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
Brosephus™
December 15th, 2012
4:32 pm
Scout
That’s on you. You’re one of the most ideologically rigid persons on this blog, and I’m sure anybody reading the blog would easily see that. Then again, that’s what makes you who you are.
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:32 pm
“The Supreme Court disagrees with you.”
Really? They narrowed the interpretation somewhat, but they didn’t explicitly state that one’s right to own guns overshadows the rights of citizens to be safe from violence committed with them. Unless Scalia gets a chance, I don’t think mass murder will ever be covered by SCOTUS interpretation of gun owners’ rights.
Christian Conservative
December 15th, 2012
4:32 pm
RF:
So should people with STD’s be held to a little more scrutiny? Maybe a gubmint website with their names posted….
indigo
December 15th, 2012
4:32 pm
I SEE RED PEOPLE – 4:12
“The irresponsible are the ones who take the Second Ammendment freedom and turn it into a travesty”
I must admit this is the most insightful comment I’ve heard here about this tragedy since it happened.
It’s difficult to see how anyone could argue with you.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:33 pm
Facecios:
“And the 4th, 5th and 6th have been the subject of many a Supreme Court ruling, limiting, circumscribing and clarifying the scope. The Second Amendment remains essentially limitless.”
1) Regarding the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, vicious criminals are released all of the time due to technical violations of same ……….. released to rape and murder again.
2) Regarding the 2nd, there are “unlimited” local, state and federal laws and regulations that would fill volumes.
TM
December 15th, 2012
4:33 pm
Degree- you always want to go back to to the framers intent when talking about guns and the second amendment but all of sudden it becomes a living document when talking about abortion or gay rights, Can’t have it both ways.
I SEE RED PEOPLE
December 15th, 2012
4:34 pm
And even more difficult to apply a remedy to irresponsibility.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:35 pm
RF:
Really !
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
4:35 pm
Medical examiner: All wounds caused by ‘long weapon’
“All the wounds were caused by the long weapon.”
“I only did seven autopsies and they ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece.”
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 15th, 2012
4:36 pm
UK Observer
December 15th, 2012
4:15 pm
“whilst another State to ban hand guns in certain public spaces. Maybe each state government should come up with a referendum for its people to decide what to do. Whilst it maybe impossible to ban hand guns due to the number in circulation and the power of the NRA, and the problems prohibition would cause, surely to do nothing and let this happen again is the bigger sin.”
.
—————————————————————————————–
.
whilst?
.
What the hey?
We don’t..take…kindly ……to them kinda words.
Around up in here.
.
watchit.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:36 pm
“The irresponsible are the ones who take the Second Ammendment (sic) freedom and turn it into a travesty”
The irresponsible are the ones who take the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment freedoms and turn them into a travesty”.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:37 pm
TM @ 4:33
Thank you.
Facecios
December 15th, 2012
4:38 pm
Then if your point is that the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments need to be tightened up even further to decrease recidivism, then I say fine, take the 2nd Amendment along with it then.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
4:38 pm
Like the attack in Libya, corporate media reports were dead wrong.
They reported two deaths but as I was cleaning my guns and watching cnn, I wondered why every government official showed up and why they set up a triage tent.
Then they finally reported all the deaths and now they say they know the motive.
My point is we should wait on all the facts before we act and never speculate like the gop on Libya.
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:38 pm
@Joseph 4:29- that’s hardly an unbiased or even credible source, but quote what you like. 20-30million in funding, when spread across the number of school districts in this country, likely didn’t even buy enough paper to write a security plan on, let alone provide any actual personnel to do the job. My district, like many in GA, works with local law enforcement to provide a full time school resource officer on most, if not all campuses. We have one at my school, and he’s a fully certified police officer from the local police department. He’s good- but even he would tell you his ability to stop something like this is limited, but that is one of his trained jobs. His position is funded locally, and there’s no reason for the federal government to be in that business.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
4:38 pm
“I still don’t see why anyone, even a gun “enthusiast” needs to own guns capable of such rapid fire”
As long as they are law abiding it’s not neccessary for you to understand it. Just as you don’t need to understand why people collect any other item.
I SEE RED PEOPLE
December 15th, 2012
4:41 pm
Scout, please explain to all of us how the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments have even the most infinitesimal bearing on the Newtown Massacre.
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 15th, 2012
4:43 pm
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
3:26 pm
By the way, just so everyone knows based on a federal law passed about ten years ago, any “retired” local, state or federal law enforcement officer (or currently on active duty) may carry concealed in any state.
——————————————————————————————————–
.
I like you Scout.
I believe your heart is in the right place but your years in service to leviathon has maybe ….did something.
Regardless……………..NOBODY has the right to come on MY property concealed or otherwise…carrying…….unless I FIRST give permission.
.
And i don’t care how many Eric Holders or Paintball weilding Brocephus’s you have.
It’ll be a herd lesson for everyone involved.
.
Shiney Tin badges and 18USC926……..means nothing…………………to Patriots.
.
Forward Liberty!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:44 pm
Facecios:
“Then if your point is that the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments need to be tightened up even further to decrease recidivism, then I say fine, take the 2nd Amendment along with it then.”
Now you are being more reasonable. It’s always a matter of degree.
We have state legislatures, a Congress, a President and a Supreme Court. They will work on it.
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:45 pm
Scout: prove to me that a gun owner’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every citizen of this country. And yes, I’ve read much of Heller, so you know.
“All the wounds were caused by the long weapon.”
“I only did seven autopsies and they ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece.”
And we don’t need to think about limiting access to large clips and assault weapons….how sad. Some might have survived one wound, or at least as many wouldn’t have been killed by not having the ability to fire so many rounds so fast. But we insist on shouting about the right to bear arms and justify putting that much firepower at such easy access to any and all.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:47 pm
Thomas Heyward Jr :
And you would be correct (absent a warrant) and that also includes other places such as airports, schools, etc., but I don’t get your larger point.
My point was that those individuals aren’t required to get “toter/carry licenses” in each and every state.
Now ……….. what was your serious point?
getalife
December 15th, 2012
4:47 pm
tom,
Go be in a cup and give it to government fake patriot.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
4:48 pm
pee not be.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:48 pm
“Scout: prove to me that a gun owner’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every citizen of this country.”
Because the Supreme Court said so.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:50 pm
I SEE RED PEOPLE:
“Scout, please explain to all of us how the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments have even the most infinitesimal bearing on the Newtown Massacre.”
Because as tragic as it is, enforcing those other three Amendments means that innocent people are sometimes harmed.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
4:50 pm
“pee not be.”
Yeah, we know…but you gotta admit, it was funny!
getalife
December 15th, 2012
4:51 pm
“that innocent people are sometimes harmed.”
Newton massacre.
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:51 pm
“As long as they are law abiding it’s not neccessary for you to understand it. Just as you don’t need to understand why people collect any other item.”
Then eventually they’ll all have a right, as “law abiding” citizens, to carry fully automatic weapons. Hell, why don’t we just put an Uzi in every household and get it over with.
As a citizen who has a right to participate in daily life, I have a right to think I can go out without fear that someone will show up where I am and use one of those things. I have a right to safety, a right that was irrevocably denied 27 people yesterday. That will happen regardless, I know, but no matter how many times you say it just don’t make it so.
So how do we make sure those who have them are law abiding and remain that way? How do we protect those of us who don’t want that kind of firepower in our possession?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:52 pm
“Scout: prove to me that a gun owner’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every citizen of this country.”
Kind of like they also said that a woman’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every unborn child in this country.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:53 pm
“Then eventually they’ll all have a right, as “law abiding” citizens, to carry fully automatic weapons. Hell, why don’t we just put an Uzi in every household and get it over with.”
Federal law and the Supreme Court have said no to that one.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
4:54 pm
For all of you arguing, “But…but…but…if only the teachers were armed,”
But…but…but…if only the first victim Nancy Lanza was armed.
Oh yeah that’s right, she was.
NEWTOWN, Conn. — She was “a big, big gun fan” who went target shooting with her children, according to friends. She enjoyed craft beers, jazz and landscaping. She was generous to strangers, but also high-strung, as if she were holding herself together.
Nancy Lanza was the first victim in a massacre carried out on Friday by her son, Adam Lanza, 20, who shot her dead with a gun apparently drawn from her own collection, then drove her car to Sandy Hook Elementary School, where he killed 26 people, 20 of them small children, officials said.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
4:54 pm
“but you gotta admit, it was funny!”
He is always good for a laugh.
“Liberty., forward, patriot.”
Cracks me up
JamVet
December 15th, 2012
4:55 pm
Majority of these mass killings are happening in liberal states.
There we go. The cesspool element has finally arrived!
It took awhile, but I knew that sooner or later one of the more repugnant people here would write something utterly depraved.
Congrats to the morally malignant Milton.
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:55 pm
“Just as you don’t need to understand why people collect any other item.”
Yeah, well I don’t think a stamp collector is exactly amassing an arsenal that could kill folks, unless he asphyxiates his victims with pages of stamps when they’re not looking….
Collecting guns is fine….but how many rounds of ammo should any citizen be allowed to have in his possession at one time. I know a guy who has about 10,000 rounds at last count. Luckily he lives in Texas, so I can avoid being near him when he goes postal.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
4:57 pm
“Then eventually they’ll all have a right, as “law abiding” citizens, to carry fully automatic weapons”
Ahhhh, yes…that slippery slope. No one has said such weapons shouldn’t be regulated and their ownership strictly controlled. All that has been said is that people prepared to follow and obey the laws on such weapons are not required to explain their ownership of such weapons TO YOU.
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:57 pm
“Kind of like they also said that a woman’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every unborn child in this country.”
Deflection is not an answer. Answer my question or admit you can’t.
Again: prove to me that a gun owner’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every citizen of this country.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
4:58 pm
I am more interested in why these two kids in their twenties snapped and decided to kill as many as possible before killing themselves.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
4:59 pm
“Luckily he lives in Texas, so I can avoid being near him when he goes postal”
And your reason for believing that will ever happen is…?
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:00 pm
Why don’t we just come to grip with the fact that both sides have issue with the way our constitution is interrupted today ?
In all honesty is is right to allow any death that is preventable ?
Conservatives have rallied against judicial activist for years now yet we accept our own dated constitutional concepts.
Our founding fathers no more intended to protect abortion than they did our right to bear arms against home invaders. The right to bear arms was put in place to ensure that an injustice government could not reign. To ensure the people’s ability to overthrow such a government. Unless you intend to overthrow the government your reliance on the constitution to keep your gun is moot.
Now on the other hand if you are prepared to state openly and publically that you have a gun in order to overthrow a suppressive federal government you would have a constitutional argument.
And let’s not get caught up in the right to protect yourself in your on home. That is an entirely different argument.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
5:01 pm
Deflection is not an answer. Answer my question or admit you can’t.
Just read a tweet that is appropriate here, and used in the same context: Give it up It’s like trying to discuss modern art with a Krylon huffer.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:01 pm
“Again: prove to me that a gun owner’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every citizen of this country”
And why don’t YOU try proving that the legal ownership of such weapons, by law abiding citizens, is a dange to the right to live of other citizens
TM
December 15th, 2012
5:01 pm
RF you want to outlaw knives, bows and arrows, sling shots, cross bows and baseball bats or is it only guns that scare you???
Dwight
December 15th, 2012
5:02 pm
Thanks Jay. This was the closest articulation of my view of the firearms debate I’ve seen. The Second amendment enshrines the ability to regulate weapons. I feel like the debate over the years has been covered in the media as a hard left-right battle. One side seems to be for as many guns as possible all the time while the other seems to be for banning them all. I don’t think this is at all an accurate portrayal. There is a sensible way of regulating this, but I don’t feel that either the NRA or Brady campaign have done the country any favors on this issue.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:02 pm
Enter your comments here”I am more interested in why these two kids in their twenties snapped and decided to kill as many as possible before killing themselves.”
According to a psychiatrist I heard interviewed yesterday, such people externalize the bad things that happen to them. it’s someone else’s fault…and they take it out on “someone else” But he also said that millions of people have personality traits that are similar, but that never get to that point.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
5:04 pm
I am more interested in why these two kids in their twenties snapped and decided to kill as many as possible before killing themselves.
getalife
His former classmates believed he had Asperger’s syndrome.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
5:04 pm
Mama Says:
That was one of the main points in “Heller v. D.C.”:
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.”
RF
December 15th, 2012
5:05 pm
“All that has been said is that people prepared to follow and obey the laws on such weapons are not required to explain their ownership of such weapons TO YOU”
I never said they had to. I said the availability of that kind of firepower needs to either be limited or, at the very least, closely monitored. And noone has answered my question as to why such weaponry should be available to the general public. Guaranteeing the constitutional right to guns doesn’t mean that large clips and semi-auto weapons should be so easy to get. I just don’t see the need for them, and once again we see them as part of a massacre where the number of victims could have been greatly reduced by simply not having that mass of firepower in the killer’s hands. Justify that, and I’ll stop harping on it. In the meantime, tell me how we protect people from such firepower when one of those who legally has it takes a turn for the crazy side.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
5:06 pm
” it’s someone else’s fault…”
We see alot of this deflection on this blog.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
5:07 pm
And I quote Jay (about as liberal as one can get) above:
“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.”
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:08 pm
Kam,
I very rarely agree with you. But your comment about if someone would have been armed is the winning comment. There is no way to defeat it. As a conservative I didn’t even have the desire to try.
You are right the mother wad armed wasnt she. She was also in her own home where the use of those guns to defend herself was the most likely place to occur. Neither theory proved itself did it.
Sid
December 15th, 2012
5:09 pm
The rest of the world shakes its head in sadness at the stupidity of the American people.
I am so glad I do not live in your country. How stupid are you to have so many guns?
I simply don’t understand it.
In my country the population do not have guns. The police do not have guns (except for some armed-response units).
In my country if some lunatic gets angry, he can fantasise about killing his enemies….but that’s all it is – a fantasy. He has no easy way of getting guns. In your country these fantasies may coincide with gun access and then one day the fantasy becomes a reality.
Please let go of this 2nd Amendment – how many more children must die? Your NRA is bankrolled by the arms industry who make their fortunes from your misery. Why do you let them do it? I know you are not ALL fools but right now the world is wondering just how many of you realise the folly of your gun religion.
RF
December 15th, 2012
5:09 pm
“RF you want to outlaw knives, bows and arrows, sling shots, cross bows and baseball bats or is it only guns that scare you???”
I love it when someone goes for the absurd in an otherwise reasonable debate….
Guns don’t scare me, but large clips and semi-autos do bother me, especially when yet another massacre happens and the shooter has several of them in his possession.
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 15th, 2012
5:10 pm
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
4:47 pm
Thomas Heyward Jr :
And you would be correct (absent a warrant) and that also includes other places such as airports, schools, etc., but I don’t get your larger point.
My point was that those individuals aren’t required to get “toter/carry licenses” in each and every state.
Now ……….. what was your serious point?
—————————————————————————————-
.
My point being………….my sovereign property rights trump ALL of your tin badges and federalie laws.
And my assault rifles ( unfortanantly I lost them all in a boating accident in 2008) but if I did have some…….would .act as a type of insurance over overzealous federalies.
.
No disrespect intended.
I’m just keeping your feet on the ground.
.
Carry on Sir…………..with the good fight.
(although you should at least try to attenuate your war-mongering tendencies..read some Rothbard, Therou, or maybe even some Gandhi).,,,,,,,,,The Prince of Peace would.
pogo
December 15th, 2012
5:11 pm
I wonder that as well getalife. I wonder sometimes if the computer “games” that these kids are playing are warping their sense of reality. The graphics on these games is incredible. The weapons are digitized counterparts to the real thing. They operate exactly as the real thing would right down to re-arming and jamming and their impact on a human body is exactly what it would be in real life. The makers of these gains of course leave out the pain and the sufferring that would be involved with such extreme acts of violence. I think the players very well may be becoming de-sensitized from what the pain of such acts really is. That and a million other things wrong with the mentality of our society today.
Skip
December 15th, 2012
5:11 pm
Looks like a couple here support the shooters right to kill little kids.
josef
December 15th, 2012
5:12 pm
SID
Which is your country?
TM
December 15th, 2012
5:13 pm
RF what is the difference between having one gun with a large clip or two guns with regular clips? None= they both fire the same amount.
josef
December 15th, 2012
5:14 pm
pogo
There is much truth in that.
getalife
December 15th, 2012
5:14 pm
Kam,
Yes, I read that and his Dad and brother are smart accountants.
The other kid at the mall was normal.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:16 pm
“And noone has answered my question as to why such weaponry should be available to the general public”
Who said they were? They are hedged with strict laws and requirements and there’s not really that many people who care enough about having one to follow those requirements.
“I never said they had to”
Not in so many words, maybe…but your constant refrain the you “see no need” for anyone to have them is, whether you will admit it or not, a demand to explain WHY someone wants one. No one owes you any explanation, period. And, in fact, it isn’t even neccessary for someone to “need” such a weapon…anymore than it is neccessary for anyone to own anything else that someone sees “no need” for them to own.
“I just don’t see the need for them”
as I said above
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
5:16 pm
Neither theory proved itself did it.
No.
And I agree with Doggone/GA, law abiding citizens shouldn’t have to justify their reasons for owning legally obtained weapons.
In light of new developments, I am coming to the conclusion that Nancy Lanza was not a responsible gun owner. A report I read earlier said that a fourth gun was at the scene — a gun that belonged to his father.
These weapons should have been secured against their son who was obviously mentally ill. Even his former classmates believed it.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:16 pm
“I am so glad I do not live in your country”
That’s perfectly fine. We’re glad you don’t live here too.
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:17 pm
311,
I find myself in a debate with my own side.
I do not doubt your positions historical importance what I doubt is the fact that we as citizens could face down a well equipped army should constitutional order break down. We have crossed that line already haven’t we ?
State are mandated by the federal government to do certain things. Government impounds our personal property if we don’t give it what it wants.
Government has now reasoned with itself that it can make you buy what it deems to be in our best interest.
I mean what constitutional breakdown do you foresee that hasn’t or isn’t taking place ?
We will never again physically resist our government in this country. We are to fat and happy as well as selfish to get off the sofa.
The gun rights that you stand for are as effective as the scarecrow. Once the birds figure out it can’t chase them they use it for a roost.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:17 pm
“Guns don’t scare me, but large clips and semi-autos do bother me”
It only takes one to kill someone.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:18 pm
“Looks like a couple here support the shooters right to kill little kids”
Maybe you should get your eyes checked. Or your brain. You aren’t seeing what you think you are seeing.
td
December 15th, 2012
5:19 pm
stands for decibels
December 15th, 2012
3:04 pm
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.
Amendments may be proposed by either:
two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or
by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states.
To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:
the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or
state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.
Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used.
Any amendment so ratified becomes a valid part of the Constitution, provided that no state “shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the senate,” without its consent.
Good luck when are you going to get started?
getalife
December 15th, 2012
5:20 pm
pogo,
My Brother is good at Call of Duty playing other people on line and they are mostly stoners.
Thomas Heyward Jr
December 15th, 2012
5:21 pm
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:00 pm
Our founding fathers no more intended to protect abortion than they did our right to bear arms against home invaders. The right to bear arms was put in place to ensure that an injustice government could not reign. To ensure the people’s ability to overthrow such a government. Unless you intend to overthrow the government your reliance on the constitution to keep your gun is moot.
Now on the other hand if you are prepared to state openly and publically that you have a gun in order to overthrow a suppressive federal government you would have a constitutional argument.
================================================================
.
One has insurance NOT to fight pancreadic cancer.
One has insurance to mitigate the financial effects of pancreatic cancer.
.
I will state openly and publicly that I (used to have guns) NOT to overthrow a suppressive and corrupt federal government.
But to MITIGATE the effects of a suppresive and corrupt federal government.
\.
Historically amnesiac or “on-the-take” Progressives………..that worship the state…….just can not understand.
josef
December 15th, 2012
5:21 pm
DOGGONE
I note that Sid has yet to identify which is his country. Perhaps he is hesitant to do so knowing that someone here will google a list of similar atrocities from there. The mentally unstable who snap and wreck mayhem are not limited to a specific geo political division.
RF
December 15th, 2012
5:28 pm
TM- perhaps not much difference, but at least in changing from one gun to the other, there is an opportunity for at least a few potential victims to escape. Large clips have no useful purpose in anything but a military operation, IMHO.
“Not in so many words, maybe…but your constant refrain the you “see no need” for anyone to have them is, whether you will admit it or not, a demand to explain WHY someone wants one”
No, doggone, it’s not. I don’t care WHY someone has them, I simply don’t see a need for it and too much potential danger in having it. Simple as that, and I stand by my opinion. And it’s just that, an opinion expressed on a blog that has no power to change anthing whatsoever. I know that, but I stand by my opinion regardless. That is only one issue that in the grand scheme of things may have no significant impact, but it bothers me nonetheless. And noone, anywhere I’ve read, can offer any justification beyond what you’ve offered, and I think it’s perfectly fine to ask for that. It is the nonchalance of our American attitude about how much is enough that is becoming increasingly worrisome, and guns are only one part of that worry.
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:32 pm
This entire gun argument is moot really. The civil war should have taught us several things.
Aside from the slavery issue I mean.
This country was in the height of an armed revolution against a government that several states felt was overreaching. Those states left the union and fought to the deaths of some 400,000 people.
What did our federal government do to avoid the constitutional issues ?
Lincoln suspended Habeus, dissolved the rebelling states original sitting state governments, appointed his people as the real state governments and then had them approve of his constitutional measures to usurp the written intent.
My point is that the right to bear arms issue has proven itself useless. We are allowing our kids to be killed for a right that is out dated at best and that has already proven ineffective.
The only way to change government now is by the vote. The rights most sacred to our freedom is speech and assembly, the violence angle is no longer.
td
December 15th, 2012
5:33 pm
RF
December 15th, 2012
4:57 pm
“Kind of like they also said that a woman’s rights come ahead of the right to life of every unborn child in this country.”
Deflection is not an answer. Answer my question or admit you can’t.
There has been at least 4 different bloggers answering your questions all day. The problem is you do not want to accept their answers, even when the proof is put in front of your face.
Fact: The Second Amendment, the writings of the founding fathers and the SCOTUS basically says the people of this country has a right (That government SHALL NOT be able to take away) to keep and bear arms.
If you do not agree with this then start getting 2/3 of the members of Congress to propose a Constitutional Amendment to override the 2nd Amendment. The you have to get 75 states to approve such an Amendment.
RF
December 15th, 2012
5:33 pm
“These weapons should have been secured against their son who was obviously mentally ill.”
She probably thought they were secure, as many folks do. The only real security of them makes them difficult to get to and use in a split second situation, which is about all the time you have when faced with potential violence. Even as I’ve ranted about it today, I know the problem is more in how people handle them and secure them that is at the heart of the problem. Like anything else, you get lax in your handling and use, and you make it easier for something like this to happen. And I know the vast majority of responsible owners keep their standards up, especially when they know there’s a potential problem in the household. Just too many of these situations popping up in recent years…
willie lynch
December 15th, 2012
5:37 pm
Now everyone wants to claim we can spot all people with mental health issues. Some of the most admired people in history have had mental health issues. What are we supposed to do when we determine this person has a certain issue? Do we immediately lock them away? Are we suppose to force medication on them?
The problem is the gun. Yesterday in China a man slashed 22 students. SLASHED!!! In America there was a completely different result and that result was due to the type of instrument used in the assault.
We can dance around the issue and claim constitutional rights but the numbers show that guns in the hands of the general populace has not been to the benefit of the country.
I’m sure the parents of the children in China are feeling much better than those of their more civilized American counterparts.
td
December 15th, 2012
5:38 pm
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:32 pm
“The only way to change government now is by the vote. The rights most sacred to our freedom is speech and assembly, the violence angle is no longer.”
Lincoln also jailed people in the north that spoke out against him or the government and those that assembled in protest, so I guess that means our whole is meaningless now and the government has total control.
the cat
December 15th, 2012
5:38 pm
It is easier to buy a gun than it is to adopt a puppy. Sad but true.
RF
December 15th, 2012
5:39 pm
“The problem is you do not want to accept their answers, even when the proof is put in front of your face.”
They’ve given their opinions as I’ve given mine. And your proof is???
Don’t come at me with the second amendment yet again. I know that one, tiny brain, and I have consistently stated on this thread that I’m not against anyone “bearing arms.” My questions have centered around the need for certain types, and I’ve asked how the general population can be guaranteed some level of safety from the potential harm they can cause when in the wrong hands.
Read carefully fool– I support the 2nd amendment. Got that?
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
5:39 pm
Just too many of these situations popping up in recent years…
And I lay the blame for this at the feet of the NRA and some (let me reiterate, SOME) dealers. They should be about educating owners about responsible ownership as much or more as they are about the right to arm bears.
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:39 pm
Thomas,
Your right to win a gun is preventing what ?
The fact that you and others have guns (as I do ) has little bearing on the federal governments decision making process. You and I are no match for today’s government powers.
While I do not encourage the act, your are failing the intent of the constitution as you interpret it. The fact that you have a gun is meaningless unless you use it to combat the government that you surely do not trust. Since I am assuming you have not exercised that right you then are arguing a hollow point.
You may as well throw your ammunition in the trash the fact that you have a gun will remain just as an effect deterrent to the federal government and its abuse of power.
Again, I do not condone an overthrow attempt I am talking about the basis of the conservative argument.
td
December 15th, 2012
5:41 pm
willie lynch
December 15th, 2012
5:37 pm
Well then start getting 2/3 of Congress to propose the legislation to amend the Constitution and work on 75 states to pass such an amendment.
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:42 pm
TD,
Now you see the picture. Do you see yourself charging capital hill with your AR15
willie lynch
December 15th, 2012
5:43 pm
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:32 pm
I agree completely.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
5:45 pm
Yes, because the NRA made that guy kill those kids. Why are folks on the left so ignorant?
It’s painfully obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Hmmmmmmm
December 15th, 2012
5:45 pm
I was wondering when some idiot would bring up gun control… as if the gun killed those kids, as if somebody that evil couldn’t get his hands on guns if they were totally banned… Good grief, find something else to blame this on other than guns… Guns could have prevented this had the teachers been trained to use guns and were authorized to have a gun at their disposal. We could have a armed security team at every school to take care of monsters like this who intend to kill innocent people.. It’s really an easy fix, if we really wanted to protect our schools and children we will quit blaming it on the lack of gun control and come up with a rational approach… But I can dream.. most of you would rather whine about gun control than take care of the problem… Pathetic!
td
December 15th, 2012
5:45 pm
the cat
December 15th, 2012
5:38 pm
It is easier to buy a gun than it is to adopt a puppy. Sad but true.
It is easier to kill an unborn child then it is to buy a gun or to adopt a puppy.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:46 pm
“I simply don’t see a need for it and too much potential danger in having it”
Fine, then don’t own one. That is your choice. What you don’t have the right to do is limit someone else from owning them just because YOU don’t see the need. And also, even though you will NOT admit it, you ARE asking for someone to justify it to you . It’s none of your business.
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:46 pm
You change the government by electing people who will not pander and throwing g out those who have shown themselves willing to do so.
This form of government is the best in the world we should never seek to overthrow it, we should seek to remove those who have compromised it and us.
RF
December 15th, 2012
5:47 pm
“They should be about educating owners about responsible ownership as much or more as they are about the right to arm bears.”
Yep, and there should be better records of who has them and ongoing training required. That’s never going to happen because too many would protest about “guvmint interference” if they had to miss a college football game to go to a gun safety class.
josef
December 15th, 2012
5:47 pm
DONNAN
Are you new here? If you are, let me point out that in this argument today, there are just as many lefties arguing against gun control as there are righties arguing for it. You might want to hold off on your left-right dichotomy. If you are a regular, you know these folks already and you know that. In which case you’re just gratuitously stirring sh*t…
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:47 pm
“It is easier to buy a gun than it is to adopt a puppy. Sad but true”
Baloney. If all I wanted was a puppy I could have one in an hour.
Doggone/GA
December 15th, 2012
5:48 pm
“It is easier to kill an unborn child then it is to buy a gun or to adopt a puppy.
We were made in God’s image. God kills the unborn. So why should we not be able to do that in his image?
Mama Says
December 15th, 2012
5:50 pm
Hummmmm,
You must have missed Kams comment.
The first victim was armed and trained. He killed his mother and then went to the school with her guns.
KlinTisha
December 15th, 2012
5:52 pm
“Gun control” is a mindless, meaningless feel good phrase that we roll out whenever there’s a mass shooting, then it fades slowly away until the inevitable next incident.
A realistic, doable way to prevent this – or at least make it more challenging for the crazies – is to post a trained, armed officer in every school in America. Maybe a good gig for some of our military guys who need civilian jobs as we wind down Iraq and Afghanistan.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
5:52 pm
Thomas Heyward, Jr.:
“My point being………….my sovereign property rights trump ALL of your tin badges and federalie laws.”
And you would be correct ………. except for that pesky little thing called a “search warrant” !
(Note: See the 4th Amendment for additional clarification)
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
5:53 pm
SID:
Please don’t ever come to this country.
td
December 15th, 2012
5:54 pm
There has been the mass killing of over 2,000 children today alone in this country by their mothers and you progressives say nothing or even worse approve of this murder.
Now you want to come on this blog and demand that we take all the guns away or restrict law bidding citizens from owning guns because of some nut bag killed 20 children yesterday when they were 6 to 10 years old.
Sorry but your argument has no legitimacy in my book and just shows how much of a hypocrites you really are.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
December 15th, 2012
5:54 pm
That’s never going to happen because too many would protest about “guvmint interference” if they had to miss a college football game to go to a gun safety class.
RF
I wish that the NRA and all gun dealers would realize that it is in their best interest to see that their customers are well educated about the use and safety of the product they are selling.
I have been to several dealers that act put out if I ask a question as if it’s a stupid question. I even had one dealer/range owner in downtown Lawrenceville say, “If you have to ask questions, then maybe you shouldn’t be here.”
Now, I don’t know anyone that was born knowing how to handle every weapon.
When it comes to guns, there are no stupid questions.
josef
December 15th, 2012
5:55 pm
SCOUT
And I repeat what I said to Doggone…Sid does not tell us which country he is from.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
December 15th, 2012
5:55 pm
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” Mahatma Gandhi
George Watson
December 15th, 2012
5:55 pm
Like so many unintended consequences of defective thinking, our society, in the name of freedom of expression, sanctions violence in ways that would be an embarrassment in many other cultures. We lionize men and increasingly women with guns, and in recent times, entertainment that features the gratuitous, wanton slaughter of anyone and everyone in a fight scenario. An entire industry has grown up around video games dedicated to this kind of violence. We cannot legislate culture, but we can decide what is acceptable and proper, and eventually reverse this out of control obsession with violence. But in the meantime, disarming the general public isn’t a bad idea.