Newtown massacre reawakens question of gun control
The United States suffers more gun deaths and mass shootings than any other major industrialized country. It’s not even close. And of the dozen most deadly mass killings in U.S. history, half have occurred within the past five years. In other words, if you believe that these things are happening more and more often, the numbers validate that belief.
The question is why.
The NRA and its supporters say the problem is not easy access to guns. To the contrary, they often argue that the problem is a shortage of guns. If only we had more guns in circulation, fewer would die. The day before the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the Michigan Legislature embraced that theory in passing a law allowing those with concealed carry permits to possess weapons in schools, churches and other formerly gun-free areas. Michigan’s governor has yet to say whether he intends to sign such a bill.
However, there is no evidence to support the NRA’s contention. Those countries with much lower death rates do not achieve those rates by allowing free and easy access to guns by almost everybody, regardless of training. Quite the contrary. Those few countries in which guns are even more ubiquitous than the United States — countries such as Iraq — have much higher death rates.
In addition, gun laws are more lax here in the South and guns themselves are more numerous. Under the NRA theory, that ought to produce a more civil, less violent society. The data say otherwise:
On the other hand, those who turn reflexively to gun control as an answer must acknowledge the inadequacies of that approach as well. Yesterday’s school shooting took place in Connecticut, a state with strong gun-control laws. The pistols that were used — a Sig Sauer and a Glock of undetermined model — had been legally obtained and were registered to Nancy Lanza, the late mother of the 20-year-old shooter. It has been widely reported that a Bushmaster .223 assault weapon — a version of the AR-15 — was found in the trunk of the vehicle driven by Adam Lanza to the school. However, Lt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut state patrol said at a press conference this morning that all recovered weapons were found in close proximity to Lanza’s body.
The high kill rate in the shootings — only one person was wounded and survived — suggests Lanza was experienced with firearms. But based on what we know now, it is hard to explain in concrete, direct fashion how any reasonable set of changes to our gun laws would have prevented Friday’s tragedy.
For example, I have not been able to find any more specific information about the types of pistols used in the attack, or whether those pistols or the Bushmaster were equipped with high-capacity magazines. As a practical matter, outlawing pistols would not be feasible given how many are already in circulation. It would also be impossible politically. Outlawing high-capacity magazines might be another matter, but again, as of yet we have no indication they played a role in this attack.
Guns are inanimate objects. Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. I accept all of that as fact. However, I would have no problem whatsoever with again outlawing military-style assault weapons. Neither would the U.S. Supreme Court, even based on its most recent pro-gun rulings.
As gun supporters point out, and accurately so, other semi-automatic weapons are capable of delivering the same high fire rate as those described as assault weapons. It is striking, however, that these “other” weapons do not typically show up in the hands of mass murderers such as Adam Lanza. The military-style design of assault weapons may be superficial, but it gives them a powerful mystique to weak-minded souls pursuing visions of vengeance and power.
Speaking in general, rather than in reaction to the Newtown strategy, it is reasonable to propose that the legal ability to purchase and possess deadly firearms be linked to training and testing on the responsible use of such weapons. That would be a regulation of people, not of guns. Such proposals would nonetheless be fought bitterly by the NRA because they would reduce gun sales, and the NRA is in many ways nothing more than a front for its gun-industry sponsors.
Such laws would in no way infringe on constitutional rights as outlined in the Second Amendment and Supreme Court opinions. The millions of law-abiding, responsible gun owners in this country would have nothing to fear from such a system. In fact, as the NRA often points out correctly, those gun owners who have gone through the steps required to obtain a concealed carry permit rarely use those guns in crime. That record suggests a possible path forward for those who recognize both the constitutional right to possess firearms and the necessity of mitigating the damage done when those guns fall into the wrong hands.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,704 comments Add your comment
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
1:25 pm
My understanding of the SCOTUS decisions is that the States can limit
the types of weapons that can be possessed but the Federal government
cannot due to the [state] militia thing in the Constitution which can be amended.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
1:26 pm
That is hilarious the cat.
I would crack up too after having a little fun with the con kook.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:26 pm
“What needs to be outlawed is the garbage produced by the entertainment industry. Everyone knows children are impressionable ”
What are parents for?
josef
December 15th, 2012
1:26 pm
DOGGONE
: As I related yesterday, I once told a European friend that they sent their misfits, criminals and anti-establishment types HERE, to get rid of them. Then WHY would they expect this country to be conformist?”
Word.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
1:27 pm
…do you not believe you could have stopped this killing if you had been armed?
Geez, not this crap again.
Reagan and Brady were shot while being protected by one of the best armed and best trained security details on the planet.
What leads you to believe that a teacher could do any better?
RF
December 15th, 2012
1:28 pm
“but it is a deterrent and a protection placed into the Constitution to protect all of our other rights.”
And again, protecting your rights doesn’t require that level of firepower.
Doggone: sorry, but that’s still not an acceptable excuse. When the rights of one to have the guns becomes a problem for protecting the rights of others to be alive in the next moment, I think it becomes a problem we have to discuss and deal with. Those twenty kids’ rights are null and void now because you think none of our business. I happen to think it is, and you can keep on harping and it won’t change my mind…not one itty bitty bit. When innocent people keep dying because we think it’s none of our business, we are sadly excusing more innocent deaths to come. And that is wrong.
Mike
December 15th, 2012
1:28 pm
It’s the idiot person behind the gun, no legislation would ever stop this
td
December 15th, 2012
1:29 pm
RF is a teacher and does not understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment? He/She should lose their teaching certificate and I sure hope ho/she is not teaching my children.
Christian Conservative
December 15th, 2012
1:29 pm
More people die each year of aids but society accepts homosexual behavior and drug use…. Why are libs not up in arms about this???
Recon 0311 2533
December 15th, 2012
1:30 pm
To sum up my thoughts regardless of your viewpoints it’s just plain horribly sad that this topic has to be discussed today.
josef
December 15th, 2012
1:31 pm
RON
‘RF, as a teacher, do you not believe you could have stopped this killing if you had been armed?”
I know you addressed that to RF, but as a teacher myself, to answer your question. No. I could just as easily have been a victim.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:31 pm
“When the rights of one to have the guns becomes a problem for protecting the rights of others to be alive in the next moment,”
Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens will do NOTHING to protect the rights of other to be alive in the next moment. It’s not law abiding citizens who are a danger to other citizens.
weetamoe
December 15th, 2012
1:31 pm
Michigan union goons have threatened the young daughter of Michigan’s republican governor. The *plate glass* musings of the journolist crowd disturbed by the emerging TEA party groups are evidenced in the continual threats of violence coming from the left. The governor and his family are most likely protected by the usual security afforded prominent politicians at the state level, just as the secret service is required to provide protection to such important Obama administration people as Valerie Jarrett. In the interest of equal protection, all of the more equal than others in public life–including the entertainment industry-should dismiss/relinquish all private protection such as bodyguards or security companies. Then we might have a *fair* discussion about firearms.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
1:31 pm
CC: For protection and hunting… Its an easy answer…
My god girl, what are you hunting!?! :wtf:
CC: “But as I stated I have no choice but to live by the rules of the left”
You can always move to China……..or better yet! You can move to a country that is steeped in religion, somewhere you’d feel comforted by your ideals and have liked minded people thinking as you do…………..Iran is looking pretty good to you now huh?
SoCoBro: You do realize that the government possesses enough hardware on it’s on to basically render your personal stash to dust with the push of one button, right?
Hey! Stop putting LOGIC into the equation!!! I HATE when you do that! Messes up the whole, “Gobmint WANTS my guns — And I AIn’t Gonna Give IT To ‘Em” defense. Duh!
electrician
December 15th, 2012
1:32 pm
RF get off your self righetous gun control talking points and pay attention, i am a member of the NRA and I own a lot of guns, I also have a concealed carry license,Kamchaks answer is not what you want to hear, so try my answer, I dont care one bit about what you thoughts on gun owenrship are and never will, nor will ever feel i need to explain my choices to you or anyone like you. Its the same argument over and over
nick
December 15th, 2012
1:32 pm
It’s not a simple problem, so I don’t expect a simple solution. The gun and anti-gun lobbies offer up sound bites of simple solutions (i.e. more weapons or no weapons) that won’t effectively solve the problem.
Ideally..
- We’d have an effective way to evaluate people’s judgement and mental health before allowing them to purchase a gun. (This would be beyond waiting periods, and background checks.)
- We’d have an effective way to reevaluate the judgement and mental health of people who own guns on an ongoing basis.
- We’d have severe penalties for use of weapons in crimes.
- We’d have more severe penalties for the theft of weapons and use of those in crimes.
- We’d have a way for the damages and costs caused by misused guns to be born by gun owners.
This is by no means a comprehensive list, but when I look at these items, it seems like we have models in industry and our daily lives we can draw upon.
For example, vehicle ownership in most places requires the owner and an operator to carry liability insurance for any damages caused by the driver or vehicle.
If you own a large SUV which can cause more damage in an accident (as opposed to a small scooter), you’ll pay more in liability insurance.
If you have an alarm system, live in a safer neighborhood, or keep your car in a secured garage then you pay less in comprehensive insurance.
If you drive less, you pay less in liability and collision insurance; also if you drive in safer and less congested areas you pay less.
If you have a less perfect driving record, you will also pay more in insurance.
If you are caught speeding while drinking, the penalties are far more severe than just speeding itself.
You must pass a driving test before obtaining a license, and to keep the license you have to continue having a good record; and more recently, as you get older and your sight or responsiveness may become impaired you may have to take additional driving tests on a more frequent basis to keep your license.
By all studies I can find online, these approaches to vehicle safety are believed to be effective. They’re costly and inconvenient to drivers, but as a society we’ve become accustomed to this.
What other models could be borrowed from?
I am a gun owner, and while it’s inconvenient and costly to me, I do think it’s reasonable that society ask me to be tested frequently, that I pay for insurance based on the risk associated with me, how and where I store my weapons, the types of weapons I own, if I have a CCW permit, and the type and quantity of ammunition I keep.
Any thoughts on this? Again, not a comprehensive approach, but no simple solution seems to exist either.
josef
December 15th, 2012
1:33 pm
DEL
@ 1:30
Amen.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:33 pm
“More people die each year of aids but society accepts homosexual behavior and drug use”
More people die each year because of aids in Africa and it is heterosexual behavior that is the precursor. Aids is not a “homosexual” disease.
RF
December 15th, 2012
1:33 pm
@Ron 1:24. Absolutely not. He came in guns blazing with a heck of a lot more firepower than any armed teacher would have had. I can’t see walking around my classroom with a loaded gun as being anything other than an accident or worse waiting to happen. The last thing you need is a shootout in a classroom.
C
December 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
The problem is no one considers the question of why deeply enough.
1st level why: he had guns
2nd level why: he was mentally ill
3rd level why: this is where analsis needs to occur yet no one gets there. The question is: Why at this stage in our history are so many people mentally ill and of that subset of people, how do some get to the point of being capable of such atrocity? I would propose that any real solution needs to take a close look at the erosion of morality and selfishness in our society and the speed at which our society is changing via technology, etc. I just dont think the human mind is designed to evolve that quickly or to be constantly overloaded to the degree that it is. And changes seem to happen exponentially faster and faster. I think some minds break down under the pressures of the modern society we have created. Then when the breakdown occurs, there is no caring community or even nuclear family for the broken to find help, support, or love. Forget global this and global that, we dont even know the neighbor next doors name much less possess the ability to identify if he is struggling.
A trigger can be pulled as fast on one of the millions of handguns or even hunting guns out there as it can on an assault rifle. It makes no difference, and its foolish to think that shortsighted kneejerk reactions have any impact on the true problem. Laws these days seem to be reactions to incidents rather than solutions to root problems. I guess root problems cant be articulated in a sentence or less before our attention is diverted to one of the other 5 things vying for our attention. Look deeper people, this is a societal problem that WE ALL have a hand in. Its about our priorities, not what laws are on the books. The government cant fix this for you.
Not to be too cliche, but the masses were too busy being entertained to bother putting out the fires in Rome.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
I think Parents in the country will demand action after this one so our President will issue a executive order of some kind. Banning guns is not an option.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
“I could just as easily have been a victim”
And quite likely the FIRST victim
indigo
December 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
Doggone/GA – 12:33
I will stay in America and work for change.
Unlike you, I don’t have a “cut and run” personality.
Corey
December 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
@Christian Conservative
December 15th, 2012
12:59 pm
“So if I reading you lefties right. You don’t think the constitution gives us the right to own guns.”
I see you take us as serious as we take you wanting to see armeggdon in Israel to pave the way for the “retun of Jesus”. No CC, we are aware that that horse has long since left the barn, and we are acutely aware that persons such as yourself twist a reasonalbe argument for responsilbe gun ownership and keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them as an infringement on your constitutional rights. The second amendment is at best a horribly, grammaticly written few lines. Some people read those few lines and totally overlook “a well regulated malitia.” Think summer/autum 1787 Philadelphia, sweltering heat, no air conditioning, flies galore and men of goodwill debating and going back and forth at each other wanting to put thier fingerprints on and ingrain their ideals in a governing document for a newly founded nation. It is said that some of these men who had been good friends became sworn enemies after the constitution was written. There is no way a legal document could be written today that would define a certain group of people as a three-fifth person. I often wonder if some of the constitution was more or less a protest against the Britts as well as a blue print for self governance. Signed, one of us proud lefties
the cat
December 15th, 2012
1:35 pm
Reasons to have a gun:
1. My daddy was a collector and I inherited them.
2. I have to shoot my supper.
3. There are rabid raccoons in my trailer park.
4. My penis is small.
5. My boobs are small.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
1:35 pm
I dont care one bit about what you thoughts on gun owenrship are and never will…
And that is where you and I part ways.
While I feel it is my right as a law abiding citizen to own a legal gun, I do not object to having this discussion.
td
December 15th, 2012
1:37 pm
Christian Conservative
December 15th, 2012
1:29 pm
More people die each year of aids but society accepts homosexual behavior and drug use…. Why are libs not up in arms about this???
Add this to your talking points hypocrisy of the progressive left.
There are more abortions performed in one week then their have ever been children killed in schools by guns. We should surely then outlaw abortion before we even start to consider banning guns.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:37 pm
“I will stay in America and work for change”
And I will stay and fight the kind of changes you want.
Christian Conservative
December 15th, 2012
1:37 pm
Doggone/GA:
It is in this country… cdc.gov….
RF
December 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
“RF is a teacher and does not understand the meaning of the 2nd Amendment? He/She should lose their teaching certificate and I sure hope ho/she is not teaching my children.”
Listen, moron, I know the second amendment perfectly well. It does NOT specify type of weapon, and you can’t use it as the NRA blanket for everything. You have the right to bear arms, and the rest of the population has the right to be safe from you using them on innocent citizens. Our right to them doesn’t mean we have the right to any kind, and you know it. Restricting the type of guns available doesn’t impact the 2nd amendment one bit. Anything else, or are character attacks all you have left?
indigo
December 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
Ron – 1:11
I listed those countries because they are all Western democracies.
They are NOT all socialists.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:39 pm
“There are more abortions performed in one week then their have ever been children killed in schools by guns”
Are you also going to outlaw abortions intiated by God? That’s what a miscarriage is, a spontaneous abortion. Man was made in God’s image, right? So if God does abortions..why shouldn’t we also?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
1:41 pm
Reasons to have a gun:
6. A ground hog is devastating my garden, particularly my green beans.
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
1:41 pm
DDR
I get a kick out of the idea that my personal guns at home are any match to the weaponry available to the US government. The greatest obstacle to overreaching government that was provided by our founders was not our ability to bear arms. The fact that our government is made up of citizens, and not a ruling class, is a better weapon than anything a person here can ever own. The 2nd Amendment is necessary IF all other avenues fail.
josef
December 15th, 2012
1:42 pm
DOGGONE
“And quite likely the FIRST victim”
Precisely.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
1:43 pm
RF,
td is a blind partisan that is inflicted with the genetic defect of conservatism.
Not to be taken seriously.
Quite pitiful like the rest of the cons.
Your argument has merit and it is government’s job to keep the people safe.
Jay
December 15th, 2012
1:43 pm
Ninja, in Switzerland most of those who keep weapons at home first undergo military training in the use of those weapons. You can own a semi-auto assault weapon only with a special license. The sale of ammunition is closely monitored, as are permits to carry. Such permits require a valid need to carry and a demonstration of the expertise required. You can’t transport loaded weapons in cars, etc.
RF
December 15th, 2012
1:43 pm
“I dont care one bit about what you thoughts on gun owenrship are and never will, nor will ever feel i need to explain my choices to you or anyone like you”
And I don’t care one bit that you do own guns. That’s not the point. You are fully allowed to own them, but can you give me one reason why basically anyone can buy a semi-automatic weapon with large clips? Why would you, as a responsible gun owner NEED that? Fine that you want it, but do you really need it?
The answer is NO, and I seem to be upsetting a few here today who don’t seem to want to face the fact that allowing the right to own and use a gun does NOT justify that level of firepower in any gun owner’s hand. I’m still waiting for some plausible explanation, but I still don’t have one.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:44 pm
“I get a kick out of the idea that my personal guns at home are any match to the weaponry available to the US government”
And even when that amendment was passed, the government had cannons that were WAY more desctructive than the single shot rifles and hand guns available.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:44 pm
“Reagan and Brady were shot while being protected by one of the best armed and best trained security details on the planet.
What leads you to believe that a teacher could do any better?”
Comments:
1) You left out Special Agent Tim McCarthy.
2) Most of the time these animals “cower out” at the slightest provocation. They murder and then they commit suicide as they do not want to be taken alive.
If you can shoot and kill them great; if you can shoot and wound them great; if you can shoot but miss and they decide to commit suicide great and if you just point a weapon at them and they decide to commit suicide great!
The point is …………….. to not have the option to do ANYTHING BUT DIE is unconsionable.
3) Most police departments (i.e., Virginia Tech Police) used to have a policy regarding active shooters at malls, schools, etc. that the first officers on scene should CONTAIN the scene and wait for SWAT, etc. to arrive before going in.
THAT HAS CHANGED ! Departments are now telling the first officers on scene to go in and try to do SOMETHING !
Why? Because the mere “sight” of an officer might be enough to cause them to commit suicide and therefore the carnage will stop.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
1:45 pm
“6. A ground hog is devastating my garden, particularly my green beans.”
I know this guy that has experience with this critter on a golf course.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:46 pm
“but can you give me one reason why basically anyone can buy a semi-automatic weapon with large clips”
Because none of us are answerable to YOU. It’s none of your business.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:46 pm
“Ninja, in Switzerland most of those who keep weapons at home first undergo military training in the use of those weapons.”
You don’t want “nuts” having any type of training so to require it to have/carry a weapon is counterproductive.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:47 pm
Brosephus and Doggone:
It’s interesting that we basically agree on this one.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
1:48 pm
I know this guy that has experience with this critter on a golf course.
Carl Spackler?
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:49 pm
“It’s interesting that we basically agree on this one”
And it’s sad how little some people understand that one of the prices of the freedoms we have is that we are not obligated to satisfy THEIR curiosity just because they think we should.
indigo
December 15th, 2012
1:50 pm
Intellectual – 1:14
1. While it’s true these kind of incidents are much more common than in the past, politicians and pundits would and will argue for years as to the causes. Meanwhile, how many more innocents will die?
2. I do not, and did not say, I wanted to ban guns to solve the war on drugs, PG and R rated movie problems, violence spewing rap artists, children playing violent vidoe games, our high divorce rates, deadbeat fathers, or any of the other social problems you mentioned.
“You think, Indigo, banning guns fixes all of these problems”?
You think, Intellectual, you could gain a little reading comprehinsion?
I want to ban guns to stop as many senseless murders as possible.
There, is that easy enough for you to understand?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:51 pm
P.S. re: my 1:44
There mere sight of a gun (carried by a police officer, teacher or anyone else) might be enough to cause the shooter to commit suicide.
RF
December 15th, 2012
1:51 pm
“Because none of us are answerable to YOU. It’s none of your business.”
And again, it IS my business and everyone else’s in this country, when our safety and freedom and sense of security are threatened repeatedly by someone using such unnecessary firepower to kill. Granted they’d do it anyway, but if we can at least reduce the body count, we’ve accomplished something. When your right to own one becomes a threat to my right to live without fear, then we do have a problem and you do become answerable to me. Show me how your right to constitutionaly own one trumps my right to feeling safe and secure in public. You can’t.
I’m done with this discussion and going shopping. Have at it and keep saying it’s none of our business. I bet if some of your kin were victims of one of these shootings, you’d think about what I’m saying at least. I lost a sister to gun violence, so it’s an issue that is close to home for me.
josef
December 15th, 2012
1:51 pm
SCOUT
@ 1:47
I haven’t said too much on it, but you can add me to that list….
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:52 pm
Doggone:
“And it’s sad how little some people understand that one of the prices of the freedoms we have is that we are not obligated to satisfy THEIR curiosity just because they think we should.”
Yes, I agree and I would wager that most of those folks are liberals ………….. just sayin’ ………..
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
1:53 pm
CC: Comparing this to yesterdays tragedy… and oranges sweetie.. But take Elizabeth Smart for instance. She has become a wonderful Christian woman and a role model for women… You lefty’s simple don’t see the big picture…..
First off CC — do you have A.D.D.? Do you find yourself easily distracted during conversations and/or while doing simple chores by bright shiny objects? Have you, or anyone you’ve known, been subjected to high levels of carbon monoxide in the past 5 years?
The reason why i ask this is because, excuse my french, you’re the one who brought up the fact that none of these atrocities happened BEFORE “we” took God out of our lives via the school, government etc!!!.
I merely pointed out that, oh yeah they not only happened, but they happened FREQUENTLY. And now you come back with “Apples and Oranges and Elizabeth SMart? WTF is the matter with you?
Ok……………big sigh here…………….I want to make sure you;re allright, even though you think you are doing fine, i think there may be a problem. Please do these three things:
1) Look around where you sitting at now and see if your windows are opened or closed.
2) If your windows are CLOSED open them.
3) Get the hell outta your house, I think you may have a gas leak thats causing you to hallucinate.
God Bless.
====================
td: Because I do not want people like you coming to power and telling me that I have to tell you if I have a gun or not. It is a Constitutional right for me to keep and bear a fire arm and our founding fathers said the main reason is to stop tyranny by the government
TD — the constitution can be adjusted and was deliberately left vague in the advent that it HAD to be adjusted to fit the needs of the Union.
So your hanging on to it is like hanging on to a thin thread — you just might fall. Sorry.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:54 pm
josef:
I hear you.
Again ……….. here is a great synopsis on “Heller” for those who wish to read it.
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
1:54 pm
It’s interesting that we basically agree on this one.
Why is that interesting? If you actually ask people what their personal beliefs are instead of assuming or broad brush swiping, you’re likely to find that you have agreements with many people here on different subjects. It’s all in how you present your opinions.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:54 pm
“And again, it IS my business and everyone else’s in this country, when our safety and freedom and sense of security are threatened repeatedly by someone using such unnecessary firepower to kill”
and I am a law abiding citizen and am not the cause of your concerns about safety and freedom and security. Therefore, it’s none of your business what I have or why.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
1:55 pm
“Carl Spackler?”
Yup, have you tried blowing him up?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
1:56 pm
If you actually ask people what their personal beliefs are instead of assuming or broad brush swiping, you’re likely to find that you have agreements with many people here on different subjects.
If a frog had wings….
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:57 pm
“It’s all in how you present your opinions.”
this to someone who just said: “and I would wager that most of those folks are liberals “
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
1:57 pm
DDR
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:57 pm
“TD — the constitution can be adjusted and was deliberately left vague in the advent that it HAD to be adjusted to fit the needs of the Union.”
1) Constitution is capitalized.
2) The Bill of Rights can be “amended”.
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
1:57 pm
Doggone
Exactly!!!!
indigo
December 15th, 2012
1:57 pm
the cat – 1:35
I think number 4 is the main reason so many “right to keep and bear arms” people are so “passionate” about their guns.
After all there’s nothing like the “big iron” to make up for any, uh, you know, shortcomings.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
Brosephus/Doggone:
It is “interesting” because most “anti-gun”/2nd Amendment people are liberals.
Just sayin’ …………. and that is interesting.
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
Kamchak
I stand rebuked….
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
Yup, have you tried blowing him up?
Nope, all it took was a single shot from a .22 rifle (lever action, not semi-automatic) when he wander into the front yard.
I felt bad afterward
but I would do it again.
I lost 150′ of beans to it or it’s kin.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
“After all there’s nothing like the “big iron” to make up for any, uh, you know, shortcomings”
yeah, because WOMEN are SO subject to that particular failing.
josef
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
the cat
Why own guns? Well, we’ve had fresh Bambi and there’s still some in the freezer…and, no, I don’t live in the trailer park, but there is a ‘coon here abouts that best stay out if the cat window…
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
2:00 pm
Scout
Again, if you ask people their beliefs instead of assuming, you’re likely to find out that your liberal detector is in need of serious recalibration.
Just sayin’
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:00 pm
“It is “interesting” because most “anti-gun”/2nd Amendment people are liberals.”
Got proof?
Intellectual Ninja
December 15th, 2012
2:01 pm
Reading comprehension seems to be YOUR issue, Indigo, not mine.
Banning guns will NOT stop any more senseless murders or massacres. To believe so is illogical. It’s 1st grade thinking. It’s “feeling” thinking. It makes you “feel” better, but it solves nothing.
What I was telling you was to ask the RIGHT questions.
All of those things I mentioned are just small parts of the sickness that has consumed American society. Guns are tools. Tools, as Jay said, that can no more harm a fly if not picked-up by someone without the will to use them for evil.
You say “ban guns,” but address NONE of the issues that create the people with evil intentions.
Again… your thinking is surface-level, illogical, and based completely on feeling and solves, in the end, absolutely nothing.
Because as with drugs, if you bad guns, those who WANT to find them and use them for ill, WILL.
But asking people to think logically, people like you, is a waste of time. And that is also part of decay in American society.
Shortage of guns?........Tell that to the 20 children that were MURDERED.
December 15th, 2012
2:02 pm
To the NRA and their supporters……
It could be our children next if WE don’t do
something NOW.
Is owning a gun more important than OUR CHILDREN?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:02 pm
Most of you have probably not read the entire text of “The District of Columbia v. Heller”.
Well ……………. I have …………….
)
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Following are important excerpts regarding the ruling including some very “thought provoking” points from the majority opinion.
Page 6
a. RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
“Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.”
Page 8
b. KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
“Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications ……………. and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search ……………. the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existance at the time of the founding.”
Page 19
c. MEANING OF THE OPERATIVE CLAUSE
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to posses and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. As we said in United States vs. Cruikshank this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existance. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …….. ”
Page 24
b. SECURITY OF A FREE STATE
“The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity” not security of each of the several states.”
“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary for the security of a free state” ……….. Third, when the able bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”
Page 25
3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREFATORY CLAUSE AND OPERATIVE CLAUSE
“That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents.”
Page 26
“It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:03 pm
The God argument is more mindless con deflecterbation that has nothing to do with this issue but works on the cons..
If the military decided to take the old medicated cons guns, they can but it is unconstitutional so it will not happen.
How can government protect it’s citizen’s from kooks killing children at school is the issue.
Focus cons.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:03 pm
“Is owning a gun more important than OUR CHILDREN?”
Law abiding gun owners are no danger to our children
sar1776
December 15th, 2012
2:04 pm
Jay…
I do not agree that this will fade from our memory. Those of us who care about our families, friends, and neighbors have a mindset that drives us to protect them from this kind of violence. We follow the law, train and are alert to the dangers around us.
At the appropriate time, we need to look at the reason this happened. Now is the time to mourn those who were lost to this senseless act and celebrate the heroism of those who died protecting these innocent children.
When we do have a discussion on the issues around gun laws, let’s make sure we include all the data. I would like to see reporting on how many lives are saved each year and how many crimes are prevented due to the legal possession of a firearm. These statistics would at least give a balance to the discussion. As with most things are a multiple views that need honest, open consideration. Emotion and political correctness need to be dismissed in this kind of discussion.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:04 pm
Got Proof?
Yes ……………. it’s called the Democrat Party.
Read their latest “platform plank” on the subject.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
2:06 pm
Reasons to have a gun:
4. My penis is small.
5. My boobs are small.
#4 is a reason to buy Extenze — Jimmy Johnson said they’re a-ok and you know he doesn’t lie — he was the coach of the Dallas Cowboys.
#5 is a reason to commit hari-kari. Small boobs are the reason for the fall of the berlin wall. The women of east berlin wanted to have access to plastic surgeons……..
Shortage of guns?........Tell that to the 20 children that were MURDERED.
December 15th, 2012
2:07 pm
@0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
Brosephus/Doggone:
It is “interesting” because most “anti-gun”/2nd Amendment people are liberals.
Just sayin’ …………. and that is interesting.
======================================================
you are “26″ Times more likely to be killed by a Christian, then a Muslim terrorist.
in the United States every year.
So for all you xenophobic, scared, ignorant, Christian Crusader types out there. I ask you..
Who should Americans really fear?
(1) [link to http://www.disastercenter.com
(2) [link to ask.yahoo.com]
(3) [link to en.wikipedia.org]
(4) [link to http://www.strategypage.com
JUST SAYIN’……………
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:07 pm
“it’s called the Democrat Party.”
there’s no such thing as the “Democrat” Party. When you have to lie to make your point, you have no point.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:08 pm
josef,
We feed six wild cats, a couple of possums and a raccoon.The cats sit and watch the possums and raccoon eat and they don’t bother each other.
real john
December 15th, 2012
2:09 pm
Jay:
I don’t often agree with you, but I’m 100% on this one. Your article was well thought out and well written.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:09 pm
sar1776:
“I would like to see reporting on how many lives are saved each year and how many crimes are prevented due to the legal possession of a firearm. These statistics would at least give a balance to the discussion.”
You make “THE” point that I have often pointed out to Jay on this blog. To date he has failed to do so.
He always comes up with stats on the number of people who have been murdered/accidentally killed by firearms vs. the number of justifiable homicides by a legally armed citizen. He always leaves out:
1) The number of crimes prevented because the perpetrator was “wounded” by a legally armed citizen.
2) The number of crimes prevented because the perpetrator was “shot at but missed” by a legally armed citizen.
3) The number of crimes prevented because the perpetrator had a gun “pointed” at him by a legally armed citizen.
4) The number of crimes prevented because the perpetrator “saw” a gun carried by a legally armed citizen.
5) The number of crimes prevented because the perpetrator “thought” a citizen might have a gun.
josef
December 15th, 2012
2:10 pm
sar1776
“Emotion and political correctness need to be dismissed in this kind of discussion.”
Agreed.
AND
For those of you talking about G-d and the schools…let me assure you, precious few of us involved in the education and care of our little ones don’t cross that threshold daily without a prayer in our hearts and minds…it’s just that we keep it there, where it belongs…
Shortage of guns?........Tell that to the 20 children that were MURDERED.
December 15th, 2012
2:10 pm
@@0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
1:59 pm
Brosephus/Doggone:
It is “interesting” because most “anti-gun”/2nd Amendment people are liberals.
Just sayin’ …………. and that is interesting.
================================================
The GUN you want to have the right to OWN………
maybe the GUN that kills you.
The young man in CT KILLED his mother
WITH HER OWN GUN.
Just sayin’……………………………………
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:12 pm
Shortage of guns?……..Tell that to the 20 children that were MURDERED:
You left out the chance of being “killed” by a doctor in this country.
josef
December 15th, 2012
2:13 pm
getalife
No wild cats, but a few alley ones…and as for the ‘possums and ‘coons, Mustafa the al Qaaida Terrorist Cat is creating a secret cell with THEM…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:13 pm
Doggone:
Are you a “Democrat” or a Republican ?
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:14 pm
scout,
The issue is how government can keep this from happening again?
You are all over the place so try to focus on the issue.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:15 pm
josef:
II Chronicles 7:14
“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”
getalife
December 15th, 2012
2:16 pm
josef,
I think the cats think the possum and raccoon are just weird looking cats because they don’t run away and sit a foot away from them.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
2:17 pm
“The issue is how government can keep this from happening again?”
It can’t totally …………. but it CAN minimize it by allowing teachers, staff and maintenance workers to carry “if” that school district wants that option.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:17 pm
“Are you a “Democrat” or a Republican ?”
It’s none of your business
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
December 15th, 2012
2:17 pm
scout: 1) Constitution is capitalized.
And…..???
2) The Bill of Rights can be “amended”.
Civics 101:
How To Amend the US Constitution
Methods for Proposing and Ratifying Amendments to the Constitution
To Propose Amendments
In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.
Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)
To Ratify Amendments
Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once — to ratify the 21st Amendment — repealing Prohibition.
The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within “some reasonable time after the proposal.” Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a “reasonable time” might extend.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.
Jay
December 15th, 2012
2:18 pm
Oh please, Christian Conservative. You’re arming yourself because you’re afraid of Harry Belafonte?
Man up, dude.
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
2:20 pm
Jay
You know how scary those elderly singing Negros are, don’t you???
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
2:21 pm
“You’re arming yourself because you’re afraid of Harry Belafonte?”
/snort
TaxPayer
December 15th, 2012
2:22 pm
Gun owners should be required to take annual drug tests and periodic psychiatric evaluations at their own expense and they should be required to keep their weapons adequately secured or rendered inoperable by others without their permission. Gun owners not only have the right to bear arms, they have the responsibility to protect the innocent from misuse of their weapons..
josef
December 15th, 2012
2:23 pm
IMAM
Well, CC does, I would posit, have a legitimate fear…if Belafonte is allowed to continue, this is what we can expect, a takeover by THIS cell of Muslim terrorists…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpg-KIKD5gU
barking frog
December 15th, 2012
2:24 pm
Kamchak 1:56
If a frog had wings….
……………
he might be an angel..but then demons have wings too, i think..
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
2:24 pm
Harry Belafonte?
Maybe it’s revenge for being left in Kingston town.