facts from. I have watched numerous reports since it happened and have heard nothing about what you are claiming! She tried to get him help? Just because the news said she tried to get him help, doesn't mean it's true. The news also made numerous initial reports that the mother had been killed inside the school. That was wrong! My reading comprehension is fine. I'm not twisting anything. Statistics on video games and television shows can be distorted just like any other statistic.
11:43 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
So now M justice brags about who he or she is and how he or she has done much for this country. What a joke. Go play video games with your kids. Smart move, pal!
M. Justicel
11:53 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Not bragging about who I am! Just responding to your ignorant post earlier. Your rants don't bother me one bit, I realize you are part of the devastating problem we have in this country. I hope you can someday realize that you are one of the people that need psychological assistance.
11:46 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Yes, M justice I am calling you a joke, by proudly announcing that you are an important person that we can never verify, that you have done great service to this country and that you are proud that your kids are at home play computer games shooting at people. I only believe the last item! ha!
M. Justicel
11:56 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I'm not an important person just someone posting possible ideas. Verify who I am, who are you? I have no reason to lie about who I am or hide behind the Internet like you are doing. Also I have a grown child in college so your idea that I'm sitting home playing video games is ridiculous just like the rest of your comments!
M. Justicel
11:46 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER, did you actually ask someone who is responsible for a hurricane? Are you serious? You need help!
11:49 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Your level of comprehension is absurdly low. I was responding to a post where the poster was saying any tragedy is caused by someone being irresponsible, thus i quipped: who is responsible for the tragedy brought about by Sandy...
Perhaps this stuff is too deep for ya, M. Go eat some lunch,,,your sugar may be too low.
Jim Mitchell
11:48 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER- I'm a firefighter / paramedic. Securing the school would not compromise fire safety. I suggest we look at any local police station for guidance on how to create entry resistant solutions. The goal here is to detect and delay entry so that the police can arrive....the solutions securing the police work, aren't kids worth at least the same consideration? Are you aware that fire construction codes have reduced the number of school deaths due to fire over the past 50 years to 0 in the US... Doesn't that warrant at least considering a modest investment in protecting them from bad people (with or without a weapon).
My point with all the enumeration is simple.... banning something does not make it unavailable to felons... If I wasn't deterred by the law, I could go out and buy Heroin today... the stuff has been banned here for a very long time. Banning disarms the law abiding....
If you feel that an AR15 and 30 round magazines are not needed by the public, you probably are making the case that it is not needed by police... we face the same bad people, just at a different frequency. During my time as a medic, I probably saw MORE bad people than some police...yet I couldn't get body armor because it's restricted.... feel good laws have all sorts of consequences....but who cares if you are in the majority that doesn't need / want it.... it's so easy to unilaterally screw others to ease your angst....just pass a law and move on.
12:01 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
jim, your point is well taken on delaying entry. Perhaps if the glass in bullet proof in this case, he would have a harder time gaining entry.
I am not against gun ownership even though I am against shooting innocent live forms. But I think it must be much more heavily legislated to screen out bad or unstable elements. People who own illegal guns must face much harsher sentences.
Greg in LV
3:29 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Hi Jim - I was thinking the same thing this past week. Many schools have the "buzz in" security feature. But I was thinking back to my old military days when we had the secured entry into the AAA or weapons storage area - you walk in one gate and then that gate is locked behind you. Then you exchange your badge with the security police behind the bulletproof glass and then and only then do they open the second security gate to allow entry.
This is of course an extreme solution, do we really want our children to have to endure this type of security check? Many schools already have armed security and metal detectors. Perhaps just implement this for visitors to the school? It sure would have stopped this incident from happening (well assuming the nut-job did not go through a window at that point) but you get my meaning.
Bottom line is we need intelligent solutions. We cannot ever eliminate all evil in the world. Thinking that banning 30 round mags or whatever else is being bandied about will stop gun violence is silly. But, as with most knee-jerk reactions from the politicians in this country (and their useful idiots), it will make them "feel" good that they are "making a difference" and thus they can pat themselves on the back and sleep easier at night.
11:53 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
M justice, by encouraging or allowing your kids to shoot up people on video, do you think not that in a way you are promoting a decline of our culture which may lead to the loss of your desired freedom?
Have you asked yourself or your kids why shooting people on the video is a fun activity? Better yet, have you confronted them what else can they do instead???
M. Justicel
12:01 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Wow BRER, you just don't stop! You can't compare a natural disaster to this tragedy. Are you feeling OK. Again, your ludicrous comparisons about video games fall on deaf ears. Let us work toward a solution and stop trying to reinvent the wheel. If you don't want your kids to play video games or watch certain shows, don't buy them and turn it off. It can't be any easier.
Edward P. Campbell
12:00 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Anti-Gun People are Irresponsible and In fact the root cause of gun violence! Had anyone in the path of that clearly insane shooter been responsible enough to grasp the fact that insanity and evil actually do exist and been responsible enough to arm themselves for that day, that entire incident would have ended when those two crossed paths with perhaps no one but the insane gunman dead!
Evil exists and living in Newton Ct, or a well to do New Jersey suburban town does not prevent evil. Responsible people understand this and arm themselves to protect themselves from that evil. Just the same as you put your seat belts on when you ride in a car. Do you ever get in your car and think today's not my day to have an accident so I don't need to put on my safety belt? No! Why not?. Isn't that the same as saying I don't need a gun in the house or on me, because today isn't my day to get attacked by some jackazz drug crazed idiot who is willing to kill you for the change in your pocket?
Your cell phone, your smarts, your ability isn't going to save you when a criminal comes at you with a baseball bat, let alone a gun intent on robbing you for his next fix. 911 or the police won't be there, and if you aren't smart enough to carry a gun, then it is you who are irresponsible, just the same as not wearing a safety belt.
Stop the violence. Tell Governor Christie to make this a MUST issue State
M. Justicel
12:04 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Ed be prepared for BRER! They are typing right now about to bash you. Nice post!
12:23 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Terrible post, so loosely sewn together. If I were a pro-gun person, I would have be ashamed for this sophomoric effort. I have a hard time believing anyone reading this post will actually go tell Christie. Perhaps M justice will do that, but he is out there:)
12:10 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
concerned, it seems that you justify whatever M justice has said as appropriate and mine inappropriate. Fine with me. People can read and some of them can think.
It is I who has pointed out that the CT mom was not irresponsible in seeking psychological intervention for her son. You said that she was irresponsible with everyone else's safety knowing he had explosive uncontrollable tendencies and she still chose to leave her arsenal in a place which was assessable to him. That statement is not necessarily all true because even though he is mentally unstable, we have up to now no idea if her guns were in fact made available to him by her willingly. We simply do not know that, and to me, to call her irresponsible by your assessment is in fact, irresponsible.
You keep on saying that M justice did not name call me. He may disappoint!
12:13 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER your posts continually go off topic and reiterate your inability to have an educated adult conversation void of name calling, criticizing, and belittling. Your post have also demonstrated beautifully my earlier point in reference to discussing and comparing irrelevant issues. Maybe you need a time out to calm down and refocus. These posts are not meant to be used as an avenue for personal attack. Perhaps you were not aware of that.
12:25 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Perhaps you are clueless and were clueless when you pronounced something that has M justice severely confused, lol
New Jersey Lawyer
12:14 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I really wish these leftist eggheads would publicly state their real view, which is repealing the Second Amendment. They'd then swiftly learn that the vast majority of Americans would refuse to let that happen. That is their endgame, reforming the Constitution to make it what they view it as, a document to be conformed to their whims, as in finding an non-existent right to abort a fetus in the Fourteenth Amendment. No, as it pertains to Roe and its progeny, liberals run from the strict constructionist argument, but as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment, magically, they become strict constructionists talking about militias and muskets. Frauds, every one of them.
M. Justicel
12:16 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER, this happens to be the last thing I say to you for today because I have to go. This stuff is right in my wheel house. I have an extremely high reading comprehension unlike yourself who can barely spell correctly, have horrendous sentence structure, and want to compare the most ridiculous things that cannot be compared. The problem is people like yourself who think nothing like this will ever happen here. I will not try and dictate what items used in a murder will now need extra control. You have the fortunate ability to sit at home all day with the iPad or remote control in your hand spouting what reality you think you know. Unfortunately, I don't have that luxury. Best of luck in the future!
12:17 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity". -- Sigmund Freud
12:37 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A love of weapons is a sign of denied sexuality and emotional immaturity:)
12:26 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER The mere fact the young man got his mothers guns proves they were accessible whether it was by his mothers will or not. My calling the mother irresponsible is my opinion which last time I checked, I was entitled to.
12:33 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
so it is not off topic after all? :) i love the way you generalize. If i don't know better, I'd be tempted to believe you have point! :)
calling someone irresponsible just because you are entitle to is fine with me, just not that adult like, as you aspired :)
12:36 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
There is a big big difference between mom letting the kid have access to guns willingly vs he somehow figured out the lock combo. If you simply broad stroke both as irresponsible, as equal, then I see why you adore your M justice, haha.
12:45 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Symptoms: no coherent logic, inability to punctuate, excessive use of smilies, multiple references to emotions. Diagnosis: 17-19 year old troll, basement room, no stable income, no life outside Internet, hairy palms.
12:32 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER the only thing I find myself "clueless" about is the content of your posts. Incoherent gibberish. Again, my opinion!
12:40 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
no problem with me how your opine. Thanks for investing the time:)
12:42 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
When you run out of sensible arguments, suddenly, things become incoherent gibberish:) Sure, that is convenient.
Edward P. Campbell
12:45 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER Do you have any idea what went down in that house before the mother was killed? Could Adam have over powered his mother and forced her to open a safe, a locker, or reveal where she hid the guns and ammo? Can you blame her for being afraid and wanting weapons in her house? A large house in a well to do area and she's a women all by herself. If that isn't a target for a home invasion, I don't know what is! BRER, do you think one can just call 911 and everything will be alright? Well if that's true then why is she along with 26 other people dead?
12:56 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
she is dead not because of home invasion but because of his son's action.
Yes, for most folks who are not that trained with expert use of weapons, yes, calling 911 is the best bet. use the money instead to develop a safe room or something.
what if a lady homeowner decides to defend herself with a gun and there are intruders hiding in 3 locations all aiming at her. Originally they are for money, now they may really shoot her. Don't you see the absurdity in this type of amateur do gooders???
12:47 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The left wing politicians and rich liberal anti gun nuts are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites. They walk around with their HEAVILY armed security details while they tell the everyday people they don't need guns for personal defense. How about they follow their own rhetoric and go around with their guards with no guns like they make our soldiers do that guard some of our embassies. How about the lead hypocrite Obama whose own official sold lots of guns to Mexican drug cartels. Fast and furious sound familiar? And then he is going to tell us about gun regulations. Liberals try to avoid facts and history and just spout propaganda. I guess we should only have the criminal carry guns because they will get them no matter what laws you pass restricting guns. I should negotiate with someone on drugs breaking into my house robbing me and threatening my family? No! I will shoot them! Guns are for defense. We let morals and values go down the tubes and then we wonder why things like this happen. How about we teach personal responsibility and right and wrong. How about we strengthen the family unit and not tear it apart. When you take God out of everything, evil steps in. Oh, that's right, liberals don't want to have God mentioned in anything. Lets remove Him from everything and see what happens. Oh, I guess we already are. The problem is not with the guns, its with society and their attitudes and beliefs.
12:48 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
i know, Maxim, talking about emotion in Russia is not cool! :):):):)
M. Justicel
12:59 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Max, whomever BRER is there's no descriptive. Completely lost in a bottle as far as I'm concerned. It is amazing how many people see the same things and they still don't get it. Then they attack your Russian heritage. Sad!
M. Justicel
12:55 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
No BRER that actually is not the case. People work and actually have to go to work unlike yourself. Put the wine glass down, and stop the Xanax. Go get reevaluated or your medication adjusted. I have been in my career for over twenty years, what do you contribute to? Raising children all day long? Important, yes! Gives you some sort of knowledge on this subject after you've watched television all day, pausing to pick the kids up after a few glasses of Pinot or your favorite vodka tonic? NEVER! Why don't you go back over everything you have said and realize what you said. Much of it is incoherent and impossible to understand. But I guess that comes from your ability to write that you got from Harvard Law School and the rest of us peasants will never be on the same sheet of music as you. Please!
1:03 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
You know, Concerned was giving you high marks and scolded me for calling you names, but it seems that his validation on you has inspired you to be all you want to be by going way above calling names. But it is ok because Concerned will just brush it off . I don't drink and I don't take medications as you insinuated. I have a lot of free time because I have worked very hard in my youth and sold my companies a while ago. Now I spend time doing charity works all over and bash pompous asses like you:)
1:06 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
And stop calling yourself a peasant. That hurts good farmers :)
3:57 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER if M. Justicel gives a bad name to the good farmers of the world, you give well educated people a bad name by masquerading as someone who has any knowledge when clearly the knowledge you possess is minimal at best. Dont you have some charity work you should be getting back to?
12:56 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER When you're ready to produce something worth discussion, I'm happy to participate. Given I have the time of course. Which I am now out of. Stay safe, however you feel fit. That's ultimately what it's all about.
1:04 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
You can twist things around to sound good to justify your lack of logic and integrity. One key element is a debate is honesty. If you said something incorrectly, own up to it.
1:13 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
m justice, it is sad to see you try to win alliance with Maxim. You are really this little?
Have to go to do something (unlike you coming back after a bathroom trip:)
M. Justicel
2:02 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
For the record, I did not call you anything like you calling me a pompous ass! It seems when people have lost, they tend to do exactly what you just did resort to childish name calling. You need help.
M. Justicel
2:09 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
You sold companies? Come on. Always easy to stretch the truth when you can hide behind anonymity. Let me guess, you look like a super model to? Why don't you get a better hobby than this. Read others posts, you have no supporters. And I just commented on Max's post, not trying to create an army against you.
Edward P. Campbell
1:34 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER - "Amateur Do Gooders?" WTF is that? A person defending themselves from a criminal who is willing to kill them, their family, and destroy all their worldly goods?
I don't know about you BRER, but I came from nothing worked my azz off for all I have, it takes 10 minutes best case for the police to get to my place, and I'll be damned if you think I'm going to let some insane, drug crazed fool walking in here, hurt my family or take my belongings!
Amateur Do Gooders, OMG! This country and all the things you have BRER were built on amateur do "gooders."
Oh and I know this will be hard for you to understand, because your only knowledge of a gun is what you watch on TV. But if three criminals are aiming on her and she is a proficient shooter, their dead, she's not. Get your butt off the computer and afternoon TV shows, go to a range with a 9mm handgun and try to shoot a target at 20 feet. Even with a laser scope, I bet you don't hit the bulls eye, or for that matter even the target.
1:39 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The shooter's mother had guns. It didn't protect her, did it?
1:40 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> The shooter's mother had guns. It didn't protect her, did it? <<
That's because she was not allowed to carry inside the school.
1:47 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
It might have if she had been carrying one on her and then none of those people would have died.
1:55 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Rich, maybe she was. Maybe she thought carrying a gun would protect her from her son?
Bottom line, owning a gun didn't protect her. It sealed her fate.
7:52 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I know quite a few law abiding people that sleep with a gun under their bed or next to them while they sleep. Owning a gun did not keep the shooter's mother safe.
1:43 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Yes. Had she been able to carry a gun into a school (that she had no connection to) it would have saved her from being shot in the face in her bedroom. (???)
1:50 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jersey-- Mrs. Lanza had it coming. If you have a mentally unstable son with full access to your house and your guns aren't hidden and trigger-locked, you deserve the fate that eventually befalls you. Too bad some innocent children paid for her mistake with their lives. I might be a gun aficionado but I believe (and teach my children) that freedoms & responsibilities go hand in hand.
1:54 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Oh, c'mon Jersey, lighten up and smell some coffee. Of course it's a joke. Line breaks in the article are a hint. It's still funny, though. :)
M. Justicel
2:21 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
BRER, for someone who doesn't watch television, you sure have incredible misguided knowledge about this incident. Where did you get such knowledge? Please let us all know so we can have some to!
Dan Grant
2:55 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Congratulations to Patch for once again proving how many uninformed and dare I say stupid people there are commenting here. Quite simply this tragic situation was accomplished by a stupid woman who had the legal weaponry to do this. The plain simple fact is that if she didn't indulge herself in this "sport" those children and adults would be alive. It is time for sane gun control.
clyde donovan
3:04 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
I don't want to live in your version of a totalitarian dictatorship. Move to North Korean if you want live in that kind of brutal, controlled society.
3:08 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
A round of welcoming applause to our local hammer-and-sickle propagandist, Mr. Dan Grant. What are your today's talking points on what "sane gun control" is, Dan?
tony g2010
4:28 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
If she would have drowned the kid like an unwanted kitten 20 years ago, those kids and adults would be alive as well. How's that for logic Dan? Should have, could have, wish she had.
Dan Grant
5:16 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Wow, Look at that more posts to prove I am right. Clyde, Max, Tony thanks for competing but Edward still has the lead, although Max is always in the running.
5:26 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Dan's moderate suggestion for gun control compels drama queens Clyde and Maxim to scream "totalitarian dictatorship" and "hammer-and-sickle propagandist" prompts one to wonder about their capacity for self-control, not to mention simple civility.
tony g2010
9:13 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
So Dan, Mr. Democratic Politician, Sunday School Teacher, Church Elder, blah, blah, bla. You should be outraged that this little punk sat and played video games like Call of Duty and Halo that actually taught him how to kill people in closed quarters, in buildings and desensitized him to seeing bodies blown apart as a part of these games. I have news for you, they don't teach that at target ranges, most do not even allow targets that take a human form. Hundreds of children are killed every day by abortion, sucked to pieces while still alive by "doctors".You affiliate with a party that supports abortion under the guise of "women's health" and then have the audacity to attack law abiding, familyloving, taxpaying, gun owning citizens. Any gun owner that I know would have loved the opportunity to take this kid out before he walked into that school, while people like you, elect two faced politicians that shed crocodile tears at this tragedy, then allow children to be murdered by the hundreds every day. He was a sick bastard and in case you missed it, he stole those guns and blew mom's head off. Take your liberal bias and stick it. There are over 250 million guns in America, and thanks to anti gun rhetoric like yours, people that had no interest in owning weapons like this, are buying them in droves, as a matter of fact, they are sold out everywhere and no laws that are passed will ever be able to get those guns back. Pat yourself on the back Dan, great job.
Edward P. Campbell
3:17 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
"The plain simple fact is that if she didn't indulge herself in this "sport" those children and adults would be alive." And you know this for Fact Mr. Grant? How is that?
Well than according to your logic the 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, who died on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City would still be alive if Ryder didn't rent trucks.
Dan Grant
3:58 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Edward, That is about the dumbest statement on here. Are you saying those weapons didn't come from her? It is absolute fact that his access to that kind of firepower was because she had it. No weapons of that type in her home and those kids and their teachers would be alive. End of story. You and Max should get together for coffee You would have much to agree on, I'm sure. PS Max, based on your previous posts and your gun ownership, if I were law enforcement I would take your's away right now.
4:03 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> PS Max, based on your previous posts and your gun ownership, if I were law enforcement I would take your's away right now. <<
Communist fanatics are hell bent on confiscating private property from law-abiding citizens, what else is new? That's *exactly* why I prefer to keep my guns, Dan - to give you a proper welcome when you try.
Edward P. Campbell
4:13 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Not Stupid Dan. You are just too stupid to put it together! Do you need me to connect the dots for you?
Jim Mitchell
3:31 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Australia banned guns in 1989..check out this trend
3:53 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
jim how bout this fact; America more guns than any other country and more gun related murders than any other country..
if your the theory is 'more guns= more saftey" than America quickly proves that theory wrong.
More guns = more gun related deaths, basic math
3:57 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> More guns = more gun related deaths, basic math <<
More minorities = more gun related deaths. They just can't keep their guns (and other parts) holstered. Check European statistics when they reach 34% of minority population.
4:33 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> are russians a minority? <<
Would you please elaborate how is that related to the issue being discussed?
4:54 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
umm look at your above comment
"More minorities = more gun related deaths. They just can't keep their guns (and other parts) holstered."
so i was wondering if russians are considered minorities in the US, and if you hold them responsible for crimes.
5:01 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Russians probably get their share of violent crime in NYC, but they are not considered minorities in the US. People of limited mental capacity - not to point a finger - often assume that only Russians live in Russia. So if there was an implied personal insult there, it's kinda lost on me.
3:54 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Move out of the way old fart and let someone else learn the ropes.
Jim Mitchell
4:33 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
response to (o).
I did not post a theory on guns equating to safety. I did post a graph that appears to suggest that less guns means more 'knife related deaths'. When you propose to infring on a population's enumerated rights.. I think YOU bear a burden of fact based proof that a true benefit exists which offsets the infringement. I do not in fact see the benefit, nor do I believe there is one. I have lived through a gun ban, it failed....why would it help now?
Do you have a problem with us changing the way schools are built to better secure the children while still keeping them safe from other threats? Maybe we could find something to agree on as a nation, and make that happen first?
stewart resmer
4:33 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Here comes Joe Biden and boy is he pissed!
Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows.
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
5:27 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jim, yes the instrument used in murders in Australia has changed but the overall number of homicides is down according goths same source you posted.
Jim Mitchell
6:56 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
The US murder rate is down too...it's unrelated to gun control.
5:41 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Woman in Scotch Plains set herself and 3 year old on fire inside their home, both dead.
7:13 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Well Jim, I guess I'll just take your word for it, seeing as how you're knowledgable about criminology and not just relying on you gut, advancing your own ideals and sopping up the contents of NRA memes.
7:19 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
>> advancing your own ideals and sopping up the contents of NRA memes. <<
I do remind you that you already stepped into a cow-pie by accusing me of the latter. Some people that don't agree with you actually think for themselves. Plus, a partisan accusation is totally ironic coming from a NY Mag reader. :)
7:28 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Maxim, are you posting under both the names Maxim and Jim? Because again, if you READ CAREFULLY, my post was directed at Jim.
This seems to be a reccuring problem of yours. Seriously, you might consider addressing it. By reading.
7:35 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
No, Jersey, and I really have no idea who Jim is. I just don't enjoy seeing people insulted for making sense, and that's what you did. Moreover, a few hours ago you made a fool of yourself by throwing the same insult my way. Don't do it, please.
8:08 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Really? You can call someone a "hammer and sickle propagandist" - but when I say someone is relying on NRA memes I'm the one hurling insults. The hypocracy is a little overwhelming.
8:11 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Jersey, the difference is that Mr. Dan Grant hails from my town, I know him personally, and he actually *is* a hammer-and-sickle propagandist. For a lawyer, you are awfully quick to jump to conclusions.
Edward P. Campbell
10:47 pm on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Maxim - You mean this Dan Grant?
I love the part where he files a complaint with NJElec, and ends up getting fined by NJElec himself!!!! Dan should never own a gun, as he would certainly shoot off his own foot.
Dan Grant
12:02 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Max does not know me personally because although I have debated in front of him he has hidden like the mouse he is and never even asked so much as a question. He is nothing but a key board cowboy and loses his nerve face to face. The other guy posted a political diatribe made up by a developer who was unhappy. Happens in politics all the time . Just not the kind of thing I would do.
12:41 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Yeah, this one. My town elected him a mayor in a bout of temporary insanity, but later people returned to their senses and promptly disposed of the garbage. The guy's a used car salesman now living off community funds. He's such a perfect basket case, I hope he lives long enough to serve as a political scarecrow for another generation.
8:19 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Ed Dante, some of what you stated has been verified, others not so, which was my point yesterday when facts were mixed with opinions. It is plausible that he came to the knowledge to gain access to the guns, but we don't know when and how. Also, I am not sure if shooting as a hobby under guidance is necessarily an irresponsible act on her part during the period of time when we don't know exactly his mental state. We don't know for sure if shooting itself may alleviate his social isolation feeling, as a potential means of therapy or family bonding. He was not a monster from day one, but someone with mental dysfunction and deterioration over time. Many Aspergers are highly functional and live peaceful lives. We do not have all the facts to say that she was irresponsible keeping those guns just because he has Aspergers. I hate guns myself, but I respect her decision keeping them because she has a right to do so. You THINK your guns are in a safe place; perhaps she felt the same way. This case from day one has taught us lessons on coming to conclusions in haste. We thought his brother was the shooter. We attributed to his psychiatric diagnosis and then found out the in hospital planning was the more credible trigger of his madness. Given all that, we know what we know and we need to acknowledge what we do not know. In this case, it is more likely than not that we will never find out some things which I accept that as a fact.
Jim Mitchell
8:51 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Are you still in support of the immediate ban on firearms while the memory of the CT event is still in the forefront...even though you acknowledge that most facts remain unknown?
Ed Dantes
2:31 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Brer, We may not know how and why he accessed his mothers gun, however we know he accessed them prior to shooting her. He did not have her finger print to access a Bio-metric safe, if the combination was in her head and there only (he would need to be a mind reader). Thus Nancy either didn't secure her gun (illegal) or provided her mentally unstable son the key or combination.
I do not believe that shooting should be provided as an outlet for a mentally unstable person, of course this is the reason states like NJ and CT conduct mental background screening before allowing someone to purchase a gun. By taking Adam to the range and allowing/teaching him to shoot, Nancy made a choice that she knew better then the Lawmakers and doctors and took Adam to the range. Adam may not have been a monster from day one, but his issues were documented by Nancy. Adam would not have been permitted into a range until he was 16 (with his mother), his problems were well known and documented by then. Again this goes back to Nancy being irresponsible. I do not think my guns are secured, I know they are. They have trigger locks and are in safes requiring my finger print or a combination that only I know.
Edward P. Campbell
8:29 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
A quick check of the NJElec sight shows numerous complaints and decision against Dan Grant when he ran for office in Montvale. This complaints range from 1999 to 2007. They mostly revolve around Dan not filling required forms, or filling them late. (like 700 plus days late) These forms are required by NJ Law and allow we the citizen to understand who is underwriting, and or contributing to a candidate.
Dan's decision not to file or file very late makes me wonder why Dan didn't want anyone to know who was contributing to his campaign.
Dan was also fined by the State of New Jersey for his actions in the above mater
In addition to the above, Dan was also sued for defamation (lying about others) and was forced by a judge to retract his statements and write an apology to the party he libeled.
Dan believes he is judge, jury, and executioner, when he makes claims like if he were in law enforcement, he'd forcibly strip me of my guns, because I've put a few posts on forums supporting gun rights. Dan, also, believes he is a true American Patriot, given deity like powers to tell us all how to run our lives according to Dan, not our constitution, or written established and tested laws.
Fortunately, most readers here see Dan for the proven person he really is!
Dan Grant
12:17 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Edward you don't know anything. First, I never said anything about taking your guns. I said it to Max because I don't believe he is normal. Second the form that I was fined for is a filing that says you will not spend any money and was for a primary in which I spent no money. No judge required me to do anything. It was a settlement that contained no word of apology in it. If I am not mistaken that puts me in the same league with our esteemed Governor.
12:36 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
>> No judge required me to do anything. It was a settlement that contained no word of apology in it. If I am not mistaken that puts me in the same league with our esteemed Governor. <<
Yeah, so much like Gov. Jon Corzine. Donate to Ogabe's campaign, get out of jail scot-free.
Dan Grant
1:05 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Max, You didn't move to Montville until I was out of office so you know nothing about the 15 years I was in office. I was never Mayor because Montville doesn't elect a Mayor. Finally the Governor is no longer Corzine and I was refering to our current Governor who was also sued for the same reason. Politics is a blood sport.
1:13 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
>> Max, You didn't move to Montville until I was out of office so you know nothing about the 15 years I was in office. I was never Mayor because Montville doesn't elect a Mayor. <<
And I certainly wouldn't consider moving into a town that have a Communist lunatic elected into the TC. Fortunately, Montville residents came to their senses just when I needed a house. Oh, and since your golden age shows so obviously, I'll remind you: Montville does have a Mayor, we just don't elect him (or her) by direct voting.
Edward P. Campbell
9:17 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
More Heart Breaking news:
Insanity knows no bounds!
Edward P. Campbell
9:25 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Until America can neutralize the very real deadly threats of the insane and drug addicts, I'll continue to have firearms in my house and I'll continue to push to make NJ a MUST issue state!
9:38 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Jim Mitchell,,
My position is that I don't like guns and I don't own guns (just like I don't like rap music, etc) I don't do things that will invite people to use guns on me, at least so far:). If there is an intruder to my place looking for material things, I will be more than happy to part with them. If there are people who want to use firearms on me for the purpose of killing me, I will admit that is my fate. I don't think my having firearm will make much of a difference because those who sneak up on me will render me incompetent with firearm use. I am a big puss. I can't even dribble basketball with ease! In fact, I think I can bring more harm to myself if I let it known that I carry firearm. I am a lover, not a fighter:). There is a good chance that I will accidentally shoot myself!
Now, if there is a chance to vote to ban ALL firearms, I won't go for it because I don't think no one should be allowed to bear arms. But if there is a vote to ban semi-auto and up, yes, I will vote for it because I think in the wrong hands, the consequences are much bigger.
Did the CT incident bring this issue to the forefront? Sure, nothing wrong with that because it is an issue that unfortunately needs more attention.
Jim Mitchell
11:09 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Be mindful, when you begin the process of prescribing what is right for others, you open the door for them to do the same to you (this nation was once based on the premise of freedom..right up to the tip of someone else's nose...I kinda like that premise). Have you ever had a bad encounter with someone legally possessing a semi auto?
1:51 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
The trouble lies with the fact that the majority don't create situations with an open invitation to get shot. People who arbitrarily perform acts of terror, whether in the private or public sectors are irrational to begin with. A nonchalant attitude with a wait and watch mentality only represents ones inability to react with a swift appropriate response. The kind of response warranted in a life or death situation in order to protect yourself and your family. I'm sure the masses would agree that no one wants to be involved in a situation where deadly force is the only remaining avenue to save oneself. But in this day and age, that need is becoming more prevalent than anyone is really comfortable with. Certainly and only to be used as a last resort. Preparedness is truly the key to self preservation.
11:51 am on Thursday, December 20, 2012
To me the 8th wonder of the world is the group of wise men plotting out the formation of USA. They set America apart since day one; years later America remains to be the country where the rest of the world looks up to. Shaken perhaps but still matter very much so. Bash this country all people want. At the end of the day, people try to smuggle into USA and I have not heard US citizens trying to sneak into other countries. What in fact damage America's reputation are incidents like CT where the rest of the world fault us for failing to control semi auto weapons and not taking care our mentally sick, whether their views have any merit or not.
I am not a history buff and have no clear idea exactly all the reasons for the right to bear arm. To fight off oppressive govt? To preserve individual rights and liberty?
Nowadays, I can see why some enjoy target shooting or even hunting. (My wife's colleague's children have represented this country in Olympics in shooting and they are the gentlest and nicest). But to keep arms in the house just to fight off home invasion? Moreover, the govt is already killing me plentiful with taxes. I don't think they will need guns, really.
Perhaps I am privileged living where I do, but I think the access to dial 911 is much more efficient and productive way to go about it. If the bad guy knows I have a gun, I think he is more likely to shoot me which to me is a very bad outcome:)
12:05 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
oh Jim, I have never had any encounter with guns in any situation. Never shot a gun. May be an air gun as a kid. I would like to think my skill set is at diffusing the situation so that no shots are fired. To me that is the ultimate cool, to mentally overcome a physically imposing bad guy. Probably not an easy thing to do, but to me it is easier than overcoming someone with a gun with a gun:)
On some level, I think there is pride with gun ownership, a sense of empowerment. Unfortunately, I question the population on the average is truly ready to take on the task of really using it effectively in close range combat, with no prior prof training.
To me if you point and shoot, your obligation is to kill. Your job is to cause maximum amt of damage. That takes training and I don't mean target shooting in the range.
Stacie Bohr
12:42 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
This is one of the most disgusting threads I have ever read. Each and very one of us are entitled to our opinions regarding gun control. The nastiness, as usual, is insane. Voice your opinion, stand your ground...whatever it is. 27 people are dead for God's sake. Can't you debtate in a respectful manner for, at the very least, for these people and their memory.
1:01 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
>> 27 people are dead for God's sake. Can't you debate in a respectful manner for, at the very least, for these people and their memory. <<
Ms. Bohr, I don't think the deceased have Internet access in Heaven. Even if they do, they are very unlikely to bother reading the Patch. Thanks to our President's efforts, the country is so polarized these days that respect for the other side comes in extremely short supply. Let it better be Internet spats than blows and bullets.
M. Justicel
1:38 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Mrs. Bohr, I totally agree that these posts do turn in a direction which goes off topic and outright disrespectful to one another. Of course everyone is entitled to their individual opinion. Unfortunately, numerous things said here are not opinions. A distortion of fact is not an opinion. It is a lack of education on the subject. Do we all just allow everyone to be uneducated on the subject or do we try and help one another better understand? I don't claim to know everything but I know what I do for a living, and this tragic incident affects what I do in my daily job. I'm not going to allow anyone to regurgitate things just because they have a "right" to their opinion nor do I want anyone telling me what I can and cannot own as a responsible adult gun owner. Their opinion about gun control they can have all day long: more stringent background checks, more access to mental health records, less bullets in a magazine. I totally agree they can speak their individual opinions. My major problem is they want to dictate and control what I purchase and own. That opinion is wrong!
Edward P. Campbell
1:45 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Respect? What is that Stacie? People should respect others wealth, unless they have too much of it? People should respect other peoples legally owned belongings, so long as they aren't guns? People should respect what I do on my private property, unless I want to sell it to a developer. People should respect my religion, unless I bring it out in public.
Respect? We don't live in a respectful country any longer Stacie!
Stacie Bohr
1:56 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Max...their may be no Internet in heaven but they have surviving family members and friends. Forgive me if I think respect goes beyond the here and now. @ Justice and Ed...I may sound simplistic...I just find it sad that people can't form an opinion, voice it (without shoving it down another's throat), and carry on. But really, that's not simple...it's just who I am and how I operate. Happy Holidays, gentlemen!
M. Justicel
1:59 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
I do not disagree with you. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!
Comfortably Numb
2:10 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
the sale of assault weapons does seem crazy, but keep in mind things like this don't happen in Texas. Im not a pro gun guy but I'm totally convinced that guns are less dangerous than biological warfare, chemical warfare and possibly the creation of some explosive devices so be careful about what you wish for. If crazy minds want to destroy they will destroy.
4:26 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
"Things like this don't happen in Texas", don't they? The Luby's massacre wasn't that long ago, and then there's Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald...
2:30 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Concerned, in response to your posting earlier, I understand your point and sentiment if that is how you look at the situation. I think I have clearly shown my position, that I am uncomfortable defending myself with a firearm against people who are possibly better armed and better trained. I think your objective for yourself is to not get harmed. If I follow your way, I am pretty sure I will get hurt more easily:) Therefore, I prefer to rely on law enforcement.
In the 1700s, law enforcement was sparse. There was much less organization. Where we live now, it is only a phone call away. To me it is a no brainer which way is preferred by me. It is not a nonchalant attitude at all. I am damn serious about it being the best way out there for me. Again, to be fair, I am not downplaying your way is not the best way for you. Just very different approach toward this very very rare event.
Since some of you, possibly including you, are very high on self arming for protection just in case, I wonder if there are reading material out there that actually pool data on the outcome of the type of scenario that you are talking about, that is, lists of success stories to convince people in the middle or the other side that your point is backed by solid data.
2:37 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
For example, of all home invasions, what percent to home with owners with or without firearm vs with? similarly to above, that invaders actually carry firearms?
of the invaders carrying firearm, what percent meant for killing the home owner vs for money vs for other purposes...
of those 3 types, what are the outcomes invaders with gun /without gun against owners with gun / without gun...
Some simple data will give people a much better idea of the probabilities...
3:46 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
By no means am I suggesting that my idea of being prepared should be everyone's approach. Statistics can't predict where the next devastating, inexplicable, heinous act will occur. They only verify the likelihood of such acts. I absolutely, vehemently, and passionately have unwavering faith in law enforcement to protect my loved ones. I have no greater respect than for those who sacrifice their safety and wellbeing on a daily basis for mine. However, there can be instances where time is of the essence. I pray that I am never looking eye to eye with the evil among us, but should it occur I will at least do my best to protect my most valuable assets; those being my loved ones. Make no mistake; this kind of protection is a "no other options thought process" under the most extreme circumstances. I don't spend my days thinking "today I am going to shoot to kill" I spend my days thinking "I hope I'm never faced with a situation where I have to". Let me reiterate, we are talking about extreme circumstances. However, I appreciate and respect your stance.
2:31 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wow I support the 2nd amendment but after reading the ignorance and paranoia here I'm rethinking my position.
To the "from my cold, dead hands crowd." that's what happened to that woman last Friday so good luck.
Or you could be the next Zimmerman - a man who will have to live in hiding for the rest of his life because he had to "protect himself" and now leaves the floor open to any of us to shoot him dead in the street "protecting ourselves" from the man who shoots first and asks questions later.
My liberal self will be safe from either such scenarios. My liberal self could also toss a man twice my weight and doesn't need a gun for protection.
tony g2010
2:57 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Unless you can catch bullets, you can toss all you want and probably do. Zimmerman will safely live out his days in Texas, when he is acquitted.
M. Justicel
3:06 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Hrhppg, always remember there's always someone tougher than you!
M. Justicel
3:07 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
And to clarify something about Zimmerman, Florida law allowed him to do what he did!
2:54 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Ed Duante, in response to your post, that is a fair and good post, thanks. As I said, I don't like to speculate on how he gained access to the guns. I am happy you are extremely confident that your gun lock is safe and sound. But out there there are a lot of crazy stuff. When looking at that Chicago prison building, I would never think it is possible that 2 guys slipped away by hanging off bed sheet 20 story high...
M. Justicel
3:21 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Great post BRER about the Minnesota teacher bringing a gun to school. Problem is she violated the school policy and will now be punished for it. What is the point exactly for posting the article? It was someone afraid who happens to be a responsible teacher with over twenty years in the field. She obviously feels unsafe with the current way the structure, design, and security the school currently has. Again where does the problem begin. It's not with her, although she violated the school policy, it's the school! If every school had proper surveillance, armed details in side the school, proper entry control, and better construction, the likely hood this could happen again would be slim to none. We do everything imaginable to protect the Internet from hackers, why can't we do it in the schools?
Edward P. Campbell
8:00 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Here is the Difference between just opinion, as compared to using the government to force your opinion on someone else who may disagree.
OPINION: Guns are safe and everyone should always have one with them.
FORCING OPINION: Guns are safe and we need to pass laws requiring everyone to carry one.
OPINION: Guns are dangerous and no one should ever carry one.
FORCING OPINION: Guns are dangerous and we need to pass laws banning them.
As to the people who say, well just put a $1,500 surcharge on high capacity clips, there problem solved. Having been witness to the death and destruction caused by drunk drivers, I say great idea about the gun surcharge, let's put a $1,500 surcharge on any alcoholic beverage too. There problem solved.
8:37 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Raising the fines and penalties on DWI to in excess of $5,000-$10,000 sure slowed down the DWI's. I know no one who will drink and drive anymore, On one of the largest gun sales web sites, (Buds Guns) this morning, all the tactical weapons under $3,000 are all sold out, all the $10,000-$12,000 weapons all in stock. You can absolutely price people out of this market. I shoot competitively with pistols, the rules are 5 rounds at a time. Most people that target shoot do not use guns that hold more than 10 rounds and if you walked on a range anywhere in NJ with a 30 round magazine, you would be arrested immediately, as most of the time there is a cop either working or shooting there. I understand how passionate people are about this, there are extremes on both sides, but when the government threatens to take things away, people horde them. Before the presidential election one of the business webs sites ran a story about what Cabella's and some of the other stores were going to load up on for the Holidays, Guns if Obama got in and apparel and skis if Romney got in. That tells you how divided this country is. Any gun owner I know is disgusted by what happened in CT and blame the mother and the video games, but get very defensive when the anti-gun rhetoric becomes irrational. The reality is that there are some may of these weapons and magazines out there, that any laws that are put into place will not make a difference, If someone wants to do this again, they will.
10:43 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
anthony years ago over 50% of americans owned guns. now its about 30%... more people arent buying guns, just the same insecure rednecks and gansters are buying more guns.
so when you say they are selling out of guns its not because more people are buying guns, its just the idiots think they wont be able to legally buy assualt weapons anymore. and if they dont have their assualt weapons how are they going to show off to there friends and look like a tough guys to make up for their insecurities.
most gun owners are like guys who buy fancy cars.... they are packing because they arent "packing" if you know what i mean
9:14 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Compensation, people like you remind me of a quote in a movie that glorifies violence and really speaks to the nonsense you spew.
Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. .45 here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous a** in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that sh*t ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men.
Don't have a gun, that is your right, my right is to have one. People that don't own guns, typically don't have the "balls" to use one anyway when it counts, if you know what I mean.
11:22 pm on Thursday, December 20, 2012
Who are responsible for gun owner irresponsibility?. The gun owner or Gun maker or Gun user. If liability insurance is implemented on guns and gun owners. The problem might be solved to certain extent.
M. Justicel
2:08 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
ROH, who is responsible for gun owner irresponsibility? The gun owner! Who else would it be? How many cases of accidental shootings because the gun owner was irresponsible. What happens to the gun owner? They are arrested! Liability insurance for who? The victim of the tragedy, or the irresponsible gun owner who now must live their life with the unmeasurable guilt of knowing a child has died because they didn't secure their firearm properly.
12:43 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
There is a law in Connecticut that you can't transport the ammo and the gun in the same vehicle, so the shooter must have had an accomplice, right? Anyone hell bent on a killing rampage is bound to pause and consider the law, right? It's pointless to impose these rules on the sane and responsible with the assumption that the insane or irresponsible will abide the law.
What is seriously tragic is that the teachers and authorities were powerless to defend the children.
8:56 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
Yes, lets give all those teachers guns. That will stop these maniacs.
And while we are at it lets let the kids carry guns two. A killer will surely think twice about walking into a room if he thinks that a barrage of gunfire will come at him from the desks.
9:11 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
>> And while we are at it lets let the kids carry guns two. A killer will surely think twice about walking into a room if he thinks that a barrage of gunfire will come at him from the desks. <<
The idea isn't as stupid as it's supposed to sound. Kids who can legally carry should be allowed to - conditional on background check and shrink's permission. We sure had no problem with 18 year old kids carrying weapons in Vietnam, did we?
M. Justicel
2:14 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
Nicely said DXJ! I said the same thing in one of my earlier posts. The new laws will only affect the responsible gun owners. No one wants to address the real problems like you said. Its easiest to go after the ones who abide by the rules!
11:03 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
M justice, it is clear we will look at the MN teacher bringing gun to school against school regulation differently. It really depends on our perspective.
Let's look at it from the angle of the school principal, assuming for a second I wear that hat, I will have a serious problem with her doing that. In fact, I think you will, too, even if personally you understand where she is coming from. She took upon herself to take a gun into the school against a policy enforced by you. You too may share the similar ideology but to maintain that you lead a school that she considers unsafe and therefore she takes her own action cannot possibly be acceptable to you. She should have discussed her fear and anxiety with you and ask for permission if she can bring her gun to school.
What scares me more is someone like this teacher shooting inside the school and accidentally hurt kids with stray bullets...
11:37 am on Friday, December 21, 2012
Applaud NRA's initiative with the national school safety shield, to engage and organize well trained people to participate in the program to defend our schools. Good guys in the NRA are doing good things proactively against bad elements with access to legal or illegal firearms.
12:09 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
ok you have an armed policeman at every school, im sure the supporters of this will also support the additional taxes to support these police officers. whats next a policeman at every day care, little league game, chucky cheese, etc...?
im confused gun supporters say guns protect us from the government but to keep their guns they now want more gonverment intervention (policeman at all schools) and to become a policed state.
they will say things like this but ignore locical ideas such as this one: http://news.yahoo.com/smart-guns-show-promise-not-readily-available-u-202657039.html. that will allow them to keep their guns while making it safer for others.
1:12 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Not sure if you know, right now in Basking Ridge, there are already increased police presence during school, which is a good thing. More initiative on this topic is a better thing. Whether it is a volunteer based or fed supported eventually is no big deal to me. Even if I have to share with some increased tax is fine with me.
Smart gun idea is smart if guns around us are all registered legally which is not the case. It helps, but having better defense at the school is much better.
1:18 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Totally agree with compensation. Next there will be armed guards at the mall. And maybe parks or restaurants, who knows? Look. I've been to countries where the Police or security patrol with rifles. (Mexico, Jamaica, etc) It doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me feel like I'm in a war zone.
Incidentally, who is to say the "good guy" wins?? One guy with gun goes against another guy with gun, pretty 50/50. Should the security detail have semi automatic or automatic weapons? If not they will probably get outgunned.
This line of reasoning is absurd.
1:44 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Jersey, let me dump some news on you: Israel already has armed guards in every school, every mall, and pretty much every other place where people mix and congregate. Is it the best solution? In Israel, it probably is, because the number of insane degenerates with access to weapons and explosives there is north of a million. Yesterday, I saw a cop assigned to monitor my daughter's school. The only thing he looked capable of stopping is a donut, and police overtime pay is notoriously generous.
I say, allow teachers to protect themselves and their students. A teacher about to go so irreversibly bonkers as to shoot his or her charges is awfully easy to spot in advance, and it doesn't happen too often. Failing that, fire one random administrator per school and spend his or her salary to hire a combat vet as a guard, with full union pay.
1:26 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
The proposal to form the Nation School Safety Shield program funded by the NRA is a remarkable option. Expert training provided to any school in the United State who wishes to participate at no cost is a no brainer. It has been demonstrated time and time again through heartbreaking loss that our schools nationwide have Inadequate, ineffective and sometimes antiquated security practices. Life is short enough without having it cut even shorter due of a senseless yet evitable act of fury. Our community leaders as well as ourselves need the gumption to maneuver away from the insufficient mediocre security systems currently in place. Education and training can only help us protect our children. Its carelessly lazy not to be proactive. Frankly, I'm tired of being reactive. The NRA's proposal can only fail if we don't try it.
M. Justicel
11:49 am on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Max you are again 100% correct and spot on. The police officer comment was just shy of hilarious but unfortunately tragically true. Many are retired on the job!
Dan Grant
2:45 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
The NRA's (Not Responsible for Anything ), is just rying to muddy the waters with these promises of programs They don't want anyone messing with their weapons of war no matter who gets killed. They have two many Congresspeople, both Democratic and Republican in their pocket or afraid of them. No one is saying take away hunting weapons or hand guns. Let's just get rid of the war weapons and unlimited access to ammunition. Person to person sales, no sales over the internet at all. There are lots of reasonable things we can do first.
4:11 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
In the 20th century, Communist regimes and their leaders killed 3 times more people than all wars combined. We have to ban Communists, starting with Obama and his worshipers, not guns that keep them at bay.
As for you Dan, keep vomiting forth your propaganda. We need comic relief.
1:40 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
I am totally in support of training for teachers and beefing up security procedures. But let's be careful before applauding the armed guards part. They are offering to TRAIN. Not pay for. We would have to shoulder the burden of the armed guards' salaries and benefits. And they would need to be costly or we'd end up with a bunch of stupid mall cops with guns in close proximity to our children.
And even then, it's a 50/50 chance that the good guy wins. Frankly, his shot is lower because the aggressor has the elements of planning and surprise.
This is so stupid.
2:07 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Jersey, a good start would be to allow teachers who are capable of carrying, and willing to do so, to actually carry a weapon inside the school. In NJ, it would be already a monstrous improvement.
Now, count administrators in every NJ school. Hint: you will likely run out of fingers. Sack half of those worthless bodies, increase others' pay by 20% to compensate for extra workload, spend the rest to hire a combat vet as a guard (with good pay and bennies) and do some re-engineering of school entries. Short of a nuke, kids will be safe, and the taxes will actually go down. Too bad, so will NJEA contributions to Dems, so it won't ever happen.
2:06 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Maxim, Israel may be one of the very last places on earth I'd like to live. But I'll give them this - every citizen has military training. Not here.
You still can't argue that there is a guarantee that the guard wins the firefight. And look at the Empire State building - collateral damage happens.
More guns is not the answer. I know we will never agree so I'll leave it there.
2:15 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
>> You still can't argue that there is a guarantee that the guard wins the firefight. <<
No solution will ever give you a *guarantee* - that is God's territory - so we're talking probabilities. Whether guards, reinforced entries, or CCW teachers is a better one, I do not know. What I do know, however, is that ban equals punishing innocent people for a sin of few. Did you call for mass execution of Muslims after 9/11? Will you argue for mass castrations (starting with your beloved husband, of course) after some particularly gruesome and abhorrent rape case hits the media?
3:03 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
"Did you call for mass execution of Muslims after 9/11?"
No but the patriot act was passed which was most anti-constitutional law that was ever passed. however most americans realized we must give up some of our "freedom" to prevent anything like 9/11 from happening ever again. We havent had an attack like 9/11 since which could be parlty because of the patriot act.
Just like this situation most logical thinking americans realize we may have to sacrifice some of our freedom related to assualt weapons to make it harder for people like lanza and holmes to obtain them.
3:55 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
(0) More control by government results in less freedoms for the population. It is an extremely slippery slope to sacrifice any of our rights due to fear, lack of knowledge, or even distaste. As good intentioned as some change may be, different interpretations of expressed changes in law can cause a ripple effect. Resulting in the loss of more than was originally intended. it's a scary proposition.
4:31 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
I'll repeat the quote for (0), as well as those people who believe that they can buy safety buy sacrificing someone else's freedom:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamen Franklin
10:38 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Maxim, based in your quote from Franklin, I assume you are against the Patriot Act...
10:43 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
>> Maxim, based in your quote from Franklin, I assume you are against the Patriot Act... <<
Of course I am. You're not much of a lawyer if you failed to notice me say a few times that I'm not a Republican. :)
2:36 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Jersey are you aware of the climate in Mexico in recent months? (and I don't mean weather). It's down right hostile in some areas. Mexico has the dubious honor of being labelled one of the most violent places on earth while boasting about stringent gun control laws. Yet people are being slaughtered on a daily basis and not just by guns. The shear brutality is unbelievable. Knowing the facts, would you feel better not seeing any armed police there? Im sorry but I don't understand your comparison. Furthermore, if you are in a situation where you are being threatened by someone with a gun, are you going to wish you had a plastic butter knife to try and fend them off or wish you had a gun as well? 50/50 may be chancy but at least there is a chance.
Also, read the statement the NRA posted today. I didn't say the NRA was paying for armed guards. I said they were offering free expert training to any school within the United States who wishes to participate. To clarify, the "free training" pertains to various safety measures as well as gun safety, education, and proper use etc. I apologize for the confusion.
2:50 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
There was no confusuion. I said they were paying for training, not compensation.
I'm well aware of the climate in Mexico. It is a third world country overrun wih guns, which seems to be the path we're headed down. Know where I'd feel safer? Japan. Most of Europe. Australia. Places with less guns, more controls and less violent crime.
2:56 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
I think it is a bad if not crazy idea to allow or encourage teachers to bring guns to school to protect their students. Perhaps one day when USA degenerates into towns in Mexico, but not now. Imagine a teacher has to make a call to shoot when students are running all over the place. Imagine one teacher in one room has a gun when the rest of the building is unprotected. In a school that happens to have no teachers interested in carrying guns this idea does not work at all.
The more sensible way, actually coming from the gun guys today, is to organize people with prior background and training with firearms and law enforcement.
We joke and laugh increased security check at the airport by TSA. Well, I am glad they are there!
3:36 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Just wondering - you guys do know that there was an armed sheriff's deputy on duty when Columbine went down, right? There was a brief exchange of gunfire. It did not stop the shootings.
Just putting that out there.
Ojo Rojo
3:58 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
I did not know that. That completely shoots a hole in the arguments all these people are making about putting armed mall cops in our schools.
4:34 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
>> Just wondering - you guys do know that there was an armed sheriff's deputy on duty when Columbine went down, right? There was a brief exchange of gunfire. <<
>> That completely shoots a hole in the arguments all these people are making about putting armed mall cops in our schools. <<
No it does not. No measure guarantees 100% safety, except to jail the kids into a padded room and throw away the key. In Columbine, the deputy failed. In Newtown, the gun-free zone failed. Some things are designed to work but occasionally don't.
7:02 pm on Friday, December 21, 2012
Actually, numerous publications reported he was at lunch outside the school upon onset. He returned when summoned via radio by a janitor who reported there was a problem. He was unaware the school was fully involved with an active shooter. The exchange of gunfire took place in the parking lot upon his return. Perhaps the shooters knew the sheriff's schedule and planned the attack accordingly. This we will never know. One thing is certain, there are countless variables to consider when instituting a safety plan in our schools. All options need to be researched in a careful deliberate and thorough manner so as to avoid the possibility of a breech.
stewart resmer
5:35 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
LaPierre press conference was epic 'Rick-rolling' of the country
Edward P. Campbell
7:09 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
A fourth grader is saying his bedtime prayers next to his mother, the youngster asks. "God how could you let all those children die at Sandy Hook?" Without hesitation his mother answers him – "Son" she says. "We kicked God out of our schools many years ago!"
7:25 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Yet this god lifted not one all-powerful finger when four little girls were murdered in the 16th Street Baptist Church; quite the capricious deity you've got there.
10:41 pm on Saturday, December 22, 2012
Edward, where was God in the Catholic church when all those altar boys were being raped and molested? Just wondering, since you seem to think His presence would have stopped the massacre. Pretty sure "He" hangs out in His churches.
M. Justicel
2:06 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Jersey, so what exactly is the answer to all of this? The only thing you post is derogatory. You want no guns, no God, no protection from the government. What's left to take away? What else do you have to offer this post?
stewart resmer
2:17 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
NRA's LaPierre a 'lobbyist for mass-murderers'
The NRA's chief lobbyist, is the man who made sure the killer was properly armed" in the school massacre.
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
Karen P
6:51 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I used to think those shows about the "dooms day prepers" were bull but wow I guess you all do exsist ... Falling governments we need military gear to protect ourselves. I pray that non of you have children. The world is so full of crazy people its frightening .. The children of the future are screwed.. There is no reason to argue because closed minds don't listen. If your so worried about the US government that you need weapons of military grade please do us all a favor and go to another country. If its so frightening here why do you want to stay? It's really not worth the time to keep on arguing the point ... But feel free to speak to the parents of those children and defend the need for everyday people needing military weapons. And anyone even suggesting that "god" not being in the schools has anything to do with it ... Your just a total idiot!
9:11 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
>> There is no reason to argue because closed minds don't listen. <<
Try checking the mirror for projections, Karen.
>> If your so worried about the US government that you need weapons of military grade please do us all a favor and go to another country. <<
We'll do much better than that, Karen. We will deport you and other moonbats who have a problem with the Constitution. Cuba sounds just the place. I heard Raoul Castro has a thing for wrinkled liberal crones, so we'll trade you for those Cubans who want freedom.
9:18 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Incidentally, I have repeatedly said I support responsible gun ownership. I am not proposing a full gun ban.
You don't need an assault weapon any more than you need a bazooka. All of you people who are waiting for the government to come take your property, here's some news: they can take it today (by your reasoning). You are out-gunned, out-bombed, out-tanked.
Thank God.
9:31 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I love it. Maxim wants to deport people based on his problem with our interpretation of the Constitution. Does it get anymore fascist?
9:35 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
>> Maxim wants to deport people based on his problem with our interpretation of the Constitution. Does it get anymore fascist? <<
You're as much a lawyer as I'm a ballerina; no office would keep someone that dense and unobservant. Hasn't Karen suggested to deport *me* first?
M. Justicel
9:35 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Karen, what you say was never a point, nor do I think that is what people who are in support of firearms are exactly verbatim saying. People believe our right to bear arms, should not be taken away or changed because of this tragedy. Talking about a government failing is a possibility, and the protection we can afford ourselves are the firearms we have a right to bear. Are some quotes over the top, yes. Could something like that ever happen, possible. I have spent countless years in the defense of this country, and currently still serve in a different capacity. You, Jersey, BRER, and anyone else posting here have no right what so ever to dictate what firearms I can own! I've been trained on almost all of them. We don't and won't dictate what people buy, regardless of what it is. And just to point out to everyone here, firearms in the for defense not offense. "In the defense" of life and property, not in the offense. No one wants to use a gun against someone just to say they did. Some people posting here have no concept of what it is like to carry a firearm in the DEFENSE of this country.
M. Justicel
9:43 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Are for defense not offense. I hate grammar errors!
9:43 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Maxim, if you are referring to Karen's post made at 6:51, no, she did not threaten to deport anyone. She asked if such people could do us a favor and go to another country if they're so fraud of our government. (paraphrasing as it's a pain to copy and paste on the mobile version of the site). If you choose leave pursuant to her suggestion, it will not constitute deportation. May be worth considering though??
Incidentally, based on your picture I'm pretty confident you are not, in fact, a ballerina. :)
Yet again, you fail to read carefully. This is getting to be a serious problem.
9:55 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Jersey, using legalese does not make you a lawyer. ;)
>> You are out-gunned, out-bombed, out-tanked. <<
You and what army? The U.S. Army is sworn to protect the Constitution, not the squatter in the White House. Suggesting that it will shoot at American citizens takes insanity to the whole new levels. As for police, they love themselves some rifles and sidearms as much as the other guy.
Dan Grant
10:36 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Max, Maybe it is because you come from somewhere else that you don't understand America or its history or our Constitution. There is no squatter in the Whitehouse. There is however a duly elected President relective of the "Will of the Majority". You don't like who is elected then maybe you need to go somewhere to form your own "More Perfect Union" You have obviously not yet learned about the times in America that the Military was used against Americans but that in no way would allow a group of citizens be a match against our own military. You also don't seem to be aware of the role of the Commander in Chief of our military. They are also commanded to obey his orders.
10:59 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
>> There is no squatter in the Whitehouse. <<
Riiiight you're Dan, he's not there. He's on Hawaii now, taking a vacay with Jabba the Hutt on our dime. How could I forget?
>> You also don't seem to be aware of the role of the Commander in Chief of our military. They are also commanded to obey his orders. <<
Obey his *legal* orders, you meant? I wanna see Obama order an Army unit to shoot into a civilian crowd. He'll promptly get acquainted with hemp if he tries, and not of a smoking variety. Even Egyptian army refused the order, and we're not Egypt yet.
9:44 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
(ugh - so afraid. Not fraud. Wish the mobile site had edit capability!)
9:52 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I will agree with the NRA about one thing, some people watch too many movies. It makes them paranoid fanatics that think they can become Rambo or Dirty Harry.
2:45 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Today 48 million teenagers will watch violent movies, play violent video games and they will murder nobody. They see it for what it is - entertainment.
When Superman TV show played in the 1950's there were a few kids who tied a towel around their neck and jumped off the roof pretending to fly. We didn't take the TV show off the air because a few kids did something dumb.
10:02 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Maxim, I didn't use legalese. I used English. You should try it.
Whether or not I'm an attorney (and I am) has no bearing on this debate. Nor does it change the fact that you've repeatedly misread posts on here.
Apparently I'm not the one who's "dense and unobservant" after all.
10:24 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Claiming to be a lawyer while you aren't brands you a liar. Par for the course, you being a liberal and all. Also, it carries a criminal penalty - you haven't heard of that before, right?
10:38 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Feeling desperate to shift the spotlight off of your shortcomings, are we Maxim?
I *think* you're making a feeble attempt at bringing up the practice of law without a license. I'm not practicing law in this forum including providing legal advice of any kind.
But don't worry, if you send the police (his is hilarious) I'll happily provide my attorney ID numbers for both NY and NJ and even show them my wall licenses.
Incidentally, I pot anonymously because I prefer my clients and co-workers not be able to find any political posts. I am not a litigator. I work in the General Counsel of a financial corporation and try to keep my Internet footprint reasonably clean to maintain professionalism.
Again, I know, I'm a big liar and you don't believe me. It's ok. It doesn't personally offend me, as I understand. I was engaged with someone in an abortion debate online once, and he claimed to be an O.B. (I found that unlikely as he could barely string together a sentence.). My point is, I understand your skepticism. But hey, to my credit, there are more lawyers per capita in NJ that in any other state in the country, so it's not all that unlikely at all. ;)
10:50 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Between you and Dan Grant, you liberals sure cornered the market for all the most respectable professions: a politician, a used car salesman, and a lawyer. We just need a reporter and a prostitute to fill the top five. Do you write for a 'paper perhaps, Jersey? :)
Now, we can continue bickering or we can go back to the topic at hand. Since I'm paid a salary to stay online and there's only so much news to read, I could do either all day.
Karen P
10:59 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Wow down to name calling ... I'm not saying take away your right to own a gun I'm saying that guns that were made for war and solders to use do not belong in the hands of citizens ... Once again ... Apparently people read what they want to see on here and feel the need to insult to get a point across ... obviously your need for large weapons really is now just showcasing your .. Short
Karen P
11:04 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
No one is forcing you to stay in this country so please by all means ... Leave! If your going to sit here and piss and moan about it ... Leave ... Find another country where you will have it better... No one is stopping you
11:11 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Maxim, thanks for comparing my profession to prostitution. You have a lot of nerve. I took an oath to uphold the Constiution, and I take pride in what I do. I draft and negotiate contracts, I work hard, I am honest. I love my family, I love my country.
I'm sorry that your small mind can't fathom that someone with beliefs that are different from your own can still be upstanding, patriotic, moral citizens.
2:44 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Jersey, I'm not the first to compare your (alleged) profession with street-walking. Lawyers, in case you failed to notice, are neither liked nor respected, and credited (rightfully, as I subjectively see it) with many ills that plague our society.
Now, if you love your country, you should show respect to its laws, of which the primary is the Constitution. And since you allege professional knowledge of it, please tell me where it gives the government the right to infringe on both 2nd and 4th Amendments by considering a confiscation of my legally-owned and legally-used property. In fact, even licensing the firearms is blatantly unconstitutional, and is only made "legal" because people of this country are cowed into obedience. If my rifle scares you, it's YOUR problem, not MINE. Lobbying the government to violate the Constitution is tantamount to sedition.
Edward P. Campbell
11:15 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
About God, here is what you don't understand, if you want God's help, then you need to walk the path with God. But for too many of us today that becomes a problem, so what we do is put God in a sealed box and hide Him in our closet. You see we are afraid to just throw Him out, but we don't like Him over looking over our lives either. We all think God is great when we win a lottery, but we hate Him for letting our neighbors bring home a bigger paycheck than ours! Oh and He is such a killjoy when he reminds us not to envy our neighbors, and stay out of debt!
Do you really think Bobby Frank Cherry, Thomas Blanton, Herman Frank Cash, Robert Chambliss, and Adam Lanza, where walking with God when they bombed that church or shot up that school? You see, they like so many others stuffed God in a box and said, don't watch this God, for I'm about to commit a sin.
God only ask us to follow 10, just 10 rules. Our government had burdened us with literately millions of rules, but if we all just followed God 10 commandments, we would need 95% of all those government rules. We wake everyday and God gives us free will to walk Him, or become today's Adam Lanza. God is always there and the choice is always ours! Who will you be today?
12:25 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Your position that there are two choices, to believe in Edward P. Campbell's god or become a mass murderer, is a chilling example of religious fundamentalism.
Karen P
12:33 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Edward, what God are we talking about here ... my God doesn't have 10 rules ... and I have never killed?? Hmm.... this is the problem "lets force the Christian God on everyone"
Edward P. Campbell
11:32 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Another Note about God. Churches and religions aren't God. Do not confuse man's activities with those of God! That's not to say some churches or religions do not embrace and teach about God, many do, but sadly many do not! One again the choice is yours. Go to a church that believes in God, or go to one that doesn't!
stewart resmer
11:56 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012
NBC's David Gregory rips NRA chief over 'common sense'
12:00 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Common sense for extremists you mean. It was a prime example of how absurd the position of the NRA is.
2:40 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Ad hominem attacks or self-proving statements never result in good legislation because they are seen for what they are. When somebody uses a statement like "common sense gun control" they defeat their own purpose. They might as well say "You are stupid and I am a genius so what you say does not matter." Not a good way to influence anyone to your side and that is what it takes to get good legislation in place.
Steve Abramo
1:09 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
The 2nd amendment wasnt about protecting themselves from Indians or a British invasion! Thats so ignorant its comical. The Bill of Rights was penned by statesmen (not like our current hack career politicians) who had just recently overthrown their own lawful government. Argue whatever you want about the 2nd amentment being outdated, but somt be so naive and un-educated as to believe it was intended to protect against anything other than tyrany from within.
M. Justicel
1:24 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Wow, do any of you remember what this is about? Keep on topic! Just stop. Have an opinion yes, don't try and stuff your beliefs down people's throats. You want gun control, fine. You want a restriction on how many bullets are in a magazine, fine. You don't believe we'll qualified people should have military style weapons, fine. Will any of this stop what goes on in this country, NO. And when it happens again, what will you say then? What will be the end all cure for this problem? People who don't live within this life of firearms, have no clue what you are talking about. I do and I still would not agree on more strict gun control!
Karen P
1:33 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
define "well qualified" you dont have to be well qualified to own one ... just some paper work... you dont even need to know how to safely operate it!! The military who have been well trained to use MILITARY style weapons .. they dont call them civilian style weapons ... there is no sane reason NON military people need military style weapons
Karen P
1:53 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I am quoting M. Justicel who used the term "Military style weapon" ... To me this would mean weapons created for the purpose of use by the Military... but thats just me ... Im not sure of M. Justicel
M. Justicel
1:55 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Karen, if you read my earlier response to one of your comments, I spent many years in the military. I am well qualified! I was referring to myself. You don't dictate what I can or cannot own. This is America! This is the ridiculous banter I am talking about. I have no right to tell you what personal property you can buy, why do you think you can tell me? You think it's an opinion but you are taking it to another level.
Karen P
2:03 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I didnt say I wanted to take away your right ... but will you feel comfortable with your neighbors shooting off "Military style weapons" .. just went out and bought it ... no clue how to use it ... would you feel safe?
M. Justicel
2:00 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Less government control but you want the government to control law abiding firearm owners? Is that really what we are saying?
M. Justicel
2:05 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Karen, read for god sake! I was using what other people had already said. Each sentence I posted was already said by someone else. You were not quoting me. Again, proves you don't understand what you are speaking about!
Karen P
2:10 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
it would take more time then I care to spend reading the idiotic rantings (not saying by you) that have went on here.... I grew up around guns .. shot many guns as well ... btw .. you didnt answer my question ... if your untrained neighbor just bought a machine gun ... would you feel safe? they never used a gun before yet they can go purchase one... no clue how to use it safely .. would you feel safe?
2:12 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Karen, My neighbor could not bring home a machine gun, they are ILLEGAL in all 50 states.
Karen P
2:19 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I was being dramatic ... OK an automatic weapon ... you still didnt answer the question
2:10 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Just to clear things up, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MILITARY STYLE GUN. It is either a Military (automatic) OR civilian (semi-automatic). Just because they make them look like military weapons does not make them any different from a wooden stock semi-automatic rifle. As for magazine capacity, all though I would never buy a 50 or 100 round magazine, I see no difference between owning a 100 rd mag or 10 10 rd mags. it might add 20 seconds to the total time to empty. My opinion is this- If you do not like guns, by all means don't own one. Leave it at that. There is not a law, that anyone could come up with that stops crazy or criminal.
Karen P
2:13 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
what need is there for a civilian to own a weapon like that ... sure I have freedom of speech too but if I walking around shouting hurtful racial slurs and curses at everyone I think I have abused that right thats not why we have it ... the right to own a gun was a right when there were no automatic weapons ....
2:23 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
What need is there for you or anyone else to voice their opinion? It is called our rights. Let me say this again because you seem to have a hard time understanding. IT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON. By the way, you can walk down the street and spew racial slurs and curses, however i am quite sure there would be consequences. Same as a gun owner breaking any of the thousands of laws of gun ownership.
2:41 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Incorrect Karen, There are NO ADDITIONAL restrictions in Colorado (not including Denver county) You still need a Class 3 FFL license.
M. Justicel
2:26 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I totally agree about the rantings, and I apologize for getting angry. I just have a problem when people say things that I have direct knowledge of. To respond to your post, my neighbor can't buy an automatic weapon just like your average person can't. Automatic firearms require a Class III dealers license. Average people can't own them. I agree if they are not trained, they shouldn't own them but they still have a right to own them. I wouldn't be afraid that they had a firearm.
M. Justicel
2:31 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Civilians cannot own automatic weapons in any state!
2:33 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Actually they can own fullt automatic weapons, and bazookas, and even tanks. It required a special license and tghe license fees are extremely expensive. The license also requires you to give up the right of privacy in that federal agents do not need a warrant to come into your home or place of business to examine the firearms in question.
Karen P
2:51 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
thats what I just read as well but Im done arguing points .... some people on here have made comments that make me frightened that they have weapons ... I give up .. argue away .. its pointless really
2:31 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
If we can not discuss the matter with civility, we will never agree on a solution.
Gun bans of any type will work about as well as the ban on heroin, cocaine and pot. Mexico has a complete ban on privately owned guns and that leaves the drug cartels and the corrupt police being the only ones armed. Not a preaceful place to live.
Newark Mayor Corey Booker said that only one shooting in Newark involved a legally owned gun. All of the rest involved guns obtained illegaly through private sales and straw purchases. So what can be tightened up and would receive support from many gun owners is banning the private direct sale of firearms. If all private sales and transfers were required to be certified by a licensed dealer and involved a proper background check it would significantly cut down on illegal guns. There would be a penalty for anyone skirting this law as an illegal trafficker of firearms.
As for nobody needing a 30 round magazine in a semi-automatic rifle, I would suggest you try living on a ranch 20 miles from the Mexican border where armed escorts called coyotes lead illegal aliens while running drugs into the USA. Most every rancher carries firearms in his truck and his family knows how to use them. You would be surprised how quickly you can expend 30 rounds when faced with 4 or 5 criminals on your property. You would also be surprised how quickly 4 or 5 criminals will retreat when they hear multiple shots fired into the ground.
Mary C
10:13 pm on Wednesday, December 26, 2012
so bob judging by your reasoning you think heroin should be legal?
M. Justicel
2:33 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Karen I answered your question about the neighbor. No it would not frighten me!
M. Justicel
2:33 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Just because he has firearms doesn't mean he will use them illegally.
stewart resmer
4:10 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
'NRA does not take reality into consideration' CNN host to Hutchinson
Ed Dantes
4:14 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Some people are just so far off the point of this article it's ridiculous. This article is about limiting the size of magazines. I keep reading all these people complaining about "Assault Weapons" and "Military Style Weapons". Truth be told an actual "Assault Weapon" would be a FULLY Automatic rifle (aka machine gun). These are illegal in all 50 states already. By "Military Style Weapons" you are actually complaining about the look of the gun, not the functionality as actual Military Weapons are also Fully Automatic.
Now magazine size does seem to make the difference in reality.
I have a Ruger 10/22 locked in my safe next to me. With the 10 rd magazine it's considered a plinker, but if I put a 20 rd magazine in it now becomes an ASSUALT WEAPON. Whoooo scary!!! http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Sporter/models.html
This S&M fires the same bullets, but is made to LOOK like a Military Weapon. With a 10 rd magazine it's fine, but put in that 20 rd magazine and it's a Assault Weapon.
I'm all for limiting Rifle Magazines to 10 rounds, as a Hunter doesn't fire off multiple shots anyway. NJ is already limited, just not all states. I am not for limiting handgun magazines below the NJ current limit of 15 however. Mostly because mine have only shot paper ever and I don't want to pay to replace all them. NJ has already charged me for prints, permits, NICS and surcharges ammo already.
Ed Dantes
7:22 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Sadly this is going to turn into a political debate. Joe Biden and his committee are going to go to far with wanting to ban almost everything, the NRA Leadership and Republicans are going to go to far the other way and not want to change anything. Unfortunately the NRA has been hijacked by extremists not wanting any change or any limits, just as the Republican Party as been hijacked by 5% of its own as Tea Partiers. The body of each doesn't seem to agree with the decision makers, but the leaders don't really care what their own membership wants. Thus what's best for the group falls by the wayside. I don't think my firearms should be taken away or banned as I am a responsible gun owners and keep mine secured. However I am for reasonable limits, as NJ has. No fully automatics, no large size (over 15 rd mags), guns must be secured, transported unloaded, full background check, mental health check, permits required, no gun show loophole. However I also feel NJ must do a better ground meeting the legal requirements of timely background checks and you should be able to obtain a Concealed Carry permit without having to be a Retired Police officer, lawyer, judge or politician. NJ has no shortage or problem with Gun Laws, however must of the country is far behind. This website shows each states requirements or lack there of: http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/NJ
Shouldn't our 2nd Amendment rights count as much as everyone else 1st Amendment rights?
8:28 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Reasonable, law abiding, gun enthusiast conservatives have known for some time that the NRA has gone off the deep end.
8:49 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Jersey, I find your referring to George Bush as "reasonable" a wee hypocritical, not to mention factually incorrect.
8:52 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
(By the way, I'd suggest you read the letter a few times given your history of misinterpreting text you anticipate you'll disagree with.)
8:56 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I am sure you did not call George Bush "reasonable" until 1992, right? Moreover, I do not have a habit of calling people who renege on a public pledge as "reasonable"; the correct word is "liar".
9:22 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
You are incredibly adept at putting words into other peoples' mouths. And switching focus when you have no direct response to an issue or question.
I'm interested in any other opinions on the letter from people who actually read it and have something substantive to contribute. Maxim, I'm not holding my breath for you to either read something properly, or come up with something substantive, so no pressure.
9:39 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
Blah blah blah. A lot of theatrical accusations, no proof. LOL, maybe you *are* a litigator. :)
Now, more to the point. Both Bushes were (and likely still are) disgusting big-government liberals, only second to FDR and Obama when it came to using the Constitution as a butt wipe. Oklahoma City was a tragedy that liberals used to the hilt to curtail American liberties - exactly as they do now - and "H" was tripping all over himself to help them. Later, Democrats returned the debt to his son when Patriot Act was legislated. Between Reagan and Obama, national voting was such a waste of paper ballot...
9:47 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
I am exhausted. I made no accusations, theatrical or otherwise.
I was a Republican until 1995 or so, when I interned at the Heritage Foundation. You can shove your suppositions about my feelings for any individual, as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to espouse you belief that I'm lying. Again. Because that would seem to be your tired, predictable and useless pattern of behavior. God knows you won't contribute substance.
Thank you your view of Bush with absolutely not one word with regard to the contents of the letter. Which, again, I'm sure you didn't read. And if you did, let's face it, your brain would only see - how did you put it? Oh yes. "blah blah blah".
11:21 pm on Sunday, December 23, 2012
So what next? guards at ALL cinemas? ALL Offices? ALL places of worship? For the NRA the reasons always lie elsewhere (video games, media, healthcare) but never with the current weak gun laws? The NRA wants us to do everything else but nothing that impacts their business?!
M. Justicel
11:42 am on Monday, December 24, 2012
Sri, gun laws are not weak, they just have to be reinforced by the current legislators. Our justice system is the missing link!
8:02 am on Monday, December 24, 2012
From twitter; @RSchooley: "If only Fort Hood had armed, trained security personnel..."
Edward P. Campbell
8:20 am on Monday, December 24, 2012
Mikey, let's not start another erroneous Internet story. The Fort Hood terror attack took place in an area of the fort where guns are banned. Guns are also banned in schools, and theaters. Now put on your thinking cap and think – If you're going to do something like this would you walk into a police station and open fire, or someplace where guns are banned? Hey, just asking!
Edward P. Campbell
8:40 am on Monday, December 24, 2012
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases,
while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage
of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
- Ayn Rand
10:37 am on Monday, December 24, 2012
pretty sure this is America where it is our 2nd amendment to bear arms. Why take away our freedom....
Michael K
6:25 pm on Wednesday, December 26, 2012
The only thing that separates a democracy from a dictatorship is the ability to defend oneself. The Second Amendment was not written to allow citizens to hunt. Consider what they had just left behind... the tyranny of a government opposed to their freedom. The framers of the constitution knew just what they were allowing the citizens of the newly formed United States to do. "Prevent the tyranny of a dictatorship to ever take over this country".
We do not life in a utopian society where everyone loves each other.
Life is a reality.
Evil is a reality.
Each individual has the right to protect and defend themselves and their family.
---A well regulated Militia,
---being necessary to the security of a free State,
---the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
---shall not be infringed
"The right of the state to protect itself from federalism"
The right of the citizen to protect itself from tyranny"
When you consider it from that context - how can you deny the citizen the right to any firearm or magazine size. If you do - then you are inviting the government to control and take over its citizens.
Just consider Germany a few decades ago.
First you create a national registry for all citizens firearms.
Then you come and take away all their firearms.
Then you imprison and put in concentration camps all you do not desire.
Freedom is what makes America great!
10:20 pm on Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Michael K - whatever is that you are smoking, can you share?
Mary C
10:39 pm on Wednesday, December 26, 2012
ok this is for Michael K and Maxim or any other idiot who thinks semi automatic weapons should be legal to the general public.
first off i am a gun owner who uses my guns for hunting, recreation, and for my families protection. however i have common sense and realize no citizen needs an AR-15. since an AR-15 is not necessary for hunting or household protection the only argument these nut jobs have is to protect us against our own government. like this idiot above Michael says "to prevent the tyranny of a dictatorship to ever take over the country"
guess what Michael if the government wanted to take over by way of force they would and if every civilian had a AR-15 that still wouldnt stop them. NEWSFLASH the government has more powerful and the most advanced weapons mankind has never seen. they also have tanks, missiles, and these things called drones. so when you morons say people should be able to own assault weapons to possibly defend against our own government please explain to me how you are going to stop drones or bazookas or automatic weapons (i know how you clowns like to express the difference between semi auto and automatic weapons) with semi automatic guns.
seems to me it is very easy to shoot hole in your arguements
11:06 pm on Wednesday, December 26, 2012
I wish people would get their history straight. The Second Amendment was written for the purpose of a civilian militia, not individual rights (despite Justice Scalia's horrendous decision in Heller, overturning over 100 years of case law).
At the time of the founding of the nation, there were very restrictive gun laws. So much so you NRA folks would have probably revolted, part 2.
The Second Amendment only became important when the NRA switched from being a gun enthusiast and safety organization to a lobbying organization for weapons manufacturers.
11:09 pm on Wednesday, December 26, 2012
http://www.coachoutletonlinebfd.com/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.guccibeltstb.com/ Gucci Belt sdgf
http://www.coachoutletonlineyds.net/ Coach Outlet Store Online
http://www.cocoachoutletonline.org/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.coachoutletonlinetsy.net/ Coach Online Outlet
Michael Giovanni T
5:10 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Mary what I've read most people think the "AR" in AR 15 means assault rifle. It's the make meaning the company or profile it stands for armalite. It's a modern sport rifle design or tactical design which ever you prefer. To say a guns only purpose is to kill is ignorant and completely one sided.a gun is a tool it can be used to defend or to attack. I carry a gun on me not because i think it makes me tough or I want to shoot someone. I carry one cause the police can't be there in seconds and ill be damned if I let my wife get raped or my daughter or worse hurt or killed. A gun gives the upper hand when needed. We are taught never pull our weapon unless we plan to use it. I'm from Oklahoma .i have family all through the east coast. Kinda sad where all these mass shootings are happening they have the strictest gun laws.also on assault rifles I was always told they were switch fire weapons .didnt know these were happening with automatics. Also people make the 223 AR styled rifles out to be super powered guns. A well placed bullet will kill no matter what guns being used. I have a 308 that's way more powerful or a ak 47 has way more power . I use them for target shooting and practice . My 308 has a high capacity for just in case I panic and I am being chased by said wild hogs and don't have the marksmen ship of sitting in a stand and shooting .plus I hate to reload.getting way off point here but in closing guns save lives they just don't take them .it all depends on the user
Mary C
8:34 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Michael, you clearly misread my post. i am pro gun. i hunt, i shoot at the range, and my husband carries his for our protection. any skilled shooter doesnt need more than six shots to hit there target. if you cant hit your target with 6 shots then youre probably not skilled enough to carry one.
my problem is allowing a gun like lanza used where an unskilled shooter can just spray bullets and cause a massive tragedy in minutes. THERE IS NO NEED FOR THESE GUNS TO BE AVALIABLE TO THE PUBLIC. the only arguement i hear people use is to protect us from our own government. if our government wanted to harm us they would, using drones or more powerful weapons then any semi automatuc we can purchase.
9:08 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Mary C, it is a very common misconception, intentional or not, that "fighting against the government" means fighting its army. If a revolution against tyranny occurs, the force it will have to deal with is not the full might U.S. Army, but the "civil army" - political movements loyal to the would-be tyrant. In case of Obama, for example, that would be unionized police, urban minorities, and whatever hands SEIU and AFL/CIO can muster. The Army's ultimate loyalty is not to the Commander in Chief but to the Constitution and the nation itself, and most military officers (especially those of conservative inclination, of whom there's a majority) will refuse an order to shoot at civilians.
Edward P. Campbell
9:19 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
What States are you two from? Just in case you don't know New Jersey enacted the Graves Act, and if you are discovered carrying a gun here (even if it is unloaded, or for that matter a BB gun) the Graves law requires you to be sentenced to a MANIDORY jail sentence without parole . Let me repeat that just to be clear --- a MANIDORY jail sentence without parole.
Let us assume you are involved in a car accident on the Jersey Pike. You are knocked out, and then while being treated your concealed gun is discovered. If you don't have a legal NJ carry permit, you are going to jail, and the fact of the matter is NJ does not issues carry permits!
Pete Mock
9:33 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
It both scary and encouraging to see all bat sch*it crazy ideas some folks have about our nation. Scary that there are seemingly intelligent people who actually entertain these bizarro conspiracies, and encouraging that these are the best arguments they can come up with against reasonable gun control.
9:58 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
It is scary and encouraging to see all bat sh*t crazy ideas some folks have about our nation. Scary that seemingly intelligent people who actually entertain these bizarro "gun control" ideas, and encouraging that these are the best arguments they can come up with against our Constitutional rights.
See, Pete? Labels stick both ways. I'll give up my guns when our Secret Service give up theirs. My children deserve as much protection as the President's.
M. Justicel
9:50 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Mary C, I realize you have joined this post 500 posts later and probably haven't had the time to read every post prior to yours. Are there ridiculous comments from both sides of the fence, yes. Calling someone an idiot because you disagree, ridiculous. There are many things people don't "need." The difference is what this country, our freedoms, and our constitution allow us to have. Do many people have a different interpretation of what a "well regulated militia" means, yes. By definition militia is a military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency or a military force that engages in rebel activities. When you join the military and take your oath, the very first sentence says, "I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I'm not on this post to dissect what the forefathers meant when then wrote it. Realize one thing, it was written at the time the United States became the United States. Michael is not an idiot, he just wrote a well written post stating the facts, not giving his interpretation of the facts!
M. Justicel
10:13 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Additionally Mary C, when was the last time you were shot at? I was in the military and currently carry a firearm for work. You have no idea what it takes to take a human life, nor do you know, other than watching television, how many rounds it takes to stop someone. A skilled shooter? Please! No one wants to live with the fact they took a persons life. Please don't post things you have no concept of. While we are at redefining the Second Amendment, let's redefine our freedom of speech. People have no right to say certain things, but get away with it regardless if it hurts someone or not. Don't tell law abiding gun owners what they can and cannot own. If you are a gun owner like you say, you should be in support of all firearms regardless of what they look like or what label society gives them. Lastly you are absolutely correct about Lanza. No mentally ill patient should be allowed access to any firearm like he was. Make no mistake, he knew how to access them! Oh and by the way, Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with a handgun. There's no comparison or argument against what type of firearm is used!
Mary C
11:20 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
VT shooter used semi automatic hand guns.
ive never been shot at, just like 99.8% of the population has never got shot at. unless they are in the military or a policeman- those are the only people who should be allowed to carry automatic or semi autmatic guns.
for hunting or my personal/ family protection nothing more than a revolver or shot gun is needed.
Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and the Movie theater shooting were all done with guns purchased legally, so obviously are laws and screening system does not work.
M. Justicel
11:42 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
You don't own a semi automatic handgun? If you don't fantastic, your right not to purchase one. A shotgun, depending on what type you buy, can hold up to eight shells carrying 9 .32 cal pellets. Do the math. Oh wait, no one has used a shotgun for mass murder so we won't address it. Where does it end? Military and police officers who are not at work, trained to use and disassemble, should or should not be able to own them outside of the military / law enforcement realm? Exactly the point about the system not working! More access to mental health records when people apply for licensing, and holding mental health doctors responsible for not reporting their patients!
Dan Grant
11:53 am on Thursday, December 27, 2012
It is amazing that gun owners are upset that their names were posted in the newspapers. It puts the lie to their belief that a gun is a deterent if they don't want any one to know they have one. It implies more of a wait and ambush someone who tries to come into my space. They are much more likely to shoot a family member. Besides I want to know which of my neighbors is packing so i can protect myself and my children. I would want to know if there are guns in a home before I or my loved ones visit.
12:06 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Dan, gun owners are likely less concerned about being targeted by crime, and more about having moonbat lunatics, of which you're a poster example, disturbing their peace. Thanks heavens you and your Commie cohorts are an absolute minority in Montville, so my house is safe.
Edward P. Campbell
12:26 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
I think it is an Excellent Idea Dan. In fact I favor us gun owners having to put signage on our houses that clearly indicate there are guns in side. You know, like on every door and window maybe a large decal of a gun. And, just to make it really clear, all you non-gun owners will have to put up the same decal with an X through it, indicating No Guns In Side!
I'll know I'll sleep better then, knowing some drug crazed addict combing the streets at 3 O"clock in the morning, looking for an easy hit will know just which house he should break into! (hint, hint, it will be the one with the X)
I bet you favored those little red stickers for the license plates too Dan. They really help the perverts pick out the young innocent children on our streets!
M. Justicel
1:08 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Lets not stop there Dan, how about the mentally challenged, and convicted felons. Then news this morning said it was a possibility those homes would be targeted for theft. As you can see from the posts, gun owners are for identifying who has a gun. By your tone, lets hope you don't need one in the future. And by the way, you don't need protection from law abiding gun owners. They are not the threat as you so eloquently suggested. Like I'm sitting at home twirling my handgun in the holster. Please grow up and act like a responsible adult! Blame the right people!
Dan Grant
1:39 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Max, How did you pass your citizenship test or did you? We know you are a coward because I have been in the room with you and you are a mouse. You talk tough here and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you but you are afraid to speak in public. Campbell, gun ownership is public information and so many home shooting are done by formally normal people that wouldn't be on anyones radar wouldn't it be right to know who has a gun in their possesion? If I know my neighbor has a gun and comes home from his gunclub meeting drunk and starts beating his wife I would want to be alerted to the danger she is in. BTW I had a neighbor that shot his daughter because she came to get him for Sunday Dinner. She lived though because he was old and his hand shook.
12:23 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
I have no problem with that. Say what you want criminals are not stupid. Call up the map of the street they are on and pick the house without the gun. Be interesting in 12 months from. Now to see if the break in rate is higher for houses with or without guns. I would be without guns will see an increase in break ins
tony g2010
1:48 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
...unless they come to steal them when no one is at home, that is what pissed me ...and the police officers that I know, off about the publication of the names and addresses. It only helps to put more guns in criminal hands. Law abiding citizens that own guns have had to go through a public process, including finger printing, in order to purchase these weapons. It is public information, we know that going into it. All this nonsense about assault weapons is exhausting, the best gun for home defense is a pump shot gun, loaded with bird shot, OO buck, then a rifled slug. If they aren't smart enough to run when they hear it, the first shot will make their leg burn pretty good, the second will take their leg off and the third their head. Freedom, I don't care on bit if you want to get as high as a kite in your own home, I have a problem if you get in a car, provide it to minors, or put someone else in harm's way, get it legal and you are comparing apples to apples, they did it in CO and WA. From what I understand about you Dan Grant is that no one is inviting you over anyway.
1:22 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
two points brought up by pro gun people: 1) it is our right and freedom 2) criminals will get them anyway.
i hope you people are fighting for other freedoms or else you are all hypocrites.
how about my freedom to smoke or eat marijuana to help with my sleeping problems and severe back problems. the avaliable alternates such as sleeping pills and pain killers have much worse side effects and are way more addictive. WHERE IS MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE?
a women in CT with a mentally ill son can legally own an AR-15 and i cant smoke a joint in the comfort of my own home! the constitution doesnt say anything about drugs, these laws were made by nixon and reagan- what right did they have to take away my freedom. how come you pro gun and pro freedom people didnt fight for our freedom then?
seems like most conservatives only care about the constitution and freedom when it has to do with things they like... hypocrites
M. Justicel
1:36 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Not a hypocrite Freedom as you suggest! I am not against anyone who uses marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, as you can already see, medical marijuana is becoming an extremely popular alternative to pharmaceuticals nationwide. A woman in CT with a mentally ill child should have secured her firearms better or sought an alternative means to store her firearms, plain and simple! The narcotic problem in this country is beyond control. Additionally, narcotics and illegal firearms go hand in hand. It is no persons point on this post to keep you from using what you need to help with your condition nor do I believe they are suggesting it.
1:47 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
what about recreational marijuana?... people can drink as much alcohol as they chose to and can play with any gun they chose. why does anyone have the right to tell someone they can not smoke pot for fun? obesity kills more people than drugs, why can fat people continue to eat as much fast food as they want?
Edward P. Campbell
1:56 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Nixon and Reagan? No, no, no. Here is a history of marijuana laws!
Buy the way Freedom. I'm a conservative and I have no problem with you doing whatever you want to do behind your closed doors, so long as it stays there, and I pray I never have to use my guns as granted by the 2nd amendment, to protect my rights granted in the 4th amendment!.
Michael Giovanni T
2:00 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Im all for legalizing mary J I watched a documentary of how it was demonized and made illegal kind of how certain style guns are being made in todays world.just propaganda thats all.a lot of misinformation courtesy of the media and our gov who has completely lost touch with the people they are sworn to represent. Drugs are illegal cause there isnt a way to tax it and the government cant control it. We have a war on drugs that costs billions of dollars .we could cut that number some by some by legalizing some drugs.
M. Justicel
2:00 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
You are trying to bring up things that are not controlled by laws. Drinking and eating are legal. You need licensing in order to posses a firearm and a prescription from a doctor for medical marijuana. You are correct that excessive drinking and eating are huge problems, but they are not in the same category. There are no laws with regards to eating and drinking and the amounts you can consume.
Michael Giovanni T
2:02 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
But something I dont get is why people are blaming the tool used and not the crazy person. I mean from what the news said he had no training and never shot a gun. I dont know what true or not cause every hour the news changes its story. But I have friends in the military they said it was hard the first time to actually shoot a human being but in there situation its kill or be killed. How he was able to gun down people let alone children is beyond me. I have guns in a safe and guns through out my house hidden and one on me at all times. I know I can leave my guns out and my children would never touch them unless someone broke in and tried to hurt them.I have ar styled rifles cause its a sport rifle to me.its easier to hold and shoot . I have read some comments who think our government would never harm us. Has anyone read some of the "conspiracies" that were proven true? Something bad happens and people want "safety" so they give up their rights. Thats not a fair trade .why do you think immigrants come here I have friends that love our freedoms and tell me stories about their home country.in america we take our freedom for granted
M. Justicel
2:12 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Mike, well said! People who are against legal firearm possession don't see it that way unfortunately
2:20 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
I have yet to see anyone say that they are 100% against the "legal possession of firearms", and I'm tired of the debate being framed as pro-gun people versus "anti-gun" people. That's an oversimplification that is completely false.
Are most people in favor of legalized guns for responsible citizens? Of course. The question is in the gray areas.
For those of you who are so amped up about the thought of certain automatic or semi-automatic weapons being banned... Do you think you should be permitted to own a bazooka? How about an anti-aircraft missle?
Limiting the capacity of the magazine attached to an AR-15 drives you bonkers, but I don't see you protesting for the right to own a tank. Or grenade launchers.
I don't get it. I really don't.
In terms of "blaming the tool", what a stupid line of reasoning. I tired of that crap too. Yes, a crazy person was carrying and using the high-capacity magazine that allowed him to mow down 20 innocent children and their teachers. The issue is this: Had he needed to reload 10, 15, 20 times - would there have been fewer casualties?
The answer is most likely yes. Talk to the moms and dads of the last kids shot and ask them if that matters.
2:26 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Michael i think the problem is these 'tools" are too easily obtained by crazy people.
also some people arent always "crazy" they can be completely normal who can legally obtain guns and then just snap one day.
2:23 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
You need a license to operate a car. To get that license you must pass written and driving exams in addition to paying a series of fees as well as background check (I believe). Further the car itself must be registered and inspected periodically. And, of course, it is illegal to operate the car under the influence of alcohol which is under far more strict "conceal and carry" laws than are guns. To compare automobiles to guns is to reveal an almost childlike misuderstanding of the debate. We have many rights...among them the right to free speech. Yet even that right is restricted. Why then, is it only the second amendement permitted to be parsed (it was written in order to allow for the forming of a militia to protect against the British army) and to be pure without any restriction on the type of arms permitted? Why is it the only right to which no reasonable restrictions may be applied? It's a one word answer: money. Only 4 million Americans belong to the NRA and every poll shows a majority of them favor reasonable gun laws. But the boys who run it are in bed with the politicians and that means game over. So keep debating. When the dust settles and the families in Newtown have taken down the decorations in the bedrooms of their dead children...absolutely nothing will have changed. The carnage will go on and on. It's violence and death and vengence. And that is what Americans live for.
M. Justicel
2:39 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
100 % against the legal possession of firearms? What are you talking about? That makes zero sense. If I believe in legal possession why would I be against it? Of course you shouldn't be able to purchase a bazooka or anti-aircraft missle. Both of your comparisons are ludicrous. You can't own either one just like you can't purchase a fully automatic firearm. The design of those specific weapon systems are designed to inflict mass casualty in a military sceanario. Every small arm in existence does not have that capacity. A tank? Come on! Another ridiculous comparison. These are not gray areas and they should not be compared. If you compared a fully automatic firearm against a semi automatic different story. Lets play it your way though. After the ban then what? When it happens again, then what? Will we still blame the capacity or firearm type? Again the Virginia tech shooting, 32 dead, 17 injured with handguns. Instead of blaming the criminal, or mentally insane, which you agreed with, blame what he used. And in the future when a knife is used to kill many, will you want a ban on the amount of knives people own? So easy to sit back and dictate what I can own as a responsible person isn't it!
M. Justicel
2:45 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
And a reloading issue? That must be a joke! This is America, we don't punish the many because of the few!
M. Justicel
2:48 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Sorry TCG that is not what Americans live for. Talk for yourself and don't generalize the people of this country.
M. Justicel
2:48 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
And your freedom of speech on this post doesn't seem to be at a loss
2:50 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
I was referring to your 2:12pm post. You referred to people who were "against legal firearm possession" and I agree, it makes no sense. No one is advocating a total ban here.
I just want to make this clear: You would argue that an AR-15 outfitted with a 60 or 100 round capacity magazine isn't designed to inflict mass casualties? What is it designed to do, exactly? Assure you that there is not one edible morsel left on the deer you just lit up to high hell?
My point is this: There are a lot of weapons out there. We can all agree that some should not be available to the public. We can all agree that some should be. But there is ample reason to debate whether some of the semi-automatic weapons we've seen used repeatedly in these types of attacks should be banned - or at least whether high capacity magazines are a starting point.
This isn't about stopping all attacks or making a perfect world. We can't. But we can try to reduce the fatalities. To your knife comparison - perfect. There was a knife attack in China the day of the Newtown attack. 20 wounded. 0 fatalities. That's the point. Reduce the carnage.
M. Justicel
3:20 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
The problem is you are trying to ask someone like myself who spent many years in the military and currently carry a firearm, what my intentions would be with something of that capacity? Problem is, I'm sane and look at the capacity as a means of not needing to reload that much. It's not about how many people I can kill or injure because I have 60-100 round magazine. Because I'm trained, it has to do with minimal magazine changes. Now, to the insane, different story. They want carnage! That's what I'm saying. We have already been through the Brady bill, we have to think of something better. We've been through the bans already, haven't worked. What we haven't done is revamp firearm licensing and cross checking mental health records which of course would be a violation of HIPPA. So lets keep going after the firearms which has already been proven not to work. The knife attack in china? If 20 were dead, then what? We can't use the odds of surviving a knife attack in our favor. In my line of work, a knife and gun are equally deadly. There is no separation.
dumb n dumber
3:38 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
"The knife attack in china? If 20 were dead, then what? We can't use the odds of surviving a knife attack in our favor. In my line of work, a knife and gun are equally deadly. There is no separation."
now thats just an assanie comment. IF 20 were dead, then what? the whole point is they arent dead, if the psycho in china had an AR-15 the outcome would have been a lot worse.
a knife and gun are not equally deadly, thats like saying a rock and a grenade are equally deadly. yes you can kill some one with a knife or gun but it is a lot easier to kill someone with a gun. a gun you can kill from a distance unlike a knife, you lose a lot of credibility when you make dumb comments like that.
4:00 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
M., the reason that previous bans haven't worked is that weapons manufacturers have gone out of their way to work around them. Frankly, I'm afraid you're right - any half-ass ban with loopholes and exceptions will produce very few results. Which is why I think we need to take much stronger action. I think the regulation of guns needs to be completely ramped up, and it will never happen. Never.
The NRA was once a gun enthusiast and safety organization. Today, it is essentially a super PAC meets lobbying group for the NRA. They now have so many people paranoid that the government is coming for them, it will never happen. Our children will continue to be slaughtered by maniacs who can buy horrifically dangrous instruments of war at the drop of a hat.
It's beyond depressing.
Incidentally, you might find this interesting. I am certain you're not a Huff Post guy, but it's an incredibly in-depth look at this issue and frankly, supports your point that gun bans of the past have been of relatively little impact.
M. Justicel
3:01 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Tony, it's pointless to post possible ideas. These people only see it one way and its unfortunate. These people who post have no ideas, they just want to band aid the issues and direct them at the wrong people. Again it's unfortunate!
M. Justicel
2:54 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
And just to let everyone in a a bit of information, the mentally ill have been involved in almost every mass shooting in this country. Some have been under the care of a mental health professional. Amazing how no one brings the true problem, our mental health system. Lets just blame the guns because its the easiest thing to do and will suit our needs the quickest. Nice job!
3:24 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
M., I don't blame you for not catching my earlier posts on this, but you're wrong. I totally agree that this issue is going to require addressing more issues than just gun control, and mental health services are at the top of the list. But the discussion at hand stems from an article about banning high-capacity magazines, which is why it keeps coming up.
I've said this before and I repeat, I personally think you should have to undergo mental health screening prior to getting certain guns. Like the police and military, make sure people can pass, and test regularly.
School security is of utmost importance, but I don't know that the answer is arming teachers and/or administrators. I have a lot of friends who are teachers, and they don't want to carry guns. And if weapons are sufficiently locked up so kids can't get to them, I'd be hard-pressed to believe a teacher could get one out in time to use it.
Security guards? Maybe. More plausible to me than teachers with guns.
My point is, everyone is talking about ways to deal with this problem, and it's not JUST about the guns. But they are a huge, HUGE component of the problem.
M. Justicel
3:47 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Valid points and I agree. What am I wrong about exactly?
4:08 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
You're wrong that it's pointless to post ideas, or that people "on the other side" are only obsessed with the gun issue, nothing else. That's all I was referring to here.
3:26 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Oh and M., I hope you're at the forefront of the movement to try to get these mental health screenings and services paid for. Because a HUGE reason for the mental health crisis in this country is that no one wants to ante up when it's time to shell out some money. Realize that if we don't invest in mental health care, this will happen again and again.
M. Justicel
3:56 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Dumb n dumber, nothing I post is ridiculous. I carry a gun for a living. What do you do? If an AR was used and 20 people didn't get killed what would you say then? We can banter what ifs all day long. There no absolute in life that everyone who gets shot will die. Stop watching movies! You obviously do not understand about lethality when comparing a gun with a knife and I wouldn't expect you to if you aren't in the line of work. With that said, if you don't understand what someone says, ask what they mean. What I said, isn't as you put it "assanie." There is nothing wrong with my credibility. You just don't understand what I'm talking about.
dumbing down
4:05 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
i understand what you say but you are completely wrong. an AR-15 is much more leathal than a gun and sorry for being blunt but anyone who would say they are equally lethal is an idiot.
saying knife= AR15 is like saying 5=7
dumbing down
4:10 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
ps- i served in the military so dont try explaining knifes and guns to me. youre probably just a rent a cop or mall security.
a psycho can spray bullets from a distance at the speed it takes to hit a trigger with an ar15. a psycho with a knife has to be with in arms reach to harm someone.
M. Justicel
4:18 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Did you ever hear me mention anything about distance? Exactly my point you don't understand what I'm talking about. Of course at great distances an AR is more lethal. Is that what happened in CT, no. By the way, I'm no mall or security cop and I've been in my job for over 20 years.
M. Justicel
4:11 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
You have no idea what I'm talking about which is totally understandable. Lack of knowledge on your part doesn't make me an idiot. And personally, most people who post don't understand. Just for the record using sign on names like dumb n dumber, or dumbing down, doesn't show me much when you try and post intelligent comments. Really doesn't do you justice.
M. Justicel
4:13 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Again if you don't understand something, ask a question! Name calling is juvenile and typical from certain people!
4:15 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
Yeah, M., I have to say - you cannot equate a knife and an AR-15 in terms of how many people you can take out within a given time period, especially to a relatively untrained kid or crazy person. I'm sure a well-trained Marine could kill 5 people in less than a minute with a knife. I don't think you could say that of most of the perpetraters of these mass shootings. More importantly, give that same Marine an AR-15 with a 100 capacity magazine and he could probably take out 50 in a minute. OK I'm pulling thosenumbers out of my a$$ but you get the point.
Out of curiosity, if it were proven that these attacks would be less lethal.... Meaning, on average, fewer people would die, if the shooters had no access to those high-capacity clips, would you favor a ban then?
I have to tell you, a lot of hunters and gun enthusiasts out there are saying they don't need 100 (or even 30) rounds to get the job done, whether they're hunting, shooting targets OR defending their homes.
4:22 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
M Justice,
I too am sane. Why can't I own a car that goes 200 mph? Or buy beer that is 15% alcohol content? Or use my freedom of speech to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater? Why is it only gun owners who should have ultimate purity in a law that stems from an amendment which is utterly mischaracterized as to eliminate the first half of the language contained therein? And if the government can ration the days on which I purchase gasoline, why can't that same government ration your the number of rounds in your magazines? Because Americans are in love with violence. The same gratuitously violent video games and tv shows and movies are seen all over the world. Yet with only a few exceptions, America is the only country where the slaughter of children is ok because there simply cannot be a limit on how many rounds are permitted in a magazine.
4:29 pm on Thursday, December 27, 2012
It seems like a lot of folks buy assault type weapons in order to guard against an oppressive government. Just understand that in Iraq during the 1980's, 1990's and currently, just about everybody had a weapon, including AK47's, and there were 26 Gun Shops open and doing a brisk business in Baghdad. All of these weapons did not prevent an oppressive government under Sadam Houssain, or prevent a dictatorship. No, it takes more than such weapons guard against a possible oppressive government. Assault type weapons and high capacity magazine clips should be banned in the USA-they really serve no purpose.