While a world without guns would necessarily be a better world Tom...if you read what I wrote you won't see that was my proposition. You are talking to someone else evidently. If muzzleloaders were the sort of weapon people were lugging around I don't think a kid could slide into a school with one under his coat. It's not 1791. Laws have to keep up with changes in society, culture, technology, and be adapted to protect our people. These children were clearly not protected nor are any. Propose to me, if you will, the sort of scenario you see that would have prevented this. More guns? Who would be carrying them? Should all grade school teachers be required to carry guns Tom? Should the administration all be packing? How about boxes on the walls with loaded weapons and a break in case of emergency sign on them? Maybe the kids should be armed Tom. Tell me your solution here.....

They make 45 cal muzzle loaders in a pistol with a 6 shot revolver. Do we ban gasoline and matches? The real issue here is our society does nothing for the mentally ill, even when we commit them they sign out in a few days.
OJ used knifes.
Timothy McVeigh used diesel fuel and fertilizer.
300 million weapons are in the hands of Americans, it will be impossible to get them all back.

Maybe they should ban the psychotropic drugs that have been linked to causing violence instead.

Making it illegal for law abiding citizens to have guns will not end the evil in this world.

Brian you sound like an emotive whiney immature teenager.

@The Man -- Partisan ad hominems are not at all helpful. Get back to your corner and put a sock in it.

Randy1949 when you and your kind can debate using logic I will certainly treat you like adults, until that time, you are all acting like children.

Remember, The worst school killing in US history was done with a bomb. In 1927.
When machine guns were legal.

And Tom, were pretty much sick of people like you who act like nothing can be dine.

The killing of these kids is the tipping point and from here you'll see a turn around on public views about guns.

As for McVeigh, after the bombing purchasers of quantities of these kind of chemicals are investigated.

Stop making excuses for this insanity. Be the solution rather than the problem.

@Brian
You stated we will not be able to defend ourselves from the most powerful military on the face of the earth with a bunch of disorganized private gun owners, most of them seriously untrained in modern combat should the government ever go repressive. The citizens of America are the most powerful military on the face of the earth, not the governments army. I'll tell you why.....
The world's largest army... America 's hunters! There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined. These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed. That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more. Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer, it's a matter of national security. That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

If we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain... What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

@The Man -- Before including me with those who are 'all acting like children' you might want to read what I've said in this thread. That is all.

Tom...go kill the deer. Just dont use a Glock or an assault weapon ok? Did I talk about hunting here? Read before you write please.

The .223 "assault rifle" was never used Brian.....only pistols.

Tom.... I square it by pointing out that eighteen children had human rights that clearly were not served in the culture and government run by the adults. I do not see gun law protecting us as it stands. I don't see the mass proliferation of weapons protecting us anymore than the nuclear weapon proliferation protected us. I see it as relatively suicidal and that the mindset of those who support this medieval thinking also is critically dangerous. You believe this mother had a right to buy 9mm handguns to protect herself. She is dead at the hand of her son who used her weapons against her and then took them to kill children. He could not legally buy those weapons in that state but she could. She didn't, however, assure that she would be the only one with access. And why two 9mms?

And stripping the people who otherwise could have saved those lives of the right to do so helped protect the human rights of those 20 children how?

CT has one of the strongest weapons laws in the country. (FYI)

Tom Kamenick...How did people defend their lives before guns were invented? They either ran away or they fought hand to hand with whatever weapon was available to them (usually a club or knife) If a troublemaker who is hearing things gets into a school, I'd prefer he was armed with a club rather than a gun.

UP I addressed myself to an issue...guns and gun control. Why do you imagine that I am attacking all amendments? It's a straw man question as was Toms.... Distorting what I said or trying to put words in my mouth that aren't there will not take you far on a blog.

We should ban all knives too! /sarc

Children being slaughtered by the dozens in the last two years alone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)

@Urban Pioneer
Three cheers for you, I was thinking the same thing.

UP outstanding point, he just will never get it! Because this is how he feels, doesn't matter what other groups are against. As for the most powerful Military in the world, whats your frame of reference? why havn't we defeated our enemies in Afganistan? What happened in Viet Nam. I served my country I've seen combat, personally don't like guns, but it is a right and how do you suggest we go about collecting over 100 million weapons in this country? You would have many human right violation giving the government authority to round them up, silly you!!!!

Agreed.

I have spell check when I type comments.

Agreed, it's "amendment" not "ammendment." At least BC is consistent, he misspelled it the same three times.

That is your assumption Tom. I believe the amendment needs revision. God didn't write it. People did and it no longer serves as written.

Kenn, how did you spend your twenty four hours. I hate gun violence Kenn...it sickens me. When the sIhks were slaughtered in our own community or when the salon shootings happened here I was as sickened. Nothing changes. The gun lobby has a lock on the balls of our senators and congressmen.... Not sure how the ladies all voted on gun legislation. Mnufacturers continue to make fortunes designing killing machines. The new step is robotic killing machines that are autonomous Kenn. It doenst end. We seemed to learn little from the arms race... Perhaps the most obscene involvement human kind has concocted. Meanwhile people prefer to think in medieval paradigms, tribal even. I am not turning these children into anything Kenn. I am speaking up about a huge problem in our world. You are speaking up as well and I appreciate your input.

Yes, teachers can go crazy or evil, too. But there's nothing currently stopping such a teacher tomorrow from bringing a gun to school and killing, either. Another teacher with a gun could.

@Craig -- Armed school security officers was Rudy Giuliani's suggestion yesterday. It makes more sense than having Mr. Chips and our Miss Brooks packing heat. But it would cost money.

This sets a new bar for stupid comments.

Edward, let me ask - exactly how many children would need to be slain in a single attack for you to take gun control seriously? We know that 20 isn't enough for you, so how many would be?

Or is it the case that you see the occasional mass shooting as an acceptable price to pay for living in a society where anyone without a criminal record can get a pistol in two days? In that case, at least be consistent, and write a nice letter to the parents, thanking them for sacrificing their children to your NRA idol. Ass.

Tao, I'm not even going to dignify your ridiculous spit with any mental activity.

Eddie, that's because the mental activity involved would run the risk of shattering the fragile ideological edifice to which you've outsourced all of your ethical decision making. Come on, be a brave man and answer the question.

I would prefer a gun to defend myself against anything.

And you're not taking it away from me.

EW you didn't answer the question.

Ed he did ask you such a nice false choice question? Nice work Brian

None of it. You completely missed my point.

But if I had my way, for fun, I'd silence your right to free speech in this case. Smh

Tan sandy... Two hundred million people were killed last century by wars or military conflict. laid end to end, I figured you could wrap the equator over six times with that many dead bodies. Look up "straw man" argument. Stick with the topic if possible. There are all sorts of accidental manners of dying so may I just say to all of you with this type of response.... I am not talking about banning TVs, ice on the sidewalk, automobile, etc.... I don't hate guns. Reply to what I write please... I hate gun violence. I think the amendment need revision.

"Stick on topc, reply to what I write," That's the standard reply when you can't or won't answer my question. And Brian, when the topic of war suddenly appear here. Dance for me Mr. Bojangles!!!

The a,end meant will never be "amended"

You have no idea the implications of opening the document that's served us over 220 years

Adam...again the straw person argument. I cant respond to every one of these. Stay on topic if you want interaction.

Actually Brian, this is an accurate representation of your logic divested of its overwrought emotional context. You seek to control the malevolent side of the human condition by limiting the means through which it can be exerted; a fool's errand.

The sociopath in this case could have plowed his mother's SUV into a group of children waiting for the school bus. Instead he chose an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle mechanically similar to a hunting rifle to do his killing.

Love of guns was not his motivation and he was not criminally insane as in too delusional to know right from wrong. He shot his mother in the face then drove to a school neither of them had anything to do with to kill innocent children.

That meets my standard for evil, and a gun is still the best way to stop an evil psychopath. Like the poor, the mentally ill will always be with us. That doesn't justify depriving me of my money or the natural and constitutional right to defend myself.

It's not a straw person argument, BC.

You clearly don't know the meaning of the words, to paraphrase a famous Spaniard.

I think your points are cogent and agree that the problem is multi tiered. I doubt however that too many of the CT parents would agree that gun laws are not part of this problem. Yes...by all means...the models set for children by tV, video gems that are essentially combat simulators, movies, etc...feed into this type of event. Parents watching this type of entertainment in front of young kids tacitlly are saying.... Yeah this is interesting, titillating...etc.... As readily as if they were looking at porno in front of their kids.

Your problem is thinking that people killing each other is a "problem" that can be "solved".

In my world, I don't see government action as solution to problems, I see them as tradeoffs. Gun control advocates refuse to acknowledge that trying to control guns is counterproductive. Disarming law-abiding citizens only makes them easier prey for those who want to sow chaos.

You have absolutely zero proof that gun control laws have had a net positive effect on safety here in America. I can show you several studies finding the opposite (starting with Trent Lott). How callous can you be to support laws that have the exact opposite effect you want to see? Your willingness to ignore reality makes me think your real concern is feeling good about trying to "do something" reflexively and feeling superior because of it. Read Thomas Sowell's "Vision of the Anointed."

Brian: For the most part we agree. I do think this is a systemic problem with our society. We medicate mentally ill people, and seem shocked when they stop taking the meds and do something horrible.
I think we need to address the root cause here which must be mental illness. We no longer lock people up in nuthouses until they do harm to others. On any given day, we can run into someone who is clearly hearing voices- but they are free to walk the streets. I'm not a shrink, but I would doubt anyone who is sane would kill 20 five year olds. If the family knew he was sick, what can they do under the law? Usually nothing.

Randy...I don't think it's another issue...it's very much to the point. This woman had a right to buy some fantastic killing machines, presumably, to protect herself from someone. Sheisndead by the hand of her son, who could not havE legally acquired them who used them to kill her and then to kill twenty six other people. VEry much to the point. Te law abiding citizen couldn't control the guns she had taken responsibility for. Eighteen sets of parents wish she had locked them up.

Again...you folks keep talking about total bans...where did I suggest this? You are distorting what I said or didn't read it to make points that have nothing to do with what I have said.

"To hell with the Second Amendment' can be ambiguous if you aren't in favor of a total gun ban. Bear in mind, I don't like guns and I don't own one. But I do like a government that treats me like an adult -- which covers both the right to speak my mind without being imprisoned and to have a weapon if I feel the need.

I think we could regulate the purchase and ownership of firearms within the Second Amendment as it already exists, but that still wouldn't prevent incidents like the one yesterday. We might better focus on what leads individuals to commit such violence.

Randy: Amen

Except gun control in America has increased, rather than decreased, violence and deaths. Do you think D.C. and Chicago are safe places to live with their incredibly strict gun control laws?

Gun training, background checks, and waiting periods do not help when the weapons are stolen and used for harm by sick people.

I don't think that incident means that the ones with guns have no significance.

I'll ask again. Why do you support policies that have the exact opposite effect as your purported goal? If you can't do that, I stand by my analysis of your fundamental motives.

Bren... Cogent points.

Brian wrote: "Bren... Cogent points."

Not really!

In the 221 years since the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution, human beings have not changed that much. We still have violent dictators (Saddam, Kaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Kim Jong-un...) We also still have individuals with evil thoughts, Newtown being only the latest, unfortunately.

As Bren pointed out in another blog: "...One never hears about armed gunmen entering a shooting range or police station and opening fire. No, it always seems to be the places where guns are least likely to be..."

It is a lot easier to buy gasoline and matches than any weapon, handgun or rifle. Should we ban those?

I think we need to add water to that list. You can purposely drown someone.

The second amendment is not obsolete because natural human rights are not invalidated by a standing army or the passage of time. The 2nd enshrines the first law of nature, the individual and collective right to self-defense. It doesn't "grant" this pre-existing right or turn it into a states right exclusive to a national guard. The founders intended to keep arms for the preservation of the republic and their persons.

James Madison proposed an amendment that read "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." Would you interpret this to mean a collective right to free speech is satisfied by state run media?

The rights of conscience in matters of religion, freedom of thought and expression, assembling to consult their common good and relief FROM government were codified in the 1st amendment to the constitution. It's easy to forget in a day when 48 million Americans depend on food stamps and a majority believes the government should provide them with everything they need that the country was founded on the idea of limited power for the state and maximum liberty for citizens.

It really is time to stop apologizing for the NRA. Thanks to this well-funded special interest group there are deadly, near-military grade weapons in the hands of people who are mentally and physically unfit to have them. Yes, murders were committed before the invention of guns. But as has been pointed out, it's a lot more difficult to kill someone with a knife or other object because it requires a lot more "hands-on" interaction, also the possibility of the victim fighting back.

Craig, Anti, please think through your responses a bit. Were gasoline, matches, and water created with the specific purpose of wounding/killing a living creature? That's the difference between guns and the other objects you mention. Even a knife is created with a different intent.

Adam, my intention in using the term obsolete in reference to the Second and Third Amendments is that with the creation of a standing military there is no need for the citizenry to be expected to amass for the purpose of national defense, nor to house and feed mercenaries. These amendments were specifically written to address two major complaints about British rule; the difficulty for citizens to arm themselves for the Revolution because of rules set to preclude that event, and the forced billeting of British and mercenary soldiers upon the citizenry.

As I wrote, the Second Amendment has been parsed and I would add, perverted from its original intent.

Brian, are you including things like knives, ropes, baseball bats, lead pipes, and candlesticks?

I honestly don't have any interest in understanding your point of view Mr Carlson, I know it already and it is complete jibberish. you go your way, I'll go mine and will be safe as I conceal carry to protect others from pure evil. Good luck reasoning with evil when you encounter it.

ie, your points make logical sense and do not vibe with my feminine emotions at the moment.

Brian wrote: "...I have addressed this many times..."
Yes, and despite the fact it has been responded to just as many, if not more, YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!!!

R Head.... Completely with you there on the drone strikes. Eventually there is a way to make the governments more people friendly. We happen to live in an empire. Consequently, the task is more challenging here. If people get tired of the government spending trillions attacking countries in a perpetual unwinnable war, a war with no stated goals or timetables, if they tire of seeing Americans die and, ten years later no evident improvement in the relationships between the countries, if they wonder at the billions made by the war profiteers, etc., if, in fact the propaganda is countered by the statement of facts and research and the lies are shown for what they are...we will change this country for the better. If not, we go on in the same fashion, building empire, feeding the multi national corporations, and bilking the citizens of trillions that could have bought so many positive things. My decision is to work on the side of change regardless.

B. Hussein Obama told the American people that Al Queda was decimated. I do not care if we kill one leader of Al Queda or hundreds, the collateral damage of women and children who are likely related to the target is good. Genocide has advantages in this case. Drone attacks are a little off topic though.....

The Drones show that the United States is a bloodthirsty Rogue Nation of Natural Born Killers. Our Leaders set the example - in their indiscriminate and illegal drone warfare. Clearly - it isn't a problem - so, neither should gun ownership be a problem. The Law simply needs to deal with rogue individuals - that is all. We operate on a balance of terror. Everyone should participate and own a gun.

I appreciate your posts on this violence. It makes me wonder what he thinks as he speaks to the families of the dead children here, and returns to his office to continue this drone program. Drones are terror machines. Imagine them flying over your neighborhood, watching your every move, piloted by strangers half a world away who may fire on you for any reason at any time. Imagine your children living with such a reality in their skies.

Nuit...my condolences mean nothing and do nothing for the parents and families of the dead. The children were not served by their culture. Adults need to put their heads together, first get them out of complacence, apathy, and impotence, and figure out how to make this country and world a safer place. Prayers and thoughts, particularly those that are never made, also do nothing. I am not posing for Patch. Activism means speaking out... actually doing something. In a few days or two weeks at most, other bad news will drown this story out. Think about the SIhks now. The spa shootings. There seems to be no limit to what we are able to effectively sleep through.

Brian, you and all your other peaceniks can make all the laws and hang all the signs on buildings you want, but it will never stop gun violence. At least you get to vent such pointless ideas on here though.

R Head....I did a blog on drones recently and find the facts as horrific and shameful as do you. It is terrorism and we are following it by quickly assembling robotic killing machines that will be fully autonomous.... The next level of nightmarish hell we have concocted.

"I don't care about those who hold that we need to be able to defend ourselves from a potentially repressive government. You will not be able to defend yourself from the most powerful military on the face of the earth with a bunch of disorganized private gun owners, most of them seriously untrained in modern combat should the government ever go repressive. "

I don't know how you can say that when the US - in violation of International Law murders people in foreign nations everyday.

ISLAMABAD: Speakers and participants at a seminar on Tuesday agreed with a delegation of US anti-war activists visiting Pakistan at the Institute of Policy Studies that the US drone strikes in Pakistan were a clear violation of international laws, human rights and depict an absence of conscience among the strategy leaders in both the US and Pakistan.

Mary Ann Wright, member of the delegation and former US Army colonel and diplomat, termed drones the “personal execution device” of the US president and said that President Obama was directly responsible for the US drone operations in any part of the world, which were sanctioned by him every week.

She said that through drone strikes were in violation of international laws, even US constitution and laws itself, and all the concepts of conduct of war formed in the wake of the World War II.

“Unfortunately, our president has chosen the role of chief executioner in United States”, she deplored.

* US peace team member terms drones ‘personal execution device’ of US president

* Group aims at making all possible efforts to stop US government from illegal use of force

He said that the national security doctrine in the US did not allow media to report freely on the US atrocities in the so-called war on terror and its drone operations that have killed and maimed thousands of innocent people. He deplored that when drone operations were initiated in Pakistan it was in connivance with then government and unfortunately the present democratic government was also towing the same line.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\10\03\story_3-10-2012_pg7_15

The United States is a Rogue Nation

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry has bluntly rejected claims by the Obama administration that it tacitly approves CIA drone strikes on its territory, saying that ‘drone attacks are illegal, counterproductive, in contravention of international law and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.’

According to the Bureau’s data, at least 2,570 people have died since 2004 in 346 US drone strikes. Senior Pakistani officials have labelled the attacks ‘illegal’ on more than a dozen occasions this year. Pakistan’s High Commissioner to the UK recently told the Guardian that CIA strikes were ‘a violation of the UN charter.’ And on September 24 President Asif Ali Zardari, speaking at the UN General Assembly said that ‘drone strikes and civilian casualties on our territory add to the complexity of our battle for hearts and minds through this epic struggle.’

http://www.globalresearch.ca/violation-of-sovereignty-pakistan-rejects-obamas-claim-that-it-allows-us-drone-strikes/5306631

JT t P, your positions are nearly always adversarial and attempt to be insulting. Your words are a testament to your own character... I need add nothing or say more.

Funny, I recall it being Ronald Reagan who initiated the big push to empty the mental institutions.

No Randy, it was Democrat majorities in both senate and congress at the time that believed compassion was all about ending mental illness programs because these folks had rights too, and shouldn't be held against their wills. So the floodgates were opened. Another victory for liberalism, with predictable results.

Yeah, find a way to blame it on the Democrats. I do remember Ronald Reagan speaking in favor of this, as well as dealing with the mentally ill at the local level. The problem is that there were no funds for out-patient programs at the local level. This was Reagan's philosophy -- kick it on down to the states and the locals and call it good.

I'm less 'liberal' about this issue than you might think. Most mentally ill people are harmless. However, when they refuse to take their meds, live out of grocery carts and defecate on the sidewalk, shouting imprecations at passer-by, they are committing crimes and ought to be locked up for it.

Tom G... That is a very off the shelf comment. "shooting spree,"? You speak very abstractly, distantly and casually about eighteen murdered children...it's just some news right? But "they," meaning I guess, whomever doesn't think like you, get all worked up and want to cramp your lifestyle over this spree. Empathy O Thought level 1 on a scale of ten.

No he did not. There is easily accessible evidence to clarify this. The German citizens in general actually experienced more relaxed gun control laws under The Nazis changes to the 1928 gun control laws. The Jews were disarmed. The "law abiding citizens" were allowed to keep weapons. How did that work for them?

Hitler also closed down the unions, and he had support of people like you.

Actually Keith, Hitler took over the unions. They was perfect for the National Socialist German WORKERS Party. Disseminate the message en masse to people that believe you are supporting and they find it much easier to swallow. The same as all the people that believe B.O. is in office to give them everything they want.

To Further illustrate my point I happen to find this Chicago STORY of Friday afternoon / Friday nite.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-shootings-violence-december-14-december-15-20121214,0,912168.story

10 people were shot on Friday . This is where gun laws are STRICT . There is a lot of Ignorance to think a Law on a book stops bad guys from doing what they do . The evidence overwhelmingly shows that is not the case. However, If they are the only one with guns......they are enpowered to do even more damage as there is no response. Common sense isnt so common.....but the facts bare this out !

I understand the fear and the logic but disagree with you as do over 600 mayors of American cities. The world is not divided into good guys and bad guys...this is part of the simplistic nature and, therefore problem, with your conclusion. A guns do not make peace. People do. You can't pour guns on a city to quiet the violence. Who should have been armed in the school. The elementary teachers? Come on. How many armed guards would have been necessary to keep the school perimeter secured, to watch all the halls, in a word, to make sure that there could not be a mass killing?

Even the most strictest gun laws in the country are pathetically weak.

@ Brian
There is no solution to stop a mad man who plans to hurt people . But your plan is that people wont have the right to protect themselves. When that is the only thing that can end these events when they are actually happen.That is just a basic fact.
Access to guns to guns must screen felons and mental illness. But it certainly cant screen peoples right to protect themselves because the madmen with a plan will get them . WE all know that! I certainly wish someone there at that school could of had an armed response. Because that is the only thing that could of saved the victims . A law on the book would have done NOTHING in this case .

Yeah, a rumdum like you would protect us.

You have no damned right "to purchase the handgun, rifle or shotgun of your choice", especially with the irrationality you display here so often.

Craig...I should add,given what you said and the implication of bigotry in your highlight of the Presidents middle name that in seeing and stating that the genocide of women and children is good and has advantages, you have trumped every ignorance posted in my blogs. Sometimes the ignorance is due to a simple lack of thought...the parroting of someone else's propaganda. In this case you have evidently thought about what you are saying... and approve of the extrajudicial murders of civilians, imagining that this will somehow reduce the threat of terrorism in the world. You win the cake there Craig. I am sorry that you have such a sick view... People who believe in genocide and support it semi publiclly...of course you don't state your name... express the worst of human thought.

Brian: While you may want to lie in the same bed as the Muslim Brotherhood and their terror raised children, I would prefer to see them eradicated like the cockroaches they are. Drones were brought into the thread by you, I just stated my opinion about them. If you want to pack someone's ass while they are facing Mecca, just be sure no drone is watching you.

RH...oh I got to the bottom of your post. So do you think we can disarm America before they use drones on us... Or fight drones with handguns???? I don't think so. I am not a big subscriber to doomsday scenarios but I do study populations that have turned into military dictatorships and turned on their own people. I have no prediction on this happening within our borders soon... But we certainly haven't minded supporting this type of regime and action in foreign countries in return for huge favors, corporate advantage, puppet control of policy, etc. So it's possible. This is one of my ongoing ambitions is to bring our past and current behavior in. These dynamics to the attention of whomever I can. It's no news to Latin Americans, for instance, that the US Government has actively supported a list of brutal dictators, men who conducted state terrorism and genocide.

Jason J, I talked to my young son who goes to school in the east coast. That was my first act as well. My condolences expressed on Patch would do nothing for dead schoolchildren in CT. I am not the leader of a church or an official or anyone representing or speaking for any group so condolences from me would be nothing more than posturing. I am sickened by each mass shooting in our country, by our ongoing Global War, by our massive military expenditures, by the economic warfare we wage in the process of extending and solidifying our grasp of huge parts of the world. The garbage I spew, if you are talking about the stance of non-violence, of working towards a world in which children are not slaughtered by mad men or Presidents, is rooted in and inspired by the "garbage" Jesus Christ spewed in his day and many profess to follow, by the garbage Gahndhi lived by, the garbage proposed by the Buddhist concept of non-violence, the garbage preached by Martin Luther King, the garbage of the Dahlai Lama and of Thich Naht Han. I don't know what philosophic or religious tradition you hold or were informed by, but this is the garbage I believe in and try to incorporate into my thinking and life.

Where have I said I don't care about the constitution? As to not caring about specific views I believe that apart from being specific, I dont care about rationales that seem either ridiculous (holding off a US Government turned repressive against it's own people) relative and that in the face of unabated violence exampled once more in CT.I don't respect the opinions of those who think that our current level of gun training is sufficient for conceal and carry permits.... And, given what goes on in the culture, the "sporting" pleasure of people who feel they need to blast away at ranges with their semi automatic combat type weapons, really doesn't get any respect from me. Not a priority.

The founding fathers were people of civility and rationality. They would not have approved of the perversions of the second amendment and certainly in regards to their respect for order, would they endorse knuckledragging numbskulls having access to any kind of firearm they wanted.

Brian wrote: "Where have I said I don't care about the constitution?..."

Um, Brian, the title of your blog pretty much says it all.

Schmitsy: The Constitution was drafted at a time when we had muskets and cannons. It was the founding fathers' intent to have the citizens armed with the same weapons as the Government.
We citizens do not have the same weapons anymore.
RPG's, Fully auto, nukes...

@ Schmitzy The historical intent of the founding fathers is clear.

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense." -- John Adams 1788

W

Why is that interesting and why do you use a pseudonym?

Because he's a Nazi prick. His nom de plume is all white power symbolism - we've been over this turf before.

So why is the shooter being Jewish interesting?

My hope is that you have a reason other than Tao's explanation, so please explain.

There is no other reason. To recap - "WPN1488" consists of three white power symbols - "WPN" is "White People's Network," "14" refers to the "14 words" (wikipedia that, to educate yourself), and "88" refers to the letter "H" being the 8th letter of the alphabet, so it's "HH," or "Heil Hitler."

You're welcome for this introduction to one of your local white supremacists, AA - I don't expect an apology.

The question was not directed at you Tao, it was asked of WPN.
And since I am likely the only one of us that had relatives in Hitler's concentration camps, STFU.

The question was posted, AA, and is fair game for anyone. I know you wish this was your own personal forum, where you set the rules, and told everyone when it was appropriate for them to post. However, that's not what it is, so suck it.

Tao, I guess I should have expected nothing less than further crass comments. When a heartless bastard like you can't even wait six hours after the Newtown tragedy to start pushing his agenda, then any sort of common dialog is lost on you.

Of course, you will continue your fascist/socialist tactic of trying to place undesirable labels on your adversaries, but more and more people are seeing through that and realizing that you are just another knob.

I see. I read the link. I appreciate the thoughtfulness.... Whether or not the violence is declined there ie still too much so I don't feel it's time to rest on our laurels. I am not implying you are suggesting we do. If it's on the decline then it suggests, contrary to much expressed sentiment, that it IS POSSIBLE to change. It's encouraging. At the same time, possibly due to the economy, unemployment, the general insecurity, and the trillion dollar wars we run at the same time, people seem angry, edgy, looking for someone to blame, and the idea of violence rises to the surface more easily in a climate of discontent and despair. SO I think we need to keep working on this complex problem in our many ways as best we can.

Well too bad the kids were not armed then Mr Dey. Excuse me but I can't take anyone seriously when they preface their reply by calling me a fool.

No need to apologize for typos to a man you call a fool. I make mistakes all the time.

I never said hunters were a "survivalist" army Brian. I stated that we have 50 million armed citizens, and what army of 2 million would want to face this many citizens? Now you can go take your BB gun and shoot some paper plates. I can't make time for you anymore. By the way..... notice you have no responses to your idiocracy?

The point about growth is well taken. We need to redefine what growth means. Perhaps we can substitute "maturation." Mature people do not measure the good life by the size of their holdings nor thei success bt their net worth. They look to their contribution to their families, the sort od world they are leaving for their children, to the wisdom they have been able to obtain and pass down by word and by example.

There are man challenges facing us. Things we can not anticipate. My take, relative to this blog, is that wisdom will be more critical than weapons, that moral strength will be of more value than combat skills.

Repealing the second amendment won't change what is coming - and what you feel inside. Look deeper.

Richard, my take, for what it's worth is that you can not control the outcome nor should results or the likely potential for measurable results in your lifetime be the primary compass by which you chart your days. I ask myself, "what do I want mynlife to say, how do I want to live, what's of value for me to say or do?" I worry less about what results will I see. I am fairly confident that we are all very small in the grand scheme of things but that change will occur as millions of people world wide realize the ineffectiveness of the old paradigms, the paucity of wisdom in the agendas of most of the rulers of earth and educate themselves and their children to use THEIR MINDs to make change.

I have said again and again that the issues are complex and multi tiered as will be the remedies and changes.

I have to aspire to a mentality higher than a rat's as respectable as their ability to survive may be. Perhaps this is a myth I poke into the holes of a fragile human psyche but I like to think that their is SOME reason our brains are so frigging big.

$$andSense, you may not believe it is me, but...

Well said.

$$ .... My personal agenda is???? Attacking the constitution? I invited a conversation and asked for ideas about gun violence and violence in general in this country.

Brian, maybe you need to re-read your blog.
".. guns designed for one purpose only ... to kill people and to kill them expeditiously..."
"The gun culture in this country, the paradigm that proposes violence is a solution to anything,..."
"I don't care about those who hold that we need to be able to defend ourselves from a potentially repressive government..."

That's not inviting a conversation.
That's making a stance and promoting an agenda.

"Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
--Judge Judy

The Constitution is not meant to be parsed over and the parts you like kept. It's a complete package. If you say to hell with one part, you are saying to hell with it all.

If there is something you don't agree with, that's fine, but realize you can't just ignore it, it is part of the supreme law of the land that we, and our ancestors, agreed to follow.

Nothing wrong with stating your opinions, that is the purpose of a blog after all. But when someone calls you on something don't back track and say you are just fostering discussion.

Grow a pair!

Exactly how many gun crimes(shooting) were committed, with a legal gun purchase, where the crime was committed in the three day 'window' between the 48-hour Wisconsin and 5-day Federal waiting period? We must have 19 years worth of data/statistics, as the Brady Bill passed November 30,1993.

I would favor Wisconsin moving to the 5-day wait on guns. However, I don't support 'illusory' (feel good) legislation;if the 19 years worth of statistics do not show that the Wisconsin 48-hour wait equals a higher rate of gun crime(shooting) within the three day 'window',then we should retain the 48-hour wait period and look for better alternatives

$. I don't think my blog is short on content or opinion. I have no ilk I speak for. Eighteen dead children certainly seem to me to be a problem as does the SIhks slaughtered here, the spa shootings, etc. I don't see things without connection to greater and smaller related issues. There is a predilection for violence in this, one of the most violent countries in the world and most certainly one of the few capable of the greatest destruction. I suggested several things that will begin to take us towards a safer, more peaceful world...education being among the most effective. I suggest that if we want to curb violence by nut cases or anyone else, we should stop modeling it as national policy. I do not believe that the answer is stationing armed guards in every hallway and at the perimeters of our schools, turning them into prison camps or military bases. I don't believe normal citizens need assault weapons. I don't believe ordinary citizens should be able to purchase handguns, semi automatic weapons and the like, without serious background checks and at least a five day waiting period. I think substantial training should be required in handgun safety, handling, etc. I don't propose to have all the answers...which is why I ask for ideas and conversation. And, as I said many times today...the changes are complex and multi tiered to bring a culture as violent as our own to some semblance of peacefulness.

Steve....what specifically did you do for the loved ones of the victims? I spend a lot of my time, unpaid, making memorials to victims of state terrorism, making works to call attention to the plight of the homeless, making works that educate people about violence against women in this culture. This isn't about me... It's about a sick society. Read the blog thread. Who are you to call me sick.. Do you know me in the slightest?

It sounds like you use the pain and suffering of others for your personal political gain quite often. The families of these young victims are just the recent of many to be used by yourself and your cohorts.

Don't lie to yourself, it is all about YOU.

"I spend a lot of my time, unpaid, making memorials to victims of state terrorism."
State Terrorism really? That explains a lot.
If you don't like it you can GTFO.

You're projecting as usual dick.

"We'll be at your daughter's soccer game."

A Union Thug says that to a crowd - after a school shooting - and it shouldn't be taken seriously? It's planting ideas in the minds of the mentally unstable at that rally.

Where is the condemnation from Obama?

I have a thought - let's put those emergency prison camps to use - round up the crowd - hold them, interrogate them, and assess them.

Just like the unstable nut/teacher Katherine Windells - why are good, honest law abiding people forced to put up with this behavior?

People that can't conduct themselves properly and incite others to violence need to be eliminated from associating freely in Society.

You only excuse the behavior - because you condone it - making you guilty by association. Unhinged a little - Keith?

I appreciate hearing from those who believe we need to reform this Amendment. I think you are the second or third so far. Thanks Eric. Clearly stated.

The type of weapons used explain the numbers killed. Glock should be ashamed that this demo is available to the world. The people who feel blessed that their children aren't dead or don't live in that town should ask themselves why these children were evidently NOT blessed.... This isn't about blessing or not blessing...it's about adults allowing culture to go off the deep end on violence... Mass shootings are a symptom of a cultural problem as well as a personal psychosis.

Bath School disaster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, four other adults.

This was in 1927 Einstein. Tell me, how has humanity progressed?

I sent Mr. Freeman a note about that statement. I agree with him to a point...but also believe there are many more facets to improving a violence sated culture. Just sticking our heads in the sand will not make the killers go away. The killers are in our heads. We support violence as pastime, violence as method of resolution, violence as a means of sustaining a non-sustainable culture and violence as a means of extending empire. The news both mirrors and adds sensationalism to the fact of our violence.

I diverge with Mr. Freeman on one point. We look into the lives of the shooters because we want to understand what leads a person to do a horrific thing like this. I'm sure the parents, family and friends of these individuals ask what they could have done to stop it. What signs they might have seen.

The victims (and we are beginning to learn some names and see some faces) did nothing but be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Horrible things happen to innocent people everyday. This has been going on since the dawn of time. This will happen again, and it is certainly sad. What is painful for me to watch are supposed adults who can't seem to get their heads around this kind of evil and the next CT massacre. You all act like children asking why, you should know better.

What a simple black and white world you live in. Just dismiss it as 'evil' and arm yourself. Don't ever try to figure out who shouldn't have access to a gun. Don't ever try to figure out when a person is showing signs of going off the rails.

Adam Lanza's mother armed herself for 'protection' and look how well that worked out for her.

Hey Randy, there is a crazy homeless guy at the bus stop a few blocks from me yelling profanities at all who walk by. He is there every day, and is obviously mentally ill. Let's say you and me haul his ass to the cops just in case he goes and shoots up something, hey?

Grow up. For someone of your age, your maturity level is that of a 10 year old. There is evil, there will always be evil and to dismiss it is typical of your generation and kind.

You know what The Little Boy who Thinks He's a Man, the crazy guy at the bus stop may be totally harmless or not. He could end up eating the face off someone, or conversely, getting his face eaten off because he's confused and helpless. But that's not the point. You want to give this crazy person a gun? I think not.

I'm talking about noticing when a person is showing signs of becoming that crazy person at the bus stop and getting them some treatment before they lose their homes and end up at the bus stop. Or maybe hole up in their homes and come out shooting.

Maybe we have a teenager who's acting a little crazier than the average teen. Maybe we have a family member who's stockpiling guns and food and talking about space-aliens or the CIA broadcasting through their fillings. That's why we're interested in learning about the shooters. But I'm tired of arguing with a moron.

Glad to see that you have a crystal ball Randy1949 and want to dig around in peoples medical records. What a child you are. You epitomize what is wrong with men these days, a victim waiting to run to government for help instead of helping himself. What a pathetic excuse .

Where did you learn to read? Whoever paid for your education wasted their money, because I fail to see where I mentioned having a crystal ball. Do you not understand what the words 'may' and 'maybe' signify?

I also don't think I said about running to the government. It's a family's duty to deal with a person who is showing signs of not being right in the head, but the government does need to be a help there rather than a hindrance. If a person needs to be treated or institutionalized, then they need to be. If a person needs to be declared mentally defective and have their guns taken away, then that needs to happen too.

I'm feeling a sense of deja vu with you -- that tendency to 'win' an argument by attacking someone's masculinity. It indicates a feeling of inadequacy in that department.

Turning off the news is not an answer with all respect to Freeman. Demanding real coverage... Working towards the enactment of a truly FREE press...would be good. Our press is not a free press.

We've heard this nonsense before that there is nothing we can do.

BS.

We have fixed so many problems before. This one is no different. We just keep working and working at finding a solution.

Jason J.... I think the gun lobby, the NRA and the extreme right all take care of the fear mongering. The US government, of course, does a bang up job there creating Axis of Evils, building up despots and then overthrowing them, and devising the ultimate war, A Global War on Terror, which has no boundaries, recognizes the sovereignty of no nations, can target whomever it likes and kill them wherever they stand and is Perpetual...the never ending war. I am no one. No one reads this and concludes they need a weapon from what I say.... Read the language of those her who agree with you. That's your fear base. I am not afraid.

Sensationalization in this country is largely a news media affair. The style and language of this coverage fans the insanity and ambitions of the next psycho malcontent. It terrifies the populace.

I don't think Mr. Freeman would have problems with what I said or did.... Unless he approves of the current gun regulations. I am certainly not sensationalizing the event in CT.

Schmitzy wrote: "...BS.
We have fixed so many problems before. This one is no different. We just keep working and working at finding a solution..."

You mean like poverty Keith? We have more people on food stamps today than ever before. The Liberal solutions to poverty have had 50 years to make a difference, and things have only gotten worse.

How about Healthcare Keith? Obamacare has only increased my premiums to date. That was some solution.

How about Social Security Keith. It is now going broke faster than ever before.

In my lifetime, Liberal solutions have done NOTHING but make problems worse!

Learn to thread.

Your title is "To Hell with the 2nd Amendment." It doesn't get much more political than that.

Steve...it took me awhile to locate this advise you have given me. You were talking about political "gain" I believe. I don't have anything to gain politically here. I agree that the title is attention getting as did the large number of respondents. The Amendment needs revision. I am Brian Carlson. And I approve this message.

KS. I generally agree.

Herr Schmitz needs to understand two things:

1) It's easy to blame the guns but Adam Lanza did not have a gun fetish, he was mentally ill.

2) The 2nd amendment is not limited to duck hunting and the national guard. There is an individual right to keep firearms for self-defense and against the day the Kings soldiers kick in your door or the progressive national socialists get frisky again – you know, "Forward to the Past" or some such nonsense.

You missed tying the specific details of this event to any solid proposals of your own.

The guns were legally owned. They were not owned by the shooter, rather, they were owned by his mother, one of the victims of the shooting. At this point we don't know how he got ahold of them.

Based on what we know about the guns themselves, who owned them, how they were obtained, what are YOUR specific proposals for changing gun regulations or the 2nd amendment at this point in time?

That's an interesting article if all the details are accurate. Seems like the mother may have had a few mental issues of her own.

Everything you suggested would not have stopped this rat bastard in CT. He stole the guns from his mother. What an utter waste of time your blog and your thoughts have become.

I would essentially treat guns as we do automobiles in terms of licensing, registration, insurance, education, resale, etc. Create special class licenses, penalty, registration, education insurance for semi-automatics and large magazines.

Limit the amount of ammo that could be purchased online and make all companies adhere to specific delivery requirements (per a discussion I had here with a guy who buys online and claims he saves a lot of money by doing so, I learned that not all ammo suppliers operate the same in that regard). I'd require photo ID and evidence of registration for all ammo purchases and, for some kinds of ammo, special licenses.

All licensing and registration would be renewable yearly along with proof of proper insurance. Penalties for selling or possessing a gun without transfer of proper registration would be met with a heavy fine and loss of ownership/usage privileges for an extended period of times. Guns used in the commission of crimes where the last owner of record was not the person using it and a theft had not been reported would result in charges against the last registered owner.

Sales at gun shows would be tightened up or eliminated. Anyone selling over 3 guns/year would need to be a licensed dealer. Internet sales of guns would be limited to those maintaining a retail gun store and a proper up-to-date license.

None of this would have changed anything in this case, but if it's good enough for cars, it's good enough for guns.

Bob,
Those are good suggestions, but I wouldn't hold the registered owner responsible for a crime committed with their gun unless they were complicit. It should be handled the same way that it would be handled if their car were stolen and used in a crime.
The best solution is "smart guns" that require that a code be entered or that the biometrics or magnetic ring of licensed users match in order for the gun to be fired. That way, the gun is useless to the unintended user.

That's an excellent suggestion, Luke, but I think there should still be some sort of penalty for those who are careless (and I'd include not reporting the theft of a gun as careless). I certainly wouldn't ever suggest they be charged as an accessory to the crime, but certainly a substantial monetary penalty would be in order. Plus, I'm no engineer, but I assume the kinds of things you're suggesting couldn't be retrofitted into an existing firearm.

To me if you're going to own something that has as much potential for misuse and abuse as a firearm, you shouldn't have any problem accepting the additional responsibilities and legal requirements that go along with such ownership.

Bob,

You are correct about the the impossibility of retrofitting. As usual, we could either grandfather in existing firearms, or give some incentive and/or require mandatory exchange of guns (old for new). But as usual, only those intending to be lawful will comply.

In addition, the cost of a lot of guns will necessarily skyrocket, depending on the technology involved.

I do believe your are at least responsible for civil damages if you do something negligent, like leaving the keys in the car and allowing it to be stolen, or if you give it to someone who is drunk or has no license and that person has an accident. Why should guns be any different?

Right. That would be IF the information in the link to the British article is all true. The shooter may indeed have has Asperger's -- descriptions of him as a teen sound very much like it. Asperger's and a parent with . . . eccentricities, possibly with Asperger's herself, do not mix well, especially if the obsession is with survivalism and paranoia and guns.

Lock up all Asperger patients!! That is the solution!!

I am not saying that. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I'm starting to think it would be a good idea to lock up all men who can't tell the difference between their gun and their pecker.

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/9-11

So how would you have resolved WWII, and how come the Germans and Japanese are among our best allies? According to your theory, the violence should be on an infinite upward spiral.

Somehow, I suspect that your offer of peace isn't as meaningful when you already have been totally overwhelmed by the opposition

Yeah, Brian, but the problem is that your idea only works if everyone has the same values and never intends the others any harm. That's too Utopian to be of any use, except within societies.

Hitler didn't simply get out of the wrong side of the bed one day. There were no missed opportunities to share his feelings that would have prevented him from invading Poland.

There are people who want you dead because you exist.

Brian, what you are suggesting are tactics that are already almost always utilized and often (not always) fail.

Thank you Mary...excellent contribution.

It's my opinion that a lot if what is considered mental illness by the public is just biologically-based behavior that is at the edge of what used to be considered normal, but is dysfunctional for operating in modern society.

The child described in the link would have behaviors that were invaluable in simpler times. Instead of being obsessed with electronic games, he would be obsessed with hunting game. No one would stand in his way for doing what he wanted to do, because that very behavior was what everyone needed him to do. His aggressive behavior would serve to protect the community from outsiders. When he came home at the end of the day, after doing exactly what he wanted to do all day, he would be celebrated and welcomed back into the community.

Brian,

You misunderstand me. My point is that all international conflicts are usually initially approached in the manner that you describe by Western countries.

We have to recognize the anger level in the culture,, the rise of nationalism when it occurs, the corresponding rise in intolerance and of incident where groups are singled out and scapegoated. It's a classic pattern and it has a lot of presence even in Port Washington.

Brian, I am, perhaps, naive about a lot of things. However, I do believe that in most cases the major Western countries try words before guns. Also, I think that both parties have a good, but not flawless, history of hoping and trying to avoid war.

Brian,

All of the historical figures you appeal to have stories that don't end happily, so at some point you might want divert form YOUR understanding of what they said.

However, Tibet did fight back for a few hours. They were unprepared to do more. How did that work out for the Dalai Lama? If that's the international success that you're hoping to achieve, you've set the bar pretty low.

Brian, then I'm glad the Dalai Lama achieved his goal. All this time I thought that when he claimed that his country should be free and independent, he was trying to keep it free and independent. You've demonstrated just how naive I can be.

Like I said, achieving successful international relations according to your standard has a bar that's pretty low.

Brian,

So here are the steps the Dalai Lama took. Which one was one that our leaders have not and should not imitate.

Step 1: Seek peace and live in peace until confronted by an enemy, then
Step 2: Discuss differences of opinion with enemies and seek mutual understanding.
Step 3: Continue to Make and buy weapons for national defense.
Step 4: When attacked, defend your country

Young Conservative... You are probably not old enough to recall a man stand down a tank in China, with nothing in his hands but a bag of groceries. You do not understand courage... If you had any, you would not hide behind nicknames. You protect me from nothing and know nothing about me or my life.

Yes, the Chinese stabbing incident was mentioned. As I said, there's a difference. The Chinese victims may be seriously wounded, but they are alive. I think there are parents in Connecticut that would trade places right now.

It's harder for a madman to kill so many in such a short time with a knife.

It's been said JB...many times.

@Randy
What quantity is ok to kill at a time before an item needs to banned?

We are en emotional being; that should be embraced, there is nothing that we can do about that. But wouldn't you wish, if you could just wish, that no children would be harmed whether it be with guns, knives, or cold hands? We've given ourselves the option to do harm, and you're right we will never be able to take that away now; but how about the feelings or emotions that push, pull, or drag someone to do such a thing?

Speaking slowly and carefully, J.B. Schmidt, I am not calling for the banning of 'guns' any more than I would suggest the banning of automobiles, knives or bathtubs, all of which have killed children and adults. But why are you so resistant to limiting the amount of damage that can be done? We could regulate the size of clips or the amount of ammo that could be purchased. We could regulate the number of bullets a gun can fire within a period of time to give victims a better chance to escape.

We could also work at the problem from the other direction and try to identify people who are likely to be violent and keep deadly weapons out of their hands.

The Second Amendment allows a private individual American to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms, and this can be limited within the bounds of reason. We don't, for instance allow private citizens to possess nuclear devices, which are more efficient than guns at killing large numbers of people at a time.

"We could regulate the size of clips or the amount of ammo that could be purchased. We could regulate the number of bullets a gun can fire within a period of time to give victims a better chance to escape.

We could also work at the problem from the other direction and try to identify people who are likely to be violent and keep deadly weapons out of their hands.

The Second Amendment allows a private individual American to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms, and this can be limited within the bounds of reason. We don't, for instance allow private citizens to possess nuclear devices, which are more efficient than guns at killing large numbers of people at a time."

Again, none of this would have stopped the evil bastard in CT. More liberal feel good policies with no results. Platitudes.

@Young Conservative -- There is no perfect safety in this world. But you are wrong. The faster a gunman can shoot before reloading, the more people die. And it's all so fools like you can fantasize yourselves as being Rambo.

We also might have taken a look at the gun-collecting Doomsday prepper mother, whose eccentricities may have influenced her emotionally unstable son. She seems not to have been a paragon of mental health herself.

Brian, you appear to be being coy. Select whatever euphemism you like to describe Tibet's relationship to the Chinese. Who cares what word you select!? The point is that you claimed that we should manage our relationships with countries by never fighting and considering failure to defend our country through mere words a success, even if we give up our freedom and independence.

That, however, was not what the Dalai Lama attempted to to, nor succeeded in doing. You can move the goalpost, but the fact is that he first used words and then guns. He failed to reach his goal of maintaining independence, and was banished from his own country.

That said, managing a modern, advanced country is not like managing Tibet. The president is not born into power over a small impoverished country that has the average life expectancy of 35 years of age and the income of $500 per year. The president even has to wipe his own ass. In addition, the president has often had to make a decision that the Dalai Lama would never make: to help another, weaker, country defend itself.

Other than that, I find your parsings rather silly, given that a person who spent most of his life living a life ignorant of the outside should not be given credit for living at peace with the outside, not to mention the fact that he never managed any interactions with the outside worth mentioning until he was forced out of his country.

Brian, I didn't insult you even once. I wish I knew what you are talking about, unless you are offended by "silly parsings." If I thought you were that sensitive, I would not have used the phrase. But like you said, I am "naive."

That said, I find it useful to discuss differences, rather than turn away from them.

I knew there was a lot more wrong with you than just being a liberal. Do the voices have different names?

I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too much, seems the voices you hear aren't involved in the blog under their real names.

Isn't positive action and reaction our only hope?

Yes Brian er, Samantha.

Do the good intentions of others upset you? Is working together something that you do not see fit? I'm only a person, like you; and I am scared and I just want some answers like everyone else-reality is harsh, I understand, but why? And why does that mean that we have to continue on such a path

@Samantha -- What we need right now is an intelligent examination of the problem rather than knee-jerk demands for gun control on one side and arming teachers on the other. This is what the President meant by a 'meaningful' response, I hope.

Ezra Klein has been studying the statistics on violent gun crime in various countries since the Aurora shootings last summer, taking into account various conditions like population density and number of firearms per capita on gun violence. The statistics are surprising. So perhaps we should take a close look at countries like Israel and Switzerland, which have more firearms per capita and a lower rate of gun violence.

That's the sort of thinking we need rather than simply shouting insults from our partisan corners.

Randy 1949 Randy 1949.... agree with the need for intelligent examination. But please answer for those who will not here: Why do we have ANY regulations on the sale of firearms, what kinds may be in the hands of John Q Public, where they may be kept and how they may be used. Please do answer this.

@Brian Carlson -- Why make a person like me, arguing the middle ground, responsible for explaining why we have any limitations on firearms? Why do we have limitations on any Constitutional right? The answer is because legislators have deemed it reasonable.

Why do we submit to the patdown at the airport? Or the no-fly list. Or the government reading our emails? Why do Conservatives agree that a person has to practically provide a DNA sample to vote, but they froth at the mouth when you talk about limiting the size of their ammo clips?

Food for a boyish fantasy if you ask me.

If something as such happened, all it would become is a power struggle between "the people" and the "government". Aren't we struggling with enough already? Doesn't violence always fight back with violence?

RC you are fantasizing that the hunters are a monolithic block on this, all of your same mentality, all ready to fight the good old USA when it turns fascist. It's a double fantasy. And, even if the fascist thing occurred, the disorganized hunters would turn into war lords, all fighting internallyfor power and leadership.... Not a functional army I think. Plus they are up against the biggest baddest army the world has ever seen, armed to the teeth with stuff hunters can't access.

What's the matter Brian? Does my response have you stumped?

I'm honestly lost; and just hoping to hear what people think and feel of what happens in the world around us today, whether it be large or small scale-nobody actually talks to anyone about things like this. Are we pushing it to a back burner, or scared, or one track minded, or just unable to allow ourselves to care about something that "no one can do anything about"?

FT Troy, I think that lessening violence is multi-tiered. Stronger gun control legislation is sought for my over 600 Mayors of American cities....not all of them lefties. Owners should be responsible and held responsible in some way for what happens with their unattended weapons. The owner was an avid gun collector and, according to some English media sources...apparently could have been a survivalist... The kids went to shooting ranges with mom. We will learn more... I think that too many folks think in terms of, "Oh this wont solve the problem," throwing out ideas because something as pervasive as violence will not completely go away. To me that is really superficial thinking. Of course nothing will completely solve any problem.... this is NOT a reason to throw up our hands and do nothing to REDUCE problems. Its really low level thinking that allows people to do nothing at all.....

FTT -- Yes, the guns were stolen from the first victim, the mother, who under current laws was allowed to own her arsenal. However, more details are coming out about her, and her mindset may have influenced her son at the same time as she antagonized him.

The guns were not for protection from the son. They were for protection in a Doomsday scenario, and with different weapons and less ammo, the carnage might not have been to extreme. At the very least, this proves that guns in the home are lousy at protecting a person.

Brian - I understand. Please believe that I am not trying to throw up my hands. I want an open & honest dialoge. No - I do not believe a back ground check would have prevented this from my limited research. However, I did find this,
"Adam Lanza shot himself in the head just as he heard police drawing near to the classroom where he was slaughtering helpless children, but he had more ammunition at the ready in the form of multiple, high-capacity clips each capable of holding 30 bullets."

There is no need for anyone outside of the militarty to have high-capacity clips. I said the same during the Gabby Giffords shooting. I'll say it, now. There is no reason these should be legally purchased.

Now I would really like an open and honest dialogue...

Yes. Thank you Randy.

The more I am reading about this, the worse it is getting.

FFT:

The reason that someone outside the military would need a 30 round clip (or is it a magazine?) is that our country has rightly empowered the citizenry to stand up against a tyrannical government.

Perhaps I may be slipping into 'NRA crazy' territory with this, but even a non-gun owner like me recognizes that when citizens cannot properly arm themselves, we have no recourse against a government gone bad...

...and another line of reasoning involves disaster situations like hurricane Katrina and/or Sandy. When local law enforcement or the National Guard cannot keep order, citizens have to step up and be able to provide for their own protection.

Cow D, you are headed the direction of NRA crazy with this one. First, you are talking about a hypothetical tyrannical US...internally. Once the Indians were gone, slavery ended and outside of injustices to minorities (Pine Ridge, Kent State come to mind), so far the Govt is not waging state terrorism...we confine our terrorism to off shore actions. But secondly, you aren't going to win against a Gone Repressive Super Power with some thirty round magazines or even a basement full of them. You can damage some folks but if you are targeted by your government you will die. I am very impressed with the fact that so many conservatives who probably think of themselves as patriotic are itching to wage war on our government. Or are you all extremists... More of the ilk of the Young Reactionary?

CowDung.
I see your point, but in this case, I happen to disagree. There is no way we could stand up to our military- No matter how well armed any of us are. We have the highest trained, most superior military force this world has ever seen. Our military would also have air superiority over us. This is why we are civilian run.

As for the natural disaster. Yes. Katrina was a mess. Here is my counter. Let's get our National Guardsmen out of our foreign conflicts. If it means we are understaffed in Afghanistan, then let us move up the time table and get out of that mess now-now, right now. This way when a Natural disaster strikes and regular citizens need protection, we can call out the National Guard. Isn't that what their intent is supposed to be?

Consider the difficulties faced by the 'mighty' US military against the Iraqi insurgents. It's not that far out of line to think that armed citizens could make a stand against the government...

FFT:

Were the difficulties with Katrina really cause by a lack of available Guard members? I find it hard to believe that there were so many deployed overseas that they couldn't mobilize enough stateside units to provide security in the wake of Katrina...

CowDung:
I agree. Katrina was bad the moment the levies broke. It was mis handled and tragedy ensued. I think we have learned from in considering I am not hearing nearly so much about how bad Sandy went but I really don't think armed militia would have made a siginificant difference. You can argue and make some really good points. I can agree in the concept of self protection. I just think there needs to be a whole lot of regulation and common sence behind it. If we are really serious about being out in the open about our rights and our intentions, then we should be open to at least talking about the regulation

FFT:

Where do we draw the line though? If we truly want to keep the door open to armed revolt against our government, then we really shouldn't allow the government to regulate to the point of eliminating the ability of the citizenry to revolt.

All the ideas concerning banning guns and high capacity clips and such are just treating a symptom. We need to be addressing the disease that is our violent culture in order to keep stuff like this from happening. People that want to do harm will find a way to do it--even if we take away their guns and high capacity clips...

Cow D , in Afghanistan we fought and fight against a people who's language we don't speak and who's culture we don't understand. The climate has been challenging to our folks...not to Afghanis. Our intelligence has been hampered by our ignorance there...language, cultural and no political base....no friends. Here, greatly enhanced by the very vehicle I am key boarding on, the government has incredible intelligence access to all of us. They speak our language. You would have no idea who you could trust...who was on the side of the rebels and who wasn't. The Govt speaks your language, ties in to your emails, knows exactly who you are and where you live. Add to this the killing technology. Why meet you in the street or at the OK Corral when they can drone your house from 50k feet? No doubt there would be a resistance... But it would be minor and ultimately futile. Your bullets would run out. Theirs would not. Really...think it through boys.

Isn't that exactly the type of thinking that King George had a couple hundred years or so ago? Certainly a rag tag group of colonists could never stand against England--a world superpower at the time...

CowDung:
This was also the time when it was considered cheating to hide behind a rock or tree when the opposing army was shooting at you.

I am not saying it can't be done, but we needed France to win the Revolution. I fear to think who we would need as allies if we needed it again.

CD. King George's supply line was across an ocean.... Then the only way to travel. His army was not large enough to occupy and control the scale of territory necessary to subjugate America. Two huge differences for starters. The French also aided the American side... Don't think the American hunters can count on the support of anyone else in the showdown these boys contemplate.

FFT:

I don't doubt that allies might have to come into play in the event of armed revolt--for both sides of the fighting forces.

Another situation to consider is if the US is invaded by a hostile nation. The armed rebellion wouldn't be against the current US government, but against the invading force--much like the insurgency in Iraq (or the movie Red Dawn).

Perhaps we can also look to Vietnam as another example of a superior fighting force losing to the underdog...

Don't underestimate the potential of an armed citizenry rising against an unjust government...

They are called magazines, not clips you lily livered panty waist liberal males. Go ahead and waste your time calling for the banning of them, they are easily made.

@Young Conservative -- Thank you for the lesson in jargon. Thank you also for providing evidence that there should be psychological/psychiatric testing before anyone can purchase a firearm so that mouth-breathing cave-man types don't have the ability to send a deadly projectile into my body should their limited impulse control fail them.

It's not a perfect solution, because people can start out sane and become mentally disturbed, but it would be a very good start.

Just doing my part to educate you low information wash women. Now get back to peeling your potatoes.

Young Conservative (aka) - The Man (aka) - Alfred

How many other handles do you have?

His handles are numerous, and I can pretty much guarantee you that they are all short.

Brian: I also know a few of these folks. Instead of a worth while dialogue, they default to name calling and insults every time a rational thinker dares to question their fantasy land. When asked for a common ground discussion on a very scary topic, they instead call you a name and tell you how things "really are"

I wonder if the left will call out Jamie Foxx for bragging about how he “gets to kill all of the white people” in his new movie? Somehow, I don’t think that will happen.

Young Person...FYI.... left has ruled out taking stand up comedians seriously.

Its not arrogance, its a public service to help you low information types along the path. The public education system has certainly done a great job of chick-ifying generations of young men where they all sound like you, shrill hysterical panicky wimps.

Ignorance..... Not arrogance.

I'm just s..... I am talking about modifying the 2nd...and pointing out that things constructed by humans can be altered when they no longer serve or even create dangerous situations. The first Amendment is fine... We need the dialogue about our taste for violence... Blockbuster violent movies will change, not when we ban them, but when people realize that violence is not what they choose to entertain themselves with, that saturating their brain with graphic violence does have an negative effect on them and that we model violence for our children by holding violence in such esteem. Again...part of a multi tiered effort to work on this national condition.

I think that you state a very important point. The problem isn't guns, the problem is that we, as a society, seem to embrace violence. If we banned guns, people would just find a different way to carry out violence against one another.

We need to change the violent mindset that dominates our society.

Thanks CD... That's what I am talk in about. But honestly, would you be good with flame throwers being legalized for John Q Public and his merry band? How about SAMs, hand grenades, rocket launchers...hey why restrict people from protecting themselves with a tank? We keep the military weapons for the MILITARY! These are RESTRICTIONS... And thank god we have them or you can bet bubba and Joe Don down the street would be building a taller garage! So why are semi automatic weapons and assault weapons sacred? Are they really for offense and if so...why are they styled as "assault" weapons?

I'm OK with John Q Public owning flame throwers, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. I'm sure that a decent size percentage of the population could build their own if they had the desire. As I said, the issue isn't the weapons that are available, it's the mindset of our society that is the issue.

That's because salacity and violence appeals to those whom Orwell termed "the lowest common denominator," and the corporate-owned mainstream media needs to support itself and make a profit. Thus we remain stuck with programming geared toward the adolescent mind, with the greatest possible impact made on the most immature and receptive minds. And yet there are folks like Mitt Romney who want to jettison the one network, PBS, that is least sullied by profiteerism.

We're not going to progress socially until we agree that not every person is the same. We learn differently, we have different skills and capacities. A society that caters only to those who can function (with varying degrees of adequacy) within a certain set of parameters and underserves the rest is what we have right now. I'm not referring only to people who are disabled, poor, etc. The underserved includes those who have not developed past the point of self-interest and lack the capacity to perceive potential outcomes and repercussions. That is a serious deficit that contributes greatly to social inertia/decline.

Bren.... Keep it coming. Blog and isn't a boys club although one might easily mistake it for such. I appreciate your input and encourage women to tell us what you think we can do about violence in this culture..... Interject a bit of sanity here.

An armed society represses the 1st amendment. No one speaks their mind to a man with a gun.

Bert, I bet I am talking to a lot of people with guns... But I get your point. Don't imagine it's wasted on the right wingers...on this thread people have suggested that I might rethink my respected list of men as most of them came to no good...meaning..were killed. Another suggested my first amendment rights should be taken away. The concept is might makes right... The person with the most weapons makes the rules and calls the shots. The right wing extremists believe this, and stand by it. When they play out their fantasy and beat this government...what do you think the next part of the dream is.... Democracy? No... Totalitarian State... One to replace another.

Cdung, come on.... Bamboo sticks as effective as automatic weapons??? (see Vietnam War casualties). Estimates of the number of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians killed vary from fewer than one million[32] to more than three million.[23][33] Some 200,000–300,000 Cambodians,[20][21][22] 20,000–200,000 Laotians,[34][35][36][37][38][39] and 58,220 U.S. service members also died in the conflict.[A 2] I think technology was a factor here.

Yes--just as effective. They killed people just as dead as the automatic weapons did. If one considers that the attacker didn't have to be within the line of sight of the victim, perhaps they could be considered more effective. They were just as lethal and carried far less risk of the attacker being killed by the victim.

The point was that sharp sticks of bamboo seem to have been just as effective as automatic rifles. Don' t underestimate the damage that can be inflicted on a superpower by a seemingly weak opponent...

Now, that being said. I do believe that some controls are reasonable.

Background checks, licensing, closing gun show loopholes, training requirements, and waiting periods are all reasonable and responsible steps.

But none of those would have stopped this tragedy.

So what is the fix? I doubt there is enough support for a constitutional change, and the proliferation has already occurred. Just now I am watching a news story that gun purchases are up 35 percent with this renewed debate. There is no practical way to get that quantity of guns back, even if there was sufficient public desire to do so.

Change the deterioration of our culture now more desensitized to violence? As my fathers generation found out when it tried to stop the birth of the progressives in the sixties, changing or stopping a cultural trend is easier said than done. And for that matter, as one that grew up on Warner Brother cartoons, I am somewhat skeptical as to a causal effect in any event.

Here is one I know you are not going to like. Perhaps we should look towards returning our focus to religion. Many of us learned our lessons about respecting others, and the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing from elements of our religions.

One may think twice about the whole, "kill a bunch of people on my way out" if you believe that the "fire and brimstone" of the afterlife and waiting for you on the other side of the curtain.

Terry..thanks for speaking up. I said "normal" hoping to attract anyone who found a number of the respondents here a bit fringy, to say the least. I haven't singled out weapons as THE problem... But the TYPE of weapons used to riddle these children are designed for one purpose...a hail of bullets to kill as many people as you can as quickly as possible. Is it rational for us to insist that All Americans over the age of 21 should be able tonhave these? Forget the warding off some future tyrannical USA Govt... A fantasy that appeals to a lot of the gun culture. We have limitations and restrictions on almost everything that is potentially hazardous including guns...why can they not be made more effective? They can... That will HELP. It won't eradicate the problem but it will HELP. You are intelligent and do not think in black and white. You understand why we have laws. You know that laws are made by humans and are changed by humans when deemed important.

Relative to collecting banned guns...which does not mean all guns... I don't think I care if it takes time or is difficult. Pay two hundred dollars per weapon from the National defense fund... Or so much prorated on age or whatever. Melt the damn things down so nobody sells them to drug cartels or despots in some other country. How did we reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile by 90%? If there is a will there is a way.

As to the idea about religion Terry, I stated earlier that among my most important influences are Christ, Buddha and several other people who preached and lived non-violence. I think it's a GREAT idea to look at what Christ said about violence, peace, and compassion. It appalls me and has long appalled me, that so many in this nation refer to this as a nation under God or a Christian Nation even... Implying it or they FOLLOW Christ in that case, meanwhile supporting without question policies of brutality, violence, exploitation and crimes against humanity! It sickens me Terry. I grew up in a church going family and wasnraised to believe that what Christ said was the same as if God had said it...so I took it very seriously. I got a CO with great difficulty during the Vietnam war by standing fast on commandments which were Judaeo Christian and by holding to the vast balance of Christ's teachings on hownwenshould behave on this planet. I hear ZERO from the church accept the usual condolences, shock (how can anyone be shocked sincerely anymore), the old saws about how victims will not be forgotten and hownGod has some purpose in all of this and WE... We...will be stronger now!!!!! Incredible!!! But not one of them says we must renounce violence as a means to achieve our ends because it is FORBIDDEN.... It's a sin! Christ said it again and again and again. I agree... Let's try to recover or start to follow the teachings relative to violence.... All of us... Not just psychopaths.

Brian .... You crack me up .. you are against violence but like all you hypocrites you endorse government violence, I know you are against the drones and the wars .. but you and the rest of you hypocrites endorse forced taxation which is the income tax and property tax ... Why do you support Government force for wealth redistribution???

closing gun show loopholes .. Hey Word Jockey call it what it is .. Banning Private sale of guns .. I guess "closing gun show loopholes" makes it sound so much better for all the sheep

Sorry blade... Can't agree with you on the gun shows. I've been to enough to know that a lot of really shady sales go on at those. And who said anything about banning them? The same rules for background checks and waiting periods should apply to these sales as well.

If we as gun owners aren't willing to concede those points that are reasonable, you likely will end up with the draconian gun laws that you perceive.

Keith...read a blog before you inject thoughts that have been made countless times before and responded to... Please. I haven't blamed a gun...not trying to ban all guns...don't think that gun control will solve the WHOLE problem. I am tired of repeating this so often.

You claim not to be blaming guns, but you are quick to label the defenders of gun rights in a negative way...

Gun control isn't going to solve anything, and could make things worse-- like Chicago and DC after their respective gun bans.

Then are you saying that I am 'normal' and not part of the 'fringe'?

Once again Brian, and we have talked about this before, fascists and neo-nazis are descendents of socialist movements. Please stop lumping those nutters in with conservative label.

$$, in your first sentence it's apparent you didnt read what I wrote. The following assumptions you make that you propose as necessarily following an action I never proposed fly into space. I can't respond to hypotheticals you fantasize as consequences of actions I never suggested.

$$ - I agree with your thoughts on drivers and cars.

Yet we do have laws regulating driving. Age restrictions, laws against drunk driving. Laws against texting. Laws requireing seat bealts. Laws regulating cell phone use while driving. None of these laws have turned the country into a police state.

Bottom line... Not sure what you saw as couched about my invite. I want conversation...that's what a blog is for. I appreciate it when people avoid insulting me at least...I tend to think...if you don't like me so much why keep returning to my blogs??? I haven't heard from you before as far as I know although some respondents use many handles apparently for whatever reason. So...welcome.

Thanks for your input.

Brian D, will you state the sources when you quote statistics? As we saw again, in the recent elections, statistics, depending on who compiles them and what they would like to find, vary dramatically, on all sides of an issue. At least, if we know who is arranging them, we have a chance to weigh their own interest in the indications of thieir numbers. I am sure you agree...were I to run out a set of statistics here.

The second thought I had is that there is an inherent fallacy in how you measure success. The "we tried it and it didn't work," pattern has been the hallmark of naysayers throughout history but does not daunt those who find current situations entirely unacceptable. No one has a cure for worldwide violence...although that is what religions would do well to focus on... The issue here is do we want to try to improve things? One respondent felt that the general public should Leo be free to have flame throwers, RPGs, bazooka, etc. I am glad that our regulations limit these to the military or ban them entirely. Are you? I. Don't want my neighbor owning a tank. Not even if it's only to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government. Gun legislation exists or you may bet that larger slaughters would go on... The shooters mother did not need her semi auto weapons...even if she was prepping for a pitched battle with a us Govt gone insane... And the guns and training at shooting ranges did not as much as protect her from her own son.

Sounds like you might be just as paranoid about gun (or tank/flame thrower) owners as some people are about a hostile/tyrannical government...

BC- The statistics for gun ownership comes from the United Nations. The statistics for the mass murders during the Feinstein bill were from the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. The Russian figures come from http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list. The England stats come form Wikipedia.

I think you will find that none of these are biased sources, and can be backed up by multiple sources.

I just gave several example Brian. There are many, many more. That doesn't mean that I find the current situation acceptable. What I find is that much of what you propose as well as others, has never ahd the desired outcome. What we do know is that these murdererd always choose soft targets. What we do know is that most of these incidences have happened in gun free environments. What we do know is that these are carried out by lone individuals the vast majority of the time. What we do know is that the victims were defenseless. And what we do know is that no matter how fast law enforcement responds, multiple murders have already occured.

One of the longest wars in history, the Cold War, never had a shot fired. What we found out that if one side knows that they are equally challenged, the outcome can have a chance at peaceful resolution.

You too, Brian C. This is a tough, complex and emotional issue. Knee jerk reactions do little to solve problems and we both know that. But I think we both agree that the dialogue has to start somewhere. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Hey Dave, I just bought another AR 15, now I have 4 of them. Thanks man.

So, are you on the record for giving gun rights to the 'evil'? Evil people are harder to identify than the mentally ill. They tend not to reveal their evil nature until it's too late.

I was being facetious, mocking and ridiculing you and your kind for disparaging folks with mental illness as the problems of society. Its really a shame that your parents didnt teach you better about good and evil in mankind. History did not start the day you were born, you age of aquarius wilting flower child.

Young Conservative...You can wave your AR 15's, all 4 of them, at the planes as your friendly government carpet bombs you back to the stone age. I think you better get back to your Sgt. Rock comics and G. I. Joe dolls.

OK, the debate is getting a bit silly, and a little off track. I am not one of the gun supporters that believe that the "to hold off government repression" is an exactly relevant point. Unless and until things change drastically, its no more likely a scenario than repelling a alien invasion.

That being said, the counter isn't necessarily accurate either. "The idea of un-concerted civilians holding off a Super Power, is silly". Maybe, or maybe not. Despite all our superior technology and trained fighters, we still have not completely put down the Taliban or crushed Al Queda.

Considering that our country has no stomach for prolonged or bloody engagements, you may be a bit premature in writing off the effect that an armed uprising of civilians could have.

I seem to remember an old quote once from a stand up routine. "The reason we don't need to fear being invaded, is that there is not an army alive that has a counter to four armed southern rednecks in a 73 Impala".

Anyway, back to the bickering.

Terry... No doubt bubba and his bros could wreak some havoc for awhile but the Taliban and Al Queda are being pursued in a country foreign to our fighters, they speak a language few in our forces or intelligence did, their culture is different, we had no friends there and probably haven't won many, and the climate was something many weren't used to. Not so in the USA.... Many many differences. That being said... The scenario is possible but not probable soon I think.

The mentally ill are in charge.

AA...no one mentioned banning guns as a solution to the problem. The argument that we cant improve situations because we can never entirely prevent them is ridiculous. It is not a perfect world. Many of us are interested in making it a better world, non the less.

Brian:

Bren has mentioned the assault rifle ban, and the theme of Jason's article seems to involve banning semi-automatic weapons. Or are you splitting hairs here and suggesting that the bans aren't intended to be a solution to the problem?

Brian, don't pull that crap on me. Your ultimate goal is to ban private ownership of firearms! You know you have that pesky little 2nd amendment to deal with, so you will whittle away that right a little at a time, until you get what you want.

The same way that B.O.Care is not the end of Liberal healthcare reform. We all know that the ultimate goal is a single payer system. But you will take it a little at a time, so you and your ilk will take crisis after crisis to advance your agenda one step at a time until you get what you want.

AA, My ultimate goal is to RULE THE EARTH.... but dont tell anyone...I am working 24/7 with my Ilk in a dimly lit underground cavern we have hollowed out of archetypes of fear. I feed my Ilk returned weapons from buy back programs in Australia and he turns them into inanimate lumps of metal. Seriously AA...I dont like violence at all...any kind really. I believe that self defense is sometimes necessary and also that there are many ways to defend oneself....I dont like wars, any of them... I dont like the amount and love for violence on TV, news or series, I dont like the propagation of numbness, nor the effort to feed our thirst for violence vicariously. I dont like to see people living in fear. If you want to crawl around playing sniper with the deer population... have fun. I dont think you need an ASSAULT weapon to do so. You sure dont need one to defend yourself from someone entering your home.

I think the statements I made are logical extensions of several stock propositions posed by your ilk... They seem ridiculous because the arguments that engendered them are ridiculous or, at best, very weakly worded. Simple slogans...appeal to simple minds...its true...and I am not speaking to you saying so... The buzz phrases for political candidates or the buzz phrases for political movements, the slogans, attempts at maxims, etc... are memorable. I just questioned each proposition. And I dont see my assertions refuted nor the propositions defended.

On top of that...the really irrational stance that because someone can always get around a law, laws do nothing...and are therefore meaningless.... is worn out and weak. We have all sorts of laws, the balance of people do abide by them...some people break them...they become criminals. Without laws you have no civilization, its a free for all, and we have anarchy.

Brian D... When you start off replies by stating I know nothing about firearms or whatever you lose your audience immediately. It's just rude. Why should I read your blog then or even your reply? Am I obligated to? Because I don't know the difference in the specs does not mean I know nothing... I do know that a semi automatic weapon killed twenty six people in fairly short order. But I also believe that people do not need assault weapons to hunt, nor magazines with ten round or more capacity to stop intruders in their homes, let alone drum mags like the Colorado theater shooter. that is a belief.... An opinion. This is my blog and that is my opinion. There aren't TRUTHS to this. WE have to think through what makes for the best situation for society as a whole and try to set that into law and then hold people responsible to those laws. When they aren't working we need to determine if laws need revising as part of the fix. You think not. I think they do.....as PART of the fix...I say again and again.

We have a specialized society and have for quite some time. I don't eat slot of meat but you are right... I don't hunt the chickens I eat... Few people kill the chickens they eat. I sometime fish, but I do rely on commercial fishermen who re much better at it than I seem to be. People with other specialties send their children to college and if they're in the major field I specialize in teaching, they let me do this dirty work for them....
I have no problem with that.

BC- Yes, knowing the specs is imperative if you are going to ban things. Don't feel bad, media in general has not done the research. Just because a gun looks like a military gun doesn't mean that it acts like one. That is important because your proposal to ban semi automatic guns (those which fire one shot per pull of the trigger) have had a long history in the world of hunting and are practical and humane tools for the task of killing ones food. It is important because when someone portrays something as fact, they better be able to back it up.

Symbolic gestures such as selectve and token bans will do nothing to reach your cause. It has been proven over and over and just because you don't want to listen doesn't make it so. In every case; EVERY CASE; prohibition has not had the desired effect. Mexico bans all civilian weapons. Tell that to the thousands slaughtered by the drug cartels, some of which this administration armed. In hasn't worked in England, Russia, Australia and the last one in the U.S. didn't work either. I have postd those facts elsewhere with sources that are as unbiased as I could find.

More of these mass shootings have taken place with shotguns and handguns then the weapons you choose to ban. Only tree in modern history have been carried out using "assault weapons". So in essence, you accomplish nothing. I don't cre wha you read, but I am here to on your blog to set the record straight.

BC- As this is no ordinary legislation and the proposal that is coming from Fenstein and most likely Biden will attempt to alter the Constitution, the must follow the rules to amend.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

If you can do that, and 75% of the legislators agree and 2/3rds of the House an Senate, then try it. Our side will be prepared to immediately file lawsuits if this process is not carried out in full, and we will win.

BC and Dave- We have also killed 50 million unborn babies in the name of women's rights since 1973. We hve a President with a "kill" list and has murdered 168 children with drone strikes. Please just don't place blame of our ills on gun owners, gun manufactures and political enemies. Be real and just say that as a society, we have placed a low value on human lives. If anything, these muders in Newton should be a reminder of that, or a wake up call.