90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The Power Of The NRA

The political power of the NRA after Newtown. Will a massacre of children break the grip of the NRA?

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011. (AP)

National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011. (AP)

After days of silence on last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the National Rifle Association spoke just a little yesterday.  Sort of.  It put out a statement to say it will speak Friday to the media in Washington.  The NRA is prepared, it said, to – quote – “offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”

Of course, for years, the NRA has fought, mighty tooth and nail, against practically any gun control.  Fought for guns all over.  Cowed a generation of politicians.  Could there be a change now?  A sea change?  A crack in the power?

This hour, On Point:  the NRA, after Newtown.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Robert Spitzer, professor of political science at the State University of New York, College at Cortland. He’s the author of the Politics of Gun Control.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

Gerry Connolly, Democratic congressman from Virginia’s 11th district. The NRA has its headquarters in his district.

From Tom’s Reading List

New York Times “But when she and other Tennessee Republicans decided earlier this year not to move forward with an N.R.A. bill that would have allowed people to keep firearms locked in their cars in parking lots, Ms. Maggart became an object lesson in how the organization deploys its political power.”

Slate “You might think that “spokesman for the National Rifle Association” is the toughest job in PR. You might be wrong. At least once a year, and several times in bad years, reporters reach out to the NRA’s Andrew Arulanandam and ask him whether the gun lobby has anything to say about the latest massacre. Arulanandam says basically the same thing, every time.”

Sunlight Foundation “In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown, one of the emerging debates is whether there will even be a debate. Past mass shootings have come and gone without any action. Many argue that the reason for this inaction is simple:  politicians have been afraid to take on the National Rifle Association, the large and influential pro-gun lobby that spent at least $24.28 million this past election cycle - $16.83 million through its Political Action Committee, plus $7.45 million through its affiliated Institute for Legislative Action.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Shag_Wevera

    1.  Gee, no guest from the NRA?  Guess they are still hunkered down in a bunker somewhere waiting for this all to cool down.

    2.  Someone should photo-shop a Bushmaster .223 into Mr. LaPierre’s left hand in the photo above.

    3.  I don’t think the founding fathers ever intended to be worshipped by future generations, and I don’t think they intended the consitution to be dogma, cast in iron.

    4.  I stand by my prediction that no SIGNIFIGANT change will come from this latest mass homicide.

    5.  If you are serious about change, here’s a start.  Determine what sorts of weapons and ammo aren’t appropriate or reasonable for public use and ban them.  Hold a 1-2 year long federal weapons buyback of the weapons and ammo.  If there is anything we know about our fellow Americans, it is that they can be bought.  Ramp up requirements and backround checks, and eliminate loopholes like gunshow purchasing.  Get serious about discovering and treating mental illnes.  Yes mother, that means MONEY!

    6.  Considereing the chances of #5 happening in this country, I would refer you once again to #4.

    • peterlake

      If you want to make a law to protect people, make it illegal to commit murder.

      There……..feel better?

      • Fredlinskip

        You may not have heard- Murder IS illegal in America.
             How many rounds are required for a weapon to have for one to feel safe in one’s home or to hunt with?
        Are you expecting an Al Qaeda regiment to attack you’re household?
        Do you enjoy going out in the woods and putting 58 rounds in a beer can in 3 seconds?
        What?
        I don’t get the appeal.
        It doesn’t seem a good trade-off to allow ready access to military-style weapons in order to indulge a few people their goofy hobby.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Weapons buy back? Oh, that would add to the deficit, of course! ‘sides, they’ve been selling faster than ever since Black Friday … Don’t get me wrong, it’s a step in the right direction, but buy backs are a waste of time and money. BAN semis already!

      YOU hunters out there who use them, they weren’t around 50 years ago, you DON’T need them to hunt. If you do, you shouldn’t be in the woods in the first place.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YPQNXSUCBMAGVIJFSAFYE22B5Y Cornerman

    Let’s not forget the role of the ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) bill mill in passing laws on behalf of those who manufacture guns.

    • Don_B1

      Note that ALEC is a tax exempt organization which has crossed the line into lobbying, beyond what a tax-free institution is supposedly allowed to participate in.

      I remember an effort to get the I.R.S. to revoke its designation, but have not heard the result, if any.

  • pete18

    The premise of the show is completely upside down. The NRA, similar to Grover Nordquist, isn’t some sort of independent boogie man that holds an unearned, hypnotic sway over Washington, it is a lobby group that can influence policy because it reflects the opinions of millions of Americans (just like Planned Parenthood). What will influence policy changes on gun laws
    is if public opinion changes on guns. The Sandy Hook shootings might do that, if so the NRA will not have the ability to override such a change based on the magical Machiavellian  powers that some seem to attribute to it.

    • Steve_in_Vermont

      Your point is reinforced by the fact that the NRA has 4 million members while
      118 million people voted in the last election and we have a population of 311
      million. No organization, with a membership of less than 2% of the population,
      could exert such power without the tacit approval of a significant percentage of that
      population. As public attitudes change the NRA will have 2 choices. Change with
      it and remain relevant, or become irrelevant.

      • 1Brett1

        Of course, we’re not talking numbers of members (average citizens) we’re talking leadership and money. Members seem reasonable in what they want to see in terms of gun laws. Leadership in the NRA, on the other hand…well that’s a different story, and they have a lot of influence, a lot more than the 2% population of their members. 

        But, I do agree with you that the NRA has got to change more to reflect more what it’s members (and members of society) ask for to remain relevant. 

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          If the NRA’s not shielding the gun industry with the all-American image of its membership, I’ll eat my hat. (For rhetorical purposes only. I’m not wearing a hat.)

          Guns don’t wear out or become obsolete (like a ten year old car and a ten year old computer, respectively).

          Unlike everything else I can think of, the replacement rate required for guns is almost nil. That leads, quite naturally, to gunmakers backing every gambit they can to sell all guns they can. And one of those gambits is the NRA.

        • Don_B1

          Some 70% of NRA members think that background checks should be required for ALL gun purchases/transfers, etc.

          But a sizable portion of its members, and others in the general voting public are influenced by the false claims that ANY encroachment on open and free use of whatever gun they want means the “slippery slope” will end up with their loss of the right to even own a gun.

          • 1Brett1

            I agree with everything you’re saying; I was just trying to counter the argument that the NRA is just a small group looking out for everyday citizens, by saying the members themselves (everyday citizens) might not have any forceful power to influence but the NRA leadership and the NRA as a political machine certainly does. 

    • Fredlinskip

      Unlike with Norquist, majority of GOP congressional members have not signed  pledge to NRA. 

        Unlike the tax issue, this offers the slight possibility that rational thought may POSSIBLY some day prevail concerning common sense gun regulation

  • AC

    who exactly are they? i thought they were a sportsman type club? are they a lobby group or do they just hire outside groups to do it for them?

  • Gregg Smith

    How about the power of the ACLU? Or the power of the green lobby? Or the power of the NAACP and how they use it for political gain while they don’t lift a finger regarding black on black murder? I heard someone say early on that somehow this tragedy would be said to be the fault of Republicans, and so it begins. I can’t believe I’m paying for this crap, I’m outta here.

    • 1Brett1

      I heard someone say early on that somehow all of this would be the fault of Democrats, and so it begins…

      Somebody, I can’t remember who, was asking Republicans to beef up NRA membership, work to arm more citizens, reinterpret the 2nd Amendment even more than it was reinterpreted just a couple of years ago to mean more citizens must be armed to protect society. Using this tragedy to bolster gun culture doesn’t prevent squat; it’s politics at it’s worst. I can’t believe I have to include Fox News as part of my basic cable; I can’t believe I’m paying for that crap. I’m outta here.

      • Gregg Smith

        I’m not going to participate in this forum because I think it’s stupid. Cool, my choice. But in the name of snark control I must reply off-topic. It will be my last.

        Who is blaming Democrats or traditionally Democrat institutions? Who is doing any of the things you mention? Where is the groundswell of Republicans authoring new gun laws? You made it all up, I didn’t. Cut your cable, it’s a choice. You still pay for NPR, it’s not a choice.

        PS – Sometimes it’s better to not mention the name of where I heard something. Certain names make people wiggy and irrational.

        • 1Brett1

          Sometimes it’s better not to mention certain names, it makes people wiggy and irrational…You still outta here?

        • nj_v2

          “I heard someone say…” Hahahaha!!

          How can we miss you when you won’t go away?Portion of NPR’s budget from public sources: 4.6%. That’s what gets Greggg upset.Go get ‘em, Greggg!

        • Acnestes

          So shut up and go, already!

      • Don_B1

        The counter to the Gregg’s argument that everyone, or supposedly enough people, being armed will prevent this type of tragedy is that it has not happened when it was possible. There were armed individuals at the public event where Rep. Giffords was attacked, but they did not use a gun to stop his attack. A man rushed him while he was reloading.

        With more than one armed but otherwise uninvolved person in the audience, it would not be clear to anyone who was the danger and who was not. The crossfire between armed people without “POLICE” on the back, front, etc. of their coats or on their hats, would lead to extra deaths and injuries.

        Take the armed man on 5th Avenue in NYC who was fired at by (supposedly well-trained) POLICEMEN, and where a half-dozen bystanders were hit by “stray” bullets!But the bottom line comes with this opinion piece:

        http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/?src=me&ref=general

    • nj_v2

      Oooo, the “green lobby.” Now i’m scared.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    The NRA needs to get its heads out of its breeches.

    No one needs an assault rifle to hunt: rapid fire is inherently inaccurate.

    All this talk about self defense is utter rubbish: nothing is more frightening and deterring than the blast of a 12 guage shotgun and… buckshot won’t travel through multiple walls in a neighborhood like a .223 round can.

    No one needs 15, 30 or 50 round magazines to fight off wave after wave of zombies: the people who are defending assault rifles just want to have them in case society collapses and they need to join a militia or defend their fortresses from bands of marauders… they just won’t admit that on a national stage.

    • donniethebrasco

       Especially if it is happening outside your house and you are wetting your pants because all you have is a hammer from IKEA.

      • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

        I have dogs for that. They aren’t afraid of zombies either.

    • Don_B1

      I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, with the possible exception of the what the head of the Gun Owners of America, who trotted out the defense of individuals against the government “oppression” on “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”

      Consider the way an armed society does not lead to a democratic one:

      http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/?src=me&ref=general

  • RolloMartins

    Will the NRA listen? Please. You might as well tell watchers of FOX News that Obama was born in America.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

       I doubt that they can be wound up any tighter!

  • BlueNH

    Look at it this way. The weapons industry is like the fossil fuel industry. Both entities know they are killing people, but there is just too much money to be made to change the way they do business.

    I am sure the country will continue on the “business as usual” path in both industries.

    Drill, baby, drill….shoot, baby, shoot…..profit, baby, profit!

    • AC

      your missing the variable of 3D printers & DIY guns. don’t worry.
      well, raw materials will remain and grow stronger as a future industry. a lot of ‘profit’ industries we’re wasting our time worrying over now won’t be here soon at all….

  • Quadraticus

    Those in favor of banning guns need to explain how a ban will actually stop attacks like this. The answer is: it won’t. Just look at the Norway massacre last year in a country with very strict gun control. This is not a gun problem: it’s a problem of mentally ill people not getting the treatment they need to prevent them from doing horrible things.

    • 1Brett1

      I don’t know that painting a generalization of an opposing viewpoint than yours as “those in favor of banning guns” followed with “explain how a ban will actually stop attacks” will be a good opener for a productive conversation, but then that may not be your objective. 

      Our problems surrounding these types of tragedies are complex and layered by a number of factors, simply saying, “it’s not this it’s that…” probably also isn’t going to move discussion along. (By the way, the mental health thread is on another page, perhaps you could pay a visit over there and expound upon your “mentally ill people” theories, that is if you wish others to benefit from your perspective. Maybe you could offer some insight into the benefits of cutting 1.6 billion dollars from state budgets for mental health services? Or maybe you could explain, on the other page, why it’s so much easier to buy a gun than get help for a mental health issue?)
       

      • Quadraticus

        The answer to the second part of your reply is easy: because the government regulates health care even more tightly than it regulates guns. Gun makers are still free to compete with each other and sell their product at market rates, which keeps prices down, whereas health care providers have huge gatekeepers in front of them intentionally to reduce competition and keep prices high: it’s a cartel with government backing. But frankly I don’t expect anyone here to understand this, since I’ve found most people, even highly-educated ones, are economically illiterate.

        • 1Brett1

          No, the answer is not easy like you say. Will you prove/provide reasonable evidence that deregulating health care will help mental health services? You don’t know this but mental health services HAS been deregulated. There are tons of private, for-profit places that have cropped up in the mental health services field…and they’ve done nothing but perpetuate horrible service, corruption, and exclusion to those who really need help.

          • Ellen Dibble

            Wow, that’s a very broad statement, “done nothing but perpetuate” etc.  I have noticed in pain management that wherever profit can be maximized, it seems to be, and if it maintains a person’s dependency on services that are bandage-like at best, not curative, well, the sufferer must continue to suffer, the better to allow for the flow of profits.  That seems to be akin to Newton’s law, a law of physics in a capitalist society. Maybe it could be Newtown’s law, that if something can go wrong with gun ownership, it will go wrong with gun ownership; or, if a young man can be held every more closely to the home, he likely will eventually blast his way out, not exactly prepared to deal with the world constructively.

          • 1Brett1

            I thought about that, after the fact…I should have said, “done little but perpetuate.” However, I am not at all a fan of the “for-profit” mental health approach (based on what I’ve seen). Not only do they often fudge their numbers to make it look like they are more successful (don’t want to interfere with branding and salesmanship). They often have underpaid, under-trained staff (it’s cheaper). Another disgusted thing about the “for-profit” mental health business is that they can still take kickbacks and straight funding from Medicaid, and they often get “fee” payments from SSA and SSI money that recipients receive. 

    • Shag_Wevera

      How many massacres in Norway in the past 10 years?

      Bans won’t 100% solve the problem, so we should do nothing.

      Your points are logical trash.

      • Quadraticus

        How many massacres in the US? Statistically, there is a much lower rate of deaths from massacres in the US than in Norway over the past ten years simply because the population of the US is 80x as large.

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      So if we start allowing the general public to own hand grenades, we won’t see a rise in fragging?

  • anamaria23

    Some residents of Newtown have driven to Washington to meet with the Brady group.  Out of their deep sorrow they have found the courage to act even as their community ‘s children are being buried.  Their lives have been altered forever.
     
    If the slaughter of 20 children by a troubled young man does not move a nation to ban assault rifles in the name of “personal freedom” nothing ever will.  It is a place to start as we grapple with the more complex issues that result in 10,000 deaths by gunfire each year.  Resolute nations such as Japan and Australia have successfully dealt with this issue.
    Any defense of attempts to limit guns and ammuniton and the NRA  as infringement on gunowner’s rights reeks of pure narcissism.

    • Quadraticus

      Please explain again how an assault weapon ban will stop attacks like this in a nation that already has 300,000,000 guns. In abrogating an individual right, *you* have the burden of proof here.

      • anamaria23

        It will not have an immediate effect but over time will, as demonstrated in Australia.   Look to other nation’s such as Canada and Britain for proof that strict laws result in under 100 gun deaths a year.

        *You*  have the burden of proof to demonstrate why any  individual needs to be armed with a battlefield type weapon. 
        That is what we are talking about, not banning all guns, the slippery slope that the NRA drags out.

        • Quadraticus

          Anyone’s feeling on the “need” for military-grade weapons is irrelevant: there is simply no way to eliminate all of them. Even if a total ban is announced along with confiscation, most of them will disappear, never to be seen again until one resurfaces in another horrific, unpreventable, long-tail massacre. A ban will do nothing to prevent these kinds of attacks. Again, I refer to the Norway massacre from last year in a country with very strict gun control.

          • anamaria23

            Tell that to the residents of Newtown and to Gabby Gifford’s husband and to the survivor’s  of Aurora and Columbine  and all the  families left with lifelong loss.  Tell them that we should just arm up and not even try to get rid of these killing machines.
            Tell that to the the family of the  teenager shot and killed for playing the car radio too loud.

            It is more than the weapons.  It is a level of consciousness that is elevated when nation says no to violence and vigilantes and works toward solutions however impossible it seems. 
              Out of all of this may come new technology.  Every step forward for mankind has come out of the passion for not accepting the status quo, for starting somewhere and here with the most obvious.

          • Don_B1

            I know I am repeating myself, but everyone needs to see the philosophical back ground on what an armed society leads to and then ask why some, and here it is generally patriarchal types, who want to turn the country into some kind of society that more resembles feudal societies that existed before the Enlightenment, or like Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and at least parts if not all of Pakistan. See:

            http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/?src=me&ref=general

      • 1Brett1

        We had a ban on these types of weapons from ’94 to ’04, and the incidences of these types of tragedies went down; don’t you have the burden to explain why that ban was lifted?

        • Quadraticus

          These events are so exceedingly rare that any comparison of rates of occurrence runs into the small sample size problem: they are statistically insignificant. Basing policy on exceptionally rare events is opportunism, plain and simple, because it is not something that can be supported by the facts.

          Furthermore, violent crime in general has been on the downswing for 3 decades, irrespective of bans that were in place or have now expired, and contemporaneously with a huge increase in permissiveness (the now near-ubiquity of concealed-carry laws from almost nothing in 1985) and a proliferation of firearms in general.

          • Don_B1

            Actually, while the number of firearms have been going up, the number of households with guns has been going down .

          • 1Brett1

            While these events may be of small sample size so as not to alter any appreciable statistical data, neither is it at all scientific to make generalizations about possible correlations between overall crime and specific laws or contemporaneous patterns of behavior. 

            You leap back and forth between the idea that “statistics show” [something you wish to dismiss] and “let me use generalizations of trends to show” [something you wish to promote]. 

            Seems a conflicted use of data and pseudo-logic.

      • Shag_Wevera

        In abrogating an individual right, *you* have the burden of proof here.

        Not really.  If enough people want it in a democracy, no proof is required.  If enough people demand, the constitution can be amended- no proof required.

        • Quadraticus

          That’s correct, so please start your movement to repeal the second amendment. I’ll wait.

  • Quadraticus

    I don’t suppose you could actually bring on a guest representing the opposing point of view? Why the echo chamber? When people talk about NPR being biased, this is the sort of show they are referring to.

    • 1Brett1

      From what I’ve heard the NRA is being tight-lipped about this whole thing; they’ve refused to weight in saying they will hold a press conference on Friday (I guess they wish to control their narrative as they want unchallenged!)

      • Quadraticus

        Not everyone in favor of gun rights is an employee of the NRA. In fact, the vast, vast majority of gun owners (more than 90%) aren’t even *members* of the NRA.

        • 1Brett1

          Like I said in another comment, it’s NOT the membership of the NRA that is the problem; it’s the leadership and how the leadership uses its organization’s money.

          • Quadraticus

            The NRA represents its membership, who are opposed to gun regulations that are all style over substance. Banning weapons on the basis of how evil they look rather than on some functional attribute—which is exactly what the AWB did—is such a pointless ban.

          • Shag_Wevera

            It doesn’t need to have a point.  It just needs the backing of a substantial majority of the American people.

          • 1Brett1

            Most NRA members support mandatory, universal background checks, many support bring back the assault weapons ban in effect from 1994 to 2004.

          • Quadraticus

            In reply to Shag_Wevera: So you are in favor of tyranny of the majority? Policy should be based on the preferences of the majority rather than on evidence?

          • Don_B1

            @1Brett1:disqus @Quadraticus:disqus 

            70% of NRA members support background checks before purchase of any firearm.

            At least some of the ineffectiveness of the Assault Weapons Ban was the difficulty of specifying functional features of the firearm which make it illegal, and that difficulty was taken advantage of by those who wished to gut the law at its inception.

          • Quadraticus

            Re: your first point, we weren’t talking about background checks: we were talking about an assault weapon ban. I doubt 70% of NRA members support that. I don’t think even most gun owners are opposed to background checks for purchases (as long as they are fast and appealable. Otherwise, they wind up being like the no-fly list: you’re prohibited, you don’t know why, and you can’t do anything about it).

    • Shag_Wevera

      I addressed this in the first post of the day.  The NRA is hiding til the heat blows over.

  • http://www.facebook.com/gary.kay.7777 Gary Kay

    Obviously, there are those, and some are very influential, who want to overthrow the government. And they want the weapons to do so when the opportunity is ripe. Jefferson supposedly said words to the effect that the tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered by the blood of tyrants. And to some people today, a tyrant is anyone who thinks differently from the way the “enlightened”  think. We should not think that homicidal maniacs are confined to mental cases like the fellow who killed all those little kids recently. There are maniacs in high places throughout the leadership in our society. The only real difference is that they are wealthy, influential, and probably what we would call “beautiful people”. But in their minds, they harbor dark thoughts.

  • donniethebrasco

    More gun laws won’t stop the next Newtown.

    • 1Brett1

      Less gun laws won’t stop the next Newtown.

    • Shag_Wevera

      So let’s just do nothing and wait for it to happen again.  Now that there is a plan!

    • nj_v2

      More lame trolling won’t advance the discussion.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    I have yet to here the NRA speak directly to this issue. Their rhetoric has always been in veiled in generalities and tangential issues. It is time to ban assault weapons or make them difficult to obtain. These are ‘assault’ guns, not ‘hunting’ rifles. They are designed for combat. Invoking hunting and self defense to justify their ownership is disingenuous.
     
    Ownership of 30, 50, 100 round magazines by the general public is madness. Here’s a little factoid to try and put this in perspective: even with the proliferation of machine guns and submachine guns on the battlefields of WWII, General George S. Patton called the M1 Garand, “the greatest battle implement ever devised”. The odd thing is that the M1 Garand was a semiautomatic rifle with an 8 round clip.

    • Don_B1

      It would also help decrease the number and power of the drug criminals in Mexico who probably buy and smuggle many of the assault guns for their illegal activities.

  • donniethebrasco

    Are any of the families in Newtown going to sue the schools that passed “The Evil One” through the system without helping him?

    What about the politicians that closed all of the state mental hospitals 20 years ago because it is better to let these nuts collect SSI, get section 8 housing, and not take their meds.

    • 1Brett1

      Great way to distill your narrative down to its lowest, common, most-stupid-sounding denominator, dtheb.

      • donniethebrasco

         Are you saying that Adam “F$*&$-in-the-head” was not a failure of the mental health system and  schools?  His mother tried to have him committed and his outburst came from that.

        For every Adam, there are thousands of people living on the edge.  They are just waiting for their chance.

        When they come for you, better hope you have something stronger than a hammer from IKEA.

    • Shag_Wevera

      I bet those pols were “R”s.

      They might try to sue (not), but that is there right, right?

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      I think that they would have to sue the state for its failure to address this in laws and regulations. Starting in the home, what was his mother thinking by allowing her troubled son access to her weapons?

    • Don_B1

      First, while some mentally troubled people do act out in this way, those are the small numbers. The perpetrators of Columbine, for example, were NOT mentally disturbed within severe medical definitions, even though the press initially tried to explain them that way.

      The people who perpetrate these outrageous attacks on civility are “troubled” but in ways that lead them to exaggerate a feeling of victimhood (often exaggerated and promoted by the radical right) as explained here:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/what-drives-suicidal-mass-killers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121218

      The state mental hospitals were not closed to put the mental patients on SSI, etc. They were closed because they were being used as warehouses (as prisons are now being used) because of underfunding.
      The problem is that the halfway houses that some patients were sent to because that type of treatment had been shown to help similarly affected patients. But these alternate treatment facilities are also underfunded, so the patients end up in expensive prisons where they get little or no treatment and then are released unsupervised where they cannot get a job or other support.

  • AC

    …there really may be something wrong with this country…..someone just posted this on facebook. i feel sick that they think this is real, or even news
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/12/18/278706/israeli-squads-tied-to-newtown-carnage/
    look at the additional *news* off to the side, it’s so …so….i dont know what this is. sad.

    • donniethebrasco

       It is true.  Failed politicians and charlatans pay their bills by telling crazy, Islamic nations what they want to hear.

      • AC

    • Don_B1

      The possibility that there is any truth to that “propaganda (?)” is NIL. But it is what conspiracy nuts like to gin up when they might get some notoriety.

      And it is more than sad. That is because a whole national party and its moneyed supporters are willing to tolerate people who think this way.

    • Mike_Card

      This is the work of neocon Bill Kristol, not that we’d expect anything better from him.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/why-the-right-is-smearing_b_2332643.html

  • nlpnt

    The gun lobby isn’t just the NRA – what about the industry itself, as detailed by Gawker recently?
    http://gawker.com/5968807/down-with-big-gun

    • Don_B1

      The growing dominance of the aspect of NRA policy that is basically a lobbying arm of the gun industry which was seeing a decline in gun purchases until the NRA and other groups started pushing the idea that ANY regulation of weapon type or use by gun owners (even by some with a history of mental problems) has been pointed out in a number of articles on the gun issue.

  • donniethebrasco

    Did you invite anyone from the NRA?  I didn’t think so.  This will be another hour of everyone agree with each other about stuff that won’t happen.

    The only thing that will happen is that the assault weapons bill will be discussed and killed 6 months from now.

    Enjoy your self-congratulatory “speechification” and get ready to have your federal funds to get cut during the tax debate.

    NPR has become a liberal parlor that has outlived its usefulness.

    • Shag_Wevera

      The NRA has been declining all interviews on the subject in the days following the massacre.  They claim they are waiting for all the info to be in.

  • nj_v2

    It ain’t just the NRA. They’re not the only domestic-terror-enabling gun nut rights advocate group making the country safe for gun nuts enthusiasts.

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/gun_owners_of_america_hints_at_armed_revolt/

    Gun Owners of America hints at armed revolt
    Executive Director Larry Pratt tells Chris Matthews that government’s “gone overboard,” and gun owners should act

    http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/12/18/newtown-gun-lobby

    Newtown Tried Tightening Gun Rules Before Shooting
    “Newtown, Conn. Police Chief Michael Kehoe asked the town council this fall for new regulations to require that all shooting ranges and firearms used at those ranges be approved by the police.Kehoe also wanted to limit hours when people could fire guns for recreational use.The proposals were tabled because of fierce opposition, including opposition from theNational Shooting Sports Foundation, one of the nation’s most powerful pro-gun lobby groups, which has its home in Newtown.”

  • donniethebrasco
  • NewtonWhale

    Michael Corleone: “It’s not personal. It’s business.”

    Gun lobby: “IT’S CHEAPER TO KILL THE KIDS.”

    Industry sources acknowledged that public sentiment after Newtown is unlike that which followed similar attacks over the past decade, because of the presence of so many children among the victims — and that the NRA will likely face a tougher climate in which to try to forestall the enactment of tighter gun control measures.  

    But they also indicated that Feinstein’s provisions relating to the number of rounds a weapon can accommodate will be contested fiercely.

    “A standard semi-automatic handgun holds 12 to 14 rounds,” one source close to the issue told Fox News.

    “Everyone would have to retool and new hardware would have to be made. That’s going to be very expensive to manufacturers.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/nra-to-push-back-soon-sources-say/#ixzz2FRkVmV3w

    • donniethebrasco

       What about the lack of security at the school?  He could break in, no locks on doors.

      Lazy government is the cause, but they get more money.  More money from NRA, more money from town taxes, more money from donations.

      Because they couldn’t spend 2-3,000 on good locks and break proof windows.

      Government says, “We failed, we will take more money.  Its for the children.”

      • nj_v2

        Why stop with “break proof” windows?

        Barbed wire, arm the staff, moats, perimeter guards with dogs, stanchions to prevent vehicle bombs…

        Why just “break proof” windows? Do you really care so little about the safety of students?

      • Shag_Wevera

        He actually had to shoot out a window to get in.  Thought you’d want to know…

      • NewtonWhale

        The doors were locked. He could not have got in without the assault rifle:

        The gunman used his weapon to force his way into the building, the state’s governor told CNN Sunday.”He penetrated the building by literally shooting an entrance into the building. That’s what an assault weapon can do for you,” Gov. Dan Malloy told CNN’s Candy Crowley.

        http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/16/latest-updates-connecticut-school-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1

        The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school and then sprayed the children with bullets, first from a distance and then at close range, hitting some of them as many as 11 times, as he fired a semiautomatic rifle loaded with ammunition designed for maximum damage, officials said Saturday.

        Outfitted in combat gear, Mr. Lanza shot his way in, defeating a security system requiring visitors to be buzzed in. This contradicted earlier reports that he had been recognized and allowed to enter the one-story building. “He was not voluntarily let into the school at all,” Lieutenant Vance said. “He forced his way in.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • donniethebrasco

    This type of discussion helps gun sales.  Nothing like banning a book or guns to sell more.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-sales-spike-virginia-colorado-record-highest-background-174415554.html

    I wonder if the guns used by “the evil one” are the most popular.

    • nj_v2

      Donnie thinks he’s on to something; second time he’s spammed this link.

      • StilllHere

        Please, you are the definition of spam.

        • donniethebrasco

           You are the definition of idiot.

        • nj_v2

          ^ Sum total of StillHere’s valuable contributions for the day.

      • donniethebrasco

         It is news.  I posted this link, then I saw that it was a good response.

        Banning guns won’t do anything.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          And who’s saying “banning guns” for real? Besides just someone with some overheated rhetoric on the internet?

        • anamaria23

          There is no intent to ban all guns.  Just those that can slaughter 26 people in under ten minutes.  Gun  control works in other nations.  Why not here?    Please explain.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Don’t ask him to explain. It’ll interfere with the imagined “conversation” on gun banning we’re having here.

            If by “conversation” one means “Donnie has fixated on it four dozen times and three other people have tossed the idea out there once.”

            Ask yourself, by comparison, how people on the right have no price to pay for pimping pols whose ultimate goal is to ban abortion, and you’ll see how much the prism has affected media discussion of this issue.

  • p hewes

    Enough is enough.  The people of this country need to decide whether they want gun-related violation to continue.    We need a national referendum on the repeal of the second amendment to the Constitution.   We need to do a lot more than merely  banning assault weapons.

    • donniethebrasco

      You need a hug.

      And a gun.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “No locks on doors” in Newtown?

      Cite, please.

      • donniethebrasco

        Elementary school library clerk Mary Ann Jacob heard gunshots and shouted “Lockdown!” to a class of fourth graders. Then she discovered the classroom door wouldn’t lock.

        http://news.yahoo.com/tales-heroism-emerge-evil-school-shooting-200732506.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CaA2NFQBwgAjs3QtDMD

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          …and he already shot his way through the big-ass locked doors in the front of the school.

          But locks on the interior doors would have stopped him? Speculate away.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Not to mention what happens when the Lock-Down turns out to be a fire. That’s just what we need, malfunctioning locks to prevent us escaping a burning building.

        • 1Brett1

          Lock down interior doors inside the classrooms? …Oh, now there’s a plan! Why don’t we just make it mandatory to issue everyone to wear a bulletproof glass cage around his/her person 24/7. Why, that would ensure 100% success – of course, the cages would need a little slot for each person to poke through his/her gun…

          You ideas are akin to Bart Simpson imagining how useful it would be to have highly trained butler monkeys to do everything for us.

        • Don_B1

          1) There is a difference between classroom doors and building entrance doors.

          2) “Lockdown” has meanings beyond just locking doors, but  also indicates predetermined actions that building occupants should take.

          3) Why wouldn’t the classroom door lock? A mechanical failure or no lock? Was she just too panicked to operate it properly?

  • joe m

    Tom,
    He killed babies – BABIES!!!.  I will never recover from this, my life has been forever changed.  I’m 60 & this is the worst crime in my lifetime – worse than 9/11/2011.The NRA & all the gun-huggers are responsible (“accessories” to this unspeakable horror).   

    • donniethebrasco

       It sounds like you need a gun.

      • Acnestes

        It sounds like you need a lobotomy.

        • Don_B1

          It looks more like he has already had a virtual one since his mind is impervious to considering thoughtful responses to good questions.

    • William

       You have no blame directed towards Hollywood or the video game industry? Are they not “accessories” too?

      • jefe68

        Yeah it’s Hollywood’s fault.

        • William

           Yeah, just ask them, they are just giving the people what they want.

    • donniethebrasco

       You have no idea what you are talking about.  For every “evil one” there are 3,000 on the edge, living in Section 8 housing, collecting SSI, and not taking their meds.

  • Shag_Wevera

    This topic has stirred the troglodyte constituency!

  • 1Brett1

    Before this tragedy, Adam Lanza’s mother would have been the type of person the NRA would have held up as an example of wholesome, all-American gun ownership. The NRA would have loved to point out that she was a valued member of her community, that she simply had guns for recreation purposes and to protect herself and her family. The NRA would have loved to hold up Mrs. Lanza as promoting good, old-fashioned family activities by taking her boys to the gun range with her. Before this tragedy, the NRA would have loved to make Adam Lanza’s mother a poster representative of all that is good about gun ownership….that is until a lapse in judgement meant Mrs. Lanza’s own guns were used against her to murder her while she slept. 

    • donniethebrasco

       Mrs. Lanza couldn’t have her nutcase son committed because of a scared and toothless mental health system.

      • jefe68

        No, he was an adult and there are legal hurdles involved.

        However our mental health system is awful.

         

        • Ellen Dibble

          Early reporting said that friends and neighbors knew that Adam was taking medication, implying that it was for maybe ADHD, maybe depression, could be for a lot of things.  But it could be that Adam had decided not to take it, and at a certain point this would be discovered, so that could have created its own urgency.  It could be he saw his mother as the problem, not himself, problematic in ways he and his family could not handle.  Greater and greater detachment, even after the age of majority, would have put a huge strain on what ought to have been a protected relationship.  In my ideal world, people would be able to insulate parents from having to play the role of benign ogre (yeah, right), and mentor types, especially of the same sex, could do the heavy lifting, so to speak.  I heard that Adam had stopped regular visitation with his father a couple of years ago, and was disconnected from his big brother too.  Unfurl your imagination, and type Lanza A in your Facebook search bar, and you get Lanza AmiCo (there may be another letter in that) followed by (le tuer de taureaux).  Killer of bulls.  Search for killer of bulls in English or French to see what that idea might spring from.  I’m not convinced that this young man’s inner struggles were totally inarticulate or inarticulated, but it’s quite possible he was alone with it, shielded by his mother, which somehow drove him to bury a lot of his emotions out of her reach.  That would make me furious too.  I’d have run away.

      • 1Brett1

        Numbskull, you’ve completely missed my point.

    • Mike_Card

      The influential members, and biggest contributors, of the NRA are firearms manufacturers.  Here is a re-post of an article:  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/print/2012/12/who-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

      • 1Brett1

        Thanks, Mike

    • Samuel Walworth

      Late Ms Lanza thought that by taking Late Adam Lanza to the gun shows and shooting ranges, she was instilling responsibility in a sick child.

      Too bad, our health care system and our society both, turned him down on many levels, he in turn took a step which has made a significant damage to society.

  • Shag_Wevera

    I’ll say it.  Most Americans should have no access to firearms.

    Military, yes.
    Police, yes.
    Trained, responsible, fairly intelligent and stable people, yes.

    Your average American?  Not so much.

    • donniethebrasco

       Hammer vs. Gun

      Gun wins.

      • Shag_Wevera

        Not if you are building a birdhouse.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          or a Civilization.

      • nj_v2

        Reasoned discussion vs. lame trolling. Trolling loses.

  • Coastghost

    I’ll continue waiting without holding breath for an entire show dedicated to the clear and unambiguous linkage of American gun violence and its propagation through TELEVISION. Linking gun violence with TV would begin to help point out just what kind of public health hazard television has become: elementary school children have witnessed thousands of “dramatically depicted” homicides and fatal shootings by the time they reach middle school, and the census of televised shootings continues apace as long as they live. Those with avid tastes in Federal regulation might give some attention to the “viewing addiction” that besets millions of Americans who uncritically, unthinkingly, automatically switch on their sets every morning, every day, every evening, just to be exposed passively to social pathologies we are all glad to excoriate elsewhere. –so next week (after your show tomorrow on the Benghazi report and Friday’s week-in-review), how about one show linking TELEVISION and GUN VIOLENCE? 

  • nj_v2

    Will the NRA condemn this action?

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/18/1355081/rick-snyder-guns/?mobile=nc

    BREAKING: Michigan Gov. Snyder To Veto Bill Allowing Guns In Schools

  • Burkhard Schuettler

    To take the 2nd Amendment literally, the NRA should be lobbying for heavy artillery and tank ownership for all – as there is no other way to fend off internal or external governments.

    The NRA’s reasoning and pure existence is insane and illogical in our times, full stop.  More guns produce more gun deaths.  That’s not an opinion, it’s a statistical fact.

    The NRA bullies politicians with the most depraved definition of freedom I have ever heard.  Anyone unable to see the insanity in their logic has abandoned reason and embraced a cult like religious paranoia devoid of common sense.

    • donniethebrasco

       You are a moron.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       You are only looking at the “bad side” of the NRA.

      At its core, the NRA is about hunting, gun safety and education. Somewhere along the line the “bad side” decided that any person should be able to own any gun they like because it is their “right” under the second amendment.

      • Burkhard Schuettler

         If there is a good side, then I certainly hope it starts to speak up in a more constructive way.  We all understand that “guns don’t kill, people kill”, but when was the last time you heard of a mass stabbing?  We all understand that mental illness is a huge factor here, but so are guns, so let’s start with the part that we can control.

  • ChevSm

    I don’t own any guns and I am by no means pro-gun but I do worry that all the talk about gun control is missing the point. 

    It seems like the easy thing to do is to enact stricter gun control laws instead of looking at our larger societal issues related to violence. 

    There is something horribly wrong with our society where something like this continues to happen. 

  • http://wh.gov/IVp4 Yar

    FDR was correct when he gave his warnings.
    The NRA is the disembodied voice of the military industrial complex. Call them what they are, an industrial trade organization. 

    Talk about the second amendment and what a well organized militia would really look like.  Why aren’t there as many armories as banks? To protect our most precious assets, statistics prove it is better not to keep so many guns in the home.  Armed teachers are not an answer either.  

    A living wage, a path to citizenship and an end to exploitation, would prevent people from living in fear.  We need to work toward civility as a society. The best way to destroy an enemy is to be a friend.  Instead of a war on drugs, we need treatment options for the addicted. We need a place for every person to fit in our society; we need to quit throwing people away.    
    I have a plan.  Just because it isn’t popular doesn’t mean it isn’t the right approach. If you can think of a better approach to building a more civil society I would love to hear it.  
    http://wh.gov/IVp4

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    Just to put one aspect in perspective, most pistols carried by police officers hold 15 rounds in the magazine. This is also the type of pistol carried by many citizens and readily available in gun stores. You can fire 15 rounds as quick as you can pull the trigger, the same as an assault rifle. The (spare) magazine also carries 15 rounds and the gun can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds. The difference between shooting 30 rounds from an assault rifle and a handgun is measured in seconds, and the handgun is easier to conceal. Taking away the 30 round magazines, and assault rifles, will leave you with an alternative that is just as deadly (and I’m not advocating for or against “assault rifles”, just pointing out the reality we face in seeking solutions).

  • donniethebrasco

    Obama abdicated leadership around assault weapons ban during his presidency.

    He realizes that it does nothing except encourage more gun sales.

    • Mike_Card

      More cowbell!

  • http://www.facebook.com/wes.duenkel Wes Duenkel

    Require a robust psychiatric evaluation (I’d argue at ALL ownership levels), and require license renewal at regular intervals. Maybe include a “house visit” so an official “signs off” on how certain guns are stored in the home (gun safe, or whatever).

    Here’s another idea: how about a “chip” system (similar to a car’s PATS) system that only allows the gun to operate when held by the proper user? Maybe have the chip in a bracelet or ring, and the bracelet/ring must be worn by the owner at all times. That way a child cannot fire the gun by accident, etc. Heck, the chip could be installed under the skin to make it even more convenient. Then again, I doubt the paranoid types will like the idea of some “government chip” being installed below the skin…

  • http://www.facebook.com/wes.duenkel Wes Duenkel

    Require a robust psychiatric evaluation (I’d argue at ALL ownership levels), and require license renewal at regular intervals. Maybe include a “house visit” so an official “signs off” on how certain guns are stored in the home (gun safe, or whatever).

    Here’s another idea: how about a “chip” system (similar to a car’s PATS) system that only allows the gun to operate when held by the proper user? Maybe have the chip in a bracelet or ring, and the bracelet/ring must be worn by the owner at all times. That way a child cannot fire the gun by accident, etc. Heck, the chip could be installed under the skin to make it even more convenient. Then again, I doubt the paranoid types will like the idea of some “government chip” being installed below the skin…

  • donniethebrasco

    How to sell more guns:

    Step 1 – Talk about banning guns.

  • donniethebrasco

    How to make more poor people:

    Step 1 – Pay people who are poor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wes.duenkel Wes Duenkel

    Here’s another idea: how about a “chip” system (similar to a car’s PATS) system that only allows the gun to operate when held by the proper user? Maybe have the chip in a bracelet or ring, and the bracelet/ring must be worn by the owner at all times. That way a child cannot fire the gun by accident, etc. Heck, the chip could be installed under the skin to make it even more convenient. Then again, I doubt the paranoid types will like the idea of some “government chip” being installed below the skin…

    • donniethebrasco

       You realize how unworkable this would be.  We can’t get 18 year olds off of SSI who had trouble reading at 6 years old.

    • donniethebrasco

      How to create a totalitarian state.

      Step 1 – Create organizations that monitor people and restrict their freedoms.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       If you can steal your mother’s Bushmaster, you can steal her bracelet.

  • AC

    i am starting to see why sometimes these sites degenerate into juvenile name calling. i am resisting the urge but it is difficult.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      You and me both…

    • 1Brett1

      I’ll admit, I’m guilty of this sometimes (I just called that donniebrasco character a numbskull!)…

      • AC

        i facepalmed him myself….

  • joe m

    Tom,

    This is the signature on my email:

    The shooter in CT killed babies – BABIES!!!  The NRA & all the rest of the gun-huggers are morally culpable and criminal accessories to this unspeakable horror. The worst crime in history – worse than 9/11/2001.If you’re not OUTRAGED and demanding immediate action to control weapons in this country, you’re not an normal emotional being.  Seek help – now. 

    • donniethebrasco

       I agree with your outrage concerning the inhuman massacre in Newtown, but not your assessment of the cause.

      There are 300 million guns in the US.  Banning guns with create a black market for guns.  Less law abiding citizens will own guns.  More criminals will own guns.

      Result – More gun violence.

      How to create more gun violence:

      Step 1 – Ban guns

      Just ask Rahm Emmanuel.  Chicago has extremely fierce gun laws and the worst gun violence in the country.

      • BHA_in_Vermont

         You miss the point – gun CONTROL, not gun BAN.

        When was the last time you put 11 rounds in a few seconds into some animal you were hunting?

        Talk to the parents of a 6 year old boy about the 11 rounds in HIS body.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YJCFQSMA7ALM5RY5NUSESTZQTU SteveM

    Insight of the terrible tradegy in CT. and the call for gun control Why not work with NRA and the GOP to work on MUCH better options for the mentally ill. The NRA has plently of influnce and money and maybe we take the 2% and put that toward mental health problems which is probably a bigger problem than the guns, just not better headlines. I’m not saying we shouldnt work to get the weapons grade guns off the street.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      “Work with the NRA”? I’ve seen too much video of Wayne LaPierre since summer 2008 along the ObamasGonnaTakeOurGunz line to want to “work” with such a group.

      There’s little negotiation to be done when one side is so proud of its public detachment from reality. They have to fix themselves first.

      For my money, this is a “them” issue for the NRA. Put them all in a locked room (proverbially) and after the fistfight, the rest of us (lefties, moderates, the mainstream media) will pay attention who comes out.

      • 1Brett1

        I agree; the NRA has to change not everybody else. If they go back to their original intent of promoting marksmanship and safety, I wouldn’t have a problem with them.

  • joe m

    Repeal & replace the 2nd Amendment – starting today!!!

    • donniethebrasco

      How to create more gun violence:

      Step 1 – Ban guns

      • 1Brett1

        How to create more meaningful discussion:

        Step 1 – Ban donniebrasco

      • Mike_Card

        Naturally.  Look what it did for the tobacco industry.  Smoking bans have sent cigarette sales soaring!!

  • J__o__h__n

    On Point, please stop the annoying pop-ups.  They are bothersome and do not inform me of anything useful.  Your homepage is sufficient for identifying other shows.  This is one of the worst ideas WBUR has ever had. 

    • 1Brett1

      Here, here!

  • Hmccabe004

    I agree – why do we need the second amendment in a society with a police force in every town. This is not the wild west anymore!

    • donniethebrasco

       You need a hug and a gun.

  • Brad Freseman

    I think an important issue to keep in mind is the ability for any person in this country to amass LARGE amounts of ammunition for relatively little expense. Perhaps a significant tax on ammunition, like we have done with cigarettes, would help reduce at least the amount of damage that could be inflicted by one person. Obviously, people will still want to be free to hunt and use gun ranges without paying huge taxes, so here is the unpolished idea I propose:
    1. Tax each round purchased for Personal Use (not purchased at an authorized site keeping absolute control of rounds sold) at an excessively high rate-say $200 per pistol round, $400 per rifle round
    2. Allow rounds sold at ranges/authorized hunting grounds at the current rate, and require the owners of the site to keep 100% round accountability. That is, you must return either a shell casing or an unused round for each one you purchase. This could be easily done through the use of shell catchers. Any rounds unaccounted for would be immediately subject to the full taxation rate mentioned above.

    I by no mean think that this would solve the problem, but I believe thinking along these lines may significantly reduce the ability for a person to use hundreds of bullets in an unauthorized use, and in that way reduce the potential damage any one person could inflict.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    Politics has always made for strange bedfellows. The NRA helping to improve mental health care in America … Who’d have thunk?

    • brettearle

      Many NRA members obviously see firearms as ways to protect people.

      I’m sure that such a belief helps them to link safety to reining in impulses that are expressed by mentally ill individuals.

  • hennorama

    The NRA had been silent since the Newtown massacre until yesterday, when it stated cryptically that “The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.”  They unsurprisingly offered zero details.
     
    They have a press conference scheduled for Friday Dec. 21, 2012 and no doubt are in press blackout mode until then.
     
    Perhaps they are counting on the end of the world on Friday, so they won’t need to actually “offer meaningful contributions.”
     
    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/nra-shocked-saddened-and-heartbroken-by-newtown-shooting/?hpt=hp_t2

    • BHA_in_Vermont

      I’m surprised they aren’t waiting until the 22nd, just in case the world comes to an end on the 21st. ;)

  • http://www.facebook.com/ren.knopf.9 Ren Knopf

    More conversation equals more foot dragging, which has been the historical standard for this issue. The sound bites I hear have been heard before and, if the “discussion” does not end with laws being renewed, stiffened and passed - and backed by commensurate enforcement, will be heard again. Action is required.

    • donniethebrasco

      Wait 6 months.  Nothing will change.

    • brettearle

      There’s too much resistance to gun control.

      47% of American households have guns.

      You will get positive action sooner than you think.

      But first, whether you like it or not, there has to be MUCH discussion.

  • TinaWrites

    testing

  • joe m

    Most GOP politicians are certifiably insane – especially Gov. Bob McDonnell & that hillbilly from TX. 

  • donniethebrasco

    How to create more gun violence:

    Step 1 – Ban guns

    How to make more poor people:

    Step 1 – Pay people who are poor.

    How to sell more guns:
    Step 1 – Talk about banning guns.

    • 1Brett1

      How to get rid of useless, dumb, simplistic commentary:

      Step 1 – ban donniebrasco

    • nj_v2

      Just when you thought posts from this troll couldn’t get any dumber…

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    Same comment as yesterday.
    WHERE in the second amendment does it say that any person can own any weapon they want?
     
    Saying people may not own assault rifles or large capacity magazines does NOT mean people may not own any guns at all.

    The NRA is black and white. The people killed with these weapons are also black and white … and every other ethnic background. There is ZERO need for these weapons in private hands. They are not used to hunt. They are not used to protect your home. In the hands of sane law abiding people they are merely “I want to feel like Rambo” at the range toys. Elsewhere, they kill.

    The NRA should have ZERO power to control gun legislation, they are a small voting block.

    No background check law would have stopped the Newtown massacre, as I understand it the gun was legally owned by the shooter’s mother.

    • http://www.facebook.com/margaret.debhulbh Margaret DeBhulbh

      The “arms” of our Founding Fathers no more resemble the guns on the street today than they resemble a nuclear missile. Its ridiculous. If these people must arm themselves let them carry a musket, it won’t cause as much damage.

  • Casey Reyner

    Teachers do not want guns.  More guns in schools will mean more gun violence in schools.

    • donniethebrasco

       I agree.  Teachers should not be expected to have guns.  It is inconceivable that more guns in schools will help safety.

      However, working lock down procedures, regular police presence in schools, and liability for letting nuts out are things I agree with.

  • skeptic150

    The recent shooting was tragic and horrific. It needs to be investigated and dealt with appropriately within our means and within the realm of Constitutionality. Yet once again we have rhetoric and politician reactions before we know all the facts related to this specific incident. Personally, I am tired of politicians trying to capitalize on emotions to further their agendas. I am not saying anything about whether we should institute new gun laws. But people seem to be forgetting that the person who committed this act had significant mental issues, reportedly played a violent video game obsessively, and fairly strict gun laws were in place in Connecticut. As American citizens, we should be temper our government and politicians from instituting laws based on emotion rather than logic and rational thought. When legislation is proposed and passed so soon after an incident like this, we run the risk of letting emotions guide our laws rather than rational thought.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Blame the Idiot Box, blame the NRA, blame violent video games, blame violent movies, blame teachers being unarmed, blame schools not being surrounded by concertina wire, blame a lack of armed guards on campus, blame everything save that which is most at fault: US.

    I’m pro Gun-Control in the form of Assault Weapon bans and restricted magazine capacity, but it WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Gun Control? Self Control.

  • donniethebrasco

    All of you agree that banning abortions creates black market, dangerous abortions.

    Banning guns will create a black market for guns that will support criminal guns.

    • IsaacWalton

      Really?! You mean there isn’t already an illegal trade of guns running up i-95 from Miami to Maine? My state police friends tell me otherwise. They actually wish there were LESS guns on the street.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Go to your fantasyland where people with any power and in any numbers are talking about banning guns.

      On the other hand, for a real comparison, it’s amazing how many restrictions on womens’ healthcare some politicians can hold, and will still get a pass by our mainstream media as being “pro-choice”.

      By that definition I’m “pro gun”, and I should have a seat at the table as a moderate.

    • brettearle

      So you think that madmen will have access to Black Markets, just as readily as they currently do have access to Dick’s Sporting Goods?

      • skeptic150

        The people motivated sufficiently to perform such acts will find a way to get the weapons they need to do it- whether firearms or some other form of destruction. We will likely still see acts of violence committed involving numerous victims in this country regardless of what our politicians do at this point with respect to gun legislation. But it seems fairly obvious to me our so called leaders are once again acting on emotions rather than rational thought.

        • brettearle

          Are you suggesting that we should make it EASIER for them, by not restricting official access?

          Because it is rather easy to draw that this is your conclusion, from what you are saying.

          I find that argument, if that’s what you are ACTUALLY saying, to be utterly indefensible….

          Just because people will seek illegal means, in NO way condones making something that is dangerous, illegal.

          • skeptic150

            No, I am saying:
            1) people sufficiently motivated to perform such acts will find a way (eg T McVeigh)
            2) Our politicians are once again acting on emotion and spewing rhetoric – imo, something is clearly politicized when legislation is already being discussed/proposed before a complete and thorough investigation

          • brettearle

            I know that you think that you answered my question.

            But I think you dodged it.

          • brettearle

             If I confused you, I apologize.

            I should have said, “in NO way condones keeping something that is dangerous, legal.”

  • Casey Reyner

    I understand that people should be able to defend themselves against tyranny, but has a truly democratic government like our militarily oppressed its people?  I believe the two party system we have will never let this happen.
     

    • donniethebrasco

      Why didn’t the Dems and Reps didn’t renew the Assault Weapons Ban?  That is not tyranny?

    • IsaacWalton

      You’re right and it’s the gun crazed that like to perpetuate IT COULD HAPPEN! I don’t care how many GUNS citizens can buy, do they ACTUALLY think they will stand up to the most powerful military in the world? Ha! That’s simply ludicrous and used to sell more guns!

  • Chuck Penn

     To all of the people that think we should have armed teachers in the schools I have to ask what the hell.  This is an accident waiting to happen.  Also is that the type of person we want teaching our children every day is the person who will draw down on another human and fire. Have a police officer stationed at the school not a locked and loaded teaching staff.

    • donniethebrasco

       This is the morons on the gun rights side.

      The thing is that the problem, “make sure this will never happen again” in a free society cannot be solved.

      Trying to answer that question is the problem.

      Lets make sure that trying to make sure that people exercising their freedom will never happen again is absurd.

  • Scott B

    Every Constitutional right we have as US citizens comes with its caveats.  Freedom of speech is tempered by laws regarding libel, and slander; and you can’t falsely yell, “Fire!” in a theater.  Our right to vote and hold public office is limited by age, area of residence, criminal back ground, and sanity.  Alcohol is legal, but we restrict it by laws regarding age, when and where it can be sold, and how much can be in our body if we’re driving a vehicle. 
      So why has the 2nd Amendment has been held as sacred, untouchable.  The NRA champions it as all inclusive for anything they deign as a gun, be it a single-shot .22 for shooting pop cans or an assault weapon that is meant for the military and law enforcement and not hunt, or a .50 cal that is supposed be on top of a military vehicle, not in a home.

    The NRA would also have citizen walking around armed, like it was the wild west of the 1880′s, and thinking that if only school teachers, church goers, and anyone walking the street had a gun that they’re going to suddenly become John McClane of the “Die Hard” movies, and start taking out bad guy like they’re a trained professional, when even trained professionals have emptied clips at point blank range and missed; and study after study shows that when bystanders have gun they don’t react well, often becoming more of a danger, pointing guns at the wrong people, if anyone, in the heat (and fear) of the moment.

    The NRA also have US citizens believe that at any moment, a Liberal US government would have “jack-booted government thugs” (that’s a quote) bashing down doors and taking the weapons of private citizens and the 2nd Amendment will protect them from that.

    This is madness.

    “Got a barrel that’s blue and cold

    Ain’t no good for nothin’

    But put a man six feet in a hole”
     - Lynyrd Skynyrd “Saturday Night Special”

     

  • working_for_change

    In many people’s minds, there is a feeling that ‘we’ reap what ‘they’ sow, failing to
    understand that passivity or acceptance of the idea that ‘we’ are somehow
    impotent against the ‘power’ of the gun lobby is the only explanation for the
    culture of violence and ridiculous notions about gun ownership that exist.  Shake off the chains of fear, impotence and ignorance. 
    Extreme and constant pressure by people who don’t own and don’t want guns in
    their communities would be enough to start to produce solutions to eliminate
    these weapons of mass destruction from the homeland. I am optimistic that some
    progress will now be made in turning the tide of diminishing expectations in the
    face of blather about the 2nd amendment.

  • John_in_Amherst

    The NRA’s appeal mixes elements of maintaining a hunting tradition (proudly passed on through the generations), patriotism (for those who equate guns and freedom), paranoia (for those who fear either the ATF confiscating guns & thereby emasculating the gun owners, or those who fear lawlessness, uncontrolled by the police and/or military), and latent racism (for those who see guns as a way for whites can hang onto power).  Not every NRA member embodies all these stereotypes, but they add up to a powerful mix, and converts many zealous NRA members into single issue voters.  It blinds members to seeing that the country’s loose firearms regulations are putting us all at ever more danger, as increasing numbers of people buy more and more powerful guns designed solely for maximizing the killing of armed adversaries. 
    The stats speak for themselves: our rate of gun violence is orders of magnitude greater than in any other developed country.  Our “freedom” to carry is paid for with innocent lives.  Gun culture has so thoroughly distorted our national perspective, it will take generations to wind down (i.e.: get military style weapons out of civilian hands), but it will NEVER happen, unless we begin.  A good starting point would be to organize boycotts of media (TV, video games, movies) that persist in brainwashing the public with violent images.  Eliminating the civilian market for weapons and accessories (high capacity magazines, hollow point and teflon coated rounds, etc.) of war is another. 
    How many more tragedies will it take until at least some NRA members will break ranks?

  • AC

    Some of you are probably aware of how my mind processes
    information (prob think I’m crazy) and find it odd that I’m not that vocal on this portion of the incident. Don’t isunderstand, I am FOR gun control.

    But at the same time, I look at some of the posts and
    realize what a different era I am already living in. Perhaps you all are not aware that Makerbot, a company I have posted about before, is a 3D printer
    manufacturer. Perhaps you are not aware that there are already blueprints
    available for sale that you can make serious weapons with:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100007925/making-guns-in-your-garage-how-3d-printers-will-revolutionise-the-manufacture-of-deadly-weapons/

     

    http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-assault-rifle-made-3-d-printer

     

    That is why I have been so keen to separate the ‘esoteric’
    portion of mass murder from its delivery system. Sorry, all of these opinions all
    of you (the looney govt taker over ones make me snicker) are going on about are
    moot.

    People who have the mental illness that wants weapons don’t
    care about your opinions, and honestly, at under $3k a printer, their goals
    will be reachable, no matter what we change for gun laws.

     

    My biggest fear right now is that there is a security
    software firm that is passing out blueprint to highly functional plastic
    weapons for FREE because they believe everyone has the right to arm themselves.
    Terrorists included. I dread to think what airline security will become….

     

    But in any case – this whole portion of the crime is a waste
    of focus to me – fix the mental so people don’t want weapons in the first
    place. You’re crazy if you think you can get rid of them in any other way…..

  • pnella33

    How about not allowing there to be more guns than people per household? Adam Lanza’s mother apparently had four+ guns registered in her name. Why was she allowed to have so many weapons in her house?

    • donniethebrasco

       Its called freedom.

    • jefe68

      You can own as many as you want. The number of guns you can own is not restricted and right now you can buy almost any type. You could own a 50 cal sniper rifle in some states.

    • peterlake

      Do you own a necktie or a pair of shoes?
      Do you have more than one necktie or more than one pair of shoes?
      Why?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Caller Ken, “I see almost giddy political joy”.

    Time to ask Ken about his media diet.

    • Call_Me_Missouri

      Agreed!  Clearly he has not been listening to any NPR station this week.

      Maybe Fox News has their panties in a bunch about the NRA because Mr. Ailes is a huge contributor to their cause for LIBERTY over SAFETY and SANITY.

  • IsaacWalton

    There is NOTHING disgusting about bringing down an organization that sends out literature that perpetuates FEAR, pumps gun sales and glorifies guns. If America doesn’t want it, then let IT like any other business go under.

    • donniethebrasco

       You need a hug and a gun.

      • IsaacWalton

        I have 5 guns…KAHR PM9, Remington 243 with Swaro scope, CA Black Powder, Benelli Montefeltro and soon Caesar guerini Evo lite and a bow….so who you talking to? Oh I also have about 6k dollars in fly rods and reels. And if guns were banned, I’d give em up and just fish more. Because for ME, it really is JUST A SPORT.

  • Sasha Yin

    I’d like someone to address these contrasts: 
    1) Huge profit for NRA, huge cost on the society/nation 

    2) Huge profit for the gun industry, huge cost on humanity in war-devastated countries around the world

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDIOY7RQ3F5EAR4EAP5FKRS52M bethrjacobs

    I myself  am not a gun enthusiast but the idea of heavy regulation concerns me and no I am not Jewish http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

    • donniethebrasco

       Why does it matter if you are Jewish or not?

      Now, it would be a problem if you were Catholic.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDIOY7RQ3F5EAR4EAP5FKRS52M bethrjacobs

        The web page refers to the Nazi gun ban and my name is often taken as a Jewish  one which I do not mind and the Nazis bannned Jews and “all other defectives” from owning guns

    • peterlake

       You don’t need to be Jewish to join this fine group:
      “Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership”.

      http://jpfo.org/

      They have excellent pages about the history of gun control, by the way.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WDIOY7RQ3F5EAR4EAP5FKRS52M bethrjacobs

        Are you a famous person Peter? At any rate I know what that
        group is and I also don’t wonder why that mom had all those guns for I wonder
        if she had another “career: so even if there is a ban on assault rifles and say
        “mental defectives shouldn’t have guns “neither of which am I in favor of I
        think most people act like idiots with guns but if the mom in this case had
        some specially reason like a special job to carry these massive guns then none
        of the above will help anyway.

        • peterlake

          As for being a “famous person”, I’m a humble businessman who’s had his 15 minutes several times over, for several different reasons.

          It’s hard to know why the shooter’s mother owned guns but in retrospect it was certainly a long-term bad decision.

          I’m intimately familiar with many short-term bad decisions which have had far, far, far worse short-term consequences and which are much more common than this shoooting.

          The long-term result of this shooting remains to be seen, but I predict most of the people on this forum will not ultimately be satisfied.

          That’s my prediction and my hope, since I think there’s more misinformation and more crackpot ideas here than anywhere on the web, with the possible exception of sites given to “birthers” and “truthers”.

          But please visit the site of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms for solid information and links.

          As an aside, I find it totally baffling that all Jews do not support the rights of gun owners, but as I said, the great thing about America is that anyone can think anything they want, no matter how misguided.

          • bethrjacobs

            I believe in ” every Jew a 22″ and female for that matter but I have seen the site and don’t need any help making an ass hole out of myself I’m doing just fine at it all on my own

  • AaronNM

    Yesterday I took my Ruger SR9c (9mm) to a local business to have it destroyed.

    It’s a feeling that’s been building up for a while but Newtown/Sandy Hook was the tipping point for me. Today’s “gun culture” has become inextricably linked to “consumer culture” and an atmosphere of mistrust, fear, and paranoia which is exploited by firearms/ammunition manufacturers and “pro-gun” interest groups. The confluence of these forces has made reasonable discussion/debate about sensible gun control impossible.

    My feeling about guns is similar to how I felt when I purchased my ex-wife’s engagement ring not knowing about “blood diamonds”. While I wasn’t directly complicit in the brutality associated with those diamonds, my money flowing into the market was a tacit nod that the practice should continue.

    As a gun owner, every time I purchased a new firearm and ammunition I was complicit in the debilitation and dismantling of common-sense regulations and controls. Even though I would label myself one of the “responsible” owners, that passive complicity, that soft nod of the head, is opposite of my views of social responsibility and violence. I grew up with guns, I convinced myself that my moral and ethical positions somehow immunized me from culpability in the lack of rational controls.

    Last Friday all that changed.

    Owning a gun in today’s climate is to participate in the stymieing of controls which might have averted this and other tragedies, including the thousands of senseless deaths from disputes, domestic violence, suicide, and accidents which occur every year in this country.

    We need to reassess where freedom, responsibility, and reason intersect in this country. I’m under no illusions that gun control will be a panacea or that all violence would stop if more firearms were banned, but stopping what happened last Friday has to start somewhere. It has to start with each of us demanding more and better of ourselves first, followed by demanding more and better of those who represent us.

    • donniethebrasco

       Did you see it destroyed?  They might have sold it to someone else.

      • AaronNM

        It’s a business that I did a lot of research on, including calling several police departments. They confirmed that the business does a lot of work with them to destroy seized weapons and that Steve, the owner, has a stellar reputation.

      • IsaacWalton

        DB I don’t think you know anything about guns. If it was SOLD again they’d be in prison. Unless they scratch off the serial number they can’t sell it again legally. More illegal gun trade going on?

        • AaronNM

          Who needs an illegal gun trade in this country when you’ve got the gun show loophole?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      An analogy: After the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I waited for one oil company to put on an image ad touting how “We’re the folks who drill for oil right and we have the safety record to prove it.”

      But not a one did. Their PR folks thought it’d be better to have the public castigate all the companies rather than anger their fellow industry bigwigs.

      Do all the gunmakers do this too? In an industry whose titled leader says “Those who have the guns make the rules”, what does discussion about guns sound like?

  • 228929292AABBB

    The truth is this moment will be the test of our President, more than the NRA.  We know what the NRA will do.  What we don’t know, but will from the aftermath of this single event once and for all, is whether our President is the man he sounds like in speeches or just a good speaker.

  • Michiganjf

    Get on YouTube or search Google to look for evidence of accidental discharges and morons who’ve shot themselves or someone else – usually gun enthusiasts who think they’re well acquainted and trained with firearms (Dick Cheney anyone?)!

    Yeah,    what we need is as many idiots as possible carrying weapons around in public… that will assure everyone is safe!

    Get a clue, geniuses who think the answer to gun violence is more people toting around guns… yes, especially in grade schools, high schools, theatres, and shopping malls!

    • donniethebrasco

       I heard that you have too many channels on your cable subscription.  Or not enough.

      • nj_v2

        ^ Troll

    • brettearle

      Ownership of guns statistically increases the possibility of violence in your life, or someone else’s life who is close to you.

    • peterlake

       We’ve been hearing that old diatribe forever.
      Gun ownership is up and crime is down since 1993.

      Now, please go back and rethink your premise.

  • Sasha Yin

    I’d like someone to address these contrasts: 1) Huge profit for NRA, huge cost on the society/nation 

    2) Huge profit for the gun industry, huge cost on humanity in war-devastated countries around the world

  • http://twitter.com/Chucknef Chuck Nefzger

    We are not going to get rid of guns.  Why not work on smart guns only, even requiring that all guns be retrofitted as smart guns.

    • Call_Me_Missouri

      Why not?  Australia did and MY GOD the World did not end!

      So to your argument I say…. PUHHHLEEEZE!  

      If there is a WILL…  There is a WAY.

      And I think there is a WILL to get these MURDER WEAPONS back where they belong with the US Military.

      • AC

        you can just print them out at home if you really want them anyway…

  • Crashgal

    Last night on the Piers Morgan Show, Alan Dershowitz stated that Israel, a place that is under constant attack and has good reason to be armed, has very strict gun control laws with no private automatic weapon ownership, allowing only 50 bullets per person per lifetime.

    • donniethebrasco

       Automatic weapons are machine guns.  Israelis are all members of the army, so they have government issued guns.  There is 1 government gun for every 2 people in Israel.  There is also 1 private gun for every 7 citizens (14 per 100 people.

      http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/israel

      Syria has 4 civilian guns for every 100 people.

      Where would you rather live?

  • http://twitter.com/Chucknef Chuck Nefzger

    Why not work on making all guns smart guns?  Even require (and pay for) retrofitting all older guns.

  • Scott B

    The ammo for these weapons are made to cause the maximum amount of damage to a body. The bullets are designed to tumble and fragment throughout the body. Last night on ABC a trauma room doctor said that it was easy to tell when a victim has been shot with an assault weapon as the wound, “looks like an explosion occurred.”  The rounds are not for anyone looking to hunt to eat, as lead’s often scattered through the body and much of the meat is ruined as bullets tear through organs, contaminating it when it hits certain ones, and mutilating large swaths of it; bad enough in deer and big game, and devastatingly mutilating in small game. 

    Yet the NRA would seem to believe that monster, bulletproof vest-wearing big game is wandering around the woods, needing assault rounds by the dozens to bring them down.

    • donniethebrasco

       These bullets also don’t go long distances after they hit a deer.  If someone is hunting and they hit a deer, they stop.

      If they didn’t stop, they could go for another mile before stopping in your back window.

      • Scott B

         No bullet goes far after it hits a deer unless it was through a leg or some thing part of the deer and that deer was very near a road; of which, shooting withing several hundred feet of a public road or dwelling is illegal in most (if not all) states, anyway.

         A small round .22 round will travel over a mile. Not accurately, but it will. I’ve also know of them dropping a good sized deer with one shot in the right place, as a game warden I knew busted the guy (so wasn’t a legal kill).

        But a shot from a hunting rifle is usually pretty clean. Yes, the bullet is designed to pancake and make a big hole (or holes if it’s through & through). But .223′s are designed to fire pretty damned accurately over a significant distance, be it the military issue or civilian version.  But again, it’s what the bullets are designed to do, which is cause maximum damage.
         
        A lot of law enforcement agencies, and the military in no small part, are starting to use what are called “frangibles”. These are bullets that are designed to have stopping power, and break apart to cause local  damage, but without the tumbling and fragmenting of a traditional .223 bullet that’s designed to kill, or at least main.

    • brettearle

       Are you of the complete opinion that the NRA will not get behind the idea of reducing accessibility to assault weapons?

      I think they are going to budge on this issue–in order to maintain their political capitol.

      There’s too much of a groundswell of severe public sentiment that is unlikely to be reduced from its clamor, anytime soon.

    • peterlake

       And yet, according to the NY Times this week, a quarter of .223 calibre rifle owners use them for hunting.
      Can they be so wrong?

      • Scott B

        But hunting what and for what? I know people that have .223 assault guns for shooting coyotes and groundhogsjust because they can shoot that far and it effectively blows up the critter. In my youth I took out plenty of woodchucks with my level action .22 less than 50 feet away.  I lived in an area polulated by farms and stables and chucks were a threat to the lively hood of the farmers because a cow or horse that breaks its leg in a chuck hole has to be put down and the farmer loses money in all directions. 
         
        The only “hunters” I know of using .223s for big game are trophy hunters, less concerned with feeding themselves and their family that hanging a rack on the wall. Traditional hunting rifles, be they .30 cals from Walmart or WWI surplus, or a .50 black powder gun that great-great-grandpappy owned long before the cilvil war, have brought down plenty of game.

        I have to question why these .223 users truly chose to use them?

        • peterlake

          It doesn’t matter why people choose to use them.
          I could cite several reasons: light weight, low recoil, low cost ammo, adaptable with lights and sights etc.

          But you cite a .30 cal hunting rifle and that’s got more power than the so-callled “assault rifles.”

          If I wanted to shoot up a school and didn’t have a .223 I’d have no lack of hunting rifles or shotguns to pick from, and the result would be the same — or worse.

          Focusing on the hardware is something will only satisfy the gun-grabbers but do nothing to solve the problem of misuse.

          Prohibit murder, I say.
          And if you do that and people violate that law, why should they obey any other?

          The killers are crazy — fix that problem.

  • TSchafer

    since most NRA members want background checks, perhaps the time is right for a new gun ownership organization to compete with the NRA.  

  • TechRay

    The violence against the souls at SandyHook is Horrible. The Question of the day boils down to:  Who is responsible for our safety–The Government or Ourselves.   Children are killed every day without the use of guns.  Guns are just a convenient distraction to hard questions.   I say if we focus on guns nothing will really change.  Millions will be spent, Gun owners will purchase even more guns “Just in Case”.   We should focus on Mental Health.  This way, we can help Millions of People live a better life.

    If we thinks the government can really stop gun violence lets look at the WAR ON DRUGS.   Would you just your children’s safety to that program?

    There are better ways to honor these children then to waste our time and treasure on gun laws.   Let us celebrate life and work to help those who might someday be prone to commit violence against others.

    Ray

  • Roy-in-Boise

    High capacity magazines can be defined as “destructive devices” under present law and regulated accordingly. Going after everyone’s guns is an exercise in division more than futility.

  • Stephen706

    So we attack guns? What about alcohol and the over 10K deaths annually? Repeal Amendment 21 (again)? What about banning Sudafed, Vicodin, Lortab, Soma, Xanax to curb the epidemic of prescription drug overdose, diversion, and accidental/ intentional deaths? Are these next?

    Haven’t liberals rightly said–you cannot legislate morality!!!

    • AaronNM

      False equivalencies. None of the products you described are designed specifically to kill people. The slippery slope you’re trying to create is bogus.

      • Stephen706

        Not really–guns, just everything else are tools with a purpose and design. The flaw is in the one aspect center to all problems–the human interface. Instead of the symptom, focus on the problem.

        • matt gallagher

          I would love to see equivalent restrictions on alcohol as we see on guns: must be over the age of 21 to operate, must have a licence to sell, can’t have a loaded one in your car, banned at the workplace unless you work at a shooting range or police station, limits on power of weapon, allow local laws to supersede and have “dry counties” where the sale of weapons are banned outright.

          Please, this would be a great improvement on what we have now. 

          • Stephen706

            LIKE THAT but again the problem is the lawful citizenry will follow said rules, not the criminal or lawless…

      • Stephen706

        Just as Jenna said above… NRA could and should do exactly that–pour money in mental health and campaign for appropriate background checking, ongoing surveillance, improving safety devices and locks, and prevention of diversion into the wrong people.

        • hennorama

          No one is trying to legislate for morality.  They are trying to legislate against morTality.

          • Stephen706

            So what does that mean? How do you see or propose it? Lawful mature responsible people follow society’s rules… it is those that don’t that don’t follow said rules and thus such happens. 

            You can take a car and load it with Tide and Gasoline and a switch to go off upon impact and create a car bomb–would you then ban cars? No. Ban Tide? No. Ban Gasoline? No. 

            Of course we want to reduce mortality, but what is the underlying problem? It is the human part of the equation–and we have not done a good job figuring that problem out, nor are we trying to.

          • hennorama

            Stephen706 – surely you’ve heard of rhetoric. You employ it liberally, pun intended. YOU implied someone was trying to legislate morality, so perhaps you can show how that’s happening.

            I merely made a counterargument – people want to prevent more mass death of civilians, especially children, from firearms. I’ve made no proposals other than the one I made on yesterday’s topic.

          • Stephen706

            When attacking the NRA or proposing new laws or band or this or that on the weapon but ignore the primary real focus, that is legislating. That is what I have been getting from the undertones of the topic at hand today.
            The problem is not the gun but the f$&&?d up irrational action of some one who will not abide by said rules regardless. Our approach to the not normal citizenry is the problem area.

          • hennorama

            Stephen706 – TY for your response. I understand and respect your views.

            We all agree that mass murder is unacceptable. However, I would caution you on using the word “irrational” with respect to the Newtown case specifically, or murder cases in general. Murderers are often quite rational. They often plan ahead, and choose their targets carefully, for example.

            You seem to be saying that no new restrictions on firearms are either required or advisable. I assume you agree that mentally ill persons should not be allowed to buy or own firearms. Yesterday, I proposed a modification to the current regulations and laws regarding the purchase of some firearms, pertaining to mental health. This is what I was referring to:

            “Why not require anyone purchasing a firearm to be certified free of “mental defect” via an examination by a mental health professional? Currently, one needs only to attest to never having been “adjudicated mentally defective” OR never having “been committed to a mental institution.” …..

            “This is especially important due to the fact that someone suffering mental health issues seldom possesses the insight that they are ill, and denial of illness is itself part of their illness. They view themselves as being perfectly fine and in no need of help or treatment.”

            My post continued a bit, but this was the real “meat” of it.

            One also might conclude that having lower ammo capacity could give an unarmed individual at least SOME chance against well-armed persons intent on assault and murder, to name another possible new restriction.

            I agree that our society may have swung too far in protecting the rights of mentally ill individuals (or as you say “the not normal citizenry”), at the expense of society as a whole. This is a complex problem, and solutions are neither clear nor easily implemented.

            Just like solutions to the proliferation of gun violence. We need to work on both problems, and to ignore neither.

          • Stephen706

            I agree with most everything. The laws already exist about mentally ill and weapons though–problem is people simply lie or deceive or don’t care or don’t consider the condition to be that bad to trigger the no-go.
            And yes, we swung the pendulum too far to this state of affairs. And dismantled things and there are not enough mental health professionals to “screen” the populace much less be accountable.
            Would not consider murder and murderers rational per se. They may plan and premeditate such but that doesn’t make them normal. Further they would not be ones to “follow the rules” of society. That’s the problem–there is no mechanism to identify or separate said individuals.
            It is a culture and societal issue.

          • hennorama

            Stephen 706 – TY again for your response. I appreciate and respect your views, and for taking the time to respond.

            I won’t quibble over “rational,” as I understood your meaning – that murder is neither normal nor acceptable.

            The reason I’m proposing the idea that any firearms purchaser be required to be certified free of “mental defect,” rather than it be ASSUMED unless a records search can prove otherwise is that a mentally ill person may not have the capacity to judge whether they are in fact mentally ill. After all, we don’t ASSUME that anyone who wants a driver’s license is free of vision problemsd. They have to prove it, by passing an examination. Reasonable restrictions, such as not allowing blind people to drive, or mentally ill people to purchase firearms, have a place in a society that balances risks to society with the privileges, and rights, of individuals.

            There is a workable middle ground, and with hard work and luck, we’ll find it.

          • Ellen Dibble

            I seem to recall that the mentally ill are a lot more vulnerable, in general, so that’s an issue. Maybe more likely to be in irrational confrontations, without easy access to police protection, for instance.

  • Asia888

    I’d like someone to address the contrasts we all live with: 1) Huge profit for NRA, huge cost on the society/nation 

    2) Huge profit for the gun industry, huge cost on humanity in war-devastated countries around the world

  • JennaJennaeight

    Going with mental illness as a scapegoat could be a win-win.  The NRA should pour money into mental health services in every state as a PR project.  

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Given their overheated, paranoid rhetoric, at what point would such an effort be needed just to draw their result to flat even? How much crazee do they have to prevent to offset what they’ve caused since the “black helicopter” 1990s?

  • Alexander Madeo

    The NRA operates on the slippery slope principle.  If all of these proposed gun control measures were implemented would Josh Horowitz resign with his initiatives accomplished, would the Brady campaign shut down mission accomplished.  Would any of these anti-gun activists stop short of a total ban on private gun ownership in the United States.  I think not.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       I think the majority of Americans support ownership of guns for reasonable purposes, such as hunting and personal safety. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines do not fit this definition.

    • matt gallagher

      Same argument in the other direction.  When will the NRA be satisfied?  When every person carries in public not a semi-automatic but a fully automatic rifle?  When children put guns in their lockers like they were articles of clothing?  Really, the NRA has made itself into a joke because they don’t have any other guiding principal other than more guns in more places. 

      • peterlake

         Since 1993 crime has gone down and gun ownership has gone up.
        Coincidence?

        • hennorama

          Yes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6905738 Rich Ketcham

    This is classic American problem solving – treat the symptom not the cause. Focusing on guns does not solve the root cause of this massacre. Instead of asking how Sandy Hook happened we should be asking why. 

    • BHA_in_Vermont

      “we should be asking why.”

      It happened because an unstable person had access to an assault rifle and hundreds (thousands??) of rounds of ammunition.

  • Call_Me_Missouri

    The difference between the US and countries in Africa is CIVILITY.

    Guns do not help Civility.  Look at all the guns in Africa and tell me they are really helping things there.

    There is no reason for assault weapons to be sold to any other organization other than the US Military.

    If you want to shoot big guns… JOIN THE MILITARY MORONS!  Do some public service!

    I call for an Australia style buy back program that forces 100% of private citizens to turn in both high capacity magazines and all assault style weapons that can be modified in any way shape or form to shoot too quickly with no ridiculous distinctions between grip styles and all the other stupid loop holes that exist today.

  • andreawilder

    Where is the money in all this?
    Money for the NRA.
    Is it the weapons industry?

  • spirit17of76

    I agree that a popular argument for arming ourselves is to overthrow a rogue government.  However, I do not think that having lots of right wing possessors of assault rifles deciding when it is time to overthrow the government, will result in a better democracy in this country – or represent me better than elections do.  Nor can they fight the American army.  Nor is such blood in our city streets something I want to see happen.

    Better that we fight problems in our democracy by limiting the influence of monied interests in our public policy.  Better that we strengthen democracy by  improving election systems and by aggressively prosecuting the dirty tricks, disenfranchisement and intimidation that have caused our elections to sometimes produce results that do not reflect the will of the electorate.  We also need to institute statistically significant audits in all federal elections, audits that can MEANINGFULLY verify that the outcomes of elections are those intended by our voters.

    • donniethebrasco

       Actually, it would be run a business and getting shaken down by a local thug who is friends with the police.

      A potential gun equalizes this equation.

    • sickofthechit

       Don’t forget the importance of an improved education system and wellness care for all.

  • IsaacWalton

    Will the Republican party once again drop the ball and find themselves increasingly irrelevant in modern America? 

    • matt gallagher

      When looking to see what policy positions are losers in the political and public spheres simply look at the GOP platform.
      - Refuse to recognize marriage of same sex persons
      - Immigration policy begins with self-deportation of illegals
      - Increase gov’t revenues by decreasing taxes  
      - Deny the existance of man-made global warming
      - Fight any reasonable attempt to control guns

      I am sure I am missing some but another key policy position bites the dust. 

  • TSchafer

    Since the majority of NRA members want background checks, perhaps there are other issues where the leadership doesn’t reflect the membership.  This may be time to create a new gun ownership organization to challenge the primacy of the NRA.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       The Intelligent Rifle Association.

      Oh, wait, IRA wouldn’t be such a good thing. :)

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Actually, the Gun Owners of America is out there. If you think LaPierre is someone who your deer- and duck-hunting fellow Vermonters eye with some wariness, the GOA are worse.

        (I forget, we have a lot of Vermonters in this space, do you hunt?)

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    ALL politicians need to sign a Grover Norquist like pledge:
    “I will not take money from the NRA, I will not allow NRA lobbyists in my office. I reject any PAC or Super PAC support for my support of logical gun control”.

    Make ALL politicians “equal” in the NRA’s eyes in their inability to get one elected or keep them from being elected based on NRA politics.

  • Will606

    Itis important to note that the 2nd Amendment was not to protect citizens right to hunt but was to protect citizen’s right to have and keep guns. The understanding was that an armed public could not be controlled by a government that wanted to disarm them. The anti-gun lobby first argued that a public armed only with rifles could not prevent a takeover of this country-Vietnam and the hard lessons we have learned in Iraq etc. showed the lie in that argument. The murder of the children shows that we must (1) do something about the mentally-ill in this country and (2) the families  who refuse to get them treatment.  The highest court in the land has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual RIGHT. This is something that the anti-gun crowd always denied. The real question is what is the responsibility of families to protect the public from the crazy ill family member who can and will hurt others? All the shooters were KNOWN to be ill and dangerous to others. Yet the system did nothing to protect us or punish the ones who let this happen. William

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Your guest is right, based on the SCOTUS interpretation we should have RPG’s in our backyards. What we all need is our own personal ICBM then we’ll be safe…

    • peterlake

      SCOTUS specifially says we should not have PRG’s.
      Where did you get your misinformed idea? Surely not from reading any SCOTUS decision.
      Try it. They’re free.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Nor does it adequately define “reasonable restriction”. Thanks for the reply.

  • b_lipman_hotmailcom

    What about arming teachers with non-lethal weapons, like tasers, on a voluntary basis, of course with the appropriate training.   Barry, of Brookfield, CT

  • AC

    please mention what will happen when people are printing their guns at home anyway. how will the dynamic change then?

    • 1Brett1

      I’ve heard about this, using scraps of materials found around the house and a computer program to make guns. 

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Thank goodness only the wealthy will be able to purchase the required printers and media. They always look out for our best interests so we obviously have nothing to worry about.

      • AC

        i’m getting one for xmas. but not commercial grade :(

        • Mike_Card

          What?  You got the pony last year??

          • AC

            you can get small scale ones for $2500 now. they’re not a lot of money at all…

          • DrewInGeorgia

            If you don’t consider $2500 to be a lot of money…Might as well be $25000 for the majority of us. Not complaining, just saying.

          • AC

            i’m a saver, plus i don’t buy a lot of junk. my purse cost $29.00. I don’t get those people who spend $2.5k on a PURSE!!!
            i might hold off, the price point keeps dropping rapidly and i’d like something better….

          • DrewInGeorgia

            It wasn’t meant as a finger-point at you, I think you realize that but I just want to make sure.

          • AC

            no worries.
            i’m not above printing out my own $2500 purse, which won’t cost me that, trust me!!

          • Mike_Card

            This is way out of bounds for today’s topic (and would be a fascinating 2nd hour program here), but have they worked through the patent issues?

            Seems to me the photocopying industry took a long time to work through the copyright problems.

          • AC

            it’s not that out of bounds – as i’ve mentioned, the programs for a working gun are available right now, though getting them might be harder… but it effectively changes the conversation about whether or not a mass murderer would care about what the law is if he knows he can just quietly make something in his garage….
            But wow – good point, but copyright is also a HUGE conversation. I am for it, but the majority of futurists I know think it’s foolish and will disappear.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I’m no futurist but Copyright Law? pft.

            I recall a great discussion with Steve Gibson (Gibson Research) regarding Copyright Laws. I’ll try to link it up later if I have time to hunt it down.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Slightly out of bounds I suppose but the use of 3-D printers to ‘manufacture’ firearms is definitely relevant to a discussion on Gun-Control.

            Besides, I’ve enjoyed this brief discussion a hell of a lot more than the majority of the commentary I’ve been reading today.

            Please excuse my feeble attempt at Off-Topic justification.

            ;’)

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Getting into Gun-Manufacturing? lol
          Of course I know you’re not, I just couldn’t help myself.
          I am amazed by the 3-D printers, they have so many possible applications it’s not even funny. I’m hoping that once the Commercial models begin coming down in price we will see a New Age of manufacturing and innovation at the individual level. The potential is certainly there.

          • AC

            you think the manufacturing sector jobs are weak now – wait ten years……
            the only ones i can afford can make christams ornament sized stuff. really i want to be able to design and print my own car. I’m a wiz with AUTOCAD 3D and mathematical modeling and my husband’s a gearhead. I’m pretty sure i could do it. & it’s not going to need gas either. tho it may have a small nuclear reactor, we’ll see. the idea came to me in a dream. it was a weird dream, don’t ask…..

          • AC

            i’d also like to learn more biology and get one of those fancy organ printers – imagine just replacing parts as needed? lol….
            also i need a better surgical trainer than wiki how:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-surgery

          • AC

            i’d also like to learn more biology and get one of those fancy organ printers – imagine just replacing parts as needed? lol….
            also i need a better surgical trainer than wiki how:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-surgery

  • TinaWrites

    I’ve written about this more extensively in the past, but I’d like to add an abbreviated version now.

    The Second Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights because the Planter Class in the South wanted to assure that the Northerners, who wanted Abolition, would write up an amendment that would allow the Planters to continue to raise  fully armed militias to chase down the Planter’s Run-Away slaves, as they had during colonial days.

    The North wanted some special concession, as well, so, a deadly compromise was set in place.  As you all know, the Planters considered their slaves their property, and thought it within the law for them to capture their runaways.

    Their were more laws, supporting this, but I’m afraid I’m running too late to go and retrieve the accurate information.  

    The impetus was NOT to have a militia against tyranny; it was to retain and grow the economic power of the agricultural South and the growing industrial strength of the North in  America’s Slave Economy!!!

    • peterlake

       An astonishing theory!
      Suggest you read Professor Joyce Malcolm’s book: The Second Amendment — Origins of An Anglo-American Right.
      Here’s the Amazon description:
      Book Description

      Publication Date: February 1, 1996 | ISBN-10:
      0674893077 | ISBN-13: 978-0674893078

      Joyce Malcolm illuminates the historical facts underlying
      the current passionate debate about gun-related violence, the Brady
      Bill, and the NRA, revealing the original meaning and intentions behind
      the individual right to “bear arms.” Few on either side of the Atlantic
      realize that this extraordinary, controversial, and least understood
      liberty was a direct legacy of English law. This book explains how the
      Englishmen’s hazardous duty evolved into a right, and how it was
      transferred to America and transformed into the Second Amendment.
      Malcolm’s story begins in turbulent seventeenth-century England. She
      shows why English subjects, led by the governing classes, decided that
      such a dangerous public freedom as bearing arms was necessary. Entangled
      in the narrative are shifting notions of the connections between
      individual ownership of weapons and limited government, private weapons
      and social status, the citizen army and the professional army, and
      obedience and resistance, as well as ideas about civilian control of the
      sword and self-defense. The results add to our knowledge of English
      life, politics, and constitutional development, and present a historical
      analysis of a controversial Anglo-American legacy, a legacy that
      resonates loudly in America today.

      • nj_v2

        ^ Dubious “scholarship” from the gun nutter wing.

        We’re going to stand up to dissemblers like peterlake. Crap like this will be rebutted, refuted, opposed, challenged, and, as necessary, ridiculed, at every turn.

        Things are going to change. Enough!

        Rebuttal to peterlake disinformation here:

        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/?pagination=false

        Excerpts:

        “The Tennessee Law Review devotes most of its Spring issue to a collection of articles by members of this school, including one that says its authors have created “the Standard Model” for interpreting the Second Amendment. To this mood of self-congratulation can be added the fact that a majority of Americans tell pollsters that they believe the Second Amendment protects private ownership of guns. So the defenders of that position feel they hold both the scholarly high ground and the popular consensus. The five who constitute a kind of inner circle of Standard Modelers—Robert J. Cottrol, Stephen P. Halbrook, Don B. Kates, Joyce Lee Malcolm, and Robert E. Shalhope—recycle each other’s arguments energetically. Three of the five write in the Tennessee Law Review issue, one of them (Malcolm) devoting her essay to the fourth (Cottrol), while the fifth (Shalhope) is frequently cited.”

        …Time after time, in dreary expectable ways, the quotes bandied about by Standard Model scholars turn out to be truncated, removed from context, twisted, or applied to a debate different from that over the Second Amendment. Those who would argue with them soon tire of the chase from one misquotation to another, and dismiss the whole exercise—causing the angry reaction from Standard Modelers that they are not taken seriously. The problem is that taking them seriously is precisely what undermines their claims.

        …The recent effort to find a new meaning for the Second Amendment comes from the failure of appeals to other sources as a warrant for the omnipresence of guns of all types in private hands. Easy access to all these guns is hard to justify in pragmatic terms, as a matter of social policy. Mere common law or statute may yield to common sense and specific cultural needs. That is why the gun advocates appeal, above pragmatism and common sense, to a supposed sacred right enshrined in a document Americans revere. Those advocates love to quote Sanford Levinson, who compares the admitted “social costs” of adhering to gun rights with the social costs of observing the First Amendment.60 We have to put up with all kinds of bad talk in the name of free talk. So we must put up with our world-record rates of homicide, suicide, and accidental shootings because, whether we like it or not, the Constitution tells us to. Well, it doesn’t.”

        • peterlake

          Nice try, but that article was written in 1995 and SCOTUS has been on the job since then in Heller and Malcolm, which now stand as the law of the land.

          BTW: Don Kates and I have been pals for a long time – -since when we were Democrats and I was on Nixon’s Enemies List, so when you say we’re “gun-nutters” we smile and look with regret on those who haven’t seen the light.

          Thanks to the Supreme Court for seeing that light, and now comes the Court of Appeals for the 7th District, which will be seeing to it that good citizens of Illnois will soon be able to carry concealed weapons outside their homes.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Mark Warner of Virginia, highly rated by the NRA, was on PBS Newshour last night, and I believe he’s a senator now. He was citing 400,000 deaths from firearms since Kennedy, Kennedy, and Martin Luther King were assassinated.  More than Americans killed in World War II.  And 40,000 killed here by firearms I think since 9/11, more than died in Vietnam.  How many of those deaths were in self-defense?  Rather, how many MORE deaths would there have been if people did not have weapons to defend themselves with?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    At what point are we going to address the possiblity that the mainstream media is more scared of the NRA than they should be, and the perception is warping journalism?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Didn’t Tom say something to the effect of “, not to offend the NRA” a few minutes ago?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Eh, I’m not really talking about On Point for this issue. For once, there’s been little false equivalence, and actually we have a bit of pulling back the curtain.

        The Sunday gabfests, and the Evening Newsreaders inside the Beltway, are the hive-minders I’m thinking of. For them there’s always an endless supply of angry white not-urban males, whether it’s 1994, 2010, or after four mass murders.

        There’s been some real number crunching on this issue, the NRA’s effectiveness, before election day this year. But it is not something gaining traction among the Diane Sawyers and David Gregories.

        To compare, CBS’ Sunday Morning, in a long-format piece, couldn’t come up with anything to reflect political possibilities better than a historic chart showing how few Americans want to ban handguns. That’s a crackpot, “nobody asked” question (from a Gallup poll), which makes me wonder if they didn’t want to anger the gun nuts.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          I wasn’t downing OP, it just struck me as odd that Tom would throw that caveat in there for no apparent reason.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            (I actually didn’t hear that comment or the context surrounding it.)

          • DrewInGeorgia

            “So..But you know..and..I.. This isn’t to make an enemy of the NRA”

            32:28 in, Tom and Congressman Connolly were discussing Legislative bullying by the NRA. The Congressman also threw a “Well, you know, I don’t think we want to make NRA the enemy” in for good measure at the beginning of the discussion.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Thanks for the detail. Oof, that’s a pretty telling bit.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Sometimes I wish I didn’t pay such close attention to everything, it sure would make life easier.

            Ignorance is Bliss.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Yet another benefit of not watching TeleVision, I thankfully get to miss all the Diane Sawyer and David Gregory fun.

      • sickofthechit

         Is Tom a member of the NRA?

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Maybe he is considering getting into politics, doesn’t matter though. I just thought it strange that the phrase was tossed out.

  • Ellen Dibble

    The intent of the 2nd Amendment is interesting.  Is it to allow Americans to overthrow the government rather than by votes?

  • http://profiles.google.com/barry.kort Barry Kort

    I think the problem is deeper than gun violence in our culture. I think the problem is violence in general.

    Government cannot solve the problem of violence in the culture because most of the violence in our society is state-sponsored violence under the color of law. Governments have been modeling the use of violence since the dawn of history. What governments teach (through example) is that if you want your way, you use violence or the threat of violence to get your way.

    If we cannot restrain our elected leaders from turning to violence, how will we ever convince our children to adopt non-violent methods of solving seemingly intractable problems?

  • Asia888

    I’d like someone to address these ugly contrasts we allow ourselves to live with: 1) Huge profit for NRA, huge cost on the society/nation 

    2) Huge profit for the gun industry, huge cost on humanity in war-devastated countries around the world

  • b_lipman_hotmailcom

    Given you can’t always stop these perpetrators, how about arming teachers with non-lethal weapons, like tasers, on a voluntary basis with proper training .

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       The adults killed were shot down. I don’t think a Taser would have been of any use, they couldn’t have gotten close enough to use it.

      • Ellen Dibble

        If they heard the guy shooting out the windows enough to be able to climb through, they might have gotten the picture in time to pull the gun out of the safe, or something like that, is what I’m thinking.  It seems to me they would have gone straight from thoughts of pepper spray to something more drastic.  It was pretty drastic to turn on the PA system if it was going to bring classrooms the sounds of gunshots and — and so on.  So they kind of knew.

    • p hewes

       Yes, we can stop these perpetrators.  Look at the UK.  After a tragic school shooting in Scotland in 1996, the UK effectively banned all guns.   Deaths from gun violence has dropped to single digits per year.

  • http://twitter.com/twosidesormore twosidesormore

    The last speaker in the phone call misspoke. Heller does not allow for “stinger missiles” in the backyard. they cannot be “carried” WITHIN THE MEANING of the second amendment (SEE BELOW). LIMITS DO EXISTS. SEE BELOW

    Full text at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf”DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
    THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290.
    Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”…”The “militia” comprised all males physically
    capable of acting in concert for the common defense” 

    [hunting, recreation are not the primary purposes of the second amendment: militia and self-defense are]

    “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
    “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
    of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.””….the Second Amendment does not protect those
    weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
    for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”

    [AR-15s included or not? How “typical” are they? Do law abiding citizens possess them? is there a lawful purpose? They seem widely available, even if exact numbers are hard to find, they have been sold after NICS checks, for the most part, so they are presumably sold to "law abiding" non-prohibited citizens and, for all their potential misuses, they do have lawful purposes in practice, from hunting, competition, self-defense. Some competitions with  service rifles have a long tradition in the US -e.g. National  Rifle Match since 1907- and some  were originally sponsored by the US Congress, e.g. CMP, since 1903]

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
    Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
    the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinelyexplained that the right was not a right to keep and
    carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
    and for whatever purpose

    [limits do exists]

    For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendmentor state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, orlaws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale ofarms.

    We also recognize another important limitation on theright to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we haveexplained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We thinkthat limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of
    prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusualweapons.”

    [….all firearms are by definitions “dangerous”
    ….but AR-15s are not that “unusual”: 22% of rifles sold in US in 2008 alone, for a total stock of 2.5 million in private hands by the end of 2010; these figures do not include stock before 1986 ]

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most usefulin military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may bebanned, then the Second Amendment right is completelydetached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,the conception of the militia at the time of the SecondAmendment’s ratification was the body of all citizenscapable of military service, who would bring the sorts oflawful weapons that they possessed at home to militiaduty.

    [kind of circular reasoning, actually. M16/M4 are “machine guns” and not typically or easily available to law abiding citizens for lawful purposes because heavily regulated by the NFPA of 1934/ modified in 1986, almost banned for all practical purposes; but AR-15s are not machine guns-ie fully automatic-, they are semiautomatic like many other kinds of rifles and pistols that have been around since the early 1900s, they are currently lawfully possessed by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, and they fit the “militia duty” criterium. These facts should include them among constitutionally protected firearms]
    ….
    The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

    [suggesting that in general, bans on entire classes of "common" firearms may be unconstitutional;  perhaps a ban on certain features of AR-15s (magazine size, granade launcher, flash hider etc.) like the 1994 AWB may survive constitutional scrutiny even after Heller, while a total ban of any kind of AR-15 is likely uncostitutional?]

  • Scott B

    The NRA is not know as the the “National Reasonable Association”.  LaPierre is on video saying how Obama was sucking them in with his signing into law things like allowing gun into national parks, and not 2 seconds later saying that Obama’s agenda is to make all guns illegal “You know it!”, he says.  The man espouses nothing by hyperbole, vitriol, conjecture, and outright lies, and it’s going to catch up with him because karma’s a bitch.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/James-Patrick-Dwyer-Jr/100002088204784 James Patrick Dwyer Jr.

    Four diplomats killed and McCain and Graham raised hell. Twenty kids slaughtered and not a peep from  them. Now that doesn’t surprise me but hopefully it will open some folks eyes.

  • William Ventura

    I don’t understand why anyone in a modern developed country needs the ability to kill with ease. The 2nd amendment was written for different times in a largely lawless land. 

    • myblusky

      I agree. I get so tired of people referring to the 2nd Amendment which was written in the 1700s. Times change. Laws should evolve with the evolution of society.

      • peterlake

         Yes, get rid of the whole Bill of Rights — they were, after all, written together in another time.
        We don’t NEED freedom of speech — there’s too much talk already.

        • myblusky

          That’s so ridiculous. I hate it when people then attach everything else with it – all or nothing. I didn’t say to get rid of guns – I said laws need to evolve with society. You are just being a pouty baby. Ugh. So impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people like you.

        • nj_v2

          ^ Failed gun-nut logic, stupid rebuttal.

          The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Time for the 28th.

          • peterlake

            Start today, then.
            Be sure to contribute lots of money to your favorite Repeal the Second Amendment fund.
            Best of luck.

        • William Ventura

          What reason does anyone outside of military or police need with a gun, except to end somebody’s life. 

          That power to end life shouldn’t be taken lightly. 
          If Constitution was written in a way that we as citizens can add amendments when the need arises or times change then why couldn’t we reverse some of those same amendments.

  • IsaacWalton

    Dear Caller Brad…look at your daughters…then answer the question.

  • IsaacWalton

    Dear Brad, are you living in the 1700′s?

  • Ellen Dibble

    The NRA seems to help us in an important way:  It seems designed to gather together those of paranoid orientation. (Those with problems with authority, I believe a panelist described it, and that the NRA inflames these sorts in order to increase their membership, which might be useful to know.)  But that’s collateral.
        But I do wonder if shooting is a sport, what about say football?  If 400,000 are killed by 300 million guns, and the corresponding for football were X number of deaths per football player — not the players, not those in the seats, but random people in the community — would we have a Second Amendment for the right to play football?

  • joe m

    We’re tired of the gun-huggers, conspiracy nuts, haters, Tea-Bag whackos, and the lunatics they elect ruining our country.  The giant is awakened.

    • brettearle

       Well said.

      But the giant may be more of a toothless paper tiger than we might want.

      Something WILL get done–but probably not as much as we would like.

      The extreme Right Wing and Libertarian thinkers will still be wielding destructive influence in Washington–even after some reforms.

    • notafeminista

      “Of course you can complain about them. And they can complain about you, which
      is all they did. You can complain back, as you did, and so on and so on. It’s
      all part of the glorious free marketplace of ideas, albeit not its finest
      product. But the notion that your complaining is constructive while your
      detractors’ complaining is murderous is delusionary.

      This is all quite typical. Every time one of these horrible shooting sprees
      occurs, countless voices in the media declaim that (1) we need a debate on gun
      control, and (2) the other side’s views are despicable, stupid and unworthy of
      consideration. The “debate” they say they want is a one-sided one. Of course,
      they are conducting just such a “debate.” What infuriates them is that the other
      side refuses to cooperate and disappear.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324907204578185263341273952.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

      I hear Stalin found Siberia effective.  May you can ship all the people you find to objectionable somewhere unpleasant joe m.

  • bacterial_sizzle

    The government has nukes, chemical weapons, drones, and tanks. The idea that a machine gun is going to protect anyone from tyranny is ludicrous. 

    • http://twitter.com/twosidesormore twosidesormore

      first of all. nobody can own a machine gun. try if you don’t believe me, just walk to a local gun shop and try to ask for one. 

      and, yeah, ask also the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan what an insurgency may look like..we have been bogged down in two countries of rag-heads for 10 years now at the cost of thousands of lives. 

      The “insurgency” interpretation is not meant to mean that the 2A allows armed revolt of a constitutional government. That’s crazy, and it’s a straw man of certain liberals (by the way, I’m a pro-gun liberal myself). Insurgency for the sake of it is not a constitutional right. In the view of the framers, especially the antifederalists, and armed citizenry is a sort of last resort fail safe in case of the establishment of a military junta of sort. how unlikely that may be in our society today, we cannot know what may happen in the future. if you don’t like the idea, then petition to abolish the second amendment, it’s your right to do so and there is a procedure: 2/3 of congress, 3/4 of states. 

  • Scott B

    There’s no “jack-booted government thugs” marching down Main St and rounding up citizens and guns, and “Red Dawn” is a movie, not an actuality. 

    • Flytrap

       Tell that to Randy Weaver or David Koresh.

      • brettearle

        Koresh was completely innocent of serious and dangerous crimes?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          I liked it better when gun sorts held up the image of a John Wayne instead a David Koresh or Randy Weaver as someone to pretend exists in far greater numbers in this country of 310 million.

          At least John Wayne (the screen persona) had a sense of goddamn perspective and responsibility for his actions most of the time.

          • brettearle

             Well said.

        • peterlake

           Don’t know — he was never convited of them.
          And Janet Reno said she took “full responsibility” for the deaths of the children and adults at Waco.
          “Full responsibility” for a Democrat means she did nothing.

          • brettearle

            I never condoned the kind of government action that was used at Waco.

            But Reno did it–according to her–to save the children.

            What sort of responsibility did you want her to take?

            The kind of responsibility that Reagan took for the deaths of GIs in Lebanon or for Arms-for-Hostages with Iran?

      • Scott B

         Koresh was a wackjob that thought he was the Messiah, a child molester, and was spoiling for a fight with the government to become a self-fulfilling prophecy by being a martyr, of which he did by his own hand, setting the house on fire.

        Not saying the Govt could have done a better job in either case, but Koresh was a whole different breed of nuts.

  • Flytrap

    Ban all you want, if illiterate Pakistani villagers can make modern firearms, do you think folks here can’t?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKL4GOau5Y

    • peterlake

      Same thing with ammo. Gun-grabbers talk about micro-stamping and taxing ammo and limiting it.
      Ridiculous.
      I used to manufacture 2000 rounds of shotgun ammo in a (long) night. Same thing with cased bullets.

  • LostInIowa

    I think that gun control needs to start in the home. Many (most?) of these mass killings are not done by legal gun owners.  Many of the killers have obtained the guns they used from people that do not have their guns properly secured. We need to require gun owners to have their firearms locked up and unavailable to theft. These gun owners also need to be held accountable when their guns get into the wrong hands.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Self-defense, if that was Scalia’s point in Heller, is clearly spelled in police procedures.  You use laser, taser, pepper spray, all sorts of things BEFORE using fire power.  Americans maybe should be thinking more about keeping those nondeadly protections and how to use them effectively. For one thing, if they happened to hit a bunch of 6-year-olds by mistake, they wouldn’t be subject to a long trial for killing them; they’d be tried for irresponsible use of a pepper spray or something like that.

    • donniethebrasco

       I agree.  If you own a gun or not, pepper spray is always a better option.

      In this case:

      You walk in to your child’s room with a loaded gun to catch a murderer about to kill them.  You shoot the killer and save your child.  Your life, as you know it, is ruined.

      Use guns for defense as a last result.  But you have the right to have them and to use them.

      • http://twitter.com/twosidesormore twosidesormore

        no jury or DA will give you grief for shooting someone walking with a rifle inside a school. and no later civil suit will ever succeed with any jury either. that said, A ANTI-BEAR CAN OF PEPPER SPRAY WILL DO. long range, large mass of mace. let’s not wait for society to change its way in 3 generations. that’s a pie-in-the-sky solution. the fix is needed now and must be pragmatic and respect the bill of rights and constitutional precedent.

        • peterlake

          I’ve seen people laugh at being pepper sprayed. It’s not an effective weapon against a determined attacker. It’s a simplistic and false solution.

          • Ellen Dibble

            Police neutralize determined attackers every day without shooting them.  

      • Ellen Dibble

        True story from my experience:  You babysit two kids, one a 3-year-old.  He wanders into his parents’ bedroom, and you follow him in.  There he is with a pistol pointed at you, and his parents’ bedside table drawer open.  
            You do not overreact.  You do not shoot him, for sure, whatever your resources.  But he feels somehow thwarted, so he pushes a huge bureau to the top of the staircase in order to push it down the stairs.  
           You distract him, and eventually he falls asleep. Eventually, that child is diagnosed and medicated, but in the meanwhile?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Some adults still enjoy adolescent fantasies about shooting a robber to save their families, but please point me to the cases where this actually happens, compared to the cases where an angry, drunk, or both person shoots his/her family or friends or commits suicide. In the real world, those weapons for “self defense” do a lot more “self harm”.
       

  • http://twitter.com/embdonaldson Emily Donaldson

    I would like to address the caller from South Carolina, who accused the left of being “giddy” over the Newtown tragedy.  As a fellow South Carolinian, I would like to assure him that no person, even the staunchest gun control advocate is anything but completely heartbroken over the murder of those little children and their teachers.
     
    We are, however, mad as hell.  We will no longer allow a special interest more concerned about money than our babies to control this aspect of our country, our politics, and our lives.  We will no longer be silent, even in South Carolina. 

  • http://twitter.com/MagicJasoni MagicJasoni

    Those calling for teachers and administrators to be armed are severely out of touch.  During my time as an elementary school teacher (and even now as a college instructor), I met more than my share of teachers and administrators who are overstressed and dealing with mental health issues of their own.  Adding guns to the situation will only cause more problems.

    Considering our current issues in recruiting high-quality teachers across the nation due to low pay, burdensome standards, and stress, it is hard for me to believe that telling prospective teachers that they need to carry a gun with them when they go to work is going to help the situation at all.

    • http://twitter.com/twosidesormore twosidesormore

      THEN ADD A COP AT THE ENTRANCE. I SEE HUNDREDS OF COPS HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS DOING LITERALLY NOTHING THE WHOLE DAY WHILE MANNING ROAD WORK SITES. PUT THEIR GUNS WHERE THEY CAN HAVE SOME USE. AND IF WE NEED MORE TAXES FOR MORE COPS, SO BE IT.

      • Flytrap

         Why not convert all schools to prisons? 

      • brettearle

        COPS MAKE IT A POLICE STATE.

        NOT SO BE IT.

      • hennorama

        twosidesormore & brettearle – In this era of “all taxes are evil” and “we have a spending problem,” even if armed security was a great idea (which I do NOT concede), where would one get the money to pay for such security?  If you think getting money for mental health care is tough, try raising property taxes or getting special assessments passed.

        • notafeminista

          How about we stop funding research for “climate change”.   It can be stipulated that the climate changes, has been changing and will continue to change.  All done. 

          Interesting argument you make against posting an officer at the entrance to every school.   The phrase “newly minted” comes to mind.  I can’t imagine why.

          • hennorama

            notafeminista – quite the out of leftfield/non sequitur comment there.

            The logic of your suggestion, which seems to be that the Federal gov’t, rather than funding climate research, should instead pay for (and presumably require) armed security at over 132,000 schools, escapes me. As does your reference to “newly minted”. Please explain, at least for the peanut gallery.

            If you were NOT simply being sarcastic, a “back of the envelope” calculation shows the following:

            There are over 132,000 public and private K-12, special education, alternative, and other schools in the US. Assuming armed security personnel cost $20/hour, and assuming schools are open an average of 40 hours/week and 36 weeks/year, one gets a total of $3,801,600,000 for a single low-paid security guard at every school. This assumes no support staff, or other ancillary costs, and may therefore be too low by a factor or two or more.

            How much does [research for "climate change"] cost? The Federal funding may be roughly equivalent to the $3.8 B above, I dunno. Was that your point? Or do you simply object to climate research? Or are you simply pro-armed school security? Or both? Neither? Again, your logic escapes me.

            Also, I was not arguing for or against armed security at schools. I merely questioned how it would be funded, and made no claim as to its merit.

    • brettearle

      Do you think that one trained security guard, per school, is the answer?

      I’m on the fence about this–but am currently leaning AGAINST that idea.  

      To condone such visible enforcement, in schools with young children, sends a message that even the innocence of childhood is fraught with danger.

      [Even though the innocence of childhood may be fraught with danger, in some cases.]

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Tucker/100001096655087 Brian Tucker

      If arming teachers and other full time staffers in schools is such a bad idea why does it work so well in Israel?  http://www.examiner.com/article/arming-teachers-worked-for-israel-and-thailand

      • Billy Ray Bingham

        Because everyone in Israel must spend at least two years in the military.  They learn to shoot and respect guns.  I know our teachers can do it, but I think two years of military servers does help make it work for Israel.   

    • Ellen Dibble

      I too am in Massachusetts, like twosides below, and have heard on the news where at least one city has assigned a policeman to each school.  
          No, we don’t have money to post cops at every school, and I don’t think it would be good for THEIR mental health to be standing there for a hundred years in case something happens.  Police are supposed to “patrol,” which is why many of them are “patrolmen.”  And if Adam had not driven up in his mother’s car, he likely would have been seen and stopped by one of those patrolling officers in Newtown or Sandy Hook.  So it seems to me that the problem is one of parking lots.  It is a lot cheaper to control access to parking lots than it is to hire five or six officers with mostly nothing to do.  The city could have a monitor that flips on and shows what’s happening if someone drives in without using their pass in the pass box, something like that.
          People could still walk onto the lot, but with a semi-automatic?  I’m thinking patrol cars would have stopped to ask questions.

    • Billy Ray Bingham

      Tazers might be a very effective answer.  Hire off duty police officers to walk the halls (read NOT sit around and talk) would work too.  In Chicago they hire them to direct traffic so people can get out of office parks, can’t cost to much if companies can do it so their people can get home 10 minutes earlier.

  • majorml

    One guest mentioned  that the NRA control of Congress keeps the ATF underfunded, but this important point was glossed over.  Without an effective ATF, it is unlikely that law changes will have much effect.  The NRA prevents the establishment of an effective computer system to keep records of gun registration. It has prevented the Congressional approval of a head of the ATF, even denying President George W. Bush his nomination for this position.  There has been no one in this position for 6 years. (See Boston Globe 12/19)

    • brettearle

       “The NRA prevents the establishment of an effective computer system to keep records of gun registration.”

      Are you suggesting that no department in government does this–because of the NRA?

      I find that hard to believe.

      Are you drawing an assumption from your report about the ATF–or can you demonstrate your point somewhere?

      Are you saying that this DIRECT point was in the Globe article?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Brian-Tucker/100001096655087 Brian Tucker

      The reason the ATF (BATFE now part of DHS) is “underfunded” is because of their own incompetence and disregard of federal law.  An offer to increase their funding was refused when it included a requirement to videotape all their tests of confiscated weapons to allow juries to see evidence of weapons that were malfunctioning that the ATF had decided were fully automatic.  This evidence is very important when you’re dealing with someone like Sterling Nixon, who while he was head of their technical division actually ruled that tying loops on both ends of a shoestring could constitute the manufacture of a fully automatic weapon.  http://folloder.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/machinegun-on-a-shoestring/

      • majorml

         I checked our link.  The article indicated that the ATF traditionally lists any gun or any attachment to that gun as an automatic weapon.It showed how a shoestring can be used to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic.  The article also points out that the shoestring was reclassified  so that it only applied when it was attached to a semi-automatic weapon.  The original classification might be absurd 9but most attachments are probably more clearly weapon specific), but it was corrected.

    • Ellen Dibble

      And I believe privacy issues (as we heard from the orderly at a mental hospital who called in yesterday) prevents people who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous from being listed in the database that is used for screening buyers of guns.  I have to trust my representatives in Washington have staff who know about these things, too, or that they themselves know.

      • 1Brett1

        This is one of the chinks in the armor of the HIPAA privacy rule; it should be carefully examined and modified. However, if a person expresses a serious interest in harming himself/herself or others mental health professionals can report this to law enforcement. 

        • Billy Ray Bingham

          And the send them away into an over crowded systems.  It’s a very hard thing to do as a parent send a child away to a system that warehouse those in need of help.  Often you can not tell the difference between when a person is having a bad day and when they are ready to explode.  Our health care system and society has dropped the ball here, big time.

  • http://www.facebook.com/margaret.debhulbh Margaret DeBhulbh

    Some Statistics
    If we look around us we see that other countries have some control of their guns. In 2004, handguns murdered:
    5 people in New Zealand
    37 people in Sweden
    56 people in Australia
    184 people in Canada
    19 people in Japan
    73 people in the UK
    11,344 people in the United States
    Even adjusting for population, these numbers are horrifying. Japan has almost half as many people as the United States. So how can these numbers be so dreadfully lopsided? So why are those numbers so wildly out of proportion? Gun control. Pretty simple.

    • donniethebrasco

       No,

      We have too many criminals and a codifying, “you’re parents are too strict” education system.

      • brettearle

         As if guns have nothing to do with the argument.

        How sad and deplorable that you see it this way.

        You, my friend, are part of the serious problem.

      • nj_v2

        ^ Troll

      • hennorama

        donnie – Perhaps you could explain what you meant by ‘a codifying, “you’re [sic] parents are too strict” education system.’  Seriously, what does that phrase mean to you?
         
        Also please explain how that relates to criminality.  Be specific, citing ANY facts you can, to show the basis of your statement, and any relationship.  Assuming your statement isn’t simply opinion, of course.

    • brettearle

      It is not, of course, simply higher access to guns.

      That IS part of it.

      But the other part is that our country is filled with many disturbed, disgruntled, angry, and frustrated people.

      Let’s face it:  That is a fact.

      • peterlake

         “our country is filled with many disturbed, disgruntled, angry, and frustrated people.”

        Right enough and I’m staying that way until OweBama’s gone.

    • Alexander Madeo

      Many of these countries have higher violent crime and murder rates then the US.  Just because more people are killed with guns doesn’t mean more people are being killed.

    • mschwa1967

      Ever been to Israel?  Guys with assault rifles getting on/off trains all the time, no one is shooting up the passengers.  Lower murder rate than New Zealand, and more liberal gun ownership laws than the States.  Maybe the differences are cultural, such as a genuine existential threat, and a sense of common purpose?

      • matt gallagher

        Isreal aint no us.  To get a license to carry a rifle one must prove that they need it for a specific reason and must do so every three years and must have served in the IDF.  For handguns its the same.  Its MUCH tougher to own a rifle or handgun in Ireal than the US.  I would love to have Isreali-like laws.  A 20 year old kid would not have been able to steal one from his mother who just so happened to like guns and kill 26 people.

        • Billy Ray Bingham

          He did not own any of the guns used, his mother did.  He took them from her and used them on her first.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Exactly. More guns = more murders. Simple logic. The gun owners kill their friends and family, not home invaders.

      I’ve never heard anything like these guys who can’t walk down a city street without the comfort of a concealed handgun. What a bunch of little mice.

    • peterlake

      .

    • Billy Ray Bingham

      How many children and adults died after being hit by drunken drivers?    I agree that the hand gun numbers you put here are horrific.  I would ask how many were from registered handguns vs unregistered?  How many were the result of gang actions (accidental, drive by, etc.)?    We need to make changes but making changes in the manner that most people want who quote numbers like you do remind me of prohibition.  Drinking and driving kills far more people year after years, why not ban guns and alcohol, keep pot from becoming legal too.  The gun culture is not unlike that of car racing, football or other entertainment pastimes.  There are punks who race cars on the street, there are drunks who drive home after a case consumed watching a game that kill people, and sadly there are people who use guns to kill other people. There are millions of people who use guns to relax, the hunt so they can feed their families, to better themselves.  We have shooting sports at the Olympics, even and old military drill that combines shooting and cross country skiing is in the Olympics.  In my mind there are some weapons we should ban from the public, .50 cal rifles would be a fine place to start.  To me any magazine over 20 rounds should cost the owner a $200 tax stamp for each one you want to own.  10 is too small.  It is time to make some changes but we need to do so intelligently.  Lets make walking out of a gun show with no background check a think of the past.  Lets require training, testing, certification and qualifying every two years for people who want to own a assault rifles.   Lets fund this through taxes on the purchase of guns.  Lets do a tax-refund buy back of receivers from AR and AK rifles.  Let’s not try to ban everything it didn’t work in the 20s and it will not work now.

  • majorml

    Most NRA members are hunters, gun enthusiasts, and people who feel they need gun protection.  But they are not paranoids. Why doesn’t the non-paranoid membership of the NRA throw out the present leaders?

    • peterlake

      We like the present leaders and we don’t like gun-grabbers.
      In fact, while the NRA has four million +/- members, they represent the thinking of many more millions of gun owners — not all, to be sure, but far more than the membership suggests.

      • 1Brett1

        Does the NRA’s leadership itself (not members) represent your views, or do the majority of the members represent your views? I ask because the two are sometimes mutually exclusive.

      • majorml

         “We” don’t like “gun-grabbers”. There are a lot of gun owners and gun control opponents who are not part of your “we” following this latest tragedy.
        There are a lot of gun owners who are “gun-grabbers” in that they do think that guns should be “grabbed” that are not meant for legitimate hunting or home defense, i.e., assault rifles and large clips.

        • politicallyincorrectshooter

          In other words, YOU don’t own, like, or use Cosmetic Assault rifles, so they are illegitimate and no one should have them.  Like the Democrat from WV, iirc who has “changed his opinion”  I noticed him commenting that he has never hunted with a weapon holding more than three rounds.  Then he mentioned that he uses a Shotgun.   Just a tip, Shotguns are not the only hunting weapon out there.  

  • mschwa1967

    Yes, deranged people with assault weapons is bad, and we should find a way to prevent that.  But lurking behind is the reality of soft targets and terrorist attack.  Have we not yet secured ourselves from that threat?  If a random whacko can breach a school or movie theater in a post-911 world, we’ve truly dropped the ball.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/FRW4JNB3GCZ4TH4QW5F4NYEBLY Troy E

    What this country needs is an organization to counter the NRA politically, an anti-NRA, if you will, which would have members from all walks of life and in each state – parents, teachers, politicians, etc. – who pay annual duals at least as much as the dues of the NRA, with the singular goal of removing pro-gun supporters from Congress and replacing them with gun control advocates willing to curtail the seemingly limitless rights we have to keep and bear weapons of mass killing.  The NRA has no counter-balancing organization in this country and that is our problem.  That is why their money is so effectively spent in buying influence on Capital Hill and why America needs an Anti-NRA organization with people willing to pay annual dues just like NRA members.

    • peterlake

       Have you contributed to the Brady Bunch, or whatever they call themselves now?
      They’re out there……send them a $1000 check like I’ve sent to the NRA for my life membership.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/FRW4JNB3GCZ4TH4QW5F4NYEBLY Troy E

        I get it.  It’s okay for you to be condescending, but no one else, right?  Enjoy your lifetime membership in the NRA.  Let’s both hope your life is long and prosperous – unlike the victims of gun violence by individuals who “benefited” from the NRA’s tactics in undermining attempts at legislating gun controls.

  • Michael Bristol

    Nothing at all will be done about gun control in the US.
    On to guns to Syria.
    With Arab children it’s worth it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dan-Wilson/537350780 Dan Wilson

     

    Be it resolved that all firearms be subjected to an annual
    tax assessed on the owner’s income tax return. The owner will be required to
    declare on their federal and/or state tax return the number of firearms in
    their household and then pay a fee for each in an amount to be determined by
    the taxing authority. The revenues will then be dedicated to paying the societal
    costs of firearms violence which takes the lives of 30,000 Americans every
    year. The funds will be used to offset the costs of medical care, long-term
    care,  law enforcement ,  funerals and the overall pain and suffering
    engendered by the proliferation o f firearms. Failure to make the declaration
    and pay the tax will expose the owner to charges of income tax evasion.
    facebook.com/taxthegun

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/FRW4JNB3GCZ4TH4QW5F4NYEBLY Troy E

    Because they do not yet have “cold, dead hands” as Mr. Heston used to say.  These radical leaders are popular and they have staying power.  Why else would a whacko like Charlton Heston have been allowed to be their front-person for so long?

    • peterlake

      Charlton Heston was a fine and generous person and I’m not sure why you would libel him as a “whacko”, except that you think it’s acceptable to do that to people with whom you disagree.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/FRW4JNB3GCZ4TH4QW5F4NYEBLY Troy E

        Anyone who would argue, as he did, in response to Columbine, that individuals should have a right to own assault rifles is a whacko.  Did you even see Bowling for Columbine?  Heston was heartless.

        • peterlake

           Grow up.
          It was a movie made by an anti-gun Lefty-loonie who hates freedom for anyone except him and his left-wing buddies.

          Heston was in the throes of Alzheimers then.

          He was a kind and generous person and all of us who knew him — left and right — agreed.

          Moore took advantage of a helpless, demented old man and you call Heston heartless?

          And by the way, how come YOU don’t have a real name on this forum?

          I do.

          What are you hiding from?

          • 1Brett1

            perterlake isn’t your real name; what are YOU hiding from?

          • peterlake

             You can find me on the internet under the name above.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, like that would interest anybody…

  • http://wh.gov/IVp4 Yar

    Wrong thread.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Disqus flub?

      • Ellen Dibble

        I’m thinking he’s meaning me, ’cause I wrote a piece about Adam and his mother, what I would have done in what I speculate was his situation, which is WAY off topic, but it’s also WAY down the thread.  So the Discus might be off on it.  Someone liked it, though.  
            Ray, My computer is ALMIGHTY SLOW, so I’m putting yesterday’s comments here.  Or actually, that’s a tangent regardless.  But it was in answer to I think Jefe68, for who knows what reason.

      • http://wh.gov/IVp4 Yar

        No, just me, I had two windows open, typed in the wrong one.
        I agree on getting rid of the pop ups. They keep getting in the way of the comment box.

  • Adrian_from_RI

    As far as I know military type guns are common in Switzerland, Canada, and Israel. Also gun ownership has been part of this country’s history since its founding. The same cannot be said of massacres of this nature. What this tells me is that something has changed in the character of this country over the past 25 or 50 years.
    Yes, guns *can be* deathly, but post Kantian Ideas *are* deathly. Instead of focusing all our attention on the NRA after Newton, we should be focusing our attention at what is going on in the philosophy departments of our Ivy League Universities and what our teachers are being taught at our Teaching Schools and their progressive teachers education curriculums.
    Tom, you might want to revisit Columbine now that the dairies of the utterly nihilistic killers have become public:
     http://www.verumserum.com/the-truth-about-columbine
    I also remember a 1999 editorial on “Socializing Students for Anarchy” at:
    http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6147

    • brettearle

      Ladies and Gentlemen, have you heard it, yet?

      According to the above, ACADEMIA is responsible for Newtown.

      How silly of us to have overlooked this!

      What….a….gen-you-ine…..insight!

      What’s next?

      Rice Krispies?
      Mississippi River Boat rides?
      Water fountains?

      • 1Brett1

        Let’s remember, this person is talking about “progressive” academia. ;-)

        • brettearle

           Oh, yeah.

          I forgot.

          How silly of me.

        • nj_v2

          I knew it! It’s the damn liberals, again!

          • 1Brett1

            Don’t you mean it’s the damn elitist, intellectual liberals?

          • nj_v2

            I’ve heard they’re socialist, too.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Adam had studied college courses; I heard a little interview with someone who had studied German with him.  I heard an interview with someone who took three years of Latin with him.  That’s a start. I took more than that, and it’s not until you get to the great thinkers, Virgil, Catullus (yeah, right!), that a smart but disaffected young person begins to feel actually fed and nourished by those — who could be said to have triumphed over their demons, whereas Adam I think we have to agree, was vanquished by them.  Which is not to say I could have done any better; I’m just saying.  Sometimes an active brain is a burden, needing concepts and emotional framework that a not-so-active brain can do without.

        • 1Brett1

          I hadn’t heard that about Adam, although I did hear that he was highly intelligent. 

          What is important to consider about an active brain being a burden (particularly in a young person’s developing mind), is not  so much the ideas the person gets presented in front of him/her but how those ideas are introduced and framed for discussion. 

          I remember reading Kant, for example, and being fortunate enough to have had older, free-thinking, good people to help me grapple with some of those concepts and put them into a perspective.

          • Ellen Dibble

            There was actually a local TV program on our PBS station with a psychologist saying that young men do not have mentors, no models to show them how to become leaders.  He says they spend their time self-stimulating, which I think means video games, and disconnected, lost and not really objecting.  But he says the girls, the young women, are latching right on, becoming leaders to the max as soon as possible.  I drew from that something about the way technology has changed things so fast that older men barely know how to find their own footing, let alone show the next generation how to find theirs.  There is also the issue of absent fathers, though he said that single mothers are better in many cases than the fathers in finding the correct “voice” for showing their sons how to step up and be their best self.  Wow.  So he blamed inadequate mentoring.  It isn’t happening with the regularity and predictability that a society needs.

          • 1Brett1

            I know at times I’ve reluctantly been put in the mentoring role, yet once there (and especially easy upon reflection ;-) ) I’ve found it is important to realize that often we are models and mentors, whether we want to be or not. It really is an honor to consider that someone thinks enough to look up to me to ask me for some insight. That is also important I think for we elders, so to speak, to remember: we don’t really get to pick whom we mentor; they pick us.

        • brettearle

          Ellen, do you realize what you are saying?

          Any crazed mind can GLOM onto ANY concept, notion or idea.

          Whether it’s a TV ad about Lestoil; or a magazine cover for “Field and Stream”; or the glimpse of a helicopter hovering overhead.

          An unbalanced mind, it seems to me, is impressionable at any given point in time for any number of reasons.

          • Ellen Dibble

            Wasn’t it Hamlet who was “mad north northwest” and otherwise quite sane, and whose mother he was profoundly mad at?  
                I am not persuaded “mentally ill” should be affixed to this young man, to exculpate him or say we don’t need to explain or even try to understand.  I do understand that if he felt his computers contained enough of significance that he managed to demolish their data, his world could have been populated by vicious and violent computer games, likely to be as bad for the young mind as a diet of soda pop and chocolate.  Those are not “ideas,” in the sense that the important ideas of philosophers and theologians are important, in that they may indeed have been created exactly in order to channel the kind of imbalance we’ve seen in Adam into something sounder.  
               As Brett says, it helps to have others navigating those ideas that can channel the mind, but in my opinion, the important part of absorbing those ideas is very private.  And without the internet, he might have had the “consolations of philosophy,” which I think is the title of one of the great books, maybe by Maimonides, a Jewish philosopher in Spain in the Middle Ages.  One can check the internet (my connection is taking 45 minutes to open a page, so you get to do that), but if you seek solace and direction by looking at Rambo, you come to a very different place than if you’re reading Plato and Maimonides.

      • hennorama

        Don’t forget Twinkies.

    • 1Brett1

      “…post Kantian ideas are ‘deathly’”

      ?

      • Ellen Dibble

        I would have locked up Kant for being terminally boring, something like that.  There is a history of ideas coming often from Germany that created a trajectory for our conceptual understanding of what might broadly be called religion.  Some of it is vivid and clear (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche), but I forget where Kant fit into that history.  I think he was a pivot, but I’m not sure.  I think you can read about it, rather than slogging through it yourself.  If it was that influential that nihilism sprang into being post-most-boring-writerly-output-since-Eden, well, I’m glad I wasn’t trying to absorb and transmit it.

        • 1Brett1

          I had a tough time with Kant…oh, and the terminally boring part: spot on.

          I sort of remember Kant really striving to counter a lot of what Hume was about and moving into absolute moral law. That there was some sort of ultimate nature of reality. He, if I remember, was closely tied to the church but sort of broke with some of that as restricting him (I’m struggling with my memory here, and with the fact that I just couldn’t get into him).

          I thought that Kant preceded Kierkegaard only just slightly but sort of broke ground, so to speak which allowed Kierkegaard to really run with his ideas (I’m not sure why I think that; it could have been my own take at the time I studied those things). I do see as Kant (whether he was trying to do so or not) laid the foundation that gave slightly later rise to Kierkegaard and Existentialism itself.

          • Ellen Dibble

            I find that Kant lived 1724 to 1804 in Konigsburg, Prussia.  Eichmann defended himself saying he’d lived his life according Kantian ideas of duty and decision, per Hannah Arendt.  Kant’s boring and convoluted ground-breaking attack on the subject of morals probably reflects an era where right and wrong derived from prejudice or tradition, ecclesiastical say-so, or superstition, more so than today.  So he postulated the “Categorical imperative,” which is what you probably recall about “absolute moral law.”  He went on ExHaustively about the metaphysics of choice.  The question of freedom of will goes on politically (in the French Revolution and the American Revolution, the revolutions of 1848), and in all the theologians since time began, certainly following Kant.  I will post a quote.

          • Ellen Dibble

            From Wikipedia on categorical imperative:  “According to Kant, human beings occupy a special place in creation, and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary.
            Hypothetical imperatives apply to someone dependent on them having certain ends:
            if I wish to quench my thirst, I must drink something;if I wish to acquire knowledge, I must learn.
            A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:”
            That may seem opposite of the free choice of existentialism, that nothing matters, a post-modern, post-traumatic sort of reflex.  But I think all these thinkers apply themselves to what I’ll call re-equilibration, people or societies where the axis that stabilizes them is wobbling.  The answers aren’t there, but questions are.  I’d say with respect to Adam, if you are sufficiently existentially free to act as you did, you are sufficiently free to take the time to take on board the mental infrastructure embodied in these writings and make it your own.  I don’t think the “idea” of overpowering people is the best demonstration of manhood, no matter how often our culture seems to serve that up.  
               Remember, Nietzsche went insane and wrote right through the experience, upon looking at a dying horse, I believe.  But it was part of syphilis, I think?  He said he was doomed to living out the rest of his life making bad jokes.  Now, his soaring ideas were, IMHO, worthy of being challenged.  The Green Bay Packers of Philosophy, definitely up there to be challenged.  But you can’t when he’s gone mad.  So, just as I had at the end of the book Gone With the Wind,  at the point of the insanity, I threw my Nietzsche book across the room.  It isn’t about video games; it’s about the existential question of freedom of will, whether one like Adam is victim, tool of forces greater than himself, or whether he is taking the reins.  
                   Maybe just “seeming” to be in control was enough, since a seeming world is what computers offer up.

          • 1Brett1

            I like this comment…and enough to ponder it for a while because I think you are on to something insightful, particularly if imagining what might go on in the mind of a troubled, intelligent boy who had difficulties with realities beyond what he saw, felt, smelled, imagined. It’s the curse of youth I think. Fortunately, most of us grow up to find sme complementarity and harmony sometimes in things that seem at such diametrically opposed contradiction. 

            I AM reminded that I once counseled a young man who was smart enough to see things at odds/opposites yet saw them as canceling each other out – a form of fatalism (he was so depressed). I offered that I, too, saw those very things yet rather than canceling each other out, I saw an opportunity for complementarity and for the essence of some wonderfully complex truth to reveal itself, that we as humans can develop and keep two ostensibly, diametrically opposed views juxtaposed in our minds in harmony with each other, and that this can reveal itself as wisdom as we self-actualize; we just have to keep at it…I hope I helped him. 

            I see him now sometimes (with wife, children, happy)…who knows about what goes on in one’s internal dialogue, but he seems a fine man who is wise and well-adjusted. One hopes the Adam Lanza’s of the world can find a way…maybe I’m too optimistic. 

          • Ellen Dibble

            Thanks, Brett.  I don’t know any counselors who have prescribed philosophy to clients, going by the psychology theses I typed in the 1980s, mostly, but as we’ve concurred, the social context reframes for each generation how the architecture of thinking can be used or adapted. Sometimes I think it is access to humor, with its constant acknowledgmentof paradox, that is the surest stabilizer to a windblown mind.  Music and laughter.  

          • 1Brett1

            Well, music and laughter have worked pretty well for me, anyway…

          • 1Brett1

            It is, as you suggest, important to put these men (i.e., Kant) in historical perspective and to consider that they were “reacting,” interacting and responding to their times and were a product of their times.

          • 1Brett1

            It is, as you suggest, important to put these men (i.e., Kant) in historical perspective and to consider that they were “reacting,” interacting and responding to their times and were a product of their times.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I remember in the 1960s studying existentialism in several classes, which is akin to nihilism.  And the drug culture told us that being totally buttoned up and in control was a brainwashed way of being, and we had to untangle our conscious minds and get at our reality, to reshape the world.  Of course the idea was to create a more loving world, not one dominated by force, by tyranny.  But the philosophies do show how close extreme violence is to its opposite.  Both put the individual, like someone in post-traumatic shock, in a separate, split-out, schizophrenic state of awareness.  You can be above the pull of your emotions (empathy, greed, etc.) and see what makes sense to do next.  Post-modernism sets out how that kind of radical renunciation of reality-in-itself was a fairly sensible reaction to atrocities beginning with the killing of Armenians early in the 20th century, on through World War I, World War II…  
          Does that kind of art lead the culture or follow?  Is it trend-setting and psychologically helpful, allowing the numbed and stunned to see their own reflection?
          I ask because I do think that religion is a grass-roots kind of thing, with all the roots entwined out of sight, and when the earth it grows in changes, the nature of those roots, the philosophies we use to link our understandings, probably changes too.  
          If only Adam had studied Sartre and Kierkegaard he might have felt a kindred spirit, someone who had once lived whom he could feel connected to?  Where did his mom go to college?  

      • 1Brett1

        I’ll agree, in that it was much easier to connect with Sartre and Kierkegaard than with Kant. (He had problems with his own socialization – and personal hygiene – anyway.) ;-)

        • Ellen Dibble

          Kierkegaard, Danish, required to live at a particular temperature, just exactly.  And every time I find my body does not adapt and functions way better at 75 degrees, exactly, I think of him and don’t feel quite so marginal.

      • Adrian_from_RI

        Ellen Dibble, I just now noticed that the replies are taking an interesting turn into the world of ideas and away from Brettearle’s Rise Krispies. So, permit me some additional remarks.
         
        It was the rediscovery of Aristotle’s (384BC-322BC) teachings that made it possible for Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) to again connect man’s mind with reality. That started the slow climb out of the Middle Ages up to the Enlightenment. This ascend culminated in our Declaration of Independence; a most remarkable achievement on par with the Magna Carta Libertatum from 1215. Unfortunately for Western Civilization, four years after 1776 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) published his “Critique of Pure Reason” in which he came up with his unknowable nouminal world out there and the phenomenal world in our head, that is, Kant separated man’s mind from reality and reversed what Aquinas had started. So, now we are descending instead of ascending. That is why a contemporary, Moses Mendelssohn, called Kant “the all-destroyer.”  For a summary of Kant’s philosophy go to a lexicon entry at:
        http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
         
        In my original commentary I made reference to a notebook by Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who thought themselves to be Nietzschean supermen.
        http://www.verumserum.com/the-truth-about-columbine
         
        In view of these diary pages it would be interesting to know what was on Adam Lanza’s C-drive.
         
        An editorial that calls for the abolition of Progressive education can be read at:
        http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5285
         
        In learning about the importance of ideas I found the “History of Philosophy” lecture series by Dr. Leonard Peikoff indispensable. I recommend that you down load the MP# files from:
        https://estore.aynrand.org/p/95/founders-of-western-philosophy-thales-to-hume-mp3-download
         
        I hope you recovered from your study of Existentialism :-)

      • Adrian_from_RI

        Ellen Dibble, I just now noticed that the replies are taking an interesting turn into the world of ideas and away from Brettearle’s Rise Krispies. So, permit me some additional remarks.
         
        It was the rediscovery of Aristotle’s (384BC-322BC) teachings that made it possible for Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) to again connect man’s mind with reality. That started the slow climb out of the Middle Ages up to the Enlightenment. This ascend culminated in our Declaration of Independence; a most remarkable achievement on par with the Magna Carta Libertatum from 1215. Unfortunately for Western Civilization, four years after 1776 Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) published his “Critique of Pure Reason” in which he came up with his unknowable nouminal world out there and the phenomenal world in our head, that is, Kant separated man’s mind from reality and reversed what Aquinas had started. So, now we are descending instead of ascending. That is why a contemporary, Moses Mendelssohn, called Kant “the all-destroyer.”  For a summary of Kant’s philosophy go to a lexicon entry at:
        http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant,_immanuel.html
         
        In my original commentary I made reference to a notebook by Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who thought themselves to be Nietzschean supermen.
        http://www.verumserum.com/the-truth-about-columbine
         
        In view of these diary pages it would be interesting to know what was on Adam Lanza’s C-drive.
         
        An editorial that calls for the abolition of Progressive education can be read at:
        http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5285
         
        In learning about the importance of ideas I found the “History of Philosophy” lecture series by Dr. Leonard Peikoff indispensable. I recommend that you down load the MP3 files from:
        https://estore.aynrand.org/p/95/founders-of-western-philosophy-thales-to-hume-mp3-download
         
        I hope you recovered from your study of Existentialism :-)

    • anamaria23

      My three sons and most of their peers studied philosophy
      at fine schools as part of their curriculum all in the last  fifteen years. One is a philosophy major. To a person, they are  productive, law abiding citizens contributing to making the world a better place.  
      The majority of the persons involved in mass killings are and have been mentally ill. 
      College students the world over are exposed to the ideas you cite.  The difference may be health care.  Or more limited access to guns.  It seems unlikely that the study of  Kant would lead to slaughter of innocents in otherwise sane persons.

    • 1Brett1

      Ayn Rand Center? …that’s just too funny. You sure you didn’t pick something up from the Onion?

    • jefe68

      So you think it’s the fault of universities and schools that there are nihilist in our society? Really?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      “Instead of focusing all our attention on the NRA after Newton, we should be focusing our attention at what is going on in the philosophy departments of our Ivy League Universities and what our teachers are being taught at our Teaching Schools and their progressive teachers education curriculums.”

      Newton or Newtown? curriculums or curricula?

      If you are going to trash higher education you might want to pay closer attention to what you are typing.

      • peterlake

        No one likes a pedant.
        Or is this your first rodeo?

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Oooooooh, I am staggered by your intellect.

      • 1Brett1

        It’s always the poorly educated who trash education.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001048219334 Vic Volpe

    Arm people???  Arm teachers???  Arm the principal???  Nancy Lanza was armed…heavily armed.  She was the first one dead.

    • nj_v2

      Arming school staff is an inane idea.

      • peterlake

        I think cafeteria workers wearing a .45 on their hips would deter all assassins and probably make the cafeteria a much quieter environment.

        No one is rude at a gun show, I promise.

        • Fredlinskip

          Better yet, have cafeteria workers carry butcher knifes in both hands at all times, and strap on some live hand grenades for effect.

  • jimino

    If arming everyone, like I have heard Rep. Gohmert and others  suggest, is such a good idea, when can we expect to be able to carry guns into the Capitol gallery to watch our representatives make the decisions that affect all of us?  Or how about the  U.S. Supreme Court building?  Or don’t citizens have rights in these cathedrals of the government created by our founding fathers?

    And if the 2nd Amendment is there to allow our citizens to oppose a tyrannical government, as suggested by the “combat veteran” caller, how long does our Congress have to blatantly refuse to do the will of the people before the use of our constitutionally-protected firearms to rectify that situation becomes appropriate as envisioned by the drafters of that constitutional provision?  How close are we to the circumstances the caller claims would trigger such use?  How will we know when we reach that point?

  • http://www.facebook.com/judi.kroeger Judi Kroeger

    The problem is threefold. Our interpretation  of the second amendment, the easy availbility of guns and ammunition. It was stated on NPR a day or so ago. There are people with depression, and problems all over the world. the problem here simply IS guns. WHY do we even make “assault” guns and their ammunition available to anyone ?, and It is simply politics. the NRA supports the Republican party, and intern the Republican party supports the NRA.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      My father was a master gunsmith, a police officer, a hunter, a vintage firearms collector, home ammo maker, target marksman & a card carrying, pickup truck stickered, shotgun rack-in-the-back lunatic. Duder just couldn’t keep them holstered, is all, and used his wife & kids as living targets. The walls of my childhood home still hold the errant bullets fired at us while he was in a drunken rage.

      All his manly peers respected him imensely. He went to prison, after several prior aquittals for assault with a deadly weapon, for holding 1 unlicensed gun on his person after holding 2 teenagers hostage at the point of that same weapon. One year in old Plymouth (the Farm) – thanks to Mike Dukakis’ mandatory sentencing laws for carrying unlicensed guns- did nothing to mellow him. All his weapons were surreptitiously licensed to his second wife (some 100 or so) when the couple got word that they might be confiscated by “law enforcement”. He kept them all. 

      Needless to say, I hate guns. I distrust the men & women who “need” them so badly. I am a survivor of repeated gun violence, ongoing from childhood through my late teens. I say, with millions of other survivors, that the NRA must account for their reckless behavior which increasingly violates the civil rights of countless women & children- daily- in this country.

      Propaganda is effective weaponry enough. Unregulated proliferation of gun & ammo sales ad infinitum, as advocated by the NRA, is tantamount to a conspiracy to murder us all indiscriminately.

  • Coastghost

    Sincere apologies for intruding here (WBUR and “On Point” might want to consider hosting a separate forum for remarks like the following helpful hints), but: with an absentee Secretary of State, three (and counting?) fresh resignations from the State Department, and an unambiguous conclusion that the White House and Amb. Susan Rice did in fact mischaracterize the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack as the outgrowth of a “spontaneous demonstration”, “On Point” WILL devote an hour to this story on Thursday, won’t you? (Your newsfrazzled public might want or need a break from Newtown-related coverage by now.)  

    • brettearle

       I don’t think we’re there yet.

      And I’m not sure that we should be there yet: That is, suggesting that we should enter into, “A Newtown-Free Zone.”

      There are too many complex and disturbing factors in THIS story.

      This is 2012.  This isn’t 1776.

      • Coastghost

        A complex and disturbing story, cogent analysis of which has been complicated by a distinct outbreak of frenzy and hysteria, largely driven by corporate media interests with an incentive to push the story hastily in certain directions and not in others. Most comment over the past five days has not consisted simply or primarily of simple revulsion at the crime, but the anticipated emotional response has been driving much of the commentary and the “analysis”. Taking a brief break (the story will have opportunity to reappear in Friday’s show, I imagine) from the story will in no way make it “disappear” and may help restore some proportion and perspective that may in fact be lacking. For an example of somewhat more dispassionate analysis:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/graph-of-the-day-perhaps-mass-shootings-arent-becoming-more-common/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

  • phyllisleonard

    I heard Mayor Bloomberg talking about the gun regulations in Israel yesterday and he said they require a month’s waiting period after you apply and you must take a full battery of mental tests among other restrictions. Hmmm. Maybe that’s why they have so few people dying at the hands of their fellow citizens.

    Also, if you read the 2nd Amendment it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

     It seems to be referring to the right of the States or colonies that were coming together to create the United States. These said States had a right to maintain Militia. The right of the ‘people’ here can be interpreted as the States, referred to before.

    Now at the time of the late 1700′s who in their right minds would think of forbidding people to have guns for protection. Many people were living in rural areas with dangerous Indians or the French who might attack from Canada. There was limited police protection. It seems unlikely the word ‘peoples’ was referring to individual citizens in this context.

     Also, it doesn’t define ‘Arms’. It doesn’t say ‘guns’. Today we could interpret it to mean bombs or granades or even drones or intercontinental ballistic missiles, for heaven’s sake. Or even assault weapons with magazines of multiple bullets able to fire off in seconds.

    I think it’s time we take a more common sense approach to guns.I like Israels approach and I would add, if you are caught and found guilty of possessing an illegal gun you should get and automatic 15 year sentence with no possibility of parole. And if we can’t get national laws to this affect, let the States that choose to do so, enact them.

    Phyllis from Massachusetts
     

    • brettearle

      I like much of what you said.

      But to condone 15 years in prison, with no parole, is excessively harsh.

      I don’t like guns anymore than you do, but that, in my view, is cruel and unusual punishment.

      I find it troubling that you would support such a sentence.

    • peterlake

      The possession of arms has always been the privilege (see correction below — it’s a “right”) of freemen.
      SCOTUS and the National Firearms Act of 1934 define what “arms” means and it’s especially annoying when people start talking about weapons like nikes and ICBM’s as though that issue has not been exhaustively covered.

      It points to the extreme ignorance of gun-grabbers. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects uninformed speech.

      • 1Brett1

        At least you stated the possession of arms as being a privilege.

        • peterlake

           Thanks for finding my error.
          The possession of arms is NOT a privilege — it’s a God-given right possessed by every free man.
          Privileges can be revoked.
          Rights cannot.

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, sorry, gun ownership can be revoked. It is a privilege, just like owning/driving a car is a privilege.  We do, however, have a fundamental right to protect ourselves.

            On another note, God didn’t give us any of our rights (as in Bill of…) men did. Madison really only came up with the Bill of Rights to appease the Southern States (for fear there wouldn’t be their support to ratify the Constitution). These are human constructs created and developed by men (great, visionary men, don’t get me wrong). If there had been confidence that there was enough support for ratification of the Constitution, we wouldn’t even have a “Bill of Rights.”

          • 1Brett1

            Also, peter, if you wish to have an honest conversation with me, do me a favor, as you seem inclined to have a certain approach with me that is most cheap. You take a point of mine and pretend as if I’m saying something that is in complete agreement with you when you know I’m not. That is not at all impressive or clever…unless of course you think such tactics are clever – in which case I’m disappointed. I guess you’ll be just another smirky neocon visiting as an obnoxious guest to this forum. 

          • peterlake

            Speak plainly. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Ellen Dibble

            Inalienable rights might be life, liberty, and the purfuit of happiness.  The right to carry anthrax in your briefcase, maybe not.  Or a micro-atomic bomb.  Or a gun if you’re 3 years old.  Or if you have been threatening to kill your mother, or everyone in the mall.  I mean, you could, but government might want its militia “well-regulated,” as I read in the 2nd amendment, and “well-regulated” does not include what happened at Fort Dix, or some 400,000 other unauthorized killings since 1968.

          • peterlake

            .

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I
            can
            edit
            too.

          • peterlake

            I replied too quickly to you. Sorry. Yes, you’re right about the misuse of firearms not being in the spirit of what 2A intended.  In that gap lies the law.

            VERY sorry to have snapped at you. My patience is wearing thin and I may go postal except the rates are too high.

          • 1Brett1

            You pretend to be guy here for “honest debate.” uggah muggah?

          • peterlake

             I pretend nothing and I have my real name in front of you, which is more than I can say for you.

            So, what’s your real name?

          • 1Brett1

            Brett 

          • peterlake

             I asked for your real name, told you mine was in front of you and you replied “Brett”.

            Well, so much for honest and frank discussion.

            Anonymous just doesn’t count, except for moral cowards.

          • 1Brett1

            Brett is my name; I don’t care if you don’t like that or want more information. It doesn’t matter how quickly you’ve degenerated into crap about moral cowardice because I don’t particularly wish to share my last name with you; I don’t care about that. You’re free to call yourself perterlake (if that is your real name?) or peterjerkwad, or Mr. douchebag, it doesn’t matter to me. 

          • peterlake

             The Bill of Rights does not confer any rights on citizens, it merely states what government cannot do to abridge those rights.

            If you think freedom is derived  because government grants us freedom, then you have the mentality of either a slave or a royal subject.

            “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” merely states what has existed since men walked the earth, not just since the time the framers wrote the Constitution.

          • jimino

            The “creator” may be the source of those rights but didn’t do a very good job of actually protecting them until a government with sufficient authority came along.   To illustrate the point, do people living in Somalia have those same rights and, if so, how’s that going for them?

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I’m willing to bet that peterlake thinks those who don’t worship his God have no right to anything.

          • peterlake

            Here’s a deal: I won’;t discuss YOUR religion, about which I know nothing, if you don’t discuss mine, about which you know nothing.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I wasn’t discussing your religion, just making an observation based on your commentary thus far. You can trash my religion all you want, it’s called Humanitarianism.

          • 1Brett1

            “peter” seems to be an apt nicknamehe’s chosen for himself.

          • peterlake

            It’s not the job of government alone to protect our inalienable rights.

            Time and again totalitarians have tried to take them away and will again. We must resist them with all the force we can muster.

            If you disagree you can just give up and move to California.

          • 1Brett1

            Oh, please…if one develops a mental condition that either institutionalizes or adjudicates the person as such, then that person’s gun rights get revoked. A person with a felony conviction gets his/her gun rights revoked…to name just two facts about revocability. Are you saying that the Constitution came down from on high by God whispering in men’s ears? Are you stating some circular logic about irrevocable rights that can’t be revoked unless or until they are revoked, in which case they then are revocable? We have inalienable rights to protect ourselves, but these are not guarantees of protection; no laws by “God” or otherwise can guarantee us protections. If these “universal laws” are so inherent in human existence  since the dawn of man, then why do we even need a manmade document to point out the so-called “obvious”?

          • Fredlinskip

            Speaking of slavery, a bunch of religious folks folks thought it their god-given inalienable right to own slaves at one time.
            People do not always act rationally or in their or others best interest. That’s why there are laws and societies.
            I know you want to hold up in a bunker with your guns.
            If this is how you think, do us all a favor and move to Botswana.

          • peterlake

             “I know you want to hold up in a bunker with your guns.
            If this is how you think, do us all a favor and move to Botswana.”

            You know nothing about me.

            I’ll tell you I have been to Botswana. Don’t like it there. No Second Amendment there.

            No plans to move. Thanks for the tip.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            “it’s a God-given right possessed by every free man.”

            Whose God?

          • Fredlinskip

            Many religious folks thought it was a god-given right to own slaves at one time.
            That right got revoked.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – perhaps your expressions are generational, but what about every free WOMAN?

            What if a free PERSON is mentally ill?  Do they have any such “God-given right.”

            Also, the U.S. is a federal republic, with laws made by the people, not a theocracy, with “divine” laws.  Even people who have no religious beliefs have rights and are subject to our laws.

          • peterlake

            Women can be nuts, too, but they generally aren’t mass murderers.
            The mentally ill have the same basic rights as everyone else, as mentioned in the Declaration: “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” even if we lock them up.

            And of course people without religious beliefs have the same rights as others. They obtain them when they’re born.

      • Fredlinskip

        It’s those dang nikes that have got me worried.

        • peterlake

          “dang nikes”?

          I was confusing nukes with Greek goddesses who kept and bore semi-auto anti-thunderbolt missles that they used against Zeus.

    • peterlake

      You quote Mayor Bloomberg as an authority on guns?
      Would that be the same Mayor Bloomberg that prohibits a 17 oz. Coke in New York City?

      Well, I guess he knows what’s best for us, then.

  • hennorama

    Do we need more firearms in the U.S.?  Even one more?  If we need more, how many would be enough?  There are ALREADY nearly enough privately owned small arms in the U.S. to supply every single person with one.  Per capita, there are about 90 small arms for every 100 people in the US.

    Source:http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/H-Research_Notes/SAS-Research-Note-9.pdf  (TABLE 1)

    This is a note to Table 1, from the source above:

    “Note: *ATF (n.d.) and other sources suggest that the total private ownership in the United States in 2010 was closer to 270–314 million firearms, for an average of 290 million firearms or 96 per 100 residents that year.”

    According to the ATF, there are nearly a half million machine guns (488,065) registered under the National Firearms Act.  Do we need more of them?  If so, how many more?  There are also over 2 million (2,064,091) registered “Destructive Devices.”  These are defined by the ATF as follows:

    [For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Destructive Device” means:

    A missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 oz.

    Any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may readily be converted to expel a projectile, by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter.

    A combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting a device into a destructive device and from which a destructive device can be readily assembled.]

    In other words, as pictured in the source below, grenades, grenade launchers, and artillery.  Do we need more of these?  If so, how many more?

    Source:http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-destructive-device.html

    and:http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/050412-firearms-commerce-in-the-us-annual-statistical-update-2012.pdf

    • peterlake

      VERY few crimes are ever committed with items registered under the NFA (includes machine guns).

      By the way, do have a necktie?
      More than one?
      If more than one, why do you need more than one?

      • majorml

        Which crimes are you talking about and where you come up with that notion? Of the few mass shootings that I am familiar with, all the guns were registered. Columbine, Newtowne, and Texas army base.  Most suicides and in home and/or in family deaths are registered guns. Of course, you could turn around and admit this, then say that proves there is no point in gun registration.

      • hennorama

        peterlake – thank you for your response. I respect your views.

        My use of NFA-registered weapons as examples were to point out some of the extremes of private U.S. firearms ownership. Your point that “VERY few crimes are ever committed with items registered under the NFA” needs some citation, but even if true, it is useless as a counterpoint to my post.

        My post was not about crimes, but about the sheer number of firearms already in private hands in the U.S. We appear to be quite well-armed already, certainly quite well-armed for hunting, target shooting, and personal protection.

        So I’ll simply ask again – Do we need more firearms in the U.S.? Even one more? If we need more, how many would be enough?

      • http://twitter.com/DizBizzle Desarae Biggins

         340,000 legally owned and registered guns are stolen every year. (Source, ATF.)  You think those criminals just stole them to sit and look at them while they collect dust?  For practice killing?  No, they are used in crimes.  Crimes that they get away with.  I’d like to know what source you are using to back up your ridiculous claim that VERY few crimes are ever committed with items registered under NFA.  Thank you for your rational and factual argument in advance.  (By the way, I’m a supporter of the 2nd amendment and limitations to that amendment such as requiring gun safes for all gun owners.)

        • peterlake

          To my knowledge, only two NFA machine guns have been used in crimes since 1934. I am trying to recall the former ATF head who testified to that before Congress, but can’t recall his name.

          Of course, there was an accident recently where an 8 year-old accidentally shot himself on a range, but that was a negligent accident.

          In other words, there are more killings in Chicago in a month with illegal guns than with legal machine guns (automatic weapons) in the last 78 years.

          I guess we should should all own machine guns.

          • 1Brett1

            The Tiahrt Amendment of 2003 prohibits access (suppresses information other than to law enforcement within the investigation of a specific crime) to any information/statistical data on semi-automatic weapons’ use in violent crimes. So, you don’t know and not one of us can provide accurate data in this respect; we’re prohibited from acquiring such data.

          • peterlake

            I was speaking about guns registered under the NFA, which has nothing to do with semi-automatic weapons, which you talk about. I believe the Tiahrt Amendment only suppresses names, not statistics. But you’re free to show me examples of NFA machine-guns which have been used in crimes. You can be sure that if it happened there would be news about it. Good luck with that.

          • 1Brett1

            My understanding of the Tiarht Amendment is that all information (statistical or otherwise) regarding semi-automatic weapons is prohibited from access except to law enforcement in the process of a criminal investigation. Now, if you believe otherwise, that’s your prerogative; you’d just need to substantiate the idea that the Tiarht Amendment only suppresses names with something verifiable that counters that idea.

            My overarching point is that, say, an investigative journalist would have a difficult time compiling information on crimes associated with semi-automatic weapons, relying solely on cobbling together information from news accounts of such crimes. This would be most time-consuming and would inhibit anyone’s ability to present true statistical data on the matter.

            Here’s an interesting interview from Fresh Air on guns (note the one section in the transcript on the ATF/ the Tiarht Amendment):

            http://www.npr.org/2012/12/20/167694808/assault-style-weapons-in-the-civilian-market

          • peterlake

             Do you actually understand the difference between an NFA weapon and a semi-automatic weapon?

          • 1Brett1

            Yes, I do. Your question is irrelevant because I’m talking about the Tiarht Amendment. I don’t care about your subterfuge of my point/issue with collecting accurate data on semi-automatic weapons by your continuing to talk about NFA weapons.

          • peterlake

             You’re wrong. The ATF distributes data about types of weapons.
            Tiarht just prohibits the dissemination of names, not data.

          • peterlake

            I should have added “Title 2″ to “NFA Weapons”.
            I assume you understand what a Title 2 NFA weapon is.

            So my point is that only two crimes have been committed with Title 2 NFA weapons since 1934.

            Please let me know if you find another one.

            We should all have Title 2 Weapons — machine guns — because no one commits crimes with them.

          • peterlake

             Just go to the ATF website. It’s all there and it explains that 70% of gun crimes with “assault rifles” were gang-related.

            Geet rid of gangs before you go after modern sporting rifles.

        • notafeminista

          According to Yahoo, 1.2 million cars were stolen in the US in 2007.  It’s not a huge leap to assume at least some of those cars were taken by some of those people who took the guns to which you refer.  They probably then went and committed a crime with the gun.  Maybe we should regulate cars.  If one cannot drive to the potential crime scene, then less crime.

      • Fredlinskip

        Yes you should have more than one tie. 
        Matter of fact I keep an extra one handy at all times in case someone pisses me off and I need strangle them on short notice in self-defense.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      For some reason the film Lord Of War comes to mind.

      • hennorama

        A provocative film, indeed.

    • notafeminista

      According to Nielsen we have 114.7 million televions and the US Bureau of Transportation says via Wikipedia there were 254 million registered automobiles in the US in 2009. 

      It’s not the guns you’re talking about here.  What you’re talking about is freedom and how much of it someone you think someone else needs. Guns, money, cigarettes, sat fats,liquor, big sugary drinks, video games,opinions – whatever the Left deems objectionable this week.  What you’re really talking about is limiting freedom.  The Left doesn’t have the testicles to admit it.

      • hennorama

        notafeminista – thank you for your response. You may want to carefully read my posts, as I have not proposed “limiting freedom” nor was I “talking about … freedom and how much of it someone you think someone else needs [sic].”

        I was asking a serious and provocative question, to try to determine the limits of the discussion. I don’t know the answer as to whether something like 300 million privately owned firearms is enough, but it certainly seems like a large number. Certainly it seems enough to satisfy the needs of hunters, target shooters, those who want firearms for personal protection, etc.

        I certainly don’t think private ownership of firearms should be banned. I feel that reasonable regulations can be crafted, to enhance safety and lessen the risks to society. Not because firearms are objectionable, but because they can be dangerous, and the consequences of their misuse are grave.

        I merely feel that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. As does the U.S. Supreme Court.

        Are you saying the Supremes are part of “the Left?” I doubt Judge Scalia would agree.

    • Clark MGB

      By that definition my potato gun is a “Destructive Device” and needs to be registered with the ATF

      • hennorama

        Clark MGB – thanks for the pleasant reminder of the joys of potato launchers. As to the rest – you’re on your own. I just quoted the ATF’s site.

    • Billy Ray Bingham

      How many registered machine guns have been used in the committal of a crime?  In mass shootings?  NONE.  How many of those machine guns are in collections and never have a round fired through them?  How many are at dealers waiting for someone to buy them?  These superficial statistics that you present as the total picture lack the vision of the big picture.  In some state $200 to the government and you can own a machine gun.  Others you can not own one even if you pay the feds.  Let’s talk about the big picture, what are the causes (read multiple) of these events.  Let’s remember we have had a few bombings (federal buildings!) that fall into the same issue, sick people who see no way out.  People have always found ways to hurt other people, fear is a very powerful motivator. 

      • hennorama

        Billy Ray Bingham – TY for your response. I appreciate and respect your views.

        Another poster – “peterlake” – disagrees with you, about NFA-registered weapons in general. See his comment in this thread, below.

        Without going into the hazards of proving a negative, and the fact that you offer no citations as the basis of your statements, you miss the point of my use of the examples of the numbers and types of privately owned weapons. As I replied to “peterlake,” below:

        “My use of NFA-registered weapons as examples were to point out some of the extremes of private U.S. firearms ownership. Your point that “VERY few crimes are ever committed with items registered under the NFA” needs some citation, but even if true, it is useless as a counterpoint to my post.

        My post was not about crimes, but about the sheer number of firearms already in private hands in the U.S. We appear to be quite well-armed already, certainly quite well-armed for hunting, target shooting, and personal protection.”

        Please note that I never mentioned any crime in my original post. I only discussed private ownership of small arms in the U.S.

  • kellylynn50

    I believe the 2nd amendment should stay, (my dad being a hunter for subsistence), but why would anyone need a semi-automatic or a powerful gun for hunting? Hunters don’t shoot a deer with 30 rounds…you could not eat it! Killing is just that, killing, death is final no matter what you think. Guns that are anything more than a hunting rifle are not necessary for any reason except for war as was stated by your guest…

  • kellylynn50

    I believe the 2nd amendment should stay, (my dad being a hunter for subsistence), but why would anyone need a semi-automatic or a powerful gun for hunting? Hunters don’t shoot a deer with 30 rounds…you could not eat it! Killing is just that, killing, death is final no matter what you think. Guns that are anything more than a hunting rifle are not necessary for any reason except for war as was stated by your guest…and suggesting that this country arm teachers is just stupid, not do we really want to keep the cycle of violence turning? Enough is enough already! 
    hennorama you make some very compelling points! 

    • peterlake

       I’ll ask you to consider this simple analogy, which I am getting tired of repeating, but will again:

      Do you have more than one pair of shoes?
      More than two shirts?
      More than (ask your dad if he has more than one tie, and ask him why)…….

      Does your father NEED more than one tie?

      Ask….really.

      It’s the same with guns.
      I have one for this, one for that, one for another reason.

      (Well, actually more than one for this, that and the other, like your father has ties.)

      There’s no difference. (And yes, ties can — and have — killed people.)

      • jimino

        I guess I never thought of a semi-automatic weapon as a fashion accessory. I did hear they make them in a variety of cool colors.  No white stocks before Memorial Day though, right?

        • 1Brett1

          I was all set to pounce…but then you said BEFORE Memorial Day not after…Does this AK-47 make my butt look too big?

          • jimino

             Damn, I’ve been confused about that ever since I got rid of my white belts.

          • peterlake

             “white belts”?
            I believe that was part of the outfit called “a Full Cleveland”.

            But don’t ask what gun goes best with a Full Cleveland.

            My firearms knowledge only goes so far, after all.

        • peterlake

          ” No white stocks before Memorial Day though, right?”

          Right.
          Or after Labor Day.
          (Unless you were raised in a barn….)

      • hennorama

        peterlake -  I’ll ask you to consider this simple reference, which I am getting tired of repeating, but will again:

        “This is not ‘Jeopardy’ so your answer need not be in the form of a question.”

        Still waiting for your answer, so I’ll simply ask again – Do we need more firearms in the U.S.?  Even one more?  If we need more, how many would be enough?

        And if you can show any instances of mass murder of 20 children and 7 adults, in multiple locations, using ties, please do so.  Absent that, how can you argue that “There’s no difference” between firearms and ties, with respect to the Newton massacre?

        And THAT is not a rhetorical question.

        • peterlake

          I will answer your question directly?

          “Do we need more firearms in the U.S.?”

          Yes.

          “Even one more?”

          No. Many more.

          “If we need more, how many would be enough?”

          We can only tell you that when the buyers stop asking for them. So far, that point is not in sight. Buyers want more and more and, I promise you this without even checking (because I know My People): gun sales this week will be through the roof.

          Now, let me ask you a question:
          Why do you use a nom de guerre on this forum?

          I don’t.

          What’s your real name?

          Why do you need a nom de guerre?

          These are real questions, by the way, not rhetorical.

          • Fredlinskip

            Perhaps he doesn’t use his real name because you might try look him up and shoot him.

          • 1Brett1

            I really don’t understand this bloke’s obsession with everybody’s “real” names? I told him my name is really Brett and he called me a moral coward?! It appears we’ve got a new creep clogging up this forum.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            He’s making a list and checking it twice…

            I’m angling to head up the ‘Naughty’ list, maybe he’ll bring me a lump of coal or some Switches of Mass Destruction.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – thank you for your response, and for answering the questions I posed.

            I do not use a “nom de guerre,” as I am not at war with anyone and therefore feel no need for a “war name.” Given your other posts, it doesn’t surprise me that you would use “nom de guerre” rather than “pseudonym,” but I digress. I use a “screenname” in this forum, principally for privacy reasons. My “real name” is “hennorama.”

            Although the right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right, most especially the Fourth Amendment. You’re big on part of the Bill Of Rights, so I presume you’ve heard of the Fourth Amendment, and won’t go into further detail.

            Is the point of your question and statement – “Why do you use a nom de guerre on this forum? I don’t.” – that you feel that everyone should act as you do, or conform to your personal conventions? If so, you have no doubt experienced disappointment on a daily or perhaps even hourly basis.

            As I said, I do respect your views. Thanks again for your response.

        • DIYinSTL

           Can you name more than one instance of mass murder in this country in the past decade that did not occur in a “gun free zone”? 

          • peterlake

            Exactly.
            Where would a potential mass murderer go to find victims EXCEPT a “gun-free zone”?

            Being crazy isn’t the same as being stupid.

            Seven theatres were showing Dark Knight Rises near Aurora and the shooter picked the only one that was “gun-free.”

          • hennorama

            DIYinSTL – TY for your reply.

            Yes, I can. Unfortunately, there are many instances of mass murder of families. ALL of the following involved firearms:

            2011 Grapevine, TX 6 Dead
            2010 Appomatox, VA 8 Dead
            2009 Los Angeles, CA 6 Dead
            2008 Covina, CA 9 Dead 2 Injured
            2008 Memphis, TN 6 Dead 3 Injured
            2006 Kansas City, KS 6 Dead
            2004 Fresno, CA 9 Dead

            Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_familicides_in_the_United_States

            I assume you don’t define residences as “gun-free zones.” Is there a reason you narrowed your timeframe to the last ten years, and to “gun-free zones?” Did you watch something on FoxNews about this narrow topic?

            Now, here’s a question for you –

            What percentage of mass murders in the U.S. over the last 10, 20, 30, 50, or 100 years (you can pick the time period) NOT involve firearms? For purposes of this question, let’s narrow it to 4 or more deaths, by a single perpetrator, in a 24 hour period.

      • kellylynn50

        peterlake
        Your analogy is just stupid! This has nothing to do with ties or shirts or clothing, it has to do with life and death, what is reasonable and what is not, what is needed to keep the public safe and what is not…I will re-iterate what hennorama said, “Do we need more firearms in the U.S.?  Even one more?  If we need more, how many would be enough?”

      • notafeminista

        peterlake, the Left doesn’t mind neckties and shoes yet.  You won’t get an honest answer.

      • nj_v2

        The analogy is still stupid, no matter how many times you repeat it.

      • Fredlinskip

        Yes you need more than one tie.
        Matter of fact I keep an extra one handy at all times in case someone pisses me off and I need strangle them in short notice…. in self-defense.

        • peterlake

          One of those “assault ties”, I bet, with polka dots to blind the victim first.

        • hennorama

          This reminds me of a different sort of “self-defense” involving neckwear.  Employees at a company I knew generally dressed very casually, but had an “Emergency Tie Station” (ala the Emergency Eye Station) for times the HQ honchos visited.

    • hennorama

      kellylynn50 – thank you for your kind words.

      I don’t know the answer to the issue of gun violence, or who needs high-powered, rapid-fire, high-ammo-capacity weapons.  Certainly it would seem that having lower ammo capacity might give unarmed individuals at least SOME chance against well-armed persons intent on assault and murder.  But I’m just trying to see where the edges of the argument are.  Pointing out the number of privately held small arms, and some of the more extreme examples of privately held weaponry, was designed to add factual information to the discussion.

      I certainly agree with you about the Second Amendment.  But some further restrictions may be coming.  The Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller, held

      “1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

      So individuals have gun ownership rights disconnected from “A well regulated Militia…”  However, in Heller, SCOTUS also held:

      “2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

      So this means some regulation is permissible.  Note that the decision specifically mentioned schools and government buildings as specific places prohibition could be allowed.

      The Heller decision also appears to make trigger lock requirements unconstitutional, at least in D.C.  Whether this may apply to states and other municipalities remains to be seen.

      Source:http://supreme.nolo.com/us/554/07-290/

      • DIYinSTL

         “Lower ammo capacity” could also cost someone their life in a defensive situation.  Since you seem to be somewhat scholarly, I have two subjects to recommend.  The first is the Bath School disaster (38 elementary children killed).  The second is the Detroit riot of 1967.  If you have ever been in or near a riot like that with complete breakdown of law and order, then you would know what it was like to wish for enough firepower to at least allow a little sleep with one eye open.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          If you can’t get a little sleep with one eye open because your clip doesn’t hold enough rounds you have bigger problems than insufficient fire-power.

        • hennorama

          DIYinSTL – thank you for your reply. I understand and respect your views.

          Without revealing too much about my background, I have personal experience with situations involving multiple deaths, due to a variety of causes, unfortunately. I also have personal experience with civil unrest, in a variety of locations and timeframes.

          The Bath School bombings are a bit incongruous to this discussion of firearms and the NRA, no? I assume you include them only as an example of other mass murder of schoolchildren, and so I will not address them further.

          Indeed, both rate of fire and ammunition capacity can be limiting factors in a defensive situation. That is not in dispute. But what we are trying to come to is some reasonable middle ground, not an absolute. After all, the SUpreme Court has said, in Heller,

          “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

          Reasonable limits are what I’m suggesting, not an absolute prohibition, nor anything resembling prohibition.

        • peterlake

           To the Detroit riot of 1967 you can add the Los Angeles riots of 1992, when Little Korea residents used their guns to keep away looters who ran wild in the rest of the city.

          “Criminals depend on the willingness of their victims.” — Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper, as quoted by me in Esquire.

    • nj_v2

      There’s no need for the Second Amendment in order to be able to hunt.

      We all drive, and there’s no amendment guaranteeing vehicle ownership.

      Gun purchases should be legislated and regulated in much the same way as motor vehicles, except more vigorously.

      The Second Amendment is an anachronism. The only rationalization for it comes from the deluded people who think they’re preparing themselves to fight off an imagined or future tyrannical government.

      • 1Brett1

        Shh! Or next thing you know SCOTUS will be wanting to broaden the “umbrella” of the 2nd Amendment definition to include a “well-regulated weekend hunting party.” (as our “god-given” right)

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Again an example of  a program with out any balance and blissfully free of facts.  So sadly disappointing.   Is this the best that NPR can offer? 

    • Mike_Card

      You’re about 6 weeks late.  The ‘sad’ meme ended with the elections–you lost, so just shut up.

      • 1Brett1

        And I thought it was a fairly balanced show, especially considering the discussion was about the modern NRA political machine and their machinations. 

      • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

        Captain Richard Pearson of the Serapis asked Jones, “Have you struck? Do you call for Quarter?” or, in other words, was Jones prepared to give up the fight and surrender his ship, Jones, according to most accounts, replied, “I have not yet begun to fight.”

  • Jacynmess

    If someone desires to kill multiple people, they will most certainly find a way to do so, such as IEDs, Knives (e.g. as happened in China last week but without a fatality among 22 victims, fortunately), Swords, Machetes ( see any number of African atrocities), Cars driven into a crowd loaded with gasoline cans and a match, et al.  So in reality, this gun argument misses the  point that we cannot prevent mass killings.  We can implement bans and stricter background checks, but these killings will continue in some form or another.   Focus our energies on treating and housing those with Mental Illness and making ourselves harder targets against those who slip through.
    The liberal “giddiness” in the aftermath of this horrible event is off the charts. The NRA (of which I am not a member) is as horrified by this as any reasonable person. Quit demonizing them.  Their “fear” of the federal government and the mindset to be a vanguard against its overreach is no more out of line than the ACLU’s concern against Federal Government Overreach in other areas. Many fail to see this.

    • 1Brett1

      Enough with that “liberal giddiness.” All people are sickened, horrified and saddened by this. So please don’t use such tawdry tactics to get your points out. 

      Also, it’s not fear of governmental overreach that is bothersome about the insurrectionist movement, it’s their seeming need to stockpile as much weaponry as possible as an answer/response to that fear.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        If something bad happens as a result of crazy righty policies and you want to change those policies as a result, that’s apparently “politicizing”. Learning from your mistakes = politicizing, LOL.

        Also, If something bad happens as a result of crazy righty policies, don’t forget to say “correlation is not causation”.

      • Jacynmess

        Guilty as charged on the Giddiness attack. You are fair to say it is tawdry. But what do you say about the larger point that the gun itself is not the cause of the crime?  It is the tool, just as many other deadly options exist and would be equally available and unpreventable. That is being ignored in this heated moment, leading to the larger mental health issue  being seconded to the gun argument.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Semantics. People kill people, with guns. More guns = more murders.

          While diminishing mental health resources, being cut as we speak by “starve the beast” tax policy, and violent movies and games, are also factors, they are primarily brought up by the right to divert the conversation away from guns.

          • Jacynmess

            “more guns= more murders” is an anecdote, not a fact.  FBI statistics show a steady decrease in both homicide and felony assaults in the last decade, while we have more guns owned than ever.
            Your concern about starving the beast is well-grounded, however,  and should be rectified.

        • 1Brett1

          Who knows what would have happened if the young man had had some knitting needles and a suitcase strap? 

        • anamaria23

          The mental health element of this crime was discussed at length yesterday with many good insights provided.  It is not being dismissed.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Except by the types who tried to use The Mental Health thread to talk about Gun-Control.

          • anamaria23

            Got it.  You have a fine memory.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            It wasn’t meant as a finger-point at you, I think you realize that but I just want to make sure.

          • anamaria23

            All is well.  I enjoy your posts.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            The feeling is mutual, I assure you. Sorry I come across as a smart-ass sometimes. I honestly do try to keep it in check.

    • northeaster17

      Giddy, that’s how many people feel about this. Dream on….Something about a well regulated militia keeps popping into my mind. Like regulations to keep guns away from unstable and other kinds of killers, before they strike. We can prevent mass tragedies. We need to pay attention and we need regulation.
       

    • anamaria23

      Would you please define “giddiness”.  Is outrage, sorrow, a demand for change and action giddiness?
        The NRA has been calling the shots regarding gun ownershop for too long and with utter callousness.  Wayne LaPierre’s fearmongering has enabled lack a of a civilized gun policy.
      Your accusation is an insult to the victims and to those who have been working for years to diminish death by guns, especially ones that can slaughter 26 people in 10 minutes. 
      In China there were 22 injured, 20 non-serious, 2 serious.

      • Jacynmess

        A. The “Giddiness” was a direct quote from a caller to the show referencing the lack of focus on anything other than guns.
        B. My comment was no insult to the victims. I was sickened by the news, but I have enough distance to see an anti-gun feeding frenzy in the aftermath that certainly qualifies as an opportunistic, reactionary, even giddy, political fight.

  • phyllisleonard

    peterlake’s comment re SCOTUS & the Nat’l Firearms Act of 1934 sent me onto the computer to check this out. Unfortunately, there seems to be an enormous amount of information and little clarity in all that has been written about these issues. What the Constitution is pretty clear about, and nobody seems to contest it, is that we all have a right to life. I think that has to be primary. Guns and other dangerous instruments have to be regulated because they have the power to take life.

    I agree with 1Brett1. I’m far less afraid of government overreach than I am of what seems to be an emerging insurrection movement and what seems to be their arrogant assumption they can decide what’s best for our democracy.

    And no, I don’t think 15 years in prison for the possession of an illegal gun is excessive….after a fair trial, of course. And I think if it were the law it should be highly publicized.

    Phyllis from Massachusetts

  • misterick

    While I quit the NRA for other reasons they do advocate responsible gun ownership.  The mother of the Conn shooter should have, knowing her son had problems, had her guns under lock and key. If she had, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 

  • misterick

    Much is being said about guns, mental health, etc. in response to Friday’s
    shootings. I don’t hear any talk of the lack of adequate parenting by the
    shooter’s parents, especially the mother. Specifically:

    It was reported by someone who baby sat for the family the they were
    under instructions not to leave the kid alone for any reason – why not?

    The parents (mother) was called to school numerous time for problems
    involving the kid’s “social” issues and others at the school were aware of his
    odd behavior-would a trip to a psychologist have been unreasonable?

    Certainly the parents (mother) knew her kid had some mental problems. She
    is living in an upscale neighborhood, not needing to work for a living,
    somewhat of a “socialite” and yet she can’t afford the time, money or concern to
    get the kid some help? She buys and shoots guns and yet doesn’t keep them
    locked in a safe with the combination available to her only and/or her husband
    or in a safe deposit box?

    You keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill by recognizing and
    treating their problems and LOCKING UP THE GUNS.

    There are many facets to this situation. I enjoy recreational shooting,
    own an “assualt” rifle, have a concealed carry permit and have a gun available
    to me all the time; I quit the NRA when it would not support a Phila law
    requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns and I for one would outlaw the
    sale and possession of “body armor” . Perhaps we need to go back to the days of
    mandatory service – military or otherwise- for all young adults like they do in
    Israel. This would at least allow for mental screening. But to ignore this
    mother’s lack of concern-supposedly she would not discuss family matters with
    others-and to just blame guns is ridiculous.

  • Jacynmess

    perhaps it is not being dismissed here, but the larger national media discussion will likely not address it substantively. The “starved beast” the TomK in Boston refers to is on life support, and should be revived if possible to address our mental health crisis.

  • StilllHere

    Wal-Mart Running Out of Guns; Ammo Prices Surge from Bloomberg

    Talk of gun control is having an effect.

  • Mike_Card

    Gregg:  I guess you just turned off your screen name.  Did you get a big kick out of posting under your other hideout names?  You know–of course–that you aren’t fooling anybody; right?

    • StilllHere

      Get a life.

      • Mike_Card

        Just what I thought.

        • StilllHere

          No, just what I thought, you’re pathetic.

          • Gregg Smith

            I guess he thinks we are the same and I’m not insulted. At least he didn’t think I was NJ. I have encountered this since I started seeking out hostile environments to test my positions. The other common accusation is I’m paid by the Koch brothers. Liberals are in such a news bubble they simply cannot believe there are other opinions out there. So they get all conspiratorial. If anyone has read your comments or mine they should have an idea neither of us is very shy about claiming them. I get a kick out of liberals.

          • OnPointComments

            I have a difficult time choosing my favorite quote about liberals:
             
            “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” –William F. Buckley
             
            “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”  –Ronald Reagan

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Cause we all know Saint Ronnie knew everything.

          • Gregg Smith

            I concur.

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s a toss up.

          • Fredlinskip

            here’s another liberal quote you can use:
            “This country would sure be a lot better off today without Ronny and Willy”

    • Gregg Smith

      I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t commented on this thread since once or twice this morning. I think it’s a stupid topic and I want no part of it. I expect tomorrows topic to be Time’s “Person of the Year”. 

      Who is it you think I am?

  • notafeminista

    Wow.  I wonder what this show would look like if Tom Ashbrook talked about “cracking the stance” of the AFL-CIO.

    • StilllHere

      Never gonna happen.

      • harverdphd

         Tru dat…unions are done…why waste time discussing a defeat?

    • nj_v2

      ^ Garbage-time trolling has begun.

      • harverdphd

         ^ Loser trolling monitors have checked in….

      • notafeminista

        Oh if we could just send them all to Siberia.

  • turnerwarehouse

    Any politician that would not sacrifice re-election to protect innocent children from easy-to-get assault weapons is a gutless coward.

    • harverdphd

       You are so cute…what assault weapons were used at Sandy Hook?

      • DrewInGeorgia

        An AR-15?

        I see you have been keeping up with the news Genius. But don’t let the facts get in your way.

        “Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns – a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.

        In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, although police haven’t said whether the gun was the Glock or the Sig Sauer.”

        http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/56GNVY35GEMUAC6XDLIJNDFRM4 Jack Chaffin

          So you consider an AR-15 an assault weapon?  It is a semi-automatic.  Military weapons are fully automatic.  You may not understand what that means.  Look it up.  The term “assault weapon” just means “guns that look military”.  It is a nice fluffy term that the left thinks they understand, but they don’t.  It really means “guns that make me uncomfortable”.  But truly, any firearms make you uncomfortable, right?  Genius you are not.

          • Ray in VT

            I certainly would define it as such.  Merriam-Webster’s defines the term assault weapon as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms” and assault rifle as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use”, and the AR-15 certainly fits those descriptions, as would AK style rifles and the Heckler and Koch G3 family of rifles.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Thanks to you and Mike, glad to know I’m not the only one paying attention to the “That definition was the old definition before we realized that we needed to change it to the new definition” folks.

          • Ray in VT

            Don’t mention it, Drew.  I find it irritating that when one mentions gun control or brings up the notion of whether or not it is a good idea for these items to be circulating in society, then all of a sudden one is trying to take everyone’s guns.  It’s moronic.

            I also don’t understand the seeming insistence on defining assault weapon as being fully automatic.  One of my friends recently brought an AR, and he found that he could empty the clip in under 8 seconds.  Semi-automatic just ends up meaning as fast as you can pull the trigger, and that can be pretty darned fast.  There is also the fact that one can turn semi auto into full auto fairly easily with some models.  I never worked with the AR enough to know how to do it with one of them, but I know 2 or 3 ways to do it to an AK.

          • Gregg Smith

            I am not an expert on guns by any means. I hear you Ray but I’ve got to tell you I’m scared. I am arming up. There are many comments here calling for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I strongly believe “Fast and Furious” was an attempt to build a groundswell of outrage over the “assault weapons” but it backfired (no pun). I have seen comments calling for confiscation of guns. I’m not saying it’s imminent but I do think we are a Justice or two away and there is a will. I’m not a crazy but I feel a great sense of urgency.

          • Ray in VT

            I’m not scared.  I lock my doors, have a decent sized dog, and I live in a very low crime area.  I have guns too, but I don’t foresee having to use them.  My baseball bat and my machete are much closer at hand.  If you do end up buying a gun, then please take the time to take a gun safety course and to handle and store it properly.  Tragedies often result from that not happening.

            I was scared after 9/11, which was when I had some of my guns on order, and they might have made me feel better, but they wouldn’t have really helped me on a practical level.

            There are a few people here who have called to ban guns, but I’ve heard far more responsible gun owners who have called for some sensible restrictions on certain types of guns.  That won’t get rid of gun violence, but I think that it could help.  I think that we have a far too laid back national attitude towards guns.  They should not be treated as toys.  They should be respected and treated with care.

            If you think that the Fast and the Furious was some sort of Obama administration plot to fuel violence in order to crack down on guns and fear that we are only a Justice or two away from gun confiscation, then I hate to tell you this, but you may very well be nuts.  I think that it is that sort of mindset which caused there to be an ammo shortage early on in Obama’s first term, as people stocked up because groups like the NRA were telling their members that Obama and the liberals were acomin’ fer their guns.  It’s noodle-doodle.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Nice!

          • Gregg Smith

            You have guns, I don’t. I will.

          • Fredlinskip

            G
            O
            O
            F
            Y
            !

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m not scared of the bad guy I’m scared of my freedom to fight him being taken away. I thought that was clear.

            I don’t want to rehash F&F here but what possible motive could there be?  You use that reasoning to call the Tea Party racist and this is far more blatant.

          • Fredlinskip

            be afraid! be very afraid!!
            Big Gov is coming to confiscate all your guns! Stock up now so you’s can fight ‘em all off.

            You sure about the “I’m not a crazy” thing?

          • Gregg Smith

            Thanx I will.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            The AR can be converted, I don’t know the specifics but I do know a couple of Gun-Smiths. I’ll take their word for it.

            The full-auto definition is insane. Before I came to the conclusion that “Guns aren’t Fun” and started using them for their intended purposes I had a MAC-11 9mm. It was semi-auto and perfectly legal. Clips up to 100 rounds could be obtained, standard was 30. The firing rate of the semi-auto was not lacking much from the full-auto, I tested the theory a few times. Assessed rate of fire for the full auto was up to 1200 rounds a minute. Guess it shouldn’t be considered an “assault weapon” because it was semi-automatic. It’s silly.

          • Ray in VT

            I used to work at a gun factory, and the old gunsmith there was amazing in terms of the skill that he had in reworking pieces (broken parts and such mostly).  I did a bunch of stuff while I was there, and a few guns came back for repairs and it looked like people had attempted to illegally modify them in order to make them automatics.  Like I said, I don’t know how to do it on the AR, but I’m sure that it’s not terribly difficult if one has some skill and the right tools.  The AKs, on the other hand, were pretty easy to modify.  As to your rate of fire comment, that’s pretty amazing.  That is a hell of a lot of lead to throw up, and certainly the only possible  purpose is to saturate and area or a crowd with fire.  Most of my friends who are former military prefer the one shot one kill approach, but, then again, most of them either target shoot or hunt for food.

          • Mike_Card

            I don’t need to “look it up,” I served more than 4 years on active duty in the US Army.  I KNOW.  Do you know?

          • DrewInGeorgia

            So an assault weapon has to be fully-automatic? You sure? You contradict yourself in your next statement.

            “The term “assault weapon” just means “guns that look military.”
            So the AR-15 doesn’t “look military”?
            And now I suppose you’re going to tell me it is impossible to convert an AR-15 to full-auto. But you would be able to tell the difference from a hundred feet away, right?

            I am not The Left, nor am I The Right.

            Guns don’t make me uncomfortable, in fact I own a few.

            I wasn’t talking to you, I was talking to the phd’d one who still seems to think that the AR was in the trunk and that the assailant killed all those people with handguns. Have a nice evening and by all means, feel free to change the definition of Assault Weapon as you see fit.

          • peterlake

             “And now I suppose you’re going to tell me it is impossible to convert an AR-15 to full-auto.”

            I will tell you that it is impossible and if anyone succeeded they would be committing a serious federal crime.

            Did you think the ATF does not know that some people would like to do that?

            Perhaps you have seen it done on TV or in the movies and have believed what you see or read in popular fiction.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Wrong.

            It is illegal to convert a semi-auto, it is NOT impossible. Don’t take my word for it, go talk to a Gun-Smith that is worth their salt.

            And what is the point of your reply anyway?

            As my buddy likes to say:
            “More Cowbell”

        • FranklinPierce

          The original story had the bushmaster in the trunk of the car.
          http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/12/cabal-having-difficulty-telling-a-consistent-sandy-hook-story-2477376.html

          Of course the official story now follows the age da

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I know the rifle was wrongly reported as being in the trunk of the car. I suspected as much which is why I held my tongue regarding it over the course of the weekend. Forgive me if I don’t check out your link.

          • Ray in VT

            Well Drew, I’ll save you the effort.  Here’s the headline:  “Cabal Having Difficulty Telling a Consistent Sandy Hook Story”.  The comment and the headline sounds to me like more right wing conspiracy theorizing.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Thanks Ray, I couldn’t bring myself to click it.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah, it’s about what you’d expect.  Inconsistencies in reporting are obviously signs of deception and coverup.  I cannot for the life of me understand the mindset that requires one to see the world as full of secret conspiracies that constantly threaten to hem on in on all fronts.  It’s like a siege mentality.  One is always under attack, sort of like the War on Christmas that is going on now.  Now, there are problems in the world.  There’s no denying that, but our parents had constant problems, and so did their parents, etc.  Maybe it’s the Internet and the media that have created this greater sense of always having one be under attack from x,y, and z.  I don’t know.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Disqus is likely going to butcher my reply so I’m apologizing in advance.

            I think it is nothing more than the conditioning that comes with fear being the biggest driver of purchasing practices. People will call me a Communist, Socialist, Blasphemer, etc. but I really see it as an inherent result of Capitalism. I don’t know what the solution is but at least I am willing to admit that I don’t have all the answers. We need to find a better way soon, I think we’re approaching the finish line.

  • harverdphd

    No new laws that will survive SCOTUS muster are possible…too many minority and privileged groups will be denied firearms.

    • patty h

       Wrong.   If we repeal the second amendment to the constitution, new laws will survive SCOTUS muster.

  • http://www.facebook.com/breezybj Brianne Johnson

    I have no idea how anyone would try to even ‘control’ guns at this point.  Here in Utah it is very legal to just buy/sell/trade guns with any Joe on the street with absoulutely no thought at all.  I can get on our local classified website and contact the first person I see, meet them in a parking lot somewhere, and have a firearm in my hands in less than 10 minutes no problem.  And little does that seller care what I want that gun for or what my intentions are.  Guns are passed around like germs and they are so widespread I think we have just screwed the younger generation over – nevermind the fiscal problems we are leaving them when they have to worry about arming themselves.  Because for Jebus sake we don’t want to deny any moron in this Country the right to have a freakin gun.

  • Fredlinskip

       How many rounds are required for a weapon to have for one to feel safe in one’s home or to hunt with? 
    Are you expecting an Al Qaeda regiment to attack you’re household?
    Do you enjoy going out in the woods and putting 58 rounds in a beer can in 3 seconds?
    What?
    I don’t get the appeal.
    It doesn’t seem a good trade-off to allow ready access to military-style weapons in order to indulge a few people their goofy hobby.

    Or is it that your neighbor, might have the latest weapon capable of killing-the-most-folks in-fewest-seconds, so you need to have them to protect yourself in case he gets pissed at you for not returning the weedwhacker you borrowed? 

    Don’t quite get it-
     but then again I’m not a “gun enthusiast”- (nor a War enthusiast for that matter).

    • notafeminista

      Tsk.  Take your first line and substitute it with any of the following…cigarettes, alcohol, money, sat fats etc and just stop after the word “required”.  The rest of it is irrelevant.

      The frenzy this time last year was OWS and how the 1% per cent has too much money.

      Just admit you want to limit freedom and be done with it.

      • Fredlinskip

        You’re logic escapes me a bit. 
           You avoid addressing any of the questions in my comment and want to change it to a discussion of freedoms. 
        Go ahead- straighten me out- tell me about the need for freedom to own weapons that dispense dozens of rounds in nanoseconds. What’s the purpose? Does it make you feel macho or something? How bout RPG’s and rocket-launchers? Is there a line you draw anywhere?
        I’ll save the cigarettes, alcohol, 1%ers argument for another time.

        You’re right about one thing- I would like to limit freedom- 

        I would like to restrict the freedom to commit mass murder.

        • jefe68

          So what ideas do you have on that front?

          I don’t think banning semi-automatic weapons will work. Banning the high capacity clips is a good idea.

          I see this more as a mental health issue that became a horrific tragedy as the result of some very bad decisions made by the shooters mother. She had weapons in her house and he was unstable or becoming unhinged. We don’t know and most likely will never know. It’s clear to me that Lanza’s easy access to guns was part of this mass murder.

          • Fredlinskip

               If these weapons are not available- then folks can’t use them to initiate mass murder.Mental health?- IMO anyone who feels the need to own rocket grenade launchers, missile launchers, nuclear material, or guns capable of killing dozens of people in seconds- 
            likely has some  mental “issues”.
              

        • notafeminista

          You’re half right. Unless you happen to be pro-life.

          • Fredlinskip

            ??

      • Fredlinskip

        Judging what you value as your important “freedoms”, I picture you as an overweight guy- one hand in the donuts, the other on a AR-15, cigar hanging out the mouth, pint of Old Grandad in the pocket and a tee-shirt that says “It’s all about my personal freedom!”. 
        Fair depiction?

    • FranklinPierce

      Do you need a chain saw, or will the old rusty hand saw do? A power nailer, or a hammer, power drill?

      Guns are tools. Do I make you go out and buy a Prius? Don’t tell me what I can buy.

      So self righteous because you don’t own a gun. You voted for a warmonger who kills children every day, prattle on that you aren’t a war enthusiast, my ass!

      • Fredlinskip

        Tell me what you really think.
        I have siblings Parents, grandparents that are/were hunters. You’re right- I don’t own a gun.  I guess you think I don’t have a right to an opinion on the subject?
        But please, yes I’m out of my depth so I invite someone- anyone, to help me understand I’ve asked a number of times- please explain to me the appeal and/or the need for responsible gun owners to own weapons that fire dozens of rounds in split seconds.
        If it is for some kind of recreational target practice, then can you not see why a reasonable person might want to see tighter restrictions on such weapons??
        I know I ask a lot. I’m asking you to look through another’s eyes for  a second- one who isn’t proud that the U.S. murder rate is about 20 times the average per capita of the other “developed” countries.

        As far as Obama- there are a lot of policies I take issue with, but IMO, he was a WHOLE lot better than the alternative in BOTH past 2 elections on most issues- including War. 
        If you are anti-war, and somewhat anti-drone, great-  hey maybe we agree on some issues.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1637060729 Annette McNamara

    Shame on you all, no respect for the dead. These
    Families are in pain, and now we are going to bring
    out the Gun issue. Gun’s isn’t the issue here, it’s
    Divorced families issues in our Courts they leave a
    good guy and bad guy, this killer was a very lonely
    fatherless child that wanted revenge, that his mother
    purchased knowing he was sick. Seriously, this is
    going to cause such a fear in so many people to go
    after American’s protection from sick people. Let’s
    start with the question, who watches sick people
    that doctor’s give crazy drugs to? Not to say how is
    this effecting Military Veteran’s that had to sleep with their
    guns, and only know what they have experienced
    at War and at Home. Stress. Using this case to attack
    the right to protect. Just don’t get it. What will we
    gain? Where is all the funding for Counselor’s to help
    those that need help for the past 10 years?

     God Bless America. Grandma
    of 8, that believe’s families need teaching on what they
    bring in their homes. Don’t punish America.

    • Mike_Card

      Do us all a favor:  put a cork in the bottle, turn off the computer, and get a good night’s sleep.  We’ll all see a better world tomorrow.

  • OnPointComments

    Because I know she’s a favorite of everyone who comments on On Point, here’s Ann Coulter’s column from today:
     
    http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/19/ann-coulter-we-know-how-to-stop-school-shootings/ 
     
    A massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 showed that only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

    • OnPointComments

      The report Ms. Coulter references in her column can be read at:
       
      http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf 
       
      The report’s conclusion states:
      “Right-to-carry laws reduce the number of people killed or wounded from multiple victim public shootings as many attackers are either deterred from attacking or when attacks do occur they are stopped before the police can arrive. We are able to provide evidence for the first time that the harm from crimes that still occur can be mitigated. Given that half the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings have had formal diagnoses of mental illness, the fact that some results indicate concealed handgun laws reduce these attacks by almost 70 percent is remarkable.”

  • Gregg Smith

    In the hostile, war-mongering, crime-ridden country of Switzerland they require people to have guns. Go figure.

    • Ray in VT

      Yes, apparently they do require those who have been conscripted into and trained by the militia to keep their issued firearm at home, but since 2007 all but a few thousand have had to have their ammunition at the armory, and even when they didn’t they were issued 50 rounds in a sealed box that the government regularly checked for improper use.  It’s not like those guys were decked out like Rambos in their home bunkers or anything.

      • Gregg Smith

        I thought they were also required to be in a militia. I’m not sure, I’m going on memory.

      • jefe68

        Funny how Europe works for the right wing when it suites their agenda.

    • peterlake

      In Switzerland the right to keep and bear cuckoo clocks shall not be infringed.

      The Swiss not only have guns in their closets, they have F-16′s in their caves. (See John McPhee’s New Yawker story about this.)

  • peterlake

    As predicted, the NRA has gained 8000 members a day since the shooting.

    • Gregg Smith

      Bloomberg is reporting Walmart is now out of stock of 5 different semi-automatic weapons in 5 different states. 

      • 1Brett1

        Sounds like you’ve been traveling around from state to state engaging in a little shopping frenzy…pace yourself; those weapons’ll be there tomorrow! 

        I guess everyone now knows what to get YOU for Christmas! 

        Gregg: bullets=stocking stuffer…what’s the best way to wrap a 9mm Glock? Red or green bow?

        • peterlake

          I did all my .223 and ammo shopping when it became clear that John McCain had no chance of winning the 2008 election against OweBama, who’s been waiting for a tragedy to find a reason to ban guns.

          As for wrapping the 9mm Glock: wrap it in “return”, since 9mm’s a sissy cartridge that has been foisted on police and our military by liberals and Europeans who don’t really want to hurt criminals or the enemy, just annoy them.

          Wrap a .40 or .45 pistol if you really love someone.

          • 1Brett1

            “Owebama.” “…sissy cartridge.” 

            You sound like one of those Texas secessionist nuts or maybe an expatriate Aussie cowboy, peter “knife? that’s not a knife…now that’s a knife” dundee. Naw, you’re probably just a garden variety insurrectionist. Maybe you and Gregg could start hanging out? He’s looking for a nutjobber to hang out with I hear.

            Yep, we’re getting to know you, unfortunately, pretty well.

          • jefe68

            Are you for real?

        • Gregg Smith

          Nothing yet. It’s been almost 2 years since the bullet jammed in the .22 on a Sunday when the vet could not make it for 5 hours and ol’ “Summer” needed out of his misery pronto. That was the last time. We finally got it to work but it was a very long 10 minutes for Summer. Yet even after that, I put off doing anything. I had even done enough research and asking around to decide on a Henry lever action. So I know I need that or something similar just to stay pat. 

          I do fear copycats and believe this could turn into something horrific. We need to protect our kids and a law won’t do it. We don’t have to helplessly witness atrocity. In this climate it can come to your door.  

          I now think I need a handgun too after the proper education and training. It’s new to me. A concealed carry permit would be the goal eventually. I’m not sure but I may want something  very lethal. I also can’t say I may not opt for an “assault weapon” as well. I have 100 acres, waterways, cliffs and bluffs. What if…? If I don’t make a move now, will I be permitted to later? I don’t really want to make this decision now but I do think it could be now or never. A neighbor and gun enthusiast who owns property adjoining ours advises me to buy at a gun sale. They are frequent in this area.

          Laugh all you want but look at the world around us. I hope to be around another 30 years or so and I am not confident it’s going to stay this peachy. I cherish every day in the full knowledge of the suffering throughout the world and my unbelievably good fortune by birth and geography. I don’t take it for granted for a minute.

          • 1Brett1

            Be paranoid; stockpile your guns on your remote 100-acre spread; hang out at gun shows; spend your leisure time with gun culture; feed your dystopian fears…It’s not something I care about. 

            It all makes sense really and fits in with who you seem to align yourself. Who knows, maybe you could increase your previous Ted Nugent quotes and links in what you might consider as “relevant” from him along with your other “relevant” quotes and links from Rush and Fox. Maybe you could even start talking about yourself in the third person like Ted does, e.g., “Gregg needs to get a gun.” Or, “Gregg wants to start going to gun shows.” You’d wear that sort of thing like a glove.

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s not about me. Please try to get me out of your head.

          • 1Brett1

            pat reply #37 (from the book of Gregg Smith replies)

            (alrighty then: pat reply #28, for example)

          • Gregg Smith

            It really isn’t about me.

        • Steve__T

           I knew this would happen, one knee jerk causes another. Gun sales in my town have quadrupled, their flying off the shelves in every gun shop, pawn shop, and sporting goods stores at record sales. I wish they had taken their time, and done this more quietly but no. They had to go and jump the gun, (pun intended) now everyone is buying them out of fear, fear that they wont be able to get one later. I was trying to warn of this when this tragedy happened, some times its best to wait, let things cool off then work on the problem.
          I was told I was condescending and righteous and a bunch a shite.  And on this subject I will not say I told you so. But I tried to warn.

  • DIYinSTL

    Today’s show on the NRA is so biased and erroneous that I turned it off after 10 minutes.  And since all the guests are anti-gun zealots there is little chance of hearing anything new.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      If they were all pro-gun zealots there would be even less chance of hearing anything new. Thanks for switching it off, we wouldn’t want you having any rational thoughts or engaging in any reasonable discussions now would we?

      • DIYinSTL

         The implied point of my statement is that NPR seems to be on a gun control marathon.  Almost any group that is opposed to gun ownership is given free access to the airwaves and none of their statements that are misleading, erroneous, or just plain false go unchallenged.
          I can assure you that most of my thoughts are rational.  And while forums like these are a good place to vent some frustrations, there is little reasonable discussion.  The pro-gun folks have no interest in a discussion that involves giving up a cherished right or even allowing what some are calling “reasonable restrictions”.  Most of the gun-control people have no knowledge or experience with firearms, refuse to be educated and do not want to be confused with any facts.  If instead of guns we were talking about a race or religion – you don’t talk to them, eat with them, have them over to visit or even know any – you would be called a bigot.  So like other hot-button topics, there will be much gnashing of teeth but no agreement.  Maybe man’s greatest weakness is wanting to dictate to other people what the may or may not own, do, say, or think.  I say ‘if you don’t like guns, don’t own one’, ‘if you don’t like abortions, don’t get one’, etc.  There have been mass murders and atrocities for millennia, don’t restrict my freedoms because the occasional nut-job adds to the list.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Yeah, NPR is on a Gun-Control marathon. Yes that was sarcasm. What does the rest of The Mediascape look like right now?

          I agree we should all be free to do as we choose until our actions directly impede on the rights of others to do the same. Some people seem to have trouble grasping that concept. You’re going to think I’m a Gun-Control Enthusiast I’m sure, but you’re wrong. Don’t take my word for it, read some of my comments. This was a reasonable response and out of respect for that I’m going to leave the rest of your comment alone.

          Thanks for the reply.

          • DIYinSTL

             Yep, the whole “Mediascape” is on the bandwagon and stirring the pot.  A combination of editorial goals and doing whatever it takes to keep viewers/listeners/readers tuned in.  In one of the best courses I had in college, we spent a lot of time looking at the objectivity of the press – we developed our “crap detectors”.  The media at large is working very hard to sway public opinion.
              As you said, we should be free to choose until our actions impede others.  99.9999995% of gun owners do not commit gun crimes so their freedom to own modern sporting rifles and handguns should not be abridged because of the deranged few.  I don’t see any serious efforts to muzzle the press when they cause a death, injury, or ruin someones life.  As a whole, the press strikes me as being an ignorant, self-righteous, hypocritical lot.

  • John Olsen

    I’m a gun owning Democrat.  I only hope that we don’t misdirect our gun control efforts to changes that don’t really address the ability of a crazy person to kill multiple people.  I hear “experts” saying “Band assault rifles!” The thing is, an assault rifle is just a semi-automatic rifle that is black and has a pistol grip.  Functionally, it is IDENTICAL to many hunting semi-automatic rifles EXCEPT that is is designed for large magazines.  The fact that it has a pistol grip?  Utterly irrelevant to function, to the ability to kill many.  Ban large magazines, utterly, make it illegal to own them even if you already own them.  Don’t waste your efforts on semi-autos that just happen to be black and have lots of knobs.  Also remember that there are lots of semi-auto pistols that are just as deadly at close range, and that can hold up to 18 rounds.  

    • peterlake

       100% right, John.
      And I’d add that the 1994 ban on assault weapons ban included prohibitions against flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

      Well, too bad the ban expired because I’m sure those measures would have helped prevent this murder spree.

      • 1Brett1

        No, what happened is that gun manufacturers skirted the 1994 law by making semi-automatic rifles but without certain lights and whistles so they could continue making guns; it’s what put the Bushmaster (the main weapon Lanza used in this tragedy) on the map…Instead of letting the law elapse, there should have been a strengthening of the law; that could have helped lessen this tragedy.

  • John Olsen

    I’d also like to point out that the NRA COULD have been working constructively to minimize the ability of crazies to use guns to mass murder for the last 20 years, but instead they’ve been fighting any gun restriction, no matter how sensible or mild or non-toxic to normal gun owners.  They are the gun experts (I guess); they should be helping do this reasonably, not fighting every slight effort at gun control.  They have shot themselves in their own collective foot. I hope they get what they deserve.  

  • TheGloriousTachikoma

    May I just point out that according to the FBI, in 2011 there were 8583 homicides committed with firearms. Of those, only 323 were committed with rifles, presumably inclusive of AR-15s and other assault weapons. However, the same data table lists that 728 people were killed by fists/feet/being pushed. So more than twice as many people were killed with bare hands as assault weapons. This data is consistent thtrough the earliest point on the chart, 2007

    Why do we need a new AWB?

    • peterlake

       The ATF’s site reports that 71% of their obtained convictions were for gang-related crimes with guns.
      Gangs = mostly blacks or Hispanics.
      Control for that you have a whole different crime rate.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/VHIHUW7T2MBWQDOESKEK7YXSNU Jim

    Tom:  I appreciate your show.  I’ve never commented before but feel I have to on today’s subject of the NRA and gun control.  For as tragic as the recent school shooting is, as was a similar events I can’t see where more gun control will help in potential future situations like this.  My theory is that if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns.  Similar to back in the day when alcohol was illegal, it was still out there being made ‘underground’ as well as sold and consumed behind closed doors.  I’ve never been a member of the NRA but am seriously considering joining as well as (legally) acquiring a hand gun for self and family protection.  The other theory I have is that given the age of some of these recent shooters, if any ‘controls’ need to be put into place it should be over the content of so many of the most populat video and on-line games.  Who kills the most is winner take all, in far too many of the games our youth are playing today. It is very unfortunate, but there is that small percentage out there who are unable to distinguish between the video / on-line world and the real world where real people can get hurt or loose their life.

    • Fredlinskip

      Jim , 
      The murder rate in America is reportedly about 20 times the average per capita of the other developed countries. 
      If you believe America can do better then:
      You can either advocate the point of view that you arm as many people as possible with as many of the latest and greatest gun technology so we can all defend ourselves OR
       you can advocate for restriction of SOME types of weapons that serve no purpose other than the ability to dispense as much death and destruction in shortest span of time.
      Personally, I think deescalation is the most reasonable solution.
      I agree that video games and media are a significant part of the problem and have helped perpetuate a culture of violence like no other “developed” country on the planet. 

      • anamaria23

        I agree with you.  Most people seem to be for merely limiting guns that can enable mass killings at one time, such as can kill 26 people in 10 minutes, not ones meant for protection or for sport.
        That is all the President is asking for with some additional safeguards.  Three initiatives were mentioned.

        I suspect that even an armed principle or teacher would not have had much of a chance against the Shady Hook killer  outfitted as he was.

        I have a very large extended family. Not one owns a gun for any reason.  Nor did previous generations.  None has ever needed one, so far.
        I have never even seen a gun up close. That said, I would not be ungrateful for a sharpshooter in a crowd where a threat was imminent.   A ban on all guns is not what most people are after.

        What is most needed is imminent attention to our broken mental health care system which as a health care worker I  see up close and know the immensity and complexity  of the problem.

         

        • Miles Wimbrow

          It is so easy to place the blame on violent media and entertainment. It is also so, so very wrong. The mere fact that a book or a movie or a game contains violent content isn’t necessarily advocating that content. We *have* to have these discussions about how we can better improve our mental-health care system and gun laws. We cannot so easily brush this and other mass-shootings under the carpet by blaming them on things like violent videogames, or the fact that the shooter was ‘different’ from regular, depressed, and frustrated young people. To my knowledge, there is no evidence yet to suggest that the shooter was psychotic, deranged or otherwise. 

  • Tyranipocrit

    remember why the 2nd amendment was created?
    To remove a government that no longer serves the people–the people have the right to remove it.

    ALL our rights have been taken away EXCEPT the 2nd amendment.  With the anti-terror laws in the nineties and the Patriot Act ALL our rights were taken away.  Gone.  You have no rights.  None.  Zero.  Oh–except one–the right to bear arms (in a militia)–

    Yet, nobody uses that right.  nobody is up in arms–pun intended–about our rights being vanished.  You live under the tyranny of corporate power and the banks–there is no democracy and you have no rights.  You are slaves, slaves that must pay for thier own room and board.  And yet, you do nothing with your 2nd amendment.

    either put up or shut up!  use your right or give up your guns because you are not using them for their intended purpose.

    COWARDS and republicans shoot people, shoot children–innocent people, living human beings.  its craziness and you have no need for guns.–except one thing, one reason yet you dont care or dont realize that the time is now to use that right given to you by your social contract. 

    The guns serve a noble thing, but you dont use it–now when ther time is exactly what the 2md amend. was designed for–so what–are you cowards, are you crazy, are you just ignorant.

     either use the guns for what they were intended, or accept strict gun laws–either way you do the noble thing, the right thing for your people and humanity.

    but i fear you dont want your guns for noble reasons, but instead, because you are insane maniacs that get off on killing.

    here is where the conspiracy comes in–if they have dissolved ALL your rights except the third rail–guns–doesnt it stand to reason that they want that one now.  And perhaps, all these killings are somehow manipulated, manufactured, insighted, inspired by the same poeple who brought you 911 and the Patriot Act?

    Accept strict laws and join the human race.
    Or, revolt, and take down the corporate-aristocracy that is your king and ruler.  Democracy is long dead.  Do something.

    Ive always argued that you cant fight a tyrannical gov as ours with guns when they have bombs and drone and lazers and pain rays and tanks but isnt that in some small way–a defeatist attitude, a cowardly attitude.  the king is too powerful so do nothing–sounds like cowed slaves.

    i dont want to see violence because the wrong people have guns–the crazies, unfortunately.  I wouldnt want to see the tyranny we have now replaced by a nutty theist tyranny of gun-toting war mongers–nothing would change.

    So turn in your guns and lets dissolve capitalism and build a just society.  evil only exists because people refuse to learn, refuse to open their minds, and because the corporate-aristocracy manufactures evil and inequality to keep you divided and weak–evil, death, injustice, divisiveness creates profit. and that is all they care about.  keep you ignorant and angry and fearful and hateful so that they make money.  Its seems you have a choice.  We all have the same interests–dont cling to old modes of thinking–they are not real.

    • 1Brett1

      “ALL our rights have been taken away EXCEPT the 2nd amendment.”

      Of course, in your case, I wish…looks like you still can exercise your 1st Amendment rights

      • Tyranipocrit

         dont be so naive–voices in the wilderness.  coices are restricted, persecuted, tracked, monitored, marginalized, blacklisted, coerced, ignored, brainwashed….

        Who do you think gets invited on these shows, on TV to speak about anything–only those who speak the party line, those who support the intersests of the cartels in power–for profit.  No institution will allow contrary opinion if it threatens their hegemony, their existence.  if you have neve been censored on the internet or anywhere else you are not saying anything worhtwile–you only regurgitate the establishment-speak. Thats ok.  Your thoughts have been manufactured.  Consent is manufactured.  democracy is an illusion for plebians–the mob.  Why are so many many ideas marginalized and censored and ignored or ridiculed by establishment powers–because the conversation is rigged.  Your 1st amendment is a sham.

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
        or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
        speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
        assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        They dont need to make laws prohibiting religion–the people are whipped ito a frenzy to manufacture consetn.  Ie.  islamic center near (not near) the world trade center in NYC.  Muslims are persecuted and killed in America and all over hte world by the thousands every day.  Sihks are slaughterd in the sanctity of their sanctuary.

        Atheists are persecuted and marginalized and discriminated against.  Communists are demonized.  Socialists are demonized.  Anarchists (egalitarians, pacifists, in the pursuit of happness) are demonized.

        There is no freedom of the press–they control, restict, marginalize and define the argument–what gets said, and waht doesnt.  They are owned and controlled by a handful of corporations more powerful, with more money than most countries in the world, led by an individual or a small group of individuals who determine the global conversation, ecomoy, war, terror, deat, policy, finances, the message–you know nothing they dont want you to know.  The press is not free.  In fact there is sth called pys-ops.  Th military is posted at major media cartels–like CNN.  Everything is monitored.  The government dictates what shall be said and delivers the news.  You cant challage the system as a jo or you will be marginalized, and unemployable.  The media conversation is so dumbed down and disingenuine its pathetic.  Pseudo conversations for an uneducated mob.  You have no first amedment.

        even in china they can post anything they want on the internet–but ther wil be consequences if they find the needle in the haystack, and they try their best to do so.

        In maerica, the coercion is more sophisticated.  You catch flies with honey.  You do know we have a NO-fly list.  blacklists for emplyment.  Terror watch lists–with all manner of peace acticvists, democracy advocates and environmetalist son it.

        You cannot peacebly asemble–the police terrorize you, invade your home, pepper sray you, shoot you with rubber bullets and nose canons and pain rays or isolate you in a “free speech zone:–a cage miles away from any event.  Third party candidates are ignored and purposfully barred from debates.  Gren candidates are arrested when they try to enter presidential debates. 

        Dont be so naive.  You are a slave.  and just wrong.  Wake up. 

        • 1Brett1

          If this is you censored, I really wouldn’t want to hear you uncensored! 

          You’ve just proven twice (your two comments) that your “theory” (of there not being any 1st Amendment rights) is false.  

          You paint a picture of a horrible, dystopian world. There’s some truth in some of the things you say, but you’ve discounted other facets of the world in which we live that balance out the human condition. In that sense, the world is (and has always been) a bad place and a good place together, not with those forces competing with each other (although they can and do at times) but as complex layers interspersed…the world is neither dystopian nor utopian (never will be wholly either extreme) but somewhere in between those two extremes, and that middle ground has to always be acknowledged, or we veer into madness (lying to ourselves and denying those reasonable, alternative perspectives).  

          (Sometimes self-censorship in addition to balancing out a point of view is something we should perhaps engage in.)

          • Tyranipocrit

            I am not “censored” I dont really know what you are talking about because you are not saying anything–youre rhetoric is vague and empty. And you infer to much, and interpret wrong. You defend a notion that cannot explain and use on credible or concrete examples. What “facets of the world Do “I” discredit”? And how can you possibly know that from this comment or a few postcards? I dont deny the world is a mixtire of good and bad but i am not talking about the world or the complexity of human emotions, nor acts of goodwill, ignorance, or cruelty. What does that have to do with my comment? i fear you want to believe so much in the purit of America that you cannot ee the truth when it stares you in the face. Challenging the America, its intitutions, its corruption–does not make me dystopian or false, as you you say. Nothing I said was fasle. The constitution is not sacred nor is it a god and the flag is a piece of cloth. Change is necessary. Money rules everything. To believe otherwise is simply naive, ignorant, and idealistic–a childs dream. democracy in america is a lie. The two party system is a lie. Elections are a farce. The Patriot act and many other acts combine to dismepower you and make the Party all-powerful. They can say anything and do anything and show you anything they want and you bend the knee because you dont think. TV is god. Fox news is god. Church is god. Your false belief in america and its virtues is ridiculous and anive and ignorant. How is a dystopian society defined? Ask the homeless what is a dystopian society? Ask the forclosed home owners what is a dystopian society. ask those who die because they cant afford helath care. ask soldiers returning with PTSD–suciidal maniacs–ask them what is a dystopian society–for many of them will end up homeless. Ask those who start life with a 40,000 dollar debt or 400,000 dollar debt. Just for a mediocre education. an education that is watered down by capitalists–university has become nothing more than a business to exploite poeople and turn out drones for middle management. But then they wont even hav ethat jobe because they cant get a job except at box stores that exploit the underclass and destroy the earth or mcdonalds which is poision and also destroying the earth. I fear you know nothing about much. Dystopian worlds are perspective old boy–chipper boy. Ask the million dead in Indonesia or Irag or afghanistan if they live in a Dystopian world. America is repsonsible for more deaths than the holocaust since the holocaust–all for GDP, sturcutural adjustment, free trade, austerity–in the name of every American. Ask those who died on 911 if it is a dystpian world. You dont even know how to innterpret the bill of right chip. Does anyone of any time aver think they live in a dystopian world? Would the slaves of 1860 think they lived in a dystopian world? Would the slaves of ancient rome? Would the rebels of 1776? Sit down.

          • Tyranipocrit

            that should say you use No credible examples and you defend a notion YOU cannot explain–do not explain. You just adhere to your beliefs–your faith. You have no rights. its an illusion. If you think they dont have my number you would be naive. And all i do is challange their fantasy cast upon you. all i do is callange the notion of war–mass murder. i advocat epeace. i advocate protecting the environemnt–that makes me enemey of the state. You better believe it chip. NPR and ONpoint have descended into mob mentality–news for the unedecuted and indoctrinated. Its worthless. Later plebs.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Hey ‘people’ who are scared you won’t be able to have a high rate of fire semi-automatic weapon with 30 plus round mags, what do you need them for? I ask this question in a completely different sense than it is usually posed, normally it’s asked to throw a “to kill lots of people” argument in there. When I ask what you need them for think more Wild-West. You (Gun Enthusiasts) are bad ass cowboys that can stop any assailant with your expertise, marksmanship, and general bad-assery right? What the hell do you need 30-100 rounds for? My six shot revolver says big mags are for bullies. No I won’t be toting it into shopping malls, no I won’t be carrying it onto any campuses, and no I’m not worried about The Big Bad Gun-Control people taking it away from me.

    Overcompensating for something perhaps?

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    I fail to see why you cannot force gun manufacturers to install an alpha-numeric key pad into the rifle of at least a length of eight characters, to lock and unlock the trigger mechanism. This would have prevented this mother’s son from using the weapons that he used. To change out the lock a person should be forced to go to a licensed dealer to sign off on any keypad change, if authorized by law.

    • peterlake

      Some states like mine require guns be locked to prevent misuse. Built-in locks add cost to guns and that becomes an issue for their use by lower-income people.

      • nj_v2

        I thought the very same thing when seat belts were made mandatory. Oh, those poor lower-income folks.

        • Gregg Smith

          You probably support helmut laws too.

          • 1Brett1

            Anyone who doesn’t support helmut laws is saying they support an individual’s lack of responsibility to the whole of society. Whether a person has or doesn’t have insurance, their more severe injuries as a result of not wearing a helmut (out of some misguided desire for “freedom”) cost society in so many ways, two being an increase in insurance rates and an increase in healthcare costs.

          • Gregg Smith

            I also don’t support the big gulp ban in NY. What are the numbers as they relate to obesity and diabetes regarding insurance cost?

            ….nevermind.

          • 1Brett1

            Way to bring up helmut laws then shift to some other neo-smallest-common-denominator-armchair-libertarian argument. I don’t know what the numbers are or the correlation between how much soda a person drinks and how that directly impacts the heath care/insurance  industry in specific ways. Question is do you even care about the impact on society of anyone’s behavior? Or is it just an “all freedom all the time and if you don’t like like it go somewhere else” kind of thing? 

            You probably support no controls for any food safety or inspection ever too? If someone dies from some tainted food, then let the market adjust itself for that and people will just buy food from some other source, right?

          • Gregg Smith

            I just support freedom and individual responsibility, that’s all. You are the one milking the numbers to your advantage in a vacuum. I don’t believe unhelmuted riders are driving insurance cost. Your projections are hilarious.

          • 1Brett1

            I just support societal sensibility and responsibility, that’s all. As you don’t provide any numbers, I don’t provide any numbers.

            Deaths went down when seat-belt laws were implemented, I believe. I also believe when insurance companies set prices they take assurances of safety into consideration. Health care institutions do, it seems, pass rising costs of care on to customers in a collective way. 

            One example of deaths being higher and impacting a community is in areas during bike weeks, say, in Myrtle Beach, SC where my father lives, where there are no helmut laws. A few years ago, when they temporarily implemented helmut laws, deaths went down. Then bikers complained, threatened to shut down tourism for that week, etc., and helmut laws were rescinded. Deaths went up; emergency services went up. 

            Some bikers tend to believe they should have any freedom they wish: driving drunk, speeding, not obeying traffic laws, etc. Speed limits restrict freedom. Drunk driving laws restrict freedom. Stop lights/signs restrict freedom; why shouldn’t it be up to the individual to decide if traffic patterns warrant stopping or not? Why shouldn’t it be up to each driver to make the decision when drinking and driving wouldn’t be appropriate? Why shouldn’t the driver have the judgement call as to the safe speed limit?

             The only people believing that wearing a helmut restricts their rights are some bikers. One can hear them: “it’s my right not to wear a helmut!” No, it’s their privilege not to wear a helmut; it’s even their privilege to “ride.” I don’t think the rest of the world should turn on a few bikers. I also don’t believe riders wearing helmuts restrict anyone’s freedom to ride a motorcycle. 

            I also don’t believe limiting how large a bottle of soda is actually limits anyone from drinking soda, and even as much as they want. But I do believe that limiting a bottle size sort of has a positive behavioral effect of conditioning a person to drink less at one sitting. I don’t have charts, graphs, published statistical evidence to prove that

            people will drink less overall, but I do know there has been a rise in soda consumption, and that consumption correlates to an increase on the size of soda bottles. When I was a kid, the small Coke was 6.9 ounces. A large soda was 16oz. 

            Neo-libertarians present their version of some fantasy utopia, the workings of which might have some chance in a significantly smaller world with much smaller populations of people with much greater intelligence. 

             

  • phyllisleonard

    You’re such a snarky guy, peterlake, I hate to find myself agreeing with you, but I do agree the Mayor overstepped his role with the coke issue. However, they do have a lower murder rate in NYC than they have had.

    Take heart all of us who are against the NRA. I just read that many retirement funding groups are taking their money out of support for gun manufacturing companies. And let’s be honest, money is the life blood of many people in this country. Let’s hope that impulse works for the good of all this time.

    • 1Brett1

      If, of course, peterlake is his real name. He says he’s “on the Internet.” …He must be anybody named peterlake.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        I’m on the Interwebz too! We’re all John Galt! lol

  • Steve__T

    Be careful what you ask for. It might be just the opposite, of what you get.

     https://www.google.com/search?q=gun%20sales&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

    • Ray in VT

      Didn’t something similar happen after the Aurora shooting, and when I was working at a gun factory after 9/11 sales spiked for months.  I think that there would probably be some spike even if there was no discussion to tighter regulations, but such talk may motivate some to buy weapons.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        The same thing did happen following the Aurora shootings, there’s no better motivator to drive people to stupid decisions than fear.

        We sure are anxious to shoot ourselves in the foot…Again.

        • Steve__T

           See my post below a reply to Bret.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            I did, it kind of scared me when I thought I might have to scroll through ALL of the comments. Thankfully it was fairly recent.

            I with ya man, it sucks to be right sometimes. I never take pleasure when my critical thinking unfolds like a well written play. I’d much rather be wrong…

          • Steve__T

             Amen

      • nj_v2

        It doesn’t take much to set off the gun nuts enthusiasts. After the last election, sales went up because they thought the raging, communist/socialist, foreign-born n***er was going their guns away.

        • Gregg Smith

          That’s sick.

      • Gregg Smith

        It first happened when Obama was elected in 2008. 

        • Ray in VT

          I would agree that it happened after Obama was elected in 2008, but it was hardly the first time.  Take September 11:

          http://staugustine.com/stories/101701/sta_220317.shtml

          This is one of several stories that I found, and it is certainly in line with my work in the firearms industry at that time.  I also found stories about it happening after Columbine, so it did not first happen with Obama.

          • Gregg Smith

            I agree, I’m not arguing the point. But I am saying there is a concern that Obama wants to severely limit freedoms concerning guns. Leaving aside whether that is good or bad, I think the reasoning is valid and certainly widespread. There of course are other factors.

            BTW, you mention Columbine. I remember the day after that Chris Matthews was substituting for Rush on the radio. He cried, understandably. No point really, other that Matthews used to be respected, sane and worthy of a seat behind the golden EIB microphone.

          • Ray in VT

            I think that such reasoning in not based in reality.  I think that there is plenty of fear, and I think that a good deal of that has been drummed up by the NRA and some media outlets.  I don’t think that any president has been as good for business as Obama.  Their business is booming.

            If Chris Matthews was sane and respected, then why would he have ever filled in for Rush?  Well, the guy’s gotta live I guess.

          • Gregg Smith

            I know you don’t but all I can tell you is I could not be farther removed from guns, the NRA or any of it. It’s not part of my life, I don’t hunt, I don’t know anything about the brainwashing I’ve received. I am not a gun guy at all. 

            I guess we define our own realities. I wonder if your perspective is different because unlike me you already own guns. Do you mind me asking if you have a handgun?

          • Ray in VT

            I do not mind, and no, I do not own a handgun.  Having grown up as I did on a farm, they were not seen as particularly useful for either hunting or putting an animal down. 

            We had a 12 gauge, a .30-30, a .30-06, a .22 and my dad had a .32-20 that he won from his uncle in a bet back in the 1950s.

    • Ray in VT
  • Pingback: America’s Addiction To Violence | Cognoscenti

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    Why is our President and this site so out of touch with the wishes of the American people? 
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-shootings-americans-focus-police-mental-health.aspx

  • notafeminista

    Such thoughtful questions…”how many guns do you need?”   “How many rounds are required?”  And such poppycock.  No answer will satisfy the Left.  If I said I needed 5 rounds, they’d ask why, after all I’m only shooting one deer.  If I said one round, (for said deer) they’d ask why didn’t I just go to the grocery store.

    The answer is irrelevant.  The Left has long thought they know better than the rest of us how to live our lives for us. Guns, food, money, opinions, education, vices of almost every type.  Have more than the Left thinks you should?  Guaranteed they will find a way to legislate it away in the name of the common good. 

    Back in the day, my mother had name for people who wanted to mind other folks’ business for them…she called them busybodies.

  • Fredlinskip

      I have invited someone/anyone on numerous occasions in this thread to please explain the appeal and/or need for responsible gun owners to own weapons that fire dozens of rounds in split seconds.
       The resounding silence, I guess, speaks for itself.
       Are these folks, then, attempting to compensate for some psychological inadequacy through ownership of “WMD’s”?
       If so, then yes mental health issues ARE definitely a large part of the problem. 
    And these folks need help-
    Soon!

    • Gregg Smith

      I personally think it’s a boneheaded question. The question should be: On what basis is it your business? If you can make the argument that banning these guns would help then I haven’t seen it. I don’t have one … yet but what if my answer is, because I want one to obliterate pumpkins in record time. So what?

      • Fredlinskip

          Can’t you see that there needs to be some kind of balance drawn between your freedom to “obliterate pumpkins in record time” so as to help prevent the possibility of these types of weapons falling into the hands of folks who may some day for some unforeseen reason become “unhinged”?
           Support terrorism do you?
          Can’t you get your “”rocks off” obliterating pumpkins with a weapon not designed for  dispensing death to multitudes of folks in seconds?

        Not rocket science- if these weapons are not available- then folks can’t use them to initiate mass murder.

        • Gregg Smith

          In rereading my reply it came off a bit more aggressive than I intended, sorry.

          I’m saying balance isn’t the issue here. There may indeed be reason for a ban, maybe even a Constitutional amendment. What I object to is the assumption it’s a solution to further restrict guns. I have yet to be convinced that a good guy with a gun wasn’t the best if not only chance these poor kids could have had. If we are going to take away freedoms granted in the Constitution and confirmed with precedence then do it on the merits. Using a tragedy to gin up emotions for a futile cause is not the way to make decisions such as these.

          • Fredlinskip

            Appreciate your thoughtful response.
              Unlike some of the participants of this thread, I believe what separates us from the Neanderthals is yes- laws, regulations, society, government.
                When ones freedom to have ready access to weapons capable of mass destruction come in conflict with many innocent folks right to remain living and breathing, it may be time for change of policy. 
               “Futile cause”? That remains to be seen. 
            I hope not.

      • jefe68

        It’s my business because I don’t see why one would need a semi-automatic rifle with a large capacity clip to shoot pumpkins or anything other kind of dumb target you can think of shooting at.

        It’s ass backwards, this entire debate is absurd and you folks hide behind the 2nd Amendent like so many cowards.

  • Miles Wimbrow

    It’s my business because it could be my children who die by these high-capacity magazine weapons. 

    Don’t be obtuse. 

  • Michele

    In my humble opinion.  The lesson from the horrible events in Newtown should be that we love each other more, respect each other even more, and NOT arm ourselves to the teeth.

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    My thoughts on this run the gambit in anti-gun sentiment … my biggest beef about all this is that, 30 years after Lennon was gunned down then Reagan and the Pope got shot, all within six months, we’re still TALKING about this. Thirty long, bloody years. Talk. That’s all we got … and more dead bodies. Tie that in with the budget talks … All Talk, No Action. That’s America. Yet, we can war on other countries with far less debate, then debate later on whether or not we want to pay for them.

  • 1Brett1

    More deaths in the US from gun violence occur each year than all deaths from all terrorist attacks combined ever since those data have been recorded/compiled. Yet, we have laws out the wazoo that attempt to address terrorist activity (not to mention an ever-increasing outcry from gun-freedom-loving neocons, others notwithstanding, to implement even more anti-terrorist strategies to stop terrorism, up to and including, but not limited to, wars, increased defense spending, profiling, and all manner of freedom-limiting strategies and budget-busting actions (those very budget-busting acts often called for from those same neocons fearing fiscal overspending).  

  • 1Brett1

    30-round magazines put the “mass” in mass murder…

  • Pingback: Our Guns, Our Freedom | Cognoscenti

  • andreawilder

    Maybe the weapons industry should move to knives, lots of room for growth there.  Or maybe bayonets on guns, we could bring that back.

    “Freedom loving Americans?”  Nuts. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=500367212 Heather Adams

    I wish Tom would have let the thoughtful veteran at 40:15 – 42:25 finish.  His guest ended up categorizing him as someone who was given to “insurrectionist” ideology.  As someone who has served 14 years in the military, he no doubt saw the tyranny that the U.S. gov’t is capable of in the larger global society, of which we are all citizens.  I think we are not using a wide enough lens on this issue.  If we look at 2nd Amendment intent, then this is also an opportunity to be talking about the role weapons play in our government and our world dominance.  Why not also include all the civilian deaths in Iraq, for example–atrocities committed using some of these same weapons?  Who is creating the demand for these weapons in the first place:  government or civilians?  It seems from this discussion that marketing these weapons to civilians is an afterthought after they’ve already been designed, manufactured, and sold for our government’s wars.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000844670131 Fred Levins

      My ears also perked up when I heard the veteran’s viewpoint.  Thank you, Heather Adams, for focusing on his views.  If tyranny can be put in place abroad with the assistance of US government agencies, which has happened too often, is it not reasonable to recognize that eventually tyranny could arise here, perhaps brought about by the same people that have demonstrated their capabilities abroad?

      Heather Adams, you would probably approve of my vote for Gary Johnson.

      I am “Fred Levins” on Facebook. Unfortunately, I did not correctly respond to identity questions when I posted this comment.

  • http://read-write-blue.blogspot.com/ RWB

    FTA
    Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.

    Read the whole 10000 word post here:

    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

    • jefe68

      I don’t see why people need semi-automatic weapons or high capacity clips. 
      If they do they should have to have a better reason than just wanting to shot at stuff. 

      I find it ironic that the president of the NRA’s (David Keene) son went to prison for shooting at another driver in a road-rage fit. That’s right, this man’s son went to prison for shooting at someone he had a disagrement with, while driving his car. Idiots with guns kill and mame people, period.

    • frankblank

      My good pintpot, you seem to be fibbing.  No important reform of gun laws (an oxymoron) has been tried here.

      Here’s coherence: license, for a fee, every gun in the country.  Create a national gun transaction database.  Outlaw auto and semi-auto weapons.  Outlaw high capacity magazines/clips.  Move towards outlawing handguns.  None are new ideas; none have been tried.

      And these should be national laws.  A law in, for example, some city banning guns cannot succeed if anybody can drive twenty or thirty minutes and get whatever gun they want. 

      Larry Correia needs a J.T. Ready bobblehead doll for his dashboard.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000844670131 Fred Levins

    Allow me to identify myself.  I botched my first attempt at it.

    Please see my anonymous reply to Heather Adams below, who commented upon the veteran’s comments at 40:15 -> 42:25.

  • William Ventura

    Okay, I know this is more than a week old, but I heard on an episode of onpoint (not sure if it was this one), someone mention that a CAR could be used a lethal weapon. I wasn’t able to comment on that at the time. I just heard on Marketplace that a pencil could be considered an Assault Weapon. 

    The media is really depressing me for not outright challenging those inane comments. A Pencil is a tool for communication, a Car is a tool for transportation. That is their primary purpose.

    A gun’s primary purpose as a tool is to Kill.

    http://boingboing.net/2012/12/03/time-magazine-the-go.html

    • frankblank

      You are so right.  Of all the absurd arguments deployed by the gun fetishists, this is perhaps the most absurd.  You can kill someone with a teaspoon; you can kill someone with your bare hands.  So what?

      Guns kill more people faster and more easily than anything else.  Except, perhaps, McVeigh’s weapon of choice.  Will the NRA and other gun idolaters include a van full of explosives as part of our “second amendment rights?”  Which, we might note includes a right never mentioned – the right and requirement to be part of a  regulated organization in order to enjoy your rights to mayhem.    

      And as for the media, one word: craven.

  • savanah2012

    Benghazi vs shooting in Connecticut.

     4 lives of American citizens were taken by a group of armed terrorists
    in Benghazi, a foreign territory. This was presented as an unforgivable
    failure of the administration. Many officials  were held accountable and
    four have resigned already. Several politicians were outraged by the
    incident, including senator McCain who was later joined by senator
    Corker, and their anger is still echoing  in the media.

    26 lives of American citizens were taken by one American citizen (not a
    terrorist) on the American soil. This was presented in the media as a
    horrible accident and nobody was held accountable. According to some
    sources, in 2010, 30,000 Americans fell victims to our own American guns
    (homicide and suicide), many more than American solders in Afghanistan
    in the same year. Every day, we loose 25 to homicide and 45 to suicide
    due to firearms.

    I assume that after the shooting in Connecticut senators McCain and
    Corker were grieving with the rest of us, but they weren’t outraged
    nearly as much as they were in the case of Benghazi. So why is the death
    of innocent children okay (relatively to Benghazi) ? Because this is a
    side effect of the the second amendment ? The second amendment was
    designed to protect us from the tyranny of the government. I don’t feel
    threatened by government, I feel threatened by the lack of government
    protection. I am a US citizen and I don’t feel safe in my own country.

    One would think that as peoples’ representatives, senators McCain and
    Corker, would start a campaign to protect American citizens in their own
    land, but I haven’t heard from them since the shooting. They are still
    preoccupied with Benghazi. It seems that Benghazi incident is an easier
    battle, and all you have to do is to blame the current administration.
    The constitution guarantees the freedom of speech, so surely, this
    blaming campaign doesn’t cost anything to the senators. On the contrary,
    it gives them points, makes them look like they care about the safety
    of the American citizens.

    Would it be as easy to take an active part in protection of American
    citizens in their own land ? What does it take ? It turns out that this
    is a much heavier battle. It would mean to provide a healthcare network
    for mentally ill people. It would mean to reconsider many existing gun
    laws and to find a fundamental solution of how to balance the second
    amendment and the safety of the American citizens.

    Are these senators the right people for the job ? Will someone who is
    endorsed by the American Rifle Association (NRA) even consider this
    battle ? The answer is no. The NRA is the most powerful lobby in this
    country. It doesn’t just endorse politicians, it provides financial
    support to their political campaigns to buy political influence. It uses
    its political power to promote commercial interests of the gun industry
    and it doesn’t care how many lives we loose every year. Politicians who
    heavily rely on the NRA financial support prefer to keep talking about
    Benghazi, so they don’t have to deal with the rest of us here. So will
    senators McCain and Corker fight for you and me in this country ? Not
    today, not for us, not with NRA behind their backs.

    • bigben47

       The second amendment does not make sense anymore. Think of a situation in which you hold a gun at your home to protect against whatever and then realize that the danger from accident or self inflicting wound is much larger than the danger from outside. What will you do? Give back the gun or destroy it!

  • Robert Parsons

    If one were to do a little mind experiment  applying the NRA/Republican logic to world security the inescapable conclusion is that the world would be a safer place if every country had nuclear weapons. The approach both in regard to guns and nuclear weapons is truly MAD

  • jasonmcalpine

    Guns don’t kill people.  People with guns kill people.
    Consider a gun control microcosm, the commercial airliner.
    It works.  Let’s expand on it as well and as soon as practicable.

ONPOINT
TODAY
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 22, 2014
In this image from video posted on Facebook, courtesy of the George W. Bush Presidential Center, former President George W. Bush participates in the ice bucket challenge with the help of his wife, Laura Bush, in Kennebunkport, Maine. (AP)

The Ice Bucket Challenge: ALS, viral fundraising and how we give in the age of social media.

 
Aug 22, 2014
Attorney General Eric Holder talks with Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri State Highway Patrol at Drake's Place Restaurant, Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2014, in Florrissant, Mo. (AP)

The National Guard and Eric Holder in Ferguson. ISIS beheads an American journalist. Texas Governor Rick Perry gets a mug shot. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Why Facebook And Twitter Had Different Priorities This Week
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

There’s no hidden agenda to the difference between most people’s Facebook and Twitter feeds this week. Just a hidden type of emotional content and case use. Digiday’s John McDermott explains.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 22, 2014
Friday, Aug 22, 2014

On mixed media messaging, Spotify serendipity and a view of Earth from the International Space Station.

More »
Comment
 
Your (Weird? Wonderful? Wacky?) Roommate Stories
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2014

We asked, and you delivered: some of the best roommate stories from across our many listener input channels.

More »
2 Comments