Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low

What is as predictable as a threatened snowstorm bringing Atlanta to a standstill?  Answer – gun control advocates taking advantage of every shooting incident as an excuse to further restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights.  The recent shooting incident in Tucson, Arizona — involving a clearly deranged individual who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge and several other innocent people – is no exception. 

Doctors had barely announced that Rep. Giffords had survived the shooting, than gun-control legislators in the nation’s capitol began trotting out their latest anti-gun schemes. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, was in the forefront of this effort.  Close behind Ms. McCarthy was her Empire State colleague, Republican Peter King.  While most anti-firearms proposals emanating from the Congress are simply ineffective or unworkable; King’s most recent proposal is utterly idiotic. 

In response to the Tucson shooting — in which the gunman showed up at a public, outdoor town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Giffords in the parking lot of a local shopping center — King has proposed what has to be one of the silliest pieces of federal legislation in many a year.  He has suggested the federal criminal code be amended to incorporate a new provision making it illegal for a person to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress. 

One might suppose that – were King’s proposal to actually become law — Members of Congress would have to walk around at all times with some obvious form of identification readily discernible to everyone within 333-1/3 yards of their presence; something that identifies them as a “Member of Congress.”  Perhaps it would be required that every Member at all times wear a large hat with the congressional seal emblazoned thereon; or a distinctly colored sweatshirt with the words, “MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,” printed thereon in a bright, contrasting color.  

In the absence of such clearly identifying garb, it would be impossible for every individual to know for certain they were within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress; in order to ensure they moved beyond the protective zone or so they could dispose of any firearm they might lawfully be carrying at the time.  Because such scenario would be unworkable in the real world, perhaps the alternative is what King and others really have in mind – forcing everyone to assume at all times that a Member of Congress might be lurking somewhere within 1,000 feet of them, and insofar as every such Member is not necessarily known to every other citizen, one would be forced to presume at all times that such person might be nearby and therefore it never would be safe to carry a firearm. 

The King legislation also would preclude a Good Samaritan lawfully carrying a firearm from using their gun to stop a deranged shooter; such as actually happened in Tucson. 

These possibilities illustrate the idiocy of even considering a federal law to prohibit the carrying of a firearm within a certain number of feet of a Representative or Senator; but it is unlikely King or other gun-control advocates in the Congress engaging in typical, knee-jerk reaction to a shooting incident, will be deterred. 

That it already is a violation of federal law to threaten a Member of Congress or other federal official with a firearm, or to use such a weapon, or even to attempt or conspire to do so, seems irrelevant to King and his anti-gun colleagues.  But in their world, the response to every problem is always to propose more laws rather than simply to recognize that not every deranged person can always be stopped before they commit random or premeditated acts of violence.  In their world also, better and more consistent enforcement of existing laws is secondary always to proposing more laws; no matter how idiotic.

 -by Bob Barr, The Barr Code

166 comments Add your comment

[...] Go here to see the original: Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

John

January 17th, 2011
6:28 am

Atlanta guy

January 17th, 2011
6:59 am

Bob Barr led with: “Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, DEMOCRAT of New York, was in the forefront of this effort.” [emphasis added]. What Bob omitted is that Carolyn’s efforts are directed only towards limiting high capacity ammo. A fairly reasonable idea, if you ask me. In Carolyn’s own words: “You have to understand, with the large amounts of bullets that were held in the magazine he was able to spray and shoot, unfortunately, an awful lot of very innocent victims.” [Ref: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/11/132826365/Rep-McCarthy-To-Propose-Ban-On-High-Capacity-Ammo

Carolyn’s position seems reasonable, assuming none of us want to become the NEXT batch of “innocent victims”. Bob, since you completely ignored Carolyn’s position in your piece, I must ask; do you disagree?

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Doug Mataconis. Doug Mataconis said: RT @bobbarr: Barr Code: Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low http://bit.ly/hjjwrr [...]

Aquagirl

January 17th, 2011
7:21 am

I like the idea forcing congressional reps to wear big silly hats and sweatshirts. Like guys with their pants on the ground, you’ll know you’re in the presence of a complete idiot.

Kilgore

January 17th, 2011
7:34 am

Bob Barr’s own knee jerk reaction to Big Brother is set on a hair trigger, and his finger is always itchy. He’s stays ready to fill the issue with lead(pencil).

Seriously, a member of congress must feel like a sitting duck the way the Rushannities constantly goad sociopathic time bombs into action. Rush Limbaugh’s unspoken mantra is as loud as his snorts to his cohorts: Bullets not ballots.

Of course, I would have supported a ban on firearms within 500 feet of a Beatle after what happened to John. Beatlemania was a fatal disease for the Beatles. Accounts from the Fab Four relayed the fear they felt many times by the mindless American zombie-fans crowding them and nearly squashing them to death. Are we baby boomers simply monsters? Is Bob Barr our Dr. Frankenstein?

“PuttinontheReeeeetz” (in grotesque falsetto).

sean smith

January 17th, 2011
7:44 am

Bob, they shouldnt walk around with a “member of congress sticker” They should all wear Corporate stickers like NASCAR so we could know who bought and paid for them.

Dont worry Bob, there is going to be no new gun laws out of this tragedy. We wont have any gun laws until a republican member or two of congress and their families is killed. (Not calling for shooting anyone) This hasn’t gotten personal for them yet so they simply don’t care.

The most well protected person on the planet got shot closeup Ronald Reagan proving the fallacy of everyone carrying a gun for protection yet that didn’t sway people. No were stuck with the wild west.

Congress is the problem, not the solution

January 17th, 2011
7:49 am

A thousand feet is not realistic. It is illegal to carry a gun to a public gathering and that did not stop this nut. It is illegal to kill and that did not stop this nut. Do they really think a thousand feet will help?
In Gainesville GA there are 3 gun stores within a thousand feet of the courthouse; how will that be handled?

Pablo

January 17th, 2011
7:56 am

What no one has been able to explain to my complete satisfaction is why a new law would help prevent a crime that could be easily prevented by existing laws, IF criminals abided by them. People tend to forget that criminals, by their nature, do not follow the law so any law enacted to curtail gun crime is going to be to them just another piece of paper with words in them that they will not follow…

dudogger

January 17th, 2011
7:58 am

What a complete yutz! Barr, the mega has-been, likely walks around all day with a .45 Blackhawk barrel firmly embedded up his…

stephen

January 17th, 2011
8:02 am

One of the most disturbing and bizarre news videos came from Arizona a couple of years ago when some of these gun nuts were strutting their automatic weapons in front of Obama at a rally.

Most of us don’t care if you want to own a gun but if intimidation is your goal, most will tell you where to stick the barrel. Some sanity as applies to gun laws is not taking away your gun rights. It is protecting the public. That too is in the constitution.

A36

January 17th, 2011
8:03 am

@Atlanta guy – Limiting high capactiy magazines (as opposed to “ammo’, which I don’t know what that is) has nothing to do with controlling crime and everything to do with banning something because McCarthy (and you, apparently) don’t like it. We tried that silly “high capacity magazine” ban in 1995 and fortunately, Congress was at least smart enough to let it expire several years ago. So you limit magazines to 15 rounds (or 10 rounds as it was previously) – then criminals will carry two or three guns. Doesn’t that seem patently obvious? So then just ow has that proposed legislation done anything to impact crime?

It is rather insulting to the principles of this country that gun control advocates like to take any tragedy and bend it to their advantage to work up hysteria for unworkable solutions that they tout as “reasonable”. The fact remains that intentional killings by firearm are still an extremely low percentage compared to the number of lawful and legal uses each year, including target shooting, hunting, AND self-defense. Moreover, you both fail to grasp the concept that this country was founded on freedom. You don’t remove the entire public’s freedom to do something simply because a few misguided individuals abuse that freedom. Well, maybe you and McCarthy do, but anybody with any sense doesn’t. Perhaps that is why Bob didn’t waste space commenting on it.

Snidely Whiplash

January 17th, 2011
8:09 am

Congress sets the tone for giving the likes of the shooter an ability to walk among us because of a lacking to profile the obviously mentally ill adult. Instead of working the individual (we’ll call the root problem), some squeaky wheels in Congress finds it easier and more politically correct to work the method of destruction (we’ll call it a gun). The deranged are federally protected. The safety of the masses is not.

carlosgvv

January 17th, 2011
8:10 am

Once more a deranged individual commits mass murder with a gun leaving behind death and grieving families. How many more murders have to happen before we outlaw private ownership of guns and authorize them only for the police and military? Are a guaranteed thousands of gun murders every year worth your “right to keep and bear arms”? If so, your moral bankruptcy shouts out loud and clear.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

January 17th, 2011
8:11 am

Maybe we could require all congressmen to wear a large gold star, right over the heart. Prior similar regimes have had similar laws.

Millard

January 17th, 2011
8:23 am

carlosgvv – guns ARE virtually outlawed in DC, NYC and other big Cities in the Northeast. When are you folks going to learn. Murderers don’t care about your silly gun laws.

Mark

January 17th, 2011
8:26 am

Why are the rights of the congress-persons more important than my rights?

Bob – “it would be impossible for every individual to know for certain they were within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress; in order to ensure they moved beyond the protective zone or so they could dispose of any firearm they might lawfully be carrying at the time. ”

If I wear my firearm where they can see it, why don’t they vacate the premises, moving beyond the protective zone? Why should I have to dispose of my property just because they come closer than I want them?

J McCormick

January 17th, 2011
8:30 am

The only thing that is wrong with this article is the fail to mention the fact that Ms. McCarthy has been working on this legislation for a long time. This is not a new concept being introduced, it’s one that could save lives, but not stop someone from committing acts like this. It just might slow them down, or keep them from killing/wounding 20 people. The fact is, Loughner was able to shoot 30 rounds, striking 19 people. If there had be limit on the high capacity magazines, he might have only really been able to hurt half that. And, maybe he would have concentrated more on his target than the public that was there.

What we should be concentrating on is, making the military report things like high drug abuse, or even if they suspect mental instability to the background checking system. If they had reported this young man, he wouldn’t had been able to obtain the gun legally in the first place.

bigdrew4u

January 17th, 2011
8:30 am

I still don’t understand how new laws will help when criminals don’t give a crap about the exixting laws. “When seconds count the police are only minutes away”

bigdrew4u

January 17th, 2011
8:32 am

Existing…sorry

Ken

January 17th, 2011
8:41 am

Bottom line… Control Of The American People… only a few steps are left… 1) Control of your speach.. nearly done, at first you were just politically incorrect, then you were “hate” minded, now we are rewrighting the “classics”. It’s now “free speach” with prior approvals… 2) Limiting the travel of the public… think, High Fuel Cost, Mass Transit, and Limited Distance on the Electric Car. Controling your travel, and labeling it Politicaly Correct. Now add in #3), Gun Control. Limit the whole from being able to protect itself from an idiot or two…. OOPS…. A Rationally Challenged Individule with a Personal Control Disorder….

carlosgvv

January 17th, 2011
8:41 am

Millard

Gun laws, like any other laws, are only as good as their enforcement. Our politicians have a very bad habit of passing laws with no intention whatsover of enforcing them. I’m talking about banning guns and STRICTLY enforcing that ban.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
8:44 am

Just how would a 1000 ft “gun free zone” have stopped this shooting?

It wouldn’t. Gun control laws are silly.

Maybe we need to pass a law against murder.

[...] Read the original here: Knee-Jerk gun control – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

WAR

January 17th, 2011
8:46 am

as a law-abiding citizen who pays taxes, votes, and carries a firearm, i dont want my rights infringed upon because of a nutjob. hope gifford gets better and fully recovers.

WAR

January 17th, 2011
8:47 am

carlosgw

if guns are banned, then with what should i defend my family, property, and self? slingshots only helped david versus goliath… man has progressed since then.

JWG

January 17th, 2011
8:50 am

It always amazes me to see the idiocy come out of the wood work after such a heinous act as the one in Arizona. Do you really think the guns will go away from criminals if you band them all? Criminal will get gun with or without your laws…if not guns then they will find another way. Perhaps we should band all knives, baseball bats, how about a pen…all of which can be used as a weapon if someone wants it to be used as such. This gun control issue is not about senseless acts it’s about control period. These congressmen and women think they can simply dictate what they want when they want it’s not about their security. They already have the security if they want it through various government agencies. I am so tired of this nonsense…it’s not about the guns idiots…it’s about a lunatic and a lunatic will find a way with or without guns. It is amazing though, since Clinton era gun laws have gone away The national crime and murder rate has gone down. But I suppose idiocy will always be idiocy no matter what the situation. You just can’t educate stupid now can you?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
8:50 am

WAR I guess carlosgw means you can stand behind the law to protect yourself.

q

January 17th, 2011
8:57 am

The reason that there are so many people out and about with firearms is they are part of a popuation that is fearful and insecure and feel they are part of an out of control population. To feel more in control, they arm themselves.

Now, I am no psychologist. These people have to address their insecurity needs. I suspect, in many instances some of these armed to the teeth anomalies was deserted by his mom when he/she was a child. So therefore they have to address this issue. Once the insecurity is addressed, these heavily armed citizens will put their armament away and face the new day with a fresh breath of confidence knowing that they are free and safe from their nagging insecurity and be happy.
I know I have hit it right this time. I feel a little insecure myself, but I live with it knowing that there are unresoved issues to be attended to.

WAR

January 17th, 2011
8:58 am

mountainpass

i rather stand behind my springfield!

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
8:59 am

JWG,

I was in a city here in GA that has the silly knife length restrictions recently. In the restaurant that night on my table was a knife that was illegal(way to long) to carry around. I looked around and these long dangerous weapons(read tools) were just laying on every table.

Gag at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:00 am

WAR I somewhat agree…..I’ll stand behind my Glock.

WAR

January 17th, 2011
9:00 am

q

i’m not insecure about carrying a weapon nor am i armed to the teeth. i have a family and want to protect them from the very people who want to take away our fresh breath of confidence. i would put my gun away if criminals put their guns away…but they have to do it first.

WAR

January 17th, 2011
9:02 am

q

should women who work late hours be escorted to their cars by security officers who dont carry weapons?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:03 am

q,

You are the one that needs help. I bet the majority of ones that legally own guns were raised in a loving home.

David Beall

January 17th, 2011
9:04 am

What some of you repeatedly fail to understand is that criminals do not obey laws. Someone who wants to kill is going to make every effort to do so; and will violate every law on the books to accomplish this. The Second Amendment is quite clear. The right to keep and bear arms WILL NOT BE INFRINGED. It is designed to make it possible for law-abiding Americans to engage in self-defense. It mentions nothing about firearms “suitable for a sporting purpose,” or whether or not some government official thinks we do or do not “need” a certain magazine capacity. When will you gun grabbers stop????

Jack

January 17th, 2011
9:08 am

Once again blaming firearms, this is like blaming my pencil for all my spelling errors!

Ugatiger

January 17th, 2011
9:08 am

Criminals are not affraid of our justice system! This guy is guilty! everybody saw him do it! He planned (pre-meditated) and orginized it! We need a fast trial cause we no he is guilty! Does not matter if he is sick, execute his sorry a_ _ ! Stop giving criminals rights, what rights do the people lhe killed have now! Gun laws will not work!

Mike

January 17th, 2011
9:10 am

People are getting shot & murdered everyday in this country. Just watch Atlanta TV. It’s all they show, especially WSB. It takes something like this to get Congress to address it. Gun use in crime is out of control in this country.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:14 am

Mike gun use by criminals IS out of control, so why should we punish law-abiding citizens by passing laws that only they will honor?

Donny Corleone

January 17th, 2011
9:20 am

People who scream for increased gun control are probably the same people who want to “uninvent” nuclear weapons. Use some common sense people. Criminals don’t care if it is illegal to have and carry illegal weapons because by definition they are criminals. Only law abiding citizens are affected by unrealistic and unconstitutional gun laws.

BULLSEYE

January 17th, 2011
9:21 am

I want a new gun to carry. I currently own a Tarus PT-99 9mm auto that is a Brasilian copy of the Italian Berreta. I like it alot, but it’s a bit to large for concealed carry. Any thoughts?

Chuck

January 17th, 2011
9:23 am

Good article Bob. I’m glad someone at the AJC answered Jay Bookman’s idiotic rant from last week. I’m a conservative Democrat but in this area, I glad that the Republicans control Congress so this proposal will never become law.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:25 am

Bullseye,

Open Carry it.

poison pen

January 17th, 2011
9:25 am

Carlosgvv,………….. Maybe we can enforce your law the way we enforce illegal immigration. I am sure all the crooks out there will just turn them over if you ask politely, another brilliant post by you.

carlosgvv

January 17th, 2011
9:28 am

The republicans and the gun industry have been using the same brainwashing and propaganda methods used by advertisers to con you into actually beleiving the Government wants to take away your rights as often as they can. What the gun industry really wants is your money so they will stop at nothing to get as much of it as they can. Republicans support this because it means more campaign money for them. Lawmakers know no law will work unless it is STRICTLY enforced and Republicans block gun law enforcement any way they can. As long as you believe their lies you are nothing more than a tool of the Republicans and the gun industry.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
9:28 am

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

Adolf Hitler – “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make
would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.
History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject
races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”

jimg9x21

January 17th, 2011
9:29 am

Atlanta guy, I would call your attention to the fact that the original high capacity ban didn’t remove a single magazine from circulation. It ban the manufacture, sale, distribution and importation of the magazines. Currently there is something like 250,000,000 firearms in the hands of private citizens in this country. A good 30 to 40 percent of them are semi auto and can accept high cap magazines (holding over 10 rounds as per the original ban), that amounts to 75,000,000 such guns. If only 10% of those owners have high cap magazines, that’s 7,500,000 of them. Just what are you and McCarthy proposing that would eliminate seven and a half million items from private hands? Be careful what you wish for.

BULLSEYE

January 17th, 2011
9:30 am

I hear you Mountain, but would still like an alternative.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:30 am

Chuck,

I’m starting to see a lot more just like you. Hopefully it’s a trend.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:31 am

Bullseye,

Look at the Glock 26.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
9:33 am

Giffords- God Bless. Praying for you to have a strong recovery.

poison pen

January 17th, 2011
9:34 am

Carlosgvv, all of your rants on Tuckers, Bookmans and Bobs blogs are always aimed at big business, you really have a serious problem sport.

For your information, Giffords is a Democrat, she owns guns and she supported owning guns. Please get your fabricated facts straight.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
9:35 am

carlosgvv,

The government has been strictly enforcing the War on Drugs. They are losing that one.

Tim

January 17th, 2011
9:40 am

Can we talk about Gays or healthcare next?

jconservative

January 17th, 2011
9:40 am

Interesting comments. I have just read the first 32 comments. Most of the discussion centers on legislative attempts to address the 2nd Amendment.

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.”

This amendment has been raked over the coals pretty well already. The Supreme Court in its wisdom has declared the Constitution a “living constitution” by allowing legislative changes to the Constitution. And it seems to be getting worse with the Roberts court.

Where in the 2nd Am does it say criminals cannot possess arms?
Where in the 2nd Am does it say the mentally ill cannot bear arms?
And, a new one, where in the 2nd Am does it say Islamic Terrorists cannot bear arms?

Where does it say 18″ sawed off shotguns are not allowed?
Where does it say the Russian 9K34 Strela-3 anti-aircraft rocket is not allowed?

Just asking.

A society can wish all it wants. A society can attempt to lesson the danger to its citizens from other citizens all it wants. The lesson learned to date is that no attempt to reduce violence has worked. And probably will not work in the foreseeable future.

Numbers. 2007 USA deaths by firearms – 29,984.
Numbers. 2007 USA deaths from traffic – 42,031

Obviously human life is a pretty cheap thing in the USA. The passing a few laws by the legislature, state or Federal, will not change that fact.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by dennis streich and Atlanta Daily. Atlanta Daily said: Knee-Jerk gun control – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) http://bit.ly/edSAzQ [...]

BULLSEYE

January 17th, 2011
9:47 am

Thanks Mountainpass. I like it.

J. B.

January 17th, 2011
9:48 am

Has anyone here ever seen someone that has practiced magazine changes change their magazine after being empty? Proper placement of magazines and practice makes the change insignificant. Banning high capacity magazines won’t solve the problem. Banning guns won’t solve the problem. Look at Georgia’s 1000 foot “safe zone” around college campuses, is that stopping armed robberies from taking place on Georgia Tech’s campus or other college campuses? No because criminals don’t care about the laws, that is why they are criminals.

For the person talking about public gatherings, have you read Arizona law? Does it have this restriction? Georgia law no longer has this restriction of a generic “public gathering”. There are very few nationally gun laws, most are state/local controlled.

luangtom

January 17th, 2011
9:50 am

To all of the advocates of more gun-control….please prove to the rest of us that the ban on assault-weapons and high-cap magazines from 1994 to 2004 did anything to quell crime in the USA.

Second, why do none of the control-advocates ever demand outlawing vehicles when over 50,000 people die needlessly each year in the USA?

Third, ask the good sheriff in Tucson why he did not have a security-detail assigned to the location where the Congressperson and the Federal judge were going to be? Even smalll-time police and sheriffs add security-details when Federal reps or judges are gathered with the public. Why was he so lax in providing security to cut-off actions like occurred?

The first bit of legislation to be made public was by Rep. McCarthy of New York. It came out so fast that it appeared they were waiting in the wings for just such a catastrophe to occur. Why was that? And, did the good Representative from New York ever tell the public what would have occurred had just one citizen on that fateful train-ride been able to legally possess and carry a side-arm? No, she has not and will not. The perp was allowed to reload and keep firing in the train-car where her husband was murdered due to no one firing back and no one over-powering him until so many had died.

This is oh so typical of the Left and those bent on dissolving the rights of good citizens. Afterall, we are more and more the “nanny-state” and they wish to protect us from birth to death. NOT………….

Patriot

January 17th, 2011
9:52 am

I vote for a giant 3 foot tall orange DUNCE cap for every congressman to wear (except of course Ron Paul – his can say genius).

Liberals are complete trash

January 17th, 2011
9:53 am

Bob, you’re absolutely correct about the knee jerk reaction from the left.

Left wingers are eating crow right now.

Looking Behind the Mug-Shot Grin

Among the books that he would later cite as his favorites: “Animal Farm,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16loughner.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=3&adxnnlx=1295272816-mzPTbiXmgfYK5d56DmiDjg

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
9:54 am

Mountainpass,
That war on drugs comment says it all. Well said indeed.

Johnny

January 17th, 2011
10:01 am

carlosgvv- What are you calling for with this “strict enforcement?”- police officers going from door to door in search of illegally-possessed guns by private citizens, which would turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals. Do you think the real criminals care about a silly gun ban? We have declared war against drugs and we have been “strictly enforcing” our drug laws wasting millions of dollars flying helicopters around looking for marijuana, yet it is still so easy to get and always will be. In the rural area I live in, I would be willing to bet that at least every other household owns at least one firearm. What is this- Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union? Thank God people like you, Carolyn McCarthy, and Peter King are in the minority.

george

January 17th, 2011
10:03 am

you’re right, rep. king’s proposal is ridiculous. what is worse is that we allow people to have such high powered weapons. i have no problem with someone owning a gun, especially a hunter, but is there no limit to the type of weapon we own. tell me why you need a 30 round clip, a uzzi, or maybe a bazooka?
i have lived 76 years without a gun and plan to live the rest of my days without one

carlosgvv

January 17th, 2011
10:04 am

poison pen

The ambitions of big business are a serious problem for all of us. So, why don’t you tell me just what facts I’m fabricating, sport model?

Darwin

January 17th, 2011
10:08 am

Bob’s preaching to the choir again.

Dr. Pangloss

January 17th, 2011
10:11 am

The King legislation also would preclude a Good Samaritan lawfully carrying a firearm from using their [sic] gun to stop a deranged shooter; such as actually happened in Tucson.

Gee, Bob, if you’re getting paid to be a journalist, could you make your pronouns agree with their antecedents? Good Samaritan is singular; their is plural.

One other thing: nobody used a gun to stop the deranged shooter. He was stopped by an unarmed old lady and an unarmed old military vet.

Dr. Pangloss

January 17th, 2011
10:14 am

luangtom
January 17th, 2011
9:50 am

To all of the advocates of more gun-control….please prove to the rest of us that the ban on assault-weapons and high-cap magazines from 1994 to 2004 did anything to quell crime in the USA.
———————-

Well, for one thing, shootings of police officer went down.

See http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt

BART

January 17th, 2011
10:16 am

How can any reasonable person disagree with McCarthy’s position?

Eureka

January 17th, 2011
10:17 am

Sometimes Barr gets it. Sometimes he just down right stupid!

Dr. Pangloss

January 17th, 2011
10:20 am

Dave from Rome
January 17th, 2011
9:28 am

George Washington: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

—————–

This is a well-known phony Washington quotation. From Wikiquotes:

Sometimes purported to have been made in an “Address to the Second Session of the First United States Congress, 7 January 1790, according to the Boston Independent Chronicle (14 January 1790)”, this quote is palpably bogus, as this essay at a pro-gun site makes plain.

J. B.

January 17th, 2011
10:22 am

Dr. Pangloss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmmOWL05r8

WARNING: This video is an interview of a RESPONSIBLE gun owner that didn’t just shoot the guy and maybe cause more victims and then he helped keep the guy down till police arrived. And while he didn’t draw down on him, he could have if needed. Kudos to him for his restraint.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
10:29 am

Dr. Pangloss wrote=”One other thing: nobody used a gun to stop the deranged shooter. He was stopped by an unarmed old lady and an unarmed old military vet.”

The armed citizen helped hold the shooter down. He was in the Safeway, heard the shots and ran towards them.

THOMAS PAINE II

January 17th, 2011
10:36 am

1. Banning high-capacity clips accomplishes nothing. In a pistol, it takes mere seconds to change clips.

2. Laws only restrain the lawful.

3. Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are subjects.

4. Never lose sight of the reality that roughly 80,000,000 armed Americans didn’t kill anyone yesterday.

5. Life is full or risk and danger and no amount of laws or regulations will alter that.

6. If your true intent is to save lives, then you should get on your soap box and start demanding safer cars instead. Far more people are killed by automobiles than by guns; but, of course, restricting the use and speed of cars would inpact YOUR rights and, is therefore, not accepable, right?

7. The Founding Fathers knew that an armed citizenry was the bulwork of a free society. This is why the 2nd. Amendment was added to the Constitution.

I think that covers most of it. Have a nice day…….

redneckbluedog

January 17th, 2011
10:39 am

You can talk big and bad and bravado all you want…but the fact is, has been, and will always be…guns and families don’t mix…my wife hates guns, as do my two young daughters…Don’t get me wrong…I would defend them with my life…But keeping guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals makes my life much easier…It’s enough keeping up with them as it is and making a living….

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
10:40 am

Dr. Pangloss,
I do see where there is some conjecture regarding the Washington quotation. Should it prove false, i’ll offer my apologies for the unintended misquotation. I did notice however that you did refrain from any comments regarding the Hitler quotation, i’d like you hear your thoughts on that one as well, if you’re up to it. I’ll replace the questionable Washington quotation with some quotes from other heroes of gun control advocacy, and maybe you’d like to comment on those as well:

Josef Stalin – “We don’t let them have ideas.
Why would we let them have guns?”

Mao Zedong – “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Vladimir Lenin – “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

I

Michael

January 17th, 2011
10:41 am

A strict constructionalist like Scalia would grab a dictionary from 1787, declare that “arms” back then meant black powder weapons, and conclude that you can only bear all of those that you can carry. Oh wait, those words have definitions the founders intended to expand over time since they knew .50 cal machine guns would be invented.

Bunch of result oriented jurists whose definition of “activist” judge changes depending on whether they must allow conservative stuff or shut down liberal stuff.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
10:46 am

mountainpass @10:29 am
“The armed citizen helped hold the shooter down. He was in the Safeway, heard the shots and ran towards them.”

A more distorted argument is hard to imagine. The armed citizen “helped hold the shooter down” by running towards the shots? Actually, the story of that armed citizen is the best argument against those who claim that more armed citizens would help against such killing. This armed citizen, by his own account, was just ready to shoot the man with the gun – the citizen who took the gun from the killer. Moreover, that same “armed citizen” could have been easily a victim of some other “armed citizen,” who would have mistaken him for the shooter.

Pablo

January 17th, 2011
10:49 am

BULLSEYE:

Walther PPK/S .380 is the one I carry most of the time, it is very compact and still carries some punch. Its only limitation, though, is its clip capacity (so I carry 2). Good thing to have.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
10:50 am

redneckbluedog,

Just what do you propose to keep criminals from getting guns?

BULLSEYE

January 17th, 2011
10:53 am

Nice weapon there Pablo. I appreciate the input.

John

January 17th, 2011
10:54 am

I notice how Bob writes “control advocates taking advantage of every shooting incident as an excuse to further restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights” and doesn’t mention anything about the “fears” of those play into the gun rights side. Like Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) wanting to have a glass shield put around the House gallery. Or Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert drafting a measure to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the District of Columbia, including in the Capitol and on the House floor. Can anyone imagine how ugly politics have gotten in the last few years of having that many armed people on the House floor getting into heated debate? In order to get to the house floor, a person needs to go through 2 security checkpoints. If that’s the case, why would Congressmen and women need to carry guns on the floor for protection.

Dr. Pangloss

January 17th, 2011
10:55 am

jconservative says:

Numbers. 2007 USA deaths by firearms – 29,984.
Numbers. 2007 USA deaths from traffic – 42,031

Apparently, this proves … something.

He doesn’t mention that traffic deaths were down to 33,808 in 2009 according to the National Highway Traffic Association at http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx and may be below 30,000 for 2010 when all the numbers come in. It is possible to make things better.

The argument here seems to be:

Thing A kills too many people.
Thing B also kills too many people.
Therefore, Thing A’s killing is all right.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
10:59 am

MarkV,

He did hold down the shooter. This is a great example of all the things you are pointing out NOT happening. The armed citizen ran to help, but he knew he HAD to be absolutely certain before he did anything. If more folks carrying had been there maybe the shooter could have been stopped sooner.

Pablo

January 17th, 2011
11:00 am

BULLSEYE:

No problem.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
11:03 am

mountainpass,

This citizen held down the shooter eventually – what has that got to do with him having a gun?
He knew he had to be absolutely certain before he did anything. You expect all armed citizen to know that and react that way? Are you kidding about stopping the shooter sooner?

John

January 17th, 2011
11:04 am

@mountainpass

If these large clips would still be banned, perhaps not as many people would have been injured or killed.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:08 am

John,

What if the shooter had had 2 guns?

Snidely Whiplash

January 17th, 2011
11:10 am

Dr Pangloss : Would like to see those stats re: firearm deaths broken down to gang related, drug related, innocents related, domestic violence related, licensed and unlicensed related and self-defense related. I carry and am legal. Was taught to respect the firearm. I’m 57. My first gun was a BB/Pellet .177. Then a Sheridan Pellet, then a shotgun then a pistol. I love to shoot. I have no qualms to defend myself, my family and my property. Hope I never have to…

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:14 am

MarkV,

He ran to the shots because he was armed and thought he could help.

Show me where a legally armed person mistakenly shot someone causing harm. I’m sure it may well of happened, I just don’t know of it.

I am not kidding, why do you think I am? What is so hard to believe about that?

JV

January 17th, 2011
11:17 am

It would be impossible to provide complete elimination of all risk to all members of Congress in all times and places. The cost would be prohibitive, and it would further isolate the members from the people they are elected to represent.

During their term of office Congressmen enjoy a certain level of notoriety or celebrity. Their political choices, speeches, and actions garner them some media attention and they are, as a result, more likely to encounter the “fringe” element of society as a result. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our system of governance.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
11:18 am

-Gun sales reached an all time high in 2009 according to the January 17th edition of the Huffington Post. Interestingly, here are the FBI’s numbers on violent crime rates for the year 2010:

Murder down 7.1%.
Forcible Rape down 6.2%
Robbery down 10.7%
Aggravated Assault down 3.9%
Burglary down 1.4%
Larceny/Theft down 2.3%
Motor Vehicle Theft down 9.7%.

Just something to chew on. Here are the links for verification.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/gun-industry-thrives_n_807360.html
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/december/crime_122010/crime_122010

John

January 17th, 2011
11:20 am

@mountainpass,

Have you ever been in a position, like this armed citizen, where you had a split second decision on using your gun or not? Fortunately, this guy didn’t shoot; otherwise, one of the heroes could have been killed while trying to save others. I know police officers who have gone through such training programs…it’s very tough. They are placed in situations where they have to make the decision to shoot or not to shoot. On situation may be a hand holding a gun coming out of a closet. Some choose to shoot only to discover it’s a child holding a realistic looking toy gun.

How someone reacts when faced with such a situation is really unknown. Gun rights advocates points out this armed guy ran towards to shots due to the fact he was armed and protected. But at the same time, Daniel Hernandez, an unarmed intern ran towards the shots as well and has been credited for saving Congresswoman Giffords life. Two people, one armed and one unarmed, reacted in the same way of running towards the gunshots to try to help others.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
11:21 am

Mountainpass,
Let’s stick to the facts:

A bystander clubbed the back of the assailant’s head with a folding chair. The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old Bill Badger, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Before helping to hold the killer, Zamudio (the man with the gun) pushed the innocent holder of the gun into a wall.

Those who actually subdued the killerd id not have guns. The one guy with a gun, by his own admission, almost shot an innocent man. The fact that he went to help the others, unarmed citizens who held the killer had nothing to do with his having a gun.

Paul McKeon

January 17th, 2011
11:30 am

The only thing more “knee jerk” than the legislative reaction he describes is the predictable knee-jerk reaction of this shill and toady for the NRA. He takes every opportunity, no matter how crass, to make the case for widespread availability of guns. He’s a one trick pony, and I don’t understand why the AJC features this neanderthal regressive so prominently in its opinion pages.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:32 am

John,

My statement about the armed citizen was in response to this proposed law that would have put a 1000 foot “gun free zone” around the congresswoman. If that law was in effect, as Mr. Barr pointed out, the legally armed citizen being a law-abiding citizen would not have stayed and thus it would be one less person that stepped up to help. I was not saying that unarmed folks don’t try to help.

I was nearly robbed 3 years ago. I was in my vehicle when I was approached by a young man. I felt uncomfortable and grabbed my firearm from under my seat. He asked me a question and wanted me to roll down my window. I couldn’t understand him and he looked down and saw my weapon and ran. As he ran away I saw the gun in his hand. That was my epiphany moment. I went home and searched the laws of Georgia. After looking at them I joined GeorgiaCarry to help make the laws less friendly to criminals and more friendly to legal citizens.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:37 am

MarkV

Dr. Pangloss wrote=”One other thing: nobody used a gun to stop the deranged shooter. He was stopped by an unarmed old lady and an unarmed old military vet.”

I was sticking to the facts, Mr. Pangloss was the reason for my comment.

John

January 17th, 2011
11:42 am

@mountainpass

“I was not saying that unarmed folks don’t try to help.”

What were you implying when you posted “He ran to the shots because he was armed and thought he could help”?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:52 am

John,

Well I guess he thought “Wow those are gun shots.” Which would mean that probably he thought that was odd in the parking lot of the Safeway. So he ran there thinking an active shooter situation was happening, which he was right. And since he was armed he thought he might could stop the shooting, much like the licensed carrier Mrs. Jeanne Asam helped stop an active gunman at a church in Colorado Springs.

Jeanne Assam appeared before the news media for the first time Monday and said she “did not think for a minute to run away” when a gunman entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs and started shooting.

“Assam worked as a police officer in downtown Minneapolis during the 1990s and is licensed to carry a weapon. She attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during another service.”
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:54 am

From my link in the above post:

Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
12:09 pm

mountainpass@11:37
If Mr. Pangloss’ post was the reason for your comment, then you argument is incomprehensible. Dr. Pangloss was essentially right, while you have only introduced the fact that another person, in possession of a gun, in the end participated in holding the killer, ignoring that the gun possession had nothing to do with his help, and ignoring the admission of that person of almost killing an innocent person.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
12:17 pm

MarkV

Mr. Pangloss left out the FACT that an armed citizen ran to help. If it there had been a law like the one this article is based on then one less person would have been there to help, as the armed citizen would have left the area as he is a law-abiding person.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
12:18 pm

MarkV – If i’m following you, then i believe you’re trying to make something out of an ‘almost’ ‘what if’ statement. Ok so you say the guy had initially identified a good guy who had taken the gun from the assailant as a target and he ‘almost’ shot them. But obviously he did not, so whatever argument you’re trying to make regarding this person failure in judgment for ‘almost’ shooting an innocent person is the same as me going to jail for ‘thinking about’ robbing a liquor store. I really don’t think there’s a lot to argue about there. I don’t think anyone here is trying to make the case that the armed citizen swooped in and saved the day or anything, just the point was made that if the proposed law of 1000 feet barrier had been in place, then an individual who helped restrain the shooter would have either had to retreat instead of assist or would have been charged for a crime for doing nothing other than putting himself in harms way to help another human being. That’s all.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
12:19 pm

So who here thinks that if the 1000 ft. barrier between an armed individual and a congress person was in place, that it would have been an effective deterrent to stop Loughner? Kinda silly now that you think about it like that, isn’t it?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
12:20 pm

MarkV

Here is a quote from Mr. Barr’s article:

The King legislation also would preclude a Good Samaritan lawfully carrying a firearm from using their gun to stop a deranged shooter; such as actually happened in Tucson.

John

January 17th, 2011
12:25 pm

@mountainpass

“And since he was armed he thought he might could stop the shooting, much like the licensed carrier Mrs. Jeanne Asam helped stop an active gunman at a church in Colorado Springs.”

You left out that he claimed he thought about shooting and had he did, he would have shot at one of the other heroes.

You also mentioned Ms. Asam used to be a police officer which means she has been trained with guns, on gun safety and how to react in such situations.

I believe in one’s rights to guns as given in the 2nd amendment…but the Supreme Court has also ruled the freedoms doesn’t mean unlimited. Most responsible law-abiding gun owners I know believe in sensible gun laws. One of the problems that happen, anytime a sensible law, such as the restriction on large capacity clips, the gun rights lobbyist claim “they’re coming to take our guns away”. We saw that when President Obama was elected, even though there was not evidence to suggest such a thing. Just look at Georgia Carry’s website…the first thing on the page (in large bold letters) it states “GeorgiaCarry.Org is Georgia’s no-compromise voice for gun owners.” No-compromise whatsoever. Just under that, it states “GCO believes that citizens of Georgia and the United States have the right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime. ” Notice, it doesn’t not say anything about law-abiding, non-mentally ill citizens right to carry…it says citizens. Felons are still citizens, as well as those with mental illness. Does carrying the firearm of their choice includes bazooka or other “arms” private citizens are currently banned from owning under federal law?

John

January 17th, 2011
12:44 pm

@Dave from Rome

Just as you asked, “So who here thinks that if the 1000 ft. barrier between an armed individual and a congress person was in place, that it would have been an effective deterrent to stop Loughner? Kinda silly now that you think about it like that, isn’t it?”

Who here thinks the same number of people would have been injured or killed if the ban on large capacity clips had not expired? Keep in mind, he was stopped after unloading one clip and was trying to get another clip. Kinda silly letting that ban expire now that you think about it like that, isn’t it?”

John

January 17th, 2011
12:50 pm

mountainpass, do you support sensible gun laws or do you believe that any citizen should be allowed to own any type of “arms” they want?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
1:11 pm

John wrote=”You left out that he claimed he thought about shooting and had he did, he would have shot at one of the other heroes.”

I addressed it earlier.

I don’t speak for GCO, but in my opinion:
If these former criminals can become police officers : http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/10/12/atlanta_police_academy.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
Then why can’t a man that served his time have all his rights back?
I mean they let him have a drivers license(privilege not a right), they let him vote(privilege not a right), so if he intends on leading a crime free life, why forbid him the ability to protect himself. If he intends on going back to a life of crime, the law against him owning a firearm will not stop him from procuring one.

Our other rights don’t require training. How much is the training going to cost? Who is going to provide it? How long will the wait be to get it? Show me where the training made a difference in an armed citizen encounter. Where are all the accidents occuring with licensed folks? I like training, it’s a lot of fun, but I don’t think it should be mandated by the government to exercise a right.

Gun Control is a flawed premise, the criminal never follows the law as Mr. Barr has pointed out.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
1:21 pm

John,
is your position that the institution of a ban would have somehow encouraged Loughner to turn in his 30 magazine capacity clip to the nearest police officer? Or kept him from buying one illegally if he chose to? Laws are not deterrents to the unlawful, they are only a means of applying an agreed upon punishment after the fact. Again, it’s silly to think any law would have stopped Loughner. His rhetoric before the incident, at least in my mind, leads me to believe he thought he was going off to his death. What law could stop a man like that? In my humble opinion, there isn’t one. It’s gun control advocates’ belief that these types of weapons and accessories can be removed from America with a law. They cannot. They will remove them from the hands of the lawful, i agree. But gang members will not turn over their weapons. Sick individuals will not turn over their weapons. Criminals will not turn over their weapons. Individuals who know there is a buck to be made selling illegal weapons won’t disappear, they’ll flourish. Look at drugs. Look at prohibition. Those who intend to have the upper hand on the innocent will not turn over their weapons and they won’t be dissuaded to obtain them illegally. The common idea seems to be that these guns, and the owners, will somehow disappear over time. I realistically disagree. It will not take 1 or 2 or 5 years, or even 10 or 20, to remove those people and guns from the population. That element will never be removed. So you end up with an unarmed populace and a well armed and unchallenged criminal opponent. Please review the numbers i posted earlier regarding gun ownership numbers and crime numbers. To suggest this is an anomaly i think would be to disregard a substantial argument for the private ownership of firearms. Violent crimes plummeted when gun ownership rose. 7.1% for murder is a huge number that should be applauded, not disregarded.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
1:35 pm

Dave from Rome @12:18

If you read my posts, you and mountainepass would have realized that I was not writing about the nonnsensical Peter King’s proposal. I was addressing the issue that has been raised a lot in the past as well as recently, the argument that the presence of armed people would prevent killing like the one in Tucson from happening. The Wild-West mentality of many gun owners.
Your argument that ” this person failure in judgment for ‘almost’ shooting an innocent person is the same as me going to jail for ‘thinking about’ robbing a liquor store” is a total nonsense, there is no comparison. We are talking about a split second decision in the former situation, not “thinking about commiting a felony.”.

John

January 17th, 2011
1:43 pm

mountainpass,

“Our other rights don’t require training. How much is the training going to cost? Who is going to provide it? How long will the wait be to get it? Show me where the training made a difference in an armed citizen encounter. Where are all the accidents occuring with licensed folks?”

Show me where other rights were safety is concerned? As I have previously stated, the Supreme Court has ruled that rights does not mean unlimited. As far as paying for training, an individual who wants a gun can pay for the training…just as some states charge for permits to carry, hunting license, ect. As far as accidents with guns…didn’t Dick Cheney accidentally shoot someone? Was there an accidental shooting a few years ago at a private Republican fundraiser? How many people are accidentally shot each year…from kids and adults playing with guns, hunting accidents, etc.?

I also noticed you talked about rights but didn’t address my point that the 2nd amendment doesn’t use the word guns but uses the word “arms”. Does that mean any citizen has the “right” to own any type of “arms”? Can I own nuclear weapons, bazooka, or other arms with are currently banned for private ownership?

John

January 17th, 2011
1:46 pm

“Gun Control is a flawed premise, the criminal never follows the law as Mr. Barr has pointed out.”

This would conclude that all laws are flawed since criminals never follows the law. Then why have DUI laws, laws banning texting while driving, the list goes on and on.

old shoes

January 17th, 2011
1:51 pm

bummer! getting shot on mlk jr drive on mlk day.

Mary Waterton

January 17th, 2011
2:01 pm

We are not going to ban guns because the Second Amendment protect gun ownership.

We are not going to ban talk radio or FOX news or Tea Party rallies because the loony left wants to use this tragedy for political gain. We are not going to ban heavy metal or rap music on the grounds that lyrics drove Loughner to violence. The First Amendment protects all these.

Rather than waste time on this junk, why don’t democrats introduce some legislation to balance the budget??? Answer: Because democrats don’t give a rat’s rear end about balancing budgets or creating jobs!

John

January 17th, 2011
2:03 pm

“is your position that the institution of a ban would have somehow encouraged Loughner to turn in his 30 magazine capacity clip to the nearest police officer? ”

No, but he did buy these clips legally after the ban had expired. I find it strange that the same people who say sensible laws and bans would not stop criminals from getting guns are the same who believe border fences will stop illegals from coming into the country…I agree in both cases, it will not stop it completely. But there are some bans on types of gun are so heavily regulated, that works. As I stated before, I’m not against a law-abiding citizen’s right to own guns but can you tell me what are these large capacity clips used for other than to kill lots of people in a quick amount of time? How many hunters, for instance, hunt with large capacity clips? Or for defense purposes? Does it take someone 30+ rounds to defend themselves from an intruder?

Congress is the problem, not the solution

January 17th, 2011
2:10 pm

Bullseye – I like the Ruger LCP for a pocket pistol but the Walther PK380 is my favorite.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
2:15 pm

MarkV,
If I’ve failed to make my point thru my illustration then let me just put it this way: I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument to point at something and say it’s wrong when nothing happened. Simple as that. Our individual made a split second decision, and he made the right one. Will everyone always? No. But to say, “Look at what almost happened here!” I think isn’t a firm ground for argument. You want to hold him accountable for what could have happened and didn’t, and you can’t do that. We could ‘what if’ each other to death, if that were the case.
As far as the ‘wild west’ mentality of gun owners, it’s my belief that we’ve been unfairly misrepresented in the media (imagine that?). I don’t know anyone who has the wild west mentality. the ones i know are generally just people who aren’t afraid of guns but respect them and are aware of what they can do in the wrong hands. We love our families and believe in our rights to defend them and ourselves, and we’re generally realists when it comes to what we believe bad people are capable of.

John

January 17th, 2011
3:02 pm

@Dave from Rome

“If I’ve failed to make my point thru my illustration then let me just put it this way: I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument to point at something and say it’s wrong when nothing happened. Simple as that. ”

Just as it is not a legitimate argument to say if more people would have been armed, it would either not have happened or it would have been less sever. But that’s what gun right lobby groups argue. That was immediately said after this incident before it was reveled one guy did have a gun.

I don’t think people question your love for your family or your right to defend them and yourself. Bur for some reason, we don’t seem to be able to have a sensible, rational discussion in this country when it comes to guns. For instance, what is the purpose of large capacity clips of 30+ rounds? Do you carry a gun loaded with 30+ rounds to protect yourself and your family? Do you carry, or is there a need to, carry a gun capable of shooting down an airplane to protect your family? Does yoru right under the 2nd amendment include your right to use cop killing bullets? So called plastic guns, claimed to be capable of being undetected via metal detectors are banned. I understand some argue there are no such thing, still it is banned. It the technology exist, should they be banned? While I support rights to protect yourself and your family, I also support sensible gun laws, which include bans on mentally ill from owning guns, felons from owning guns, bans on some types of guns and other “arms” as well as certain types of bullets.

Daniel Boone

January 17th, 2011
3:37 pm

I guess the members of congress must figure they got a good reason to be afraid of folks with guns.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
4:17 pm

John,
No one can say what would or would not have happened in there were more armed civilians in that crowd. I only wish that someone could have done something to spare that waste of life, especially that little girl. I don’t care if it was a baker with a concealed rolling pin put upside the assailants head, if it would have saved lives i would wish it so. Same with my belief in a responsible law abiding citizen who carries a gun. If that person could have saved one life, it would have been worth it.

I, personally, do not own a 30+ capacity magazine for a pistol. What about a firearm that supports a 17 + 1 capacity? Do you think that is excessive? I understand your point is that there has to be some practical line in the sand between no guns at all vs. a world where folks can purchase their own nuclear missile for self defense. But the point is we don’t have people with nuclear missiles now, or anti-aircraft guns, or bazookas. So you’ve sort of won that already, and we’re not hassling you over it. That’s not what people are fighting about. What constantly fuels the debate is where that line should be drawn, and the left’s consistent push to redefine the line to their liking. I’m willing to wager that most people who lean left would consider a 17 + 1 round capacity on a firearm excessive as well. And i’m also willing to wager that if we left it up to these same people to make the rules, it wouldn’t be long before we’d have complete gun control in action. They are afraid of guns and want them to go away. I can understand that fear, but i’ll argue it’s an unhealthy one. Would i personally agree to a plan where felons and the mentally ill aren’t allowed to own weapons? I guess i would, i’m living in that now and i’m not complaining to anyone about it. Would i surrender the black talon armor piercing bullet too? I guess i would, i’m living in that world now. They are currently illegal and i haven’t complained to anyone about that either. I guess what i’m saying is, when will the gun control lobby be satisfied? I think we both know the answer to that one, and that’s why they continue to be my opponent.

BOBFROMBC

January 17th, 2011
4:54 pm

MR. KING YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO FUND MEDICAL HELP FOR THE TREATMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS FEDERALLY.
YOU COULD LINE UP A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP IN YOUR 1,000 FEET.

BOBFROMBC

January 17th, 2011
4:56 pm

MR. KING YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY. A THOUSAND FEET,
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN SEE ONE THOUSAND FEET.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO FUND MEDICAL HELP FOR THE TREATMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS FEDERALLY.
YOU COULD LINE UP A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP IN YOUR 1,000 FEET.

BOBFROMBC

January 17th, 2011
4:59 pm

MR. KING YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY. A THOUSAND FEET,
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN SEE A THOUSAND FEET, POLITICALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO FUND MEDICAL HELP FOR THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. FEDERALLY FUNDED OF COURSE.
YOU COULD LINE UP A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP IN YOUR 1,000 FEET.

Gregg Pyka

January 17th, 2011
5:04 pm

As a certified (Mild) schizophrenic I know for a fact that I should not have a gun.
This guy in Arizona is both schizophrenic and mentally retarded and has no concept of his
retarded state to undestand his schizophrenia. I am sure his parents tried to accept him as normal without help but anyone can see that he was trying so hard to find acceptance in a world that was being forced opon him by the irresponsible (all the surrounding contacts , parents etc.) It is sad to watch this guy’s video’s as he is struggling to have a concept of what is real and what is not all by himself. Gun control is not the answer but to understand the fact that this guy with what his surroundings was commiting him to which was a point of no return is the thing American’s do every day by walking past and not understanding that these sick people like myuself have no where else to turn but needing to live with constant support financially SSDI and understanding. The fact that he is in prison with that feeling of awe , I am finally free of society is the smile on his face. as it is the relief of all of us walking past him that made him SNAP. Wake up and care or be killed !!! watcher .

mike sacco

January 17th, 2011
5:41 pm

If we must own assault weapons,must we allow 31 shot clips.Just curious to hear the justification.

John

January 17th, 2011
6:01 pm

@Dave from Rome

“I guess what i’m saying is, when will the gun control lobby be satisfied? I think we both know the answer to that one, and that’s why they continue to be my opponent.”

That’s the problem…just as you ask when will the gun control lobby be satisfied, the same can be asked about gun rights lobby. As I pointed out earlier…Georgia Carry believes that ALL citizens should be allowed all types guns with no restrictions even on where they should be allowed to be carried…and NO COMPROMISE. Look at what happened when Obama was elected President…the gun rights lobby said he was coming to take our guns away. Gun sales shot up. Show me where, at any time, did President Obama say he was coming to take away everyone’s guns?

Reid

January 17th, 2011
6:14 pm

When carrying a gun within 1k feet of a congressman / high-capacity magazines / gun ownership are outlawed, then only the outlaws will do / have / own these things.

[...] making it illegal for a person to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress.-[source] January 17th, 2011 | Tags: America, Arizona, Congress, firearms, gun control, legislation, New [...]

OSCAR .

January 17th, 2011
9:44 pm

EVERY BODY IS MISSING THE POINT?
GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE IS TO STOP TRIANY.
IF THERE IS 1 IN A MILLION WHO ARE MORONS,
LIKE THE ONE WHO SHOT THAT NICE LADY THERE ARE AT
LEAST 300 OF THEM.
THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT LAW OR ANY THING OTHER
THAN THEMSELVES.
ANTI GUNERS KNOW THIS.SO I HAVE TO ASK
WHAT ARE THESE GUNGRABERS REALY AFTER?
I FOR ONE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY MORONS,AND
I WILL NOT BOW DOWN TO TYANY.

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
10:58 pm

Maybe you are not smart enough to actually research who is responsible for running, managing and operating the background check, yep, the government.

So knowing that now, why aren’t you screaming bloody murder at the BATF and government employee’s have since 1994, prosecuted less than 1% of the 1.67 million valid rejections, 50% of which involve those same crazies you are so frightened of. USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008.

US Congressional review, 2001 100% of felons buy a firearm using fake ID 100% of the time.

Funny how the government even acknowledges they fail to enforce that law.
You do know that both federal & state supreme courts have ruled 10 separate times that the police are not legally liable to protect the individual citizen.

We see that in the US, per FBI UCR 2008, we had 1.38 million violent crimes reported, 49% of those were closed to prosecution, and with an average 80% conviction rate for both federal & state cases we have……..oh wait, we have forgotten something. In 2008, there were 4.8 million violent crimes not reported, USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

So for you math illiterates that is….
((1.38 mil x 49%) x80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.75% of all violent crimes committed in the US in 2008 were solved.

So lets see your police forces show a better rate of solving ALL crimes. But since 75% are not reported to the police because of apathy and disbelief in that the police will not be able to solve anything, we can understand completely how they really, really, really suck at protecting the individual citizen!

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
10:58 pm

Funny thing, if a gun had intelligence, they would be utterly devastated to realize that almost 99.8% of the time, they failed to do the only thing they were built for, killing.

Don’t believe me, well you can review the FBI UCR database in conjunction with the CDC & Hospital databases, we see that per government reports, 15% of times a gun is used in a crime shots are fired (first failure to kill 85%, really sucks). USDOJ Felons Firearms Use survey Nov 2001

Then as referenced in police shooting studies, we see that only 15% of the time do any of those shots hit their target (same average as the police). NYC & Virginia Police Firearm Discharge reports
So 15% of 15% = 2.25% of the original times a gun was used in a violent crime is any body shot.
Now we see how many deaths and injuries were found in the CDC & Hospital databases 12,252 homicides and 70,000 injuries.

So roughly a 7 injuries to 1 death.
1/8th x 2,25% = .28% of the original times a gun was used in a violent crime did a death occur.

Wow, it is simply amazing how bad those guns suck at doing the only thing they were designed for, failing to kill 99.72% of the time.

That’s why the suicide rates for guns are so high, the guns keep killing themselves!

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
11:05 pm

Care to go to one of many websites that actually compiles the actual police reports ove rthe last month and start counting how many lives were saved? Oh darn, that would hurt your position, too bad.

One other thing, since you can not prove the NRA is in charge of all the police departments in the
US, so good luck proving these police reports compiled at this and many other sites are biased.

Keep & Bear Arms

Latest Armed Self-defense News Stories:
• Armed homeowner shoots at would-be burglars (MO)
• Intruder was shot after warning, police say (MD)
• Man shoots attacking dog (FL)
• Bar employee shoots robbery suspect in SW valley (NV)
• Pistol-packin’ manager answers robber with hot lead (GA)
• Robbery Victim Fatally Shoots His Attacker (FL)
• Police: Intruder Shot By Homeowner Dies (MD)
• Woman, 64, guns down intruder (TX)
• HPD: Homeowner shoots suspect allegedly stealing roofing materials (TX)
• City Survey Crew Opens Fire on Would-Be Robbers (FL)
• DA: Man Killed Son-In-Law In Self-Defense (PA)
• Slain burglar had recent break-in (KY)
• Break-in ends in a fatal gunshot in Warner (NH)
• Armed homeowner shoots home invader in self defense (MI)
• Priceville police say self-defense led to shooting of teen (AL)
• Woman says she shot man in self defense (WV)
• NH Rep. Holds Home Intruder at Gunpoint (NH)
• Police: Boy, 14, ends burglary by shooting suspect (AR)
• Man holds accused burglar at knife point in his underwear (FL)
• Couple Shoot Dog In Canine Attack (MS)
• Beaufort Man Shoots Intruder (SC)
• Man shoots pit bull, ending attack — Attacking dog shot by passerby licensed to carry )TX_
• Cow attack leaves Florida man critically injured: report (FL)
• ‘Fed up’ 82-year-old held alleged thieves at gunpoint (DE)
• 2 suspects caught in northwest Harris Co. after car failed them (TX)
• Homeowner shoots man breaking in dog door (OK)
• Homeowner Shoots Suspected Kidnapper (TX)
• Judge Floerke thwarts suspect after home break-in (MN)
• Police: Legless Baldwin Man Shoots, Kills Teen Intruder (PA)
• Blount County woman shoots husband in self-defense (AL)
• DA: fatal Lowell, Ore., shooting was self defense (OR)
• Robbers vs. Clerk: Texas Shootout Caught on Videotape(TX)
• Armed Robbery Spree Ends in Fresno (CA)
• Concealed carry enables robbery victim to stop 3 violent attackers (FL)
• Homeowner Shoots and Kills Intruder in Putnam County (WV)
• Marine, wife attacked by teens after showing of “Little Fockers” (FL)
• Security Guard Shoots Strip Club Patron (AZ)
• One Dead after Barber Shop Shooting in Asheboro (NC)
• Diner owner shoots robber in self defense (IN)
• Amherst Bank Robbed, Shots Fired (NY)
• Man with sword acting in self-defense (IN)
• Roy police call death act of self-defense (UT)
• Deputies: Man shot in road rage incident could be the one to face charges (FL)
• Armed 11 year old Girl Defends Home from 3 armed Burglars: Armed Citizen (video)(AZ)
• Threatened store owner fights fire with gunfire
• Violent home invader shot by armed resident (KS)
• Woodbridge clerk becomes robbers’ worst nightmare (VA)
• Dormont Auto Shop Owner Shoots, Kills Alleged Intruder (PA)
• Police: Houston store owner kills 3 would-be robbers – ‘The man was clearly defending his business, clearly defending his wife’ (TX)
• Video game store robber shot in self defense (CA)
• 3 charged in Jackson home invasion (MS)
• Did you hear the one about the Anti-Gun Senator shooting an intruder? (NC)
• Machias man killed in early morning shooting in Eastbrook (ME)
• Man shoots, kills alleged attacker (CA)
• Attempted Robber Shot and Killed (CA)
• Parking lot robber shot in self defense by armed citizen (GA)
• Caught On Tape – Burglar & Homeowner Draw Guns (MO)
• Robbed pizza deliveryman fatally shoots gunman (TN)
• GB stabbing leaves one hospitalized (WI)
• Police: Man stabs 2 in Griswold home and is shot to death (CT)
• Update: Dogs That Attacked Children Found (NE)
• Tahoe man kills 500 lb. bear in self-defense (CA)
• Prescription drug seeking burglar shot by armed homeowner (AR)
• Town ‘N Country confrontation with jogger ends with fatal shooting (FL)
• Coffee shop robber shot by armed employee (OR)
• Armed wife saves her husband from a violent home invader (TN)
• Ohio concealed handgun licensee thwarts violent armed robbery (OH)
• Evening burglar fatally shot by armed homeowner (TX)
• Police: Man who stabbed attacker in Anza east of Temecula acted in self defense (CA)
• 2 armed robbers shot in self defense by armed victim (GA)
• Armed grandfather saves his family from violent home invaders (Malaysia)
• Bar owner shoots violent robber in self defense (South Africa)
• Armed homeowner stops a violent copper thief (LA)
• Investigators: Man Kills Brother In Self Defense (WA)
• Police: Man stabs 2 in self-defense (AZ)

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
11:11 pm

Doctors in the US are 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to kill you than a person carrying a licensed concealed weapon. JAMA Medical Malpractice report 2001 700k doctors kill 44,000 to 98,000 people a year due to medical malpractice, VPC 2009 report on 8 mill licensees and total deaths over 3 years, you do the numbers!

W Eugene Hollon and another historian, using government records and death certificates, reviewed the wildest west towns during the wildest days of the cowboy between 1870-1885. Their review is documented in “Frontier Violence Revisited”. Funny how their totals show over that 15 years, only 45 deaths by gunfire for a death by firearms rate of 1 per 100k people.

Now fast forward to 2008 and a review in the FBI UCR in those socialistic paradises and their firearm death rates Chicago 12.3 per 100k, NYC 4.3 per 100k, Washington D.C. 23.2 per 100k.

Government data and history, showing the wild west, wasn’t wild and is much safer than such gun ban paradises.

So much for your dime novels and hollywood fantasy!

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
11:29 pm

Oh wait, lets review some countries that actually implemented strict gun control in 1997.

Australia, Canada, England, referencing their own government databases, we see murders didn’t reduce, violent crime increased 30% to 150%. You do know that is 2 o 5 times the violent crime rate in the US today eh?

Wow, guess less guns doesn’t equal less crime afterall.

Wow during the same time frame, US Census and two separate reports (NSSF & Pew) assessing how many households in the US show an average of 40% equaling a 9 million household increase in owning a firearm since 1997. We see reviewing the FBI UCR database a 30% reduction in violent crimes, 20% reduction murders, 12-15 more states implementing concealed carry to 48 total, 30+ states implementing concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol, all without the accompanying law abiding bloodbaths. What is that, like the millionth time the anti’s have made those claims and it didn’t happen, uh YEAH! Glad those anti’s don’t try to make a living making predictions as they would starve, QUICKLY!

Yeah, we see how Haynes vs US 390, 85 1968 US Supreme Court ruling makes 85% of all gun control laws not applicable to felons.

Shall we continue showing more and more government developed and referenced facts showing how gun control doesn’t solve anything?

January 18th 2011 | Rebellion News

January 18th, 2011
1:07 am

[...] Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low [...]

[...] Congressman Bob Barr wrote yesterday in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that, “gun control advocates (are) taking advantage of every shooting incident as an excuse to [...]

Carlos Navarro

January 18th, 2011
6:23 am

Callers on an NPR talk show maintained that mentally-ill individuals prone to violence cannot be held accountable for their actions because they don’t know what they are doing. As with any sick person, they should be treated and cured, not punished.
Well, those callers should consider that only a minute fraction of the mentally-ill, outright psychotics even, are violent. Some sane individuals, on the other hand–hired assassins, gung-ho mercenaries, and such–kill without compunction. Thus, it would appear that the proclivity for violence is not a function of insanity or sanity. Nor does environment seem to be a factor. Some individuals, obviously, are born killers.
Those callers might also ponder this point: psychologist and psychiatrist might be able to diagnose a mental illness (actually any lay person can tell in five minutes if someone is mentally unstable) and couch their findings in scientific jargon. After all, it’s their livelihood. But do they command the science to treat and cure the mentally ill? Is there any hard evidence that they have ever cured anyone, much less a born killer?
I, for one, hold that for the good of society, the violence-prone, insane or otherwise, should be incarcerated for life, or executed, as the law allows. The trade-off should not be hard to accept: Better to make life safe for innocent people at large than to worry about the rights of a few individuals bereft of a normal conscience.
If someone broke into my house to harm my family and I had a gun handy, I would shoot first and mull the moral issue and legal consequences later. I thank our Founding Fathers for our Second Amendment rights.

Duh

January 18th, 2011
8:28 am

Mountainpass, I’m with you. If only there were laws against murder this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:11 am

John,
This is a copy/paste from
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

Not only do i find his answers disturbing, but also i am compelled to believe he wasn’t truthful about how the answers got onto the page. That’s just my opinion, i have no facts to back that up. But i think most folks would agree it doesn’t sound all that genuine.

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:22 am

Wow Jarhead.
I copied and pasted all of that to a saved document for my own research. That was impressive. Thanks for your posts.

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:25 am

John,
Also:
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:33 am

John:
Also
Bill HR-45, introduced by Illinois rep Bobby Bush and co-sponsored by Obama’s Chief of Staff at the time, Rahm Emanuel.

I think it’s pretty clear where my current president stands on the issue of gun control.

mpercy

January 18th, 2011
10:26 am

A 30-shot clip is not necessary to inflict a log of damage, if that was my desire. Even when the larger clips were outlawed, 10-round magazines were legal, and ten shots (plus one in the chamber) is quite a bit and would have had almost the same outcome in Tuscon (although I haven’t seen any shot-by-shot accounting, I understand that the Congresswoman was shot first, most of the dead were killed by the first few rounds fired. Even with 11 shots, he could have simply dropped that weapon and fired a 2nd weapon rather than try to reload.

Someone intent on doing damage like Tuscon is not limited by any magazine capacity–Charles Whitman proved on 1 Aug 1966 just how effective a minimal amount of planning and a bolt-action rifle is when he killed 16 people and wounded 32 others (although of the 16 he killed, he stabbed two people, clubbed one person, and shot two others with a sawed-off shotgun, the other 11 were almost certainly killed with his bolt-action Remington 700 hunting rifle (I am not sure weather he had 3 or 5 round magazine, but this was definitely not a high-capacity semi-automatic weapon).

“Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who participated in stopping Whitman’s rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim.” [WIkepedia]

Big Jim

January 18th, 2011
10:42 am

What’s worse than gun control advocates calling for gun control?
How about kunservatives declaring “This man was a madman,this shooting has nothing to do with us!”
I personally think the people who created the enviroment are the ones responsible. Gun control talk should NEVER supercede the initial instigation!

mpercy

January 18th, 2011
10:54 am

After you ban guns, you’ll need to ban pointy kitchen knives, like they’re calling for in the UK. Seriously.

Folks calling for the law are using language very similar to some of the above complaints about large-capacity clips, etc.

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

R. Lopez

January 18th, 2011
12:19 pm

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I believe that we should not register our guns but we should have to register ourselves as gun owners in order to have the regulated militia the 2nd amendment starts our with.

Ronald D. Weddle, MD

January 18th, 2011
12:52 pm

The idiocy of those who advocate ANY restrictions on inanimate tools, whether that is guns, magazines, etc. amazes me. Crazy people will do crazy things. Criminals will commit crimes. Laws do NOT prevent such occurrences. My freedom should not be curtailed by such mindless efforts to regulate THINGS. My freedom to “keep and bear arms” whether for my personal protection, sport, or, the actual reason for the freedom: to deal with a tyrannical government, is not the property of some left-wing social engineer to tinker with. Thank God for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who recognized our inherent (NOT government granted) freedoms and specifically included them in our Constitution.

Ronald D. Weddle, MD

January 18th, 2011
12:55 pm

It is equally idiotic to try to link the behavior of an obvious paranoid schizophrenic with no coherent political philosophy to those who voice legitimate opposition to the policies of a politician, office-holder or branch of government. No politician, talk-show host or political figure had anything to do with the irrational behavior of this crazy loon in Arizona.

Big Jim

January 18th, 2011
1:01 pm

The new low=Kunservatives fueling a fire,then running away when someone gets burned! Officially,kunservatives will have to see their loud mouthed spokesmen are causing a major problem,instigating the feeble minded.

The new low=anything that kunservatives do.

smokeman

January 18th, 2011
1:05 pm

Didn’t congress just finish reading the constitution a week or so ago. seems like they still either don’t get it or they are in violation of thier oath of office and should be removed. for those that are plain afraid of guns I hope a neighbor or friend that is not afraid and does carry is close when something happens to you or your family so they can protect you.
Those of you that spout all these what if’s and maybes, forget it. it doesn’t wash. And for the rest that like to write about what you obviously know nothing about, why don’t you take some self defence lessons, learn the correct way to handle a firearm. Not saying you have to use or carry just learn about what you are talking about. because truthfully some of what I read here I think some are just folks that don’t understand. the rest of the antigun bunch need to move to a socialist country for a while. see how much you realy enjoy it.

One last thought not to pick on anybody but the guy with the daughters. What would you do if someone or more likely somebodies picked your house for a home invasion or attempted to hurt you and yours. What are your plans to protect them and yourself. Just asking please take time and actually run some senarios and post. Both my children were brought up around firearms of all kinds. they had to be able to recite and explain the 10 comandments of firearm safety before we went any further. Then I trained them in the different parts of a firearm and how the different types of firearms worked. then came the visual about the damage a firearm can do. (fill a gallon jug with red water and shoot it.It makes a very good impression on young children) then they learned how to shoot starting with a bb gun and moving up to larger firearms. step daughter was 12 when I started her training and son was 4. Never had an accident and they were watched very carefully while learning. never more that a foot away during instruction so I could take control of firearm if need be.
I and my wife and kids all know how to shoot and can defend themselves as we have needed to a few times. No shots fired but all it took was the other person to realize we were not an easy victim.
I also kept the kids firearms in my safe and when they wanted to shoot we did. take away the mystery and its not that big of a deal to the kids.and they know they are doing something that is considered adult. Most act very responsibly. I trained my boyscouts the same way.

BTW my carry is a kimber 5″ .45 230 gr xtp 8+1 and extra mags. have a nice day.

Jim Holzman

January 18th, 2011
1:17 pm

limit size of magazines and they will just bring 2 guns

q

January 18th, 2011
1:34 pm

In 1952 Judge Wade, Court of Common Pleas of Commonwealth of Pennysylvania, ordered a man to pay his wife $30.00 a week support.

On January 13, 1954 the man stood before Judge Wade and was asked if the man had anything to say for himself for not paying his wife’s support. At that time the man pulled out a Colt 45 and shot the Judge twice through the chest.
Now granted that was 57 years ago and since that time there has been steadily escalating murder with firearms, culminating recently with the shooting of another judge in Tuscon, Az.
It is time for realllly tough new gun laws and get these trigger happy anomalies off the street.

lovelyliz

January 18th, 2011
1:51 pm

For the constitutional “literalists” who think “well regulated militia” according to the 2nd amendment means any idiot can have as many of any type of gun and can carry it anywhere all with no responsibility/accountablility, that amendment doesn’t mention bullets

freethinker

January 18th, 2011
9:08 pm

I guess Bob Barr is one of the paid storm troopers sent out by the NRA to stifle any attempts at gun control. Bob thinks every psycho has a right to own an assault weapon with unlimited ammunition.

retiredds

January 19th, 2011
2:30 pm

So, Bob, do you have any comment on high capacity magazines? Would you also elaborate on their usefulness to the ordinary U.S. citizen. Not being a knowledgeable gun person like you, do these high capacity magazines fit into the understanding of the Founding Fathers notion of how a citizen is to protect him or herself from the government?

I’m betting you won’t respond even though my post is somewhat dated.

JLoeghner

January 19th, 2011
2:35 pm

All schizos who do not have a criminal record deserve to own guns- assault weapons are even better. You never know when one of those talking voices may try to attack us. What really pisses me off is that guy who knocked me to the ground with a chair of all things. The guy with a concealed weapon just stood there staring at me. And that little old lady who disarmed me by taking away my ammunition- what’s up with that.? Why can’t we have old fashion gun duels like that broad in Alaska said in her video?

Big Jim

January 19th, 2011
3:41 pm

Jarhead1982 scares me!This ain’t 1982!

scared

January 19th, 2011
3:53 pm

I think we should take guns away from everybody and let the government protect us. If they make a law outlawing guns they will go away and bad guys will have to do something non-violent to live. I was one of the people who bought a $300,000 house and got scammed into an ARM loan because I didn’t think it was important to find out what an ARM loan was on my own, so now the government should be responsible for letting those big business jerks scam me in the first place. Good news though i got to keep my house but i never did find out what an ARM loan is but who cares. Everyone should just relax and let the government handle problems like this, they have specialists who know better than us what we should be allowed to do and not do. We need more programs to help us and those rich fat cats keep all the money for themselves while i have to sit at home and wait for a small check every month. It isn’t fair.

jimbo

January 21st, 2011
5:52 am

I think we should take guns away from everybody and let the government protect us

ah…ha ha ha ha!…….we need guns to protect US from “the government(s)”….which are incompetent and corrupt at best and a bunch of out-of-control psychopaths at worst!….how many people have “governments” brutally murdered over the last century or so?

how many have “lone nut” gunmen murdered?

WAKE UP!

yeh….come DownUnder is youse want to see “gun laws strictly enforced”…..against the average punter, that is!….NO government can “strictly enforce” gun laws against criminals…..cf: Japanese Yakuza and Chinese Triads!….. http://www.tinyurl.com/prt-arthur-fcbk

citizens need to be ARMED to both protect them from criminals, thugs and hoons AND from tyrannical governments (often one and the same!)

jimbo

January 21st, 2011
6:06 am

I think we should take guns away from everybody and let the government protect us

i think we should take guns away from the government and protect OUR-SELVES!

the much-maligned Wild West was, in fact, one of the most peaceful, prosperous and tranquil locales that ever existed!

an armed society is a polite society!

Prfssr John Lott has categorically and irrefutably established this with unassailable intellectual rigor!

further-more, many of these so-called “lone-nut gun massacres” are highly dubious and suspect…with considerable evidence pointing to the distinct possibility of them being “false flag black psy-ops” inteneded to dis-arm a gullible citizenry!

cases in point: the Dunbland massacre in the UK and the Prt Arthur massacre in Australia, 1996…… http://www.tinyurl.com/shootersnews;

i’m not saying that this incident in Arizona was of the same “calibre” but, on the balance of probabilities, it may well have been!

t’aint “conspiracy theory”, either, but a rigorous and comprehensive analysis of the cold, hard facts of the matter that lead inevitably to such conclusion(s)!

jimbo

January 21st, 2011
8:03 am

@ “freethinker”….. guess Bob Barr is one of the paid storm troopers sent out by the NRA to stifle any attempts at gun control. Bob thinks every psycho has a right to own an assault weapon with unlimited ammunition

uh….so sez “the commisar of political correctness”!

youse marxist jerks always roll out the “nazi” perjorative as proving the validity of yr “argument”….notwithstanding that any-one utilising the opprobium attached to a defunct, 70-year old “philosophy” that was extant for less than 15yrs is grasping at straws!

the Second Amendment should be a blanket right just like the First Amendment!…..”psychotic” people ain’t denied their right to Free Speech just becuase they’re “psychotic”, are they?

and, who determines “psychosis” any-way?
psychiatry is one of the most inexact ’sciences’ imaginable!

it’s more important that the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens are armed to protect them-selves from the REAL thugs, hoons & psychos….who’ll get weapons regardless!

most cops are incompetent, lazy, corrupt cowards….during the Virginia Tech’ massacre a few years back…most ran like scared rabbits!…..the average citizen CANNOT rely on the cops or the government for “protection”!…that’s why they must be armed!…if a few weapons fall into the hands of the deranged, then, that is a small price to pay for such freedom from fear!

US gun grabbers are ignorant fools!….they should try living in a dis-armed country like Australia or the UK to experience the joys of “out-of-control” thugs and psychos!…all heavily armed and all holding the incompetent coppers in utter and justified contempt!

jimbo

January 21st, 2011
8:09 am

do these high capacity magazines fit into the understanding of the Founding Fathers notion of how a citizen is to protect him or herself from the government?

absolutely!

the “intent” of the Founding Fathers was that the government should NEVER have any sort of fire-power advantage over the average citizen!

as such: up until WWI, American citizens were entitled to own any sort of weapon that the government owned!

there is no other effective way to prevent tyranny!

the sad and sorry record of “governments” as a bunch of mass-murdering pscyopaths over the last century or so provides even more justification for the views of the FFs!….we should be taking more and more power OFF governemnts…NOT piling it on them!

Geous

January 21st, 2011
12:46 pm

All these same quacks that are supposedly anti-gun all have security detail that are as strapped as a Soprano mobster, ie; Rosie O’Donnell.

Sally

January 23rd, 2011
6:47 pm

I think a shirt with the words “Member Of Congress” would be too hard to discern from such a distance. Perhaps a simple symbol could be used to denote a person of high importance like having them wear a shirt with a large X or a series of concentric circles which could be recognized at the necessary distances. Also, taking a page note from the movie “Minority Report” could assist us in our endeavor. Let it be authorized and funded that we start a government agency with the purpose to identify “future crime” against people of “high” importance to ensure their safety. Until that time, all persons of high importance, please be sure to wear your shirts with the dayglow “I’m important” symbol when you are out in public. Thank you for your cooperation.