Video: Jack Kingston spars with MSNBC host on gun control
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Let no one say Savannah Republican U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston hides in a conservative media bunker. Today he had a tough interview with MSNBC host Thomas Roberts on the subject of gun control in light of Friday’s tragedy in Connecticut. Kingston said gun control laws should be under discussion, but the discussion should also include mental illness and other aspects of mass shootings.
A key moment comes around the 7:30 mark, after Kingston describes mass shootings in Europe that occurred in spite of strict gun laws:
Roberts: So there’s nothing we can do? …. We need to just be complacent in the fact that we can send our children to school to be assassinated?
Kingston: Thomas, I think one of the problems we have on the gun control debate is it immediately starts dividing people into: ‘You disagree with me, therefore you are the enemy.’ I’ve opened up by saying let’s put gun control up for discussion. Let’s include mental health. Let’s put video games, let’s put home background in there. And I think where there is some common ground you could say the storage of weapons. But when we immediately start saying, ‘Well, you want this, therefore you dislike children,’ it’s not productive to the debate.
- By Daniel Malloy, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
136 comments Add your comment
RomeGaGuy
December 18th, 2012
3:10 pm
Shocked that Kingston still doesnt wear a flag lapel pin after making such a big deal out of Obama not wearing one
Trolls Bane
December 18th, 2012
3:14 pm
Interesting to see the “its for the children” argument used here. Good technique to stop any reasoned debate or discussion. Who wants to see children hurt right, so if you disagree with my position, it means that you want to hurt children ….
Nice classy argument there …
kreedham
December 18th, 2012
3:15 pm
Sure video games and mental health need to be in the discussion but a ban on assault rifles and extended magazines is needed now. I’m waiting to see who the 1st Georgia Republican who as the stones to say…Yes we need to make some changes now! Bueller? Bueller?
Rifles and shotguns if you’re a hunter, handguns if you feel it will make you safer but NO on assault weapons and extended magazine clips.
Silver Creek Dawg
December 18th, 2012
3:18 pm
Kreedham, there is no such gun classification as “assault weapon”.
Don’t believe me? Walk into any gun store and tell the owner you want to buy an assault weapon. He’ll open up his arms to the entire store and say, “Pick one.”
RGB
December 18th, 2012
3:19 pm
Democrat politicians (and the fawning journalists in the media) will “solve” this problem just as they’ve “solved” the poverty problem. Or the education problem. Or the debt problem. Or the social security solvency problem. Or the medicare problem. Or the healthcare problem.
And as long as voters feeeeel that the politicians are hellllping them, we’ll have fewer freedoms.
Kingston pointed out that none of the solutions the journalist proposed would work. Therefore he must be evil.
Liberalism beats having to think or use logic.
RGB
December 18th, 2012
3:24 pm
Silver Creek Dawg,
You beat me to the punch.
Libs define assault weapons as any firearm–or at least that’s the way it will ultimately be defined.
“Who needs a 30 round magazine? Who needs a revolver that holds five rounds? Let’s have one-round revolver and a limit of one bullet purchase every other year.”
And you bloggers and journalists who write about “clips” and “magazine clips”–if you have absolutely no idea about that which you are writing, don’t.
the cat
December 18th, 2012
3:27 pm
RGB-tell us which guns are not assault weapons.
jd
December 18th, 2012
3:28 pm
Why, sir, there isn’t any gambling going on at this establishment… just some games, that’s all!
DJ Sniper
December 18th, 2012
3:35 pm
I consider myself to be on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I have no issues at all with gun ownership, and that includes high powered rifles like AR-15’s, AK-47’s, and the like. What kills me though is when people swear up and down that situations like this could have been avoided if the teachers had been armed. There’s no guarantee of that.
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
3:35 pm
How would more gun control laws have prevented the attack in Conn?
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
3:36 pm
There is the possibility that an armed teacher or teachers could have saved lives in Conn.
Question
December 18th, 2012
3:37 pm
If you want to play with a gun which shoots 100’s of bullets in a minute join the army. If you are too scared to join the army but you want to stay in a suburb with a high power riffle.. Tough luck you sissy..
gadem
December 18th, 2012
3:42 pm
The Republican argument is that there are not enough guns in the market place…arm the teachers…arm the students…arm the janitors. Too many bullets shot in distress is just as bad. Ban large capacity magazine clips.
I had someone argue me today that the shooter only used handguns…and not the bushmaster which was found next to his body.
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
3:42 pm
Question:
How do you get all the current rifles, magazines, etc. off the streets? Don’t you think shooters will steal from other people just like the shooter in Conn. did so how does this prevent another school shooting?
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
3:44 pm
gadem
How do you get the large capacity magazine clips off the street that are already out there?
Question
December 18th, 2012
3:45 pm
Solve the problem:
Check what Scotland did after their school shooting. They have not had one school shooting in 16 years..
DJ Sniper
December 18th, 2012
3:45 pm
Solve, there’s also the possiblity that lives would not have been saved had the teacher been armed. Let’s be real here: not every gun owner out there is a responsible one. There are plenty of gun owners out here who have not taken any sort of safety class, have never spent any time at the range, etc etc. As I said before, I have no issue with gun ownership, but allowing everybody to be armed everywhere isn’t the answer.
Also, I do agree that more gun control laws won’t make a difference. People who want to commit acts like this will find a way to get their hands on a gun, laws be damned.
ED
December 18th, 2012
3:47 pm
So, should the teachers have been trying to hide the children or looking for their gun and hoping that they could get their one shot off before being mowed down? I don’t think they had time for both. Their first job is to take care of the kids and keep them calm. I don’t know how these teachers would’ve been prepared for what was coming at them. Teachers are told they aren’t trusted enough for tenure, but are told they are expected to be trained to come to schools with firearms? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
3:50 pm
Question:
So how do you propose getting around the 2nd Amendment in America? I don’t think Scotland is an option that will work in America.
Why did the gunman go to a school and why did he shoot himself? Is it possible that he knew there would be no one to challenge him at a school and he did not want a shoot out with the police? Why wouldn’t he have shot it out with the police?
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
3:51 pm
@ Solve the problem: We only need one gun control law: outlaw guns period except for law enforcement and military. Eventually (it won’t magically happen overnight), this will bring down the number of gun homicides significantly. Mere gun control laws that simply restrict certain types of guns probably won’t do much…so, you’re half-right. The only people who really need a gun are law enforcement, military, and criminals. So, that means trying to remove the entire gun population from civilians. That’s a tough sell, and I doubt it will ever happen. But, this is what needs to happen imo. Will this mean America will turn into a rainbow-filled dreamstate, devoid of homicide? No, but utopia is not the goal here. It’s time to stop clinging to your guns, stop being paranoid of being carjacked and raped, and find a new hobby besides hunting.
DJ Sniper
December 18th, 2012
3:53 pm
This gunman had a specific agenda, and even if the teachers were able to carry, I’m sure he still would have carried this thing out.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
3:54 pm
“Solve the Problem”: I don’t know how to get all the weapons and magazines off the streets that the gun freaks have managed to spread through our society. To start with, we could collect and destroy all of the registered guns, then start gathering the outliers during traffic stops, airport security checks, etc. I do know that it is foolish to use the fact there there are already a lot of guns and magazines out there as an excuse for inaction. The notion that teachers should be armed just goes to show the insane depths that the gun freaks have sunk to. They are out of touch with mainstream America on this issue and the rest of us need to stop letting them turn our society into a shooting gallery in the name of “freedom.”
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
3:55 pm
MoFaux:
I am just looking for a solution and I don’t see making gun ownership illegal in America as an option. I would like to see some ideas on what would or could have prevented the shooting in Conn. and so far I haven’t heard any.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
3:57 pm
“how do you propose getting around the 2nd Amendment in America”
There’s no need to get around it. Let’s make sure that all of us are allowed to own (not carry around) a weapon of the type that were available at the time the Constitution was written–one-shot, muzzle-loading rifles. Gun freaks have been deliberately twisting of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and we have all been paying the consequences. It’s time for common sense to come back into the picture.
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
4:00 pm
Baron Dekalb:
Why do we have the 2nd amendment?
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
4:00 pm
Solve the Problem: I just gave you a solution. There is no perfect solution, but the one I gave is the closest thing to it. But, it takes time to execute, so it’s not something that can be done overnight. Do you see this as not an option because of the politics involved or because you don’t like it? It’s a tough pill to swallow for some folks, but I think it’s time to see the doctor.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:01 pm
You are never going to “Solve the problem” unless you are willing to take the basic, obvious first step. It’s like trying to change a flat tire when you don’t have a lug wrench. It’s not going to happen, and that’s why you throw up your hands–because you really don’t want anything to change.
Trolls Bane
December 18th, 2012
4:01 pm
Dear Baron, The right honorable justices of the Supreme Court of the United States would beg to differ. Fortunately, their learned and august opinion carries weight, and yours does not.
Junior Samples
December 18th, 2012
4:01 pm
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Some people are proposing we arm the teachers.
Are these possibly the same who suggested earlier we pay them less?
Strip their union and bargaining rights?
Now that’s shooting from the hip.
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
You would have to eliminate the 2nd amendment and I don’t see this happening in America regardless of my personal opinion.
Question
December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
Solve the problem:
Why can’t we change the 2nd Amendment? Remember the 18th Amendment?
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
Solve: We have the 2nd Amendment to make sure that ordinary citizens’ rights to keep muzzle-loading, single-shot hunting rifles at home is not infringed. Got it?
Nada_Chance
December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
@MoFax — kinda like “outlaw crack cocaine and meth … period”
(Yep, that really worked, didn’t it?)
C. Tampa Ironworse
December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
3 topics that collide with this tragedy:
1. Too many guns out there
2. Too many single parent (fatherless) homes out there
3. Too many parents not getting their creepy, loner, weirdo kids the mental health help they need…including institutionalizing them
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
4:04 pm
People who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:04 pm
Trolls Bane: I’m sure the proponents of slavery showed similar “respect” for the legal establishment when it supported their abominable practices. You and the justices are on the wrong side of history, I wonder how many more horrific firearms tragedies it’s going to take for that to sink in.
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
4:07 pm
Baron:
Again, why do we have the 2nd amendment?
Why do we have specific powers assigned to the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch & Judicial Branch of our government?
bucket
December 18th, 2012
4:07 pm
It is so funny how some people want “original intent” when it furthers their agenda, but not when it doesn’t.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:08 pm
“People who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Yes, I agree completely. And those of us who do know history and are honest with ourselves about the tragic effects of the gun culture know that we are going to be repeating this kind of horrible event until we deal with the gun problem like responsible adults.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:08 pm
“People who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Yes, I agree completely. And those of us who do know history and are honest with ourselves about the tragic effects of the gun culture know that we are going to be repeating this kind of horrible event until we deal with the gun problem like responsible adults.
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
4:08 pm
Nada_Chance: Cocaine and meth are easy to make (one coming from a plant). Finding or making bullets to fit your gun when they are no longer in production is a bit harder to do. Eventually, criminals will run out of ammo. Like I said, there is no perfect solution, but clearly doing nothing has not helped at all. Plus, I don’t recall a single instance where cocaine or meth killed 20 children in a matter of 5 minutes. Nice straw man argument.
DJ Sniper
December 18th, 2012
4:09 pm
Oh joy. An 11 year old in Utah, at the urging of his parents, brought a gun to school, and was waving the thing around, showing it off to people. His parents are obviously not responsible gun owners.
Trolls Bane
December 18th, 2012
4:10 pm
My dear baron, the constitution was amended after the civil war to make all persons born in the US full citizens and to outlaw slavery. Remember the 13th and 14th amendments?
The 2nd amendment has not been repealed, and remains in force. Are you a constitutional or legal scholar? Do you have a law degree? How many years did you spend on the bench as a judge? Sorry to burst your bubble, but basic rights, including the right to defend your life and the life of your fellow man, and your freedom are non-negitiable.
Complex
December 18th, 2012
4:12 pm
This is an amazingly complex issue, therefore there aren’t any simple solutions. What’s pretty amazing is that even what most of the politicians and media pundits have been touting as “immediate action”….tougher background checks, smaller clips and tighter gun bans probably wouldn’t have had any impact in this instance. The guns weren’t the shooter’s (background checks wouldn’t have mattered) and he had multiple weapons at his disposal. In fact, 2 of the 3 were ordinary hand guns….just as capable of killing the children. Sadly, our society is degenerating. 99%+ of our population can handle graphic violence on tv and video games, can live peacefully with or without gun control laws and are relatively non-violent. But, a very small segment is negatively impacted by all of this, including the media obsession/sensationalism of these tragic events.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:12 pm
Solve: Each constitutional freedom that we enjoy comes with some limits. That’s why the First Amendment doesn’t allow you to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. Those of use who would advocate for a reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would like to see the limits on firearms ownership brought in line with common sense and the current technological context. We could make a lot of positive changes without getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, although like the 18th I would not be saddened to see it go away completely. The gun freaks need to stop hiding behind the constitution and take responsibility for the damage that has been done to our society by their twisted interpretation of a 200+ year-old document.
Solve the Problem
December 18th, 2012
4:14 pm
The reality is gun sales are through the roof because of the talk of outlawing guns and I am sure NRA contributions are up dramatically also.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:15 pm
Trolls Bane: Oh, I’m sorry–I have somehow stumbled into a forum where only a sitting jurist or constitutional scholar can express their opinion. What court do you preside over, by the way?
smitty
December 18th, 2012
4:16 pm
There’s no argument that we need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. We also need to stop creating gun free zone that end up really being killing zones. Imagine if the teachers and administrators had more than just their courage to protect them, many more children would be alive. Concealed carry permit holders statistically are less likely to commit crimes than police officers.
It seriously take less than a few seconds to reload from an empty magazine to another full one. Legislating the capacity will have little to no effect.
Those who think an outright ban is good, are you volunteering to be the one who knocks doors down and gets all the guns? There will be another civil war if there is an outright ban. The 2nd amendment gives us to right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. To change this would require amending the constitution and that just will not ever happen. BTW we don’t “register” guns in Georgia or in many states.
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:19 pm
“The reality is gun sales are through the roof because of the talk of outlawing guns and I am sure NRA contributions are up dramatically also.”
And you have no problem with this, no shame for the selfish, reactionary mentality that this response represents. The gun freaks don’t get it, they never will. There’s no point in having a conversation with extremists, let’s get the reasonable people in our society together and stop letting those on the radical fringe hold us hostage to their twisted beliefs.
DJ Sniper
December 18th, 2012
4:20 pm
Let’s not get started on the NRA, especially Wayne LaPierre. This fool is trying to convince people that Obama is trying to lull people into a false sense of security so that he can repeal the 2nd Amendment. Nothing like some good old fear mongering to whip your base up into a frenzy.
911
December 18th, 2012
4:21 pm
After much soul searching I have thrown my whole hearted support to both the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment is just as dangerous as the Second. It’s not only the guns that kill innocent people. It’s the spoken word of the freedom of expression crowd. TV, radio, internet, and especially the congress, that must be stopped from exercising and and all the rights of freedom. How stupid it was for the founding fathers to have ever adopted such nonsense.
LoganvilleGuy
December 18th, 2012
4:22 pm
@Baron DeKalb -
I’d be careful with your argument about wanting to go with the “original intent” of the second amendment. The original intent of the second amendment was to allow able-bodied men to form a well-regulated militia complete with weapons in order to maintain their freedom from any form of oppression. Therefore, under the “original intent” of the second amendment, people would be able to own any form of available weapon to maintain the ability to form such a well-regulated militia.
Also, the second amendment says the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. I’m not sure how you define “bear” but it certainly has nothing to do with keeping weapons in the home… that would be the keep part.
FYI, the Constitution does not “grant” rights… it merely protects them. The first ten amendments of the Constitution were considered by our founding fathers to be inviolable. I’m not sure about you, but I consider them to be legal and scholarly geniuses. I think they were right on the money with the Bill of Rights.
The fact that we are willing to give up rights for the sake of safety is scary to me.
Idontgetit
December 18th, 2012
4:31 pm
Banning ownership of assult rifles would have prevented the latest shooter from getting that gun from his mother. Gun supporters say banning such would just take guns away form ‘law abiding’ citizens. Wouldn’t that be exactly the point here? It seems incredulous that she, a ‘law abiding citizen’, would buy such wepons and then teach her son (’who shouldn’t be left alone for a second’) how to use them.
Outlaws WILL HAVE outlawed guns
December 18th, 2012
4:31 pm
Washington DC and Chi Town ought to be safest cities on earth,,as they have stringent gun controls and the basic outlawing of guns. These two cities lead the world in gun crimes. Murder, etc.
FIX the soul, fix the heart, fix the broken homes, broken minds, then you fix crime.
Government cannot fix anything, people. They caused most of this.
smitty
December 18th, 2012
4:34 pm
They are willing to give up rights for a sense of safety that doesn’t exist. You certainly won’t be safer when the guy on the street attacks you with a knife. You certainly won’t be safer when somebody kicks down your door in a home invasion. You certainly won’t be safer when a guy gets a gun on the black market and does the exact same thing that was done on Friday.
I’ve lived in a neighborhood where I was awoken to gunshots on a regular basis. It was not long after when I got my first handgun. That sense of helplessness is one that I hope to never feel again.
Kris
December 18th, 2012
4:35 pm
The nation’s largest gun-rights organization — typically outspoken about its positions even after shooting deaths — has gone all but silent since last week’s rampage at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that left 26 people dead, including 20 children.
Its Facebook page has disappeared. It has posted no tweets.
http://myfox8.com/2012/12/18/nra-facebook-page-goes-dark-after-newtown-school-shooting/
Why is the mighty NRA (proud owners of many politicians’) Hiding?
DILLIGAF
December 18th, 2012
4:47 pm
The 2nd Ammendment states:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Period.
You liberal sissies that are on here mindlessly babbling about, “assault weapons”, and “high capacity clips” have no idea what you are talking about as 90% of you have never even held a firearm let alone loaded or shot one. You idiots are hell bent on taking away everyone’s liberties and rights and are probably the same weenies whining about Silent Night being sung at the Christmas play.
You liberals that state that,”only the military and police should have guns” will be the first to line up for the RFID chips and will go sit in a corner and wet yourself while waiting for the police to come save you when the SHTF! Good luck wiith that.
If you want to end the senseless tragedies such as the one that we have recently endured then lets talk about separating the mentally ill from the rest of society, let’s talk about outlawing the mind-altering pharmaceuyticals that you start pumping into your children at an early age.
I’ve shed my share of tears over the CT tragedy and I’m also very angry. I’m a responsible person that enjoys sport shooting, pays my taxes and have never had as much as a speediing ticket yet feel like I have to defend my thoughts on my God given rights.
How come no one mentions the 2,000 children that are murdered through abortion every single day?
How come no one bothers to bring up the thousands of innocent children that have been murdered through drone attacks in other countries?
You people need to get your heads out of your a….!
curious
December 18th, 2012
4:56 pm
The absolute refusal of the NRA and its supporters to even consider any suggestion that might keep guns out of irresponsible hands will ultimately be the causation of more strenous gun control laws than they ever imagined.
Do you believe George Wallace,those sheriff’s deputies at the Edmund Pettis bridge, or those Church bombers in Birmingham figured there actions would have a completely different reaction?
NRA. If you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem and just may become extinct ala the KKK (once a huge group).
Ocmulgee Paddler
December 18th, 2012
5:00 pm
Baron,
If we are only going to take the constitution’s wording for when it is written, then it is fair to assume you do not think the first amendment covers radio, television, and the internet?
Diggins
December 18th, 2012
5:04 pm
There is no such thing as an assault rifle. Assault. Is a human behaviour. A person could put to death with a ball at . This makes the weapon something you are assaulted with. All of my firearms are for sport or for defense. Not for offense. This includes my ar15.
td
December 18th, 2012
5:05 pm
DJ Sniper
December 18th, 2012
3:35 pm
I consider myself to be on the liberal side of the spectrum, but I have no issues at all with gun ownership, and that includes high powered rifles like AR-15’s, AK-47’s, and the like. What kills me though is when people swear up and down that situations like this could have been avoided if the teachers had been armed. There’s no guarantee of that.
You are right that there was/is no guarantee that this would be stopped but if that poor Principal had been armed then at least there would have been A chance instead of her going out there trying to stop him unarmed and being gunned down. The police were at the school within 18 minutes (which by most standards is a great response time). The real wake up call is that we can not depend on the police to stop these types of killers and we must do something to protect ourselves and our children.
td
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
3:51 pm
@ Solve the problem: We only need one gun control law: outlaw guns period except for law enforcement and military.
Well since that is unrealistic because the 2nd Amendment is NOT going to be repealed. What is your next plan?
SBinF
December 18th, 2012
5:11 pm
Christ, as a teacher I now have to attend firearms training in addition to my other duties?
Makes sense, the 3 R’s:
readin’, writin’, and revolvers
SBinF
December 18th, 2012
5:13 pm
“I’ve shed my share of tears over the CT tragedy and I’m also very angry. I’m a responsible person that enjoys sport shooting, pays my taxes and have never had as much as a speediing ticket yet feel like I have to defend my thoughts on my God given rights.”
Yes, God has granted us the right to owning as many firearms as possible, with as much capacity to kill as many as possible in a matter of minutes. I think it’s in Leviticus. Praise Jesus! God bless America, and nobody else!
td
December 18th, 2012
5:15 pm
BARON DEKALB
December 18th, 2012
4:02 pm
Solve: We have the 2nd Amendment to make sure that ordinary citizens’ rights to keep muzzle-loading, single-shot hunting rifles at home is not infringed. Got it?
Wrong, There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that talks about hunting or self protection rights.
Retired Soldier
December 18th, 2012
5:16 pm
curious-
There are already plenty of laws to keep guns out of “irresponsible” hands. What you are advocating is keeping guns out of responsible hands. That is an irresponsible position.
NoMoreRawDeal
December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm
All you Dems here calling for a ban on ‘assault weapons’: The deadliest mass shooting in US history – at Virginia Tech – was carried out by a man carrying only two handguns. He killed over 30 people.
Also: when a crazy person steals a car and proceeds to drive it into a crowd of people and kills 20 of them before the car stops, should we ban cars? It’s no different than a mass shooting. The intention is the same – to kill lots of people – only the tool is different.
smitty
December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm
We can afford to build these million dollars schools but can’t afford to secure them….
Diggins
December 18th, 2012
5:27 pm
Drunk drivers kill innocent people everyday. Don’t recall any debates on banning liquor.
RGB
December 18th, 2012
5:29 pm
“There are already plenty of laws to keep guns out of ‘irresponsible’ hands. What you are advocating is keeping guns out of responsible hands. That is an irresponsible position.”
Well said, Retired Soldier.
The statists who want to abolish the Second Amendment are the same ones that say we can’t do anything about illegal immigration. They say we couldn’t possibly find and “round-up” 12 million illegals. But now they say we should find and round-up 200 million firearms.
Liberals have trashed God, prayer, charitable giving, free enterprise, our Constitution, and our way of life. They have embraced abortion, taxpayer-funded contraceptives, medical marijuana, Hollywood’s violent movies, the growth of single-parent households, permissiveness, the drug culture, a war on religion, an expansionist, intrusive government, and indebtedness that will end our standard of living.
With a self-created, twisted society as the backdrop, the secularists propose the way to end gun violence is to take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
You’ll understand if I “Just Say No” since your track record in solving societal problems is abysmal. How’s that War on Poverty working for you?
ODD OWL
December 18th, 2012
5:33 pm
You don’t need the intellect of Einstein to figure out that we have a gun problem in this country… The best way to solve this problem is by banning all hand guns, ban all concealable guns… Ban all semi-automatic guns that are designed for killing humans… The only guns that should be legal are long rifles and shot guns with a maximum 5 shot capacity, that are designed for hunting game and target shooting…
NoMoreRawDeal
December 18th, 2012
5:33 pm
In keeping with RGB’s last question I’d like to add:
How’s that War on Drugs working for you?
How’s that War on Terror working for you?
How’s that War on Obeisity working for you?
Oh, I could go on all day…
Retired Soldier
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
Also well said RGB.
RGB
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
One more thought: Obamacare will kill more people on a daily basis than were killed in this recent tragedy. This will occur because of market distortions that will reduce both the quality of and access to medical care.
The difference is that the names of those whose lives are shortened by Obamacare will never be on TV for 6 days straight. And many will not be children.
Suddenly Democrats care about children now–as long as they make it through the gestation process and arrive safely at home.
NoMoreRawDeal
December 18th, 2012
5:35 pm
@ODD OWL:
From your statement I think it’s pretty obvious your intellect is nowhere near Einstein. More like Barney Rubble.
North resident
December 18th, 2012
5:36 pm
Christ, as a teacher I now have to attend firearms training in addition to my other duties?
No. But if there are other faculty members of your school who have the ability and wherewithal to attend firearms training and use the weapon in the event of an emergency, that would be sufficient.
As to collecting “registered guns”, guns aren’t registered in most states. Further, the only record of them might be a NICS background check at the point of transfer from an FFL. So Feds know what has been sold at some point in the past, but that is not an indication of where the firearm is currently.
Confiscating firearms from 80 MILLION households is no small feat.
To suggest that firearms have no business in this, or any other, society is to ignore the plight of every abused citizenry, from current day Syria to mid 18th century America. The only constant is that , eventually, all governments come to overstep their bounds.
Before the advent of guns, thugs formed gangs and terrorized the local populace, travelers, etc. Much like the gangs using twitter and facebook to descend on a store and rip them off. THAT is the fate of America without guns.
The SCOTUS ruled, in 2005, that the police have no duty to protect you. (Warren vs. DC and Castle Rock vs. Gonzolez). YOU are responsible for your own protection. Right now, your neighbor’s gun and the possibility that you might have a gun serve as a deterrent to anyone who might want to do you harm in your own home. There is a reason why these mentally ill idiots choose soft targets.
The AWB of 2004 limited hi cap magazines. EVERY SINGLE STUDY on the affect of that ban showed that banning hi cap magazines had ZERO affect on crime. If AWB worked, they would have worked in CA, IL, CT, NY, etc.
Retired Soldier
December 18th, 2012
5:36 pm
ODD OWL-
Can long guns and shotguns kill people? Why not ban them too. What an inane posting.
Monorail cat
December 18th, 2012
5:37 pm
To hear some of you guys talk about it, bans on things have no impact on people aquiring them. I guess this means you also support unlimited access to abortions and drugs! Right?
Retired Soldier
December 18th, 2012
5:40 pm
To the contary cat, bans do affect the lawful, not the unlawful.
td
December 18th, 2012
5:41 pm
ODD OWL
December 18th, 2012
5:33 pm
You don’t need the intellect of Einstein to figure out that we have a gun problem in this country… The best way to solve this problem is by banning all hand guns, ban all concealable guns… Ban all semi-automatic guns that are designed for killing humans… The only guns that should be legal are long rifles and shot guns with a maximum 5 shot capacity, that are designed for hunting game and target shooting
Please show me in the 2nd Amendment where it says we can keep and bear only hunting weapons?
RGB
December 18th, 2012
5:41 pm
Removing guns from law abiding citizens fits neatly with Obama crony Harry Belafonte’s belief expressed last week that everyone who disagrees with Obama should be imprisoned. See, people are easier to subdue, capture, imprison, and torture when they are unarmed.
Isn’t it great to be a liberal?
NoMoreRawDeal
December 18th, 2012
5:41 pm
@Monorail cat:
Well, I do, but I’m more libertarian than I am Republican. But in general yes, prohibitions – on anything – generally have little impact on a persons’ ability to acquire the prohibited item or perform a prohibited act.
North resident
December 18th, 2012
5:44 pm
To hear some of you guys talk about it, bans on things have no impact on people aquiring them. I guess this means you also support unlimited access to abortions and drugs! Right?
Bans on things have on impact on LAW ABIDING CITIZENS acquiring them. It makes no difference to criminals.
But to answer your question, I support first trimester abortions and legalizing most drugs. I care not one whit about meth heads killing themselves as long as I don’t have to wait for 30 minutes at the pharmacy to buy pseudofed when I have a cold.
td
December 18th, 2012
5:45 pm
RGB
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
“Suddenly Democrats care about children now–as long as they make it through the gestation process and arrive safely at home.”
It is nice to debate the 2nd Amendment on philosophical grounds but let us not fool ourselves. Democrats can say all they want that they are taking these stands to “protect children” but when 2000 children are killed each and everyday by their mother’s following the policies of the Democratic party their “save the children” stance is just a bunch of BS. It is all about getting rid of guns.
RGB
December 18th, 2012
5:47 pm
td
Yes sir. Precisely my point.
Idontgetit
December 18th, 2012
5:51 pm
Wasn’t the mother of the shooter considered ‘responsible’ by most standards? Shouldn’t certain guns have been kept out of her hands so she couldn’t have taught her (apparently) irresponsible son how to use them? Did she need a gun for protection in her safe town? We all see the results. And the answer is clear.
North resident
December 18th, 2012
6:01 pm
Idontgetit: you are right, there IS an issue here. The mother would have legally been considered responsible right up to the time she taught her mentally ill son to use a gun, and left a gun where he could access it. Yes, there is something there to be considered. But in the U.S. of A, we are innocent until proven guilty… even the mentally ill. Perhaps all gun owners should be required to keep their guns either on their person, or in a safe with a biometric lock? But that still wouldn’t help if the owner allowed their mentally ill children to access the safe. You can never legislate stupidity away. But it certainly IS the responsibility of gun owners to do everything they can to keep others from accessing their guns… a step the mother did not take.
Making the gun easily available to the owner, but to no one else, is the key. Even then… you can’t legislate common sense.
Monorail cat
December 18th, 2012
6:07 pm
To the contary cat, bans do affect the lawful, not the unlawful.
Exactly, Planned Parenthood appreciates yours and all other 2nd amendment maximalist support of unlimited access to abortions. Your membership card is in the mail.
Buckhead Boy
December 18th, 2012
6:21 pm
td, seems to me that the mother of the shooter had quite the little arsenal at her disposal, and she’s very dead too. I suppose, though, that the element of surprise is never taken into account by those who haven’t heard a loud angry shot, but foolishly advocate a solution lying in arming more people.
And, by the way, the Heller decision that discounted the prefatory clause and discerned the individual right was a 5-4 decision. That means that your individual right hangs by a thread — just one old man. Time for the gun-happy to be prudently reasonable, don’t you think?
CONS The Party of the Bushmaster
December 18th, 2012
6:39 pm
WHY should the NRA care?
It wasn’t their children that were MURDERED.
CONS The Party of the Bushmaster
December 18th, 2012
6:46 pm
@td
December 18th, 2012
5:45 pm
RGB
December 18th, 2012
5:34 pm
“Suddenly Democrats care about children now–as long as they make it through the gestation process and arrive safely at home.”
2000 children are killed each and everyday by their mother’s following the policies of the Democratic party their “save the children” stance is just a bunch of BS.
It is all about getting rid of guns.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is the GOP stance?
KILL the children that are alive with the Bushmaster?
RGB
December 18th, 2012
6:48 pm
The NRA did not kill the children.
The NRA teaches gun safety courses (Eddie Eagle) to hundreds of thousands of children and teaches women and the elderly “How Not to be a Victim” through its educational endeavors.
Abolishing the NRA (which would be removing their First Amendment rights) would not have stopped these killings.
The laws and measures that people such as Dianne Feinstein propose would not have prevented this tragedy. So if none of the measures proposed would have prevented the problem, what is your purpose in supporting such nonsensical measures? Do you just want to feeeeel like you are doing something?
Liberals do this all the time. With their proposed tax measures they acknowledge that taxing the upper income families won’t do anything to reduce the deficit. When asked why, then, would he support such a measure, President Obama replied “fairness”.
Liberals don’t aim to solve problems. They never do. Their aim is to abolish the Constitution one inconvenient amendment at a time so as to consolidate their power.
The Columbine shooting happened smack in the middle of the earlier “assault” weapons ban. It did nothing.
Do you propose we do something that accomplishes nothing again?
DDS
December 18th, 2012
6:54 pm
I have read most of the above posts. Not all of them to be sure. Some of them made my head hurt. Some were downright hilarious. Pretty much par for the course for an internet flame war.
But what you are discussing is serious business, not adolescent word games.
Many years ago this republic was established by men who had just fought a bloody eight year war against their own government for the right to decide their own fate without having it dictated by a king. Many of their fellows died in the struggle. In the process, they had to, in some cases, fight and kill their own neighbors and kin. Do not trivialize what they had to go through so you could enjoy the ability to vent on this blog.
In an attempt to make sure you and their other decendants did not have to repeat the process, they added a Bill of Rights to the constitution in an attempt to limit the power of their new government. There is a preamble document that goes with that Bill of Rights that explains why they added it. That preamble is rarely covered in American schools because many feel it is no longer “Politically Correct”. I’m going to suggest that you look it up and read it carefully before you attempt to “improve” the system they created.
I’m also going to suggest you research te various groups in this country that take defence of the founders republic very seriously. They believe that the current state of our government is unsustainable. Even if you disagree with them, and I’m sure many of you do. You must remember that they are not only willing to fight for it or willing to die for it. They are willing to kill any who threaten it. Unless you are willing to go toe to toe with them in a combat situation you had best consider carefully what you urge your government to do in the next days and weeks.
Raw emotion, like you have vented above, makes for very poor legidlation, but is extremely useful for provokeing a civil war.
Unless you can put 20 rounds into a man sized target at 500 meters in under a minute, you may not want to go there. You are not ready.
They are.
Molon Labe!
CC
December 18th, 2012
7:17 pm
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
—Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
CC
December 18th, 2012
7:23 pm
Here is the text of the NRA statement on the Connecticut school shootings, released Tuesday Dec. 18.
NRA STATEMENT
The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.
Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.
The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.
The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.
Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.
Source: NRA
you dont say
December 18th, 2012
7:29 pm
TD
You rant and rave about abortion, yet I have never read where you did any of the following:
1. Counseled those seeking an abortion
2. Working in a woman’s shelters
3. adopting kids
Maybe you have posted it or did it. I hope so. Or are you just doing what you do best? diarrhea at the mouth
Carl
December 18th, 2012
7:38 pm
What gun control legislation woulod have prevented this?
CC
December 18th, 2012
7:48 pm
Buckhead Boy:
“That means that your individual right hangs by a thread — just one old man.”
Are you so foolish as to think that YOUR rights as a citizen of this country would not be endangered by a ruling against the Second Amendment? If you abrogate one of the rights PROTECTED by the Constitution, what prevents the further usurpation of all of our “unalienable rights”? It would be a prudent thing to think through what is being advocated primarily by liberals before signing on for the entire tour.
you dont say
December 18th, 2012
8:03 pm
CC
Are the majority of Democrats advocating the doing away with the 2nd amendment?
Can you post that substantiated information? Is it elected Democrats? Those who tend to vote Democrat?
Post that information.
Thanks
wise willie
December 18th, 2012
8:06 pm
Enter your comments here
Lee
December 18th, 2012
8:08 pm
So, if Adam Lanza had taken his mother’s car and drove it through the school playground, running down and killing 26 children, would we be having a conversation about banning cars?
No, I din’t think so either.
Old Hippie
December 18th, 2012
8:15 pm
Do lawmakers REALLY want to arm teachers after their assaults on teacher unions? Somebody needs to rethink this stupid idea, just out of self-preservation.
you dont say
December 18th, 2012
8:24 pm
cc is a big baby unless td or his buddies at Wingfields can protect him?
hgahahahahahahahaha
td
December 18th, 2012
8:24 pm
you dont say
December 18th, 2012
7:29 pm
Well I did state I did a stint at DFCS right after college. Now what do you do for a living?
Whether I have done these things you mentioned or not does not reduce the fact that there are 2000 mothers in this country that kill their unborn each and everyday.
CC
December 18th, 2012
8:27 pm
you dont say:
“Are the majority of Democrats advocating the doing away with the 2nd amendment?”
I have no idea, and I didn’t use the word “Democrat” anywhere in my post, did I?
“Can you post that substantiated information?”
Substantiated information about Democrats? No, again I state: I did not reference “Democrats” a single time in my post.
“Is it elected Democrats? “
Haven’t a clue as to whether they are Democrats, zebras or aardvarks . . .
“Those who tend to vote Democrat?”
Same answer as above . . .
“Post that information.”
You’re boring me.
wise willie
December 18th, 2012
8:30 pm
strong family structured society. We are finally reaping pay-back for rejecting God and His Word.America has become a cursed nation and, rightfully so.
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
8:34 pm
Me:” @ Solve the problem: We only need one gun control law: outlaw guns period except for law enforcement and military.”
td: “Well since that is unrealistic because the 2nd Amendment is NOT going to be repealed. What is your next plan?”
I’m not so naive nor idealistic to think that even a democratic super majority would repeal this. But, yet I feel compelled to share my opinion as many of you on where we should be going as a culture. In lieu of an unforeseen cultural shift, I have some ideas:
1. Must register fire arms federally. In order to qualify, you must be 21 (brain doesn’t finish developing until around 25 or so, so the longer wait, the better), have no felonies, and undergo a psychological examination. Licenses renewable every 4-5 years. On top of whatever requirements are in place now. Grandfather in anyone 18-20 already registered.
2. Require a fairly expensive training course. It costs a LOT of money to get a driver’s license in some other countries, like France. This is a one time fee, on the order of about $1000.
2. Can only have 2 rifles and 1 pistol.
3. Ban assault rifles and flak jackets/vests.
4. Ban ALL civilian weapons with magazines. Yes, that’s right. Hunters don’t need to fire more than a few shots and unless you are acting in a movie, one pistol is enough to protect yourself. Make it as hard as possible to fire insane amounts of rounds in a short period of time. Give a tax credit for enough to purchase a new replacement weapon. Give out hefty fines and possibly felonies for those who are found with illegal weapons.
I know this won’t magically make bad guys go away, and it would take a while to dilute the newly-illegal gun population. But, it’s a start anyway. What is your idea? Status quo?
CC
December 18th, 2012
8:36 pm
you dont say:
“hgahahahahahahahaha”
Probably the most intelligent thing you’ve posted – ever – and you couldn’t even correctly spell the gibberish. Why would anyone have any higher expectation from a poster who can’t put an apostrophe in a contraction?
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
8:40 pm
Also, I find it sad and hilarious how some people threaten civil war over this issue. Um, who exactly are you going to fight? Just curious how that would work. Please describe it in detail for us.
MiltonMan
December 18th, 2012
8:49 pm
Too bad we did not see the idiot Hank Johnson & his reference to midgets.
you dont say
December 18th, 2012
8:49 pm
cc
BOOOO
And you couldn’t refute the post because of the truthfulness of it.
You are a weak minded no serving coward who hides behind other bloggers
Heck, what am I saying that you don’t know about you? You see you in the mirror daily
you dont say
December 18th, 2012
8:50 pm
MitlonMan
The mighty mental midget from Milton……….
Hey little buddy
td
December 18th, 2012
8:53 pm
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
8:34 pm
I believe I would have to work hard to oppose any of those idea on per principle grounds.
I would support the raising of taxes (huge step for a conservative) on all violent movies, games, internet sites and TV to pay for armed security officers at every school. Maybe those military vets that have come back from serving the country and can not find jobs now.
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
9:03 pm
On the principle of what? Tax on video games and movies? LOL. It’s the old guns don’t kill people, video games kill people argument. Nice.
td
December 18th, 2012
9:12 pm
MoFaux
December 18th, 2012
9:03 pm
On the principle of what?
I guess you have not been actually reading the pro gun rights post about the 2nd Amendment to ask this question. So sad for you.
video games like guns do not kill people. People kill people. They do, according to many studies, contribute to anti social behavior traits if played extensively. You better take this offer and run because none of the items you have mentioned will not happen anytime soon.
Pizzaman
December 18th, 2012
9:14 pm
Kingston, nra, huckelbee., the idiot from TX who said the Principal should have had an ar-4 and all supporters of weapons on mass destruction aren’t “worth the powder and shot to blow them to hell” as my Great Grandfather, a Civil Wasr Vet, always said.
Fed Up
December 18th, 2012
9:21 pm
The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear a muzzle-loading blunderbuss…
td
December 18th, 2012
9:31 pm
Fed Up
December 18th, 2012
9:21 pm
The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear a muzzle-loading blunderbuss…
I do not even think you believe that nonsense.
hiram
December 18th, 2012
11:19 pm
cc/td
Did you listen to Rush’s profound analysis of the devil Democrats today? Do you feel a lot smarter? I noticed that you’ve even been tutoring other posters on the correct use of the English language tonight. That’s why they pay Rush the big bucks.
td
December 18th, 2012
11:26 pm
hiram
December 18th, 2012
11:19 pm
Have not listened to Rush in a few weeks. Tell us all about his great commentary. I am sure it was awesome as normal fro him.
Not Blind
December 18th, 2012
11:41 pm
The only problem we have with guns is due to mental defectives and criminals. Taking away constitutional rights from the law abiding citizens does nothing to address the real problem.
luangtom
December 19th, 2012
12:09 am
Let us first look at what laws we have on the books and what they did to stop the shootings in CT. The first one that comes to mind is the “Gun-Free Zone” around schools in this country. It is an open invitation to perpetrators. Look at the frequency of armed-robbery around our own GA-Tech. It is a gun-free zone. It does not work. Where have all of the mass-shootings occurred in recent history? Gun-Free Zones”. Movie-theaters are such zones, schools are, most malls are. This should be the first law under scrutiny.
Next, why did this CT shooter have access to firearms, when it is already against the law? He killed his mother, with whom he resided. She should NOT have had firearms in the home if he, a certified patient, was going to reside there.
Next, why are so few legislators questioning why Federal funding, that had already been in place, was cut for school-security and school-police? A school district having armed law-enforcement on-site is not out of the question. It already occurs in many school districts.
If drunk-driving goes up in GA next year, is the population going to demand banning automobiles, for the sake of the children? Why do we always hear of people demanding inanimate objects be banned and nothing is said of the social or behavioral problems that exist and are never addressed?
We need some common-sense discussion, for sure. We will never get it when both sides feel they need to be the “victor” in the matter.
Big Hat
December 19th, 2012
12:53 am
When we all have guns, we won’t need cops…or judges, sherifs, courthouses, prisons or lawyers. Think of the cost savings to government. We won’t need government, we’ll just settle problems the American way, the right way, the old-fashioned way, with lots and lots of guns. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say 2nd Amendment now, 2nd Amendment tomorrow, 2nd Amendment forever.
Attack Dog
December 19th, 2012
5:57 am
11-bullets into the body of one six year old is called protecting one’s freedom?
Attack Dog
December 19th, 2012
6:03 am
Why is it that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is always left out of Dixiecans’ discussion about the second amendment? With the emphasis on “regulated.”
Not Blind
December 19th, 2012
6:37 am
Attack Dog, the gun didn’t decide to shoot that child or any other child.
Buckhead Boy
December 19th, 2012
6:57 am
CC, you asked me, “Are you so foolish as to think that YOUR rights as a citizen of this country would not be endangered by a ruling against the Second Amendment?”
Obviously you failed to understand my post. There have always been two theories of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment: (1) that it provides collective protection for keeping and bearing arms and (2) that it provides individual protection. Ascribing to the first, I consider Heller “a ruling against” the Amendment, and overturning that mis-guided decision would be a ruling in favor of the Amendment. Maybe it is you who should invest a little time in thinking through things, particularly in view of your abysmal record in predicting elections.
USC-69
December 19th, 2012
7:19 am
As pointed out by Schneider and Suggs elsewhere in the AJC (front page, 12/19/12), the U.S. congress has worked hard to block research into the value or risk of handgun ownership. A very nice peer-reviewed study was published from the city hospital in Seattle (Harborview) proving that the purchase of a handgun is associated with a statistically significant higher risk of being murdered or committing suicide. When investigators were recruited to Emory University to confirm this data at Grady, the project was immediately blocked by politicians. The fact is that gun manufacturers and Hedgefund stock holders are enjoying immense wealth at the expense of American civilization, safety, and peace. It is time for serious people to take charge.
Wondering
December 19th, 2012
8:08 am
Lanza was not only autistic but it sounds like he had other issues. As a 17 year old, he had spent years exposed to violent games during brain development. He had socialization issues and might have other mental illness issues. He should not have had access to a gun much less guns.
Lanza’s Mother was trying to get him committed but of course she couldn’t do that without his knowledge (his civil rights). This made him angry and probably confused. She was trying to do the right thing. In the mean time, his mind had been desensitized to violence. He acted.
Ever since Geraldo Rivera did his award winning reporting about Willowbrook State School, states have ducked the issues of mental health, and the mentally ill are left to the best or worst intentions of their families. The original goal was to eliminate the warehousing of the mentally ill but instead we defunded the schools as well as the proposed solutions of community based services. The results are that the mentally ill are mostly untreated in our country.
Take a young, developing mind. Add mental illness and a mental disability. Combine that with hours of playing violent video games. Great formula to make a killer. If you don’t believe me, ask our military about video training of soldiers. Lt. Col. David Grossmam, a West Point Psychology Professor has written several books on the subject.
It’s easy to point fingers at gun laws but it doesn’t focus on the entire problem. We have seen people use hammers, knifes, home made bombs, etc. We really need to stregthen our mental health system and restrict minors access to violent video content much as we do sexual content.
Mrs. Lanza was trying to get her son help, but allowing him to become enamored with violence and providing him with access to guns had tragic consequences. The guns should have been locked up, the violent media should have been removed from the house, and she needed help managing her son.
MoFaux
December 19th, 2012
8:34 am
td: “I guess you have not been actually reading the pro gun rights post about the 2nd Amendment to ask this question. So sad for you.”
Yep, I read most of them. So far, I have yet to understand the principle involved. Just like you don’t understand my principle reason. The bible talked about raping women being ok and slavery too, but over the millenia, we have understood that those things are not ok. Ditto on gun control and the 2nd amendment. I think paranoia of gov’t takeover is a silly reason to keep bad policy intact.
“video games like guns do not kill people. People kill people. They do, according to many studies, contribute to anti social behavior traits if played extensively. You better take this offer and run because none of the items you have mentioned will not happen anytime soon.”
What study? This has never been proven conclusively. Millions of people play these games, the world over, yet thankfully, mass murders are rare. Bad parenting is a legitimate issue, but not video games. Good parents teach their kids right from wrong. I played more than my fair share of violent video games, but yet somehow, was never drawn to violence in the real world. Being *slightly* more anti-social due to playing video games does not make one a potential mass murderer. Mental health is definitely part of this as well. But, it is beyond the pale to suggest that smart gun control is secondary to video games.
Don't Tread
December 19th, 2012
9:45 am
If guns are the problem, why is everybody in Switzerland not dead? EVERY household has a full-auto military-spec rifle and ammunition for it.
) and ammunition everywhere, and dozens of unarmed customers anytime the store is open.
If guns are the problem, how many mass shootings have ever occurred in a gun store? There are armed people in there, guns (including, gasp, MANY of those evil black rifles!
The fact is, most people who do these things are cowards who weren’t brought up right as children (and/or have mental problems) and pick so-called “gun-free zones” to make sure they are the only ones with a gun when they begin.
John Lott got it right (and it’s interesting to note that he was a rabid gun control advocate until he actually did his research). Texas gets it right. Gwinnett County is at least making an effort at some real school protection.
Liberals, with their emotional arguments, are wrong, as usual.
you dont say
December 19th, 2012
10:14 am
Don’t tread
Texas as a low per capita murder rate as compared the the US.
yellowdog
December 19th, 2012
10:40 am
same people shouting about 2nd amendment and blaming mental illness do not allow for funding for help with mental illness what are we talking about? always gun rights……why did sale of guns surge after this killing? what kind of crazy logic is that? shame on us…….
ANGRY AS HELL
December 19th, 2012
11:05 am
Facts make a difference in a sober discussion. The facts are that the USA is the most violent developed country in the world. We kill each other at rates some estimate to be somewhere between 20 to 30 times greater than other developed nations around the globe. Why is that? Because we are a people who have had almost unlimited access to all types of firearms. Why is that? Because we have an Amendment to our Constitution which many of us kneel before and pray to. It’s time to put some sanity (not Hannity) into the discussion. Anytime someone suggests limits or restrictions on access to firearms, we have NRA spokespersons coming out of the woodwork like roaches accusing proponents of these restrictions of being anti-American, Communists, and other unmentionable names. Well, I say, to hell with NRA and any irresponsible member of that organization who can justify the massacre of 20 children and 6 of their educators because of what our so-called “”Founding Fathers” penned approximately 330 years ago. While I personally think it’s unfortunate we are held captive by the Second Amendment, I also recognize we will never, ever be able to strike that language from our Constitution. So be it. However, it should not preclude us from imposing punishing fines and even jail time to any gun dealer or gun owner who violates stricter restrictions on the types and quantity of weaponry we allow in our society.
Rafe Hollister
December 19th, 2012
11:05 am
Guns that fire 100’s of rounds per minute? How do you argue with people that have no knowledge of firearms. Automatic weapons have been outlawed since the 60’s.
If the second amendment only covers muskets, then the first only covers handwriting and soap box speeches.
Millions of firearms sit at home all alone everyday, never killing anyone, threatening anyone, or causing any harm. Why do you libs think we should outlaw them, because of their potential. Most anything that exists has the potential to cause death and tragedy if misused. Simple solutions to complex problems, the liberal way. Tax the rich, ban firearms, spend more on schools, shut down our energy producers, harness the sun, provide national health care, blah, blah, none of them solve the problems, just make liberals feel like they are doing something.
RJ
December 19th, 2012
11:25 am
Oh, this is just soooooo easy. Just let capitalism win – require every gun owner to purchase an insurance policy on that gun – $10,000.00/year premium for EVERY SINGLE GUN YOU OWN.
Sooooo, soooo easy!
I have to pay extra on my homeowner’s policy for a dangerous DOG, why not a dangerous GUN?
Done.