90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
President Obama’s Call For Action On Guns

Gun policy and politics now. We’re looking at the President’s new push and what’s possible, on this side of Newtown.

President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, gestures as he talks about proposals to reduce gun violence, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013. (AP)

President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, gestures as he talks about proposals to reduce gun violence, Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013. (AP)

The slaughter of little children – in school, in the middle of the day – in Newtown, Connecticut shook this country.  Yesterday, the President offered his policy response.

A ban on new assault weapons.  Limits on high-capacity ammo clips.  Universal background checks on gun buyers.  And more.

Now come the politics.  Wary gun owners.  The NRA almost unhinged yesterday.  Congress, testing the wind.  And Americans who want change facing a tall requirement of engagement to make it happen.

This hour, On Point:  gun policy and politics, on the table after Newtown.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Chuck Babington, congressional reporter for the Associated Press. (@cbabington)

Robert Spitzer, professor of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland. Author of “The Politics of Gun Control.”

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

Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association.

From Tom’s Reading List

The New York Times ”President Obama called upon Congress on Wednesday to toughen America’s gun laws to confront mass shootings and everyday gun violence, betting that public opinion has shifted enough to support the broadest push for gun control in a generation.”

The Washington Post ”President Obama announced a sweeping slate of new gun control proposals Wednesday designed to curb mass violence, including new restrictions on guns, efforts to enhance school safety, and improving treatment of mental health issues. Some items will be enacted via executive order while others will require action on Capitol Hill. Below, we take a closer look at the larger proposals that will require action from Congress and offer our best educated guess of how likely they are to pass, based on recent polling and what lawmakers have said.”

USA Today The White House attacked the National Rifle Association on Wednesday for an ad that mentioned President Obama’s daughters, calling it ‘repugnant and cowardly.’”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1484565496 Nick Bertelson

    I read an essay by E.B. White yesterday entitled “Children’s Books.” An author of one of the most famous children’s books in American history, I would assume he has some clout when it comes to such matters. In this specific essay, he criticizes a children’s book detailing what men (ages 18 to 40) may ultimately face once they are drafted. (Keep in mind, White’s essay and the book he is criticizing were both written during WWII.) The passage he quotes from the book is unbelievably graphic, yet written for children, describing men getting torn apart by machine guns and killed by blasts. This, of course, appalls White, not because children shouldn’t be sheltered from the truth of such atrocities, but because he recognizes a time and a place for these sorts of things. That time and that place, we can all agree, should not be 9:35 AM on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary.

  • JGC

    Tom Ashbrook: On the topic of violence toward our youth, please find an hour sometime this 50th anniversary year of the  ”Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” speech  and the Alabama Church Bombing deaths of the 4 young girls, to review the significance of the year 1963 in the civil rights movement, and to give mention to the importance of the southern journalists who covered these events.  I say this in reflection of the life of editor Eugene C. Patterson, who died a few days ago at the grand age of 89, and who still had a lot to say about racial justice, economic justice and journalistic ethics, right up until his final breath.    

    • Don_B1

      Thank you for asking and, in advance, I thank Tom for responding positively.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      You mentioning George Wallace brought to mind a story I heard recently. I was surprised to learn that he spent much of the latter part of his life visiting minority churches and basically begging their forgiveness. Even the worst of us can change, I just wish it happened more frequently.

      • hennorama

        Drew – Hopefully it would be more widely publicized, especially when a public figure has a change of heart.  Like former Defense Secretary  Robert McNamara’s change of heart about Vietnam.

        Instead, we get a flip-flopping Presidential candidate writing a book titled “No Apology”

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Isn’t it ironic that it was a man with a gun that shortened the career of George Wallace, which may have been the tipping point for desegregation, which allowed Mr. Obama to become President Obama ?

    • Phil McCoy

      you use this word [ironic] but I don’t think it means what you think it means

  • Duras

    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.

    Our great originalist interpreter of the Constitution, Antonin Scalia, felt it necessary to ignore the grammar of the 2nd Amendment and read it as two separate sentences with two separate subjects: “A well regulated Militia” and “the people.”  Of course, the grammar says otherwise.  But hey, what is wrong with a non-historian compiling material that may or may not relate to a constitution that was voted on by more than one person in order to ignore the actual grammar of the constitution in order to interpret whatever way feels best…?  God forbid the man actually stays within the meaning of the words and no longer channels the Framers via his imagination. 

    Sorry, but Antonin Scalia is the biggest fraud in all of American society. 

    That being said, this is not a 2nd Amendment issue.  All of the recent proposals, fall within the Supreme Court decision I am referring to, let alone the amendment before your eyes.  Moreover, proposals are not just laws levied on law bidding citizens; the guns of the recent mass-shootings were all bought legally and more people would be alive today if there were bullet limits and less high-power guns available.

    http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf 

    • Gregg Smith

      The grammar was different in the version that was ratified by the Senate. Not that it matters, “Shall not be infringed” is the key phrase. None of that matters to King Obama with his decree.

      • Don_B1

        As usual, you put words in President Obama’s speeches that  neither he nor others put there.

        But promulgating untruths is your calling apparently.

        • 1Brett1

          Lest we forget Smith’s main objective in coming to this forum is to demonize President Obama.

          • Gregg Smith

            Please don’t tell me what I think. It’s not about me.

        • Gregg Smith

          What words did I put in Obama’s speech?

      • Duras

        I think the 20 page essay I posted pretty much covers the grammatical issues. 

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Where are the intent of the words “A well regulated” addressed in your position? Why can’t I have grenades, RPGs, or pipe bombs? These are all requisite for a well regulated militia. Clearly IMHO that would be insane, so…

      The argument that we need high capacity magazines is utter rubbish if you have issues with explosive devices in the hands of anybody. I own a number large magazines and will readily give up if they are regulated out of my reach.

      • Don_B1

        In an extension of your thoughts, why does the meaning of “Arms” have to grow from musket and single load pistol to the semiautomatic machines of today? What is “originalist” in this growth in meaning?

      • Fredlinskip

        As I’ve seen pointed out by right-wingers, correctly, in other discussions on this topic, “well regulated” in the context of it’s original use did not have anything to do with types of weapons used or the like, it meant well trained and/or well disciplined.
           It’s seems large part of  founders intent was: “please keep your rifles handy because we might again be attacked by a Foreign invader, at which time we will need you to help defend our country in an organized well-disciplined manner”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paolo-Caruso/1778940602 Paolo Caruso

      Evidently the militia aspect is important to many Americans because, as patriotic as some are, they hold an almost comprehensive distrust of government.  9/11 and free-falling buildings,  Anthrax hoax with suicided wistleblower, bogus WMD propaganda that caused hundreds of thousand of deaths and maiming, no Osama Bin Laden photos, Patriot Bill, Wall Street bail outs, Vietnam, Kennedy Assasination, etc. etc. …now Aaron Swartz, Jullian Assange. 
      I am not a gun owner,  but I can clearly see that Americans know that the  USA can be a very nasty and dangerous entity to its own people.  Even the most patriotic people are aware of this and the weapons they want to keep are not for hunting.  In Europe, there is public corruption but less fear of their government.

    • sickofthechit

       I seem to recall reading a very descriptive treatise on the requirements at the time (late 1700′s) of items a member of the militia should carry with them. It included a musket in good working order, a certain quantity of powder in a powder horn, a certain number of shot, as well as wadding for their gun.

      I still stick to the notion that musket-loaders are acceptable, anything else needs to be registered and would require background checks.

  • http://wh.gov/IVp4 Yar

    Create a requirement for all US residents between the ages of 18 and 24 to serve two years of Public Service.
    Youth are our future, this petition is intended to prepare the next generation for the responsibility of holding our democracy. Public service will complete high school education by learning through service. My vision is for a Civilian Conservation Corp type of service, with additional training in firearms. This is not military service, however it will prepare youth who choose military service with some basic training. Our returning veterans can serve in leadership of this program. Every area of society will benefit from youth service. Public education, infrastructure improvement, disaster relief, health care, all could benefit from this program. Finally, I believe completing two years of public service should qualify any non-citizen for a path to full citizenship should they desire.

    Tom, I tried to present this as a petition on the Whitehouse website. Only 5 other people to signed before the deadline.  They are from this blog.  Someone else, (more popular) should try.  In a society where guns are part of every day life, our children need proper training in their use and to learn about the dangers.  In two years of public service, youth could learn the statistics on gun deaths along with the skills for living with others.  

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      I agree … community service is a requirement at our local high school. Never should’ve run out of vogue.

  • William

    No controls on violent movies? Nothing…what is Obama afraid of?

    • Mike_Card

      1st Amendment?

      • brettearle

        There could be room for more than the “Fire in a Crowded Theatre” proviso, in measures that might be regarded as immune from 1st amendment infringement.

      • William

         Just put a violence tax on the movie industry.

        • Mike_Card

          I’m sure Boehner already has the proposed legislation in his desk drawer.

    • brettearle

      I haven’t heard him claim that the Entertainment Industry wasn’t to be under review. Have you?

      Obviously, gun control is an imminent priority.

  • Ed75

    It’s really funny that Senator Harry Reid won his very close Senate race through the support of the NRA (as reported on NYC). This should be good.

    • brettearle

      Many of the NRA rank and file support certain measures that the President outlined.

      • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

        As an ex-NRA member, I would agree, but the numbers are dwindling as extremists dominate the rhetoric more and more cooler headed members choose to leave the NRA.

        • brettearle

          Which means that the zealous remainder will be marginalized more and more.

    • Mike_Card

      As nutty as the NRA is, they still couldn’t stomach the moronic Sharon Angle.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      No doubt. Politics are a messy bidness …

  • Ed75

    The response to these shootings should be ‘We really do love our children, and love children generally, so we really want to eliminate abortion, which kills children. And we should try to limit the number of guns around.’ But we’ve put all our effort on the gun part, which hasn’t shown to do anything.

    • brettearle

      A woman’s right to choose, and murdering someone with a bullet, are utterly, and totally, different matters and issues.

      And to conflate them is to demonstrate ugly and manipulative political cynicism.

      • Ed75

        Well, in many cases the woman is confused and without support she has a right to, so the morality of the situation is often very different. And there is always mercy. But as to what the acts  do, they are the same.

        • Don_B1

          How do you know that a significant number of women choosing to abort a fetus are “confused?” In what way? Or are you just making an assumption?

          From the Guttmacher Institute, 60% of women who have an abortion already are mothers and over 30% are mothers of two or more. These women are not confused, they are sadly facing the lack of support for their circumstances in life and making difficult decisions.

          • Ed75

            I agree, it’s not so much the women, they are often the victims here, it’s the abortionists, the society that promotes abortion, and men who do support women as women have a right to be supported.

        • keltcrusader

          What a load of crap!!! Oh yes, in your puny little mind, women are just so helpless and confused by life in general that they couldn’t possibly make decisions like this without the input of a man.
          I would say that the vast majority of women who make the extremely difficult decision to end a pregnancy make it with their eyes wide open and after much careful consideration. Stop trying to make it seem like these things are just rushed into willy-nilly with no thought whatsoever.
          You don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Oh right, you’ll never be faced with that decision yourself.   

    • Mike_Card

      Why to you love zygotes, but hate children?

      • Acnestes

        It doesn’t cost anything to love zygotes.  Children are high maintenance.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        “Zygotes” to me sounds like Polish headcheese.

        • Mike_Card

          There you have it.

  • Gregg Smith

    Using children as props and spreading propaganda by standing on the graves of kindergartners to exploit emotions with a power grab is what I have come to expect. It’s been done before.

    http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-who-have-used-children-as-props/

    • brettearle

      Mr. Smith, the overwhelming majority, in this country, now support some modifications in official gun policy.

      Or is it that you’re against the Tyranny of the Majority?

      • Gregg Smith

        I do not advocate mob rule especially when emotions are so high. I do not support “do something, anything” as a valid policy.

        • brettearle

          We are so pleased to know, Mr. Smith, that you have replaced the word, ‘Majority’, with ‘Mob’.

          Your propaganda is MUCH more distorted than anyone else’s, sir….

          • Gregg Smith

            Just calling them like I see them. 

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            You’d see better if you actually looked.

          • Gregg Smith

            When two wolves and a lamb are discussing  what to have for dinner, should the majority decide?

          • Denis

            try a new pair of glasses

          • Gregg Smith

            I prefer glasses that aren’t rose-colored.

          • Denis

            not asking for rose colored – just corrective to 20 / 20

          • Don_B1

            Only for certain issues.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Obama is a classic demagogue. One of many in the course of history. I see he is in good company using children as props.  Thanks for that.

    • 1Brett1

      All politicians exploit our emotions for the purposes of getting support for bills/laws, etc. It’s what they do (on all sides of the political theatre). The children who had sent letters to the White House about Sandy Hook were behind Obama yesterday…but I forgot, you’re exploiting every opportunity you can to demonize Obama. Exploitation seems to be everywhere.

      • Gregg Smith

        It’s not about me.

    • JGC

      Maybe the NRA could counter with an advertisement showing Wayne Lapierre kissing a baby. 

      • Gregg Smith

        LOL.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        … or John Wayne kissing an Indian.

    • nj_v2

      ^ Greggg’s asshatitude accelerates

  • Phil McCoy

    Just curious, how much of the NRA’s budget (including events and conventions) comes from membership fees and how much comes from corporate donations (especially gunmanufacturers and dealers)?

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Who knows … someone does, that’s certain, and they’re not divulging easily. Fact is, once the NRA turned its focus from gun safety to HC gun promotion, it effectively became a domestic terrorist organization.

  • Steve__T

    A person with a criminal intent will find ways to get around it all.
    A friend of mine said, that if they reduce the amount of rounds you have in a clip, won’t help, if I have twenty clips I can just keep reloading. I can buy bullets buy bulk or make my own. You just limited any opposition by any ordinary citizen, who may have been in a position to stop the criminal.

    • brettearle

       I don’t agree.

      Reloading buys time for any brave challengers–with, or without, firearms of their own.

      • Steve__T

         You Don’t have to agree, the facts are I can change clips in less than three seconds. Someone who practices can do it in less than that, and with a hand gun even less.

  • Fredlinskip

    I would have thought:
     “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.” in 20th century English meant:
      (Because) a well reg (apparently meant well-trained) militia is necessary for security of free “country”, people’s rights to bear arms shall not be infringed upon.
       This would seem sorta wise for our forefathers to say to it’s citizens, “hey folks, world is still dangerous, Brits are still around, French still own substantial part of our continent, Napoleon is conquering Europe, etc.- It might be a good idea to remain vigilant, so as to come to aid of our infant nation should we come under attack.”

      Fortunately, during this debate I have been since enlightened by reliable sources.
      It actually means:
    (Because) a well-trained militia (means not trained at all) is necessary for security of our country (means whenever folks get the urge they should attempt to overthrow their own country), people’s rights should not be infringed upon (means any weapon- no matter how horrific should be in the hands of anyone at any time for any reason imaginable).
        How blessed are we to have Fox “news”, Rush, NRA, to clear up any misunderstanding we may have had.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

     Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and yet it has a high rate of gun violence.  The problem isn’t with ‘legal’ guns.  Has anyone tracked down the source of illegal guns used in the Chicago violence?

    The only proposal I’ve heard that might do some good is closing loopholes for background checks in gun shows.  Everything appears to be ‘feel good’ nonsense.

    • brettearle

      Are you suggesting that, without such laws in Chicago, it wouldn’t be worse?

      If you are suggesting that, than you are Far Gone, sir….

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Use some critical thinking.  It is clear that the gun laws in Chicago are not preventing the criminals from getting guns.  These laws only keep guns from law abiding citizens.  Who benefits from this inane policy?  The criminals of course.

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          No. It is clear that things would be worse in Chicago without the laws. That things would be better is just your little fantasy.

        • Gregg Smith

          The premise seems to be more gun restrictions means less gun violence or more guns means more gun violence. Neither are true but the debate is premised on the assumption they are.

          • jefe68

            Funny how in countries with more gun restrictions they have less gun violence. Oh well, there goes your argument.

        • brettearle

          Use some significant critical thinking of your own–rather than my own accurate analyses.

          You are not taking into account other factors–such as gang violence which cannot necessarily be stopped, or curtailed, by more relaxed gun laws.

          Less restriction might put even more guns in the hands of those who wish to commit violent crimes.

    • Gregg Smith

      There’s nothing about arming teachers, there is no end to the dangerous “gun-free zones”.

    • 1Brett1

      End the Tiarht Amendment so the ATF can better trace illegal sales and generally enforce existing gun laws.

    • jefe68

      THe guns are coming in from outside Chicago. This is a straw-man argument. While Chicago has tough gun laws it is surrounded by states, including Illinois, that do not.

      I do agree that closing loopholes is a good idea however.
      I also agree that the new laws will do nothing to stop the kind of shooting that happened at Sandy Hook.  

      • Don_B1

        They will do nothing to stop some such events, but they can reduce the probability over time.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Surprised I’ve not seen more “feel good” responses. No, I think despite the cynical nature of this legislation, y’know, kids have to be murdered to get anything out the door, good tracking systems don’t have to have “feel good” notions attached to them. As I’ve said elsewhere, if corporate bean counters such as Romney can make a career out of watching every GD’d dime that he passes, we can surely track most guns that are produced. Anyone who’s against such reasonable standards is not in my class of people.

  • Fredlinskip

      I don’t believe reason U.S. gun murder rate is about 20 times average of other developed countries is that America has 20 times average of “mentally compromised” folks. 
    More likely it has to do with ease with which folks can obtain these weapons. 
      “Guns may not kill people”, but people couldn’t commit mass murder if they hadn’t easy access to these types of weapons.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

      You touched on an important point in your comment “mentally compromised folks”.  Yes there are a lot of crazy people out there, but more importantly the family structure of this country is going away like a fart in the wind.  Kids are growing up disrespectful and violent due to the lack of parental guidance.  The birth rate of these hooligans is outpacing responsible people.  We are doomed.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Yup, that’s 99% of it. Yet, didn’t Lanza come from what many white people consider a “stable home environment”, despite the divorce? Nice home, whitebread town, GE? It’s not as if she didn’t try to get Lanza help … then again, CT has closed most of its mental institutions. So, the NRA’s attack on that system is moot, since nobody apparently wants to actually pay for one.

      • hennorama

        Ryan Hennings – Please provide some evidence leading to your conclusions “Kids are growing up disrespectful and violent due to the lack of parental guidance.  The birth rate of these hooligans is outpacing responsible people.”

    • Don_B1

      You are absolutely correct. From the President’s news conference yesterday, and widely from other sources:

      Just since the Newtown school killings, 900 other people have been murdered by guns, mostly in single killings with a several multiple killings “thrown in.”

      It is the guns that are kept in private homes for “defense,” etc. and then used in family arguments or perceived slights, etc. and the guns that are bought at guns shows and “private sales” and then sold illegally in large cities to gang members that are used for these killings.

      Gun owners do not responsibly store the guns they have, as demonstrated when young children bring guns to school for official or unofficial “show and tell” and then threaten other students, threaten bullies, particularly when the school system does not adequately deal with bullying, etc.

  • Gregg Smith

    Who has more guns (including machine guns) and less gun violence than Switzerland?

    • brettearle

      The Swiss are prudent and disciplined.

      Our society, by comparison, is out of control.

      Their attitudes and their psychology are not shaped by bullets.

      • Gregg Smith

        Everybody has a gun, they are required.

        • 1Brett1

          Since you are holding up what you perceive as law in Switzerland as an example of what would be best for the US, you must be saying everyone in the US should be required to have a gun? (By the way not everyone is required to have a gun; they don’t have a standing Army but rely on militia groups/armed male citizenry.) 
           

          • Gregg Smith

            I am not holding up anything nor advocating squat. I am not saying Americans should be required to have guns. I am miles away from any such suggestion. No, you are awful at reading minds.

          • 1Brett1

            If one can not get what point you are making from any of your comments, and any attempt to determine your point is “reading your mind” then so be it. I don’t think anyone buys the idea that you brought up Switzerland for no reason. 

            It’s typical of neocon/libertarian types to never be pinned down on any of their ridiculous illustrations because they are just raising examples for no apparent reason or asking questions that have no apparent point. 

            You are here to debate….So why did you bring up Switzerland? 

          • Gregg Smith

            Because Obama issued Executive Orders to restrict guns on the premise our children would be safer. Switzerland seems to contradict that premise.

            If I want to advocate that everyone be required to have a gun then I will actually say so. But I don’t and I didn’t. When you have to base your comment on what you think I “perceive” or what I “must be saying” then you’re trying to read minds. Why do you go there? If I might guess, I’d say it’s an attempt to say something about me instead of addressing the issue. Maybe write me off as a gun zealot lune. The question for me is, what is the basis to conclude these new laws are helpful? It’s not about me.

        • brettearle

          You are trying to suggest that the Swiss psyche is governed by firearms and not the basic fabric of that country’s psychology.

          • Gregg Smith

            I am saying that more guns and less restriction do not result in higher rates of gun violence.

          • jefe68

            You really are misinformed here. They have more restrictions not less. 

          • brettearle

            Other countries would not necessarily `enjoy’ the same results.

            I am saying that it IS the fabric of the Swiss psyche–NOT necessarily the firearm policy in that country.

        • jefe68

          No you are wrong. It’s only those who go through military and weapons training.
          They do so until age 30. They are issued with 50 rounds of ammo. Not quite like our out of control gun culture.

          In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

          Not the same as the US at all. I think using the Swiss as an argument is a fools errand in your case.

    • 1Brett1

      Ah, so, as expected, you seem to be advocating for more guns, less gun restrictions.

      • Gregg Smith

        Nope, just slaying dragons.

        • 1Brett1

          What dragons? You introduced a ridiculous comparison on your own. 

          • Gregg Smith

            I introduced no comparison at all. 

          • 1Brett1

            Since this topic pertains to gun issues in the US and you introduced Switzerland as a place where there is more guns and less violence (more or less than where?). You are making a comparison between Switzerland and the US.

          • Gregg Smith

            Alrighty then.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

       Why does the USA have so much more gun violence than anywhere that is not at war?

      • Gregg Smith

        I don’t think that’s true but if it is, I don’t know.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

           It is true – look it up.  Places like Australia *used* to have some mass shootings, but they put into place sensible regulations; and they have not had any mass shootings since.

          Neil

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Because guns keep undesirables under the boot. Be it minority or perpetrator, guns keep some of us in their place. It’s the romance, perception, of power, reinforced by Hollywood tradition and ‘hood culture.

    • jefe68

      Why do gun advocates always use Switzerland as some kind of proof that guns are not the problem.

      One could use Australia as an argument for banning weapons such as the AR 15 altogether.   

      • Gregg Smith

        Do you want too? I’ve studied Australia. I’m armed and ready for that debate.

        • jefe68

          The real you comes out. Using threats and intimidation as a way to make your dumb ass point.
          You just lost your argument like that idiot in Tennessee.

          There is no need to debate Australia as what they did worked. You not liking it is neither here nor there.

    • Shag_Wevera

      If ya don’t let us use Scandinavia or the low countries as examples of social and tax policy because they are small and homogenous, you can’t use Switzerland for gun policy.

      • Gregg Smith

        I never used that argument.

  • 1Brett1

    We need to get rid of the Tiahrt Amendment. That could go a long way to better equip the ATF in enforcing existing gun laws.

  • schmarn

    Obama referred multiple times to “keeping our children safe” as his goal, despite the fact that the number of children killed by guns is extremely small. On the other hand, an entire Sandy Hook classroom full of kids is killed by drunk drivers every 5 weeks. Can you imagine the outrage if something like Sandy Hook recurred every 5 weeks?

    Just curious: how would people on this discussion board feel if the 30% of Americans who don’t drink all stood up and demanded stricter “alcohol control”? Say, registration for those who wished to purchase alcohol, and those registered would be required to have interlock devices on their cars to prevent use if the driver has been drinking? 

    Sound good? Then why aren’t we doing it? No good? Then why focus on guns, which kill far fewer children?

    • Fiscally_Responsible

      I am for keeping children safe.  How about if we keep the youngest and most innocent ones safe by outlawing the murderous act of abortion?

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Because Roe v Wade was enacted to keep girls from getting “dirty abortions” off the street and into clean sanctioned facilities where they wouldn’t die of infection. Abortion does have its purpose and limits, of course.

        • Fiscally_Responsible

          Yes, it is convenient.  But the babies are dying!  And there are pro-abortionists who don’t believe in any limits as proven by their support of partial birth abortion.  It amazes me how we can rationalize one form of murder, but get so upset at other kinds.

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            And so it works both ways. It’s also very convenient to claim a “well-disciplined militia” somehow translates into the right to own an HC gun.

            Besides, while I agree that abortion, pregnancy termination, whatever you tag it is a form of murder, who wants to fund the wasteful, irresponsible foster care program? I don’t want to borrow from China to finance that, either.

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

        Another “nonjudgmental” righty who can’t pronounce the word “fetus”. Glad you’re not hiding anything.

        • Fiscally_Responsible

          You can use an innocuous term (“fetus”) in order to try and redefine it as a medical procedure similar to having an ingrown toenail removed. But the fact of the matter is that the “fetus” has a beating heart, a torso and limbs, and is in fact a developing human being. It never ceases to amaze me how “lefties” can get so worked up over events like Sandy Hook in which 28 people were brutally killed (it is right to get worked up over it) but can justify the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives each year at the same time. Morality (e.g. two wrongs make a right in the case of an out of wedlock pregnancy followed by an abortion to “fix it”).

    • malkneil

       While your argument isn’t without merit, I think the issue with guns is that they’re expressly designed to kill.  A car manned by a drunk driver can certainly be deadly but it was not designed to be used as such.  Enter assault weapons and it makes killing many people in one fell swoop that much easier.  I agree we should do more to curb alcohol-related deaths, but it seems the gun folks aren’t willing to do so with respect to their ‘vice’.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

        You are right, guns are designed to kill.  That is precisely why we have them.  If my life or anyone in my family is threatened I have the right to defend myself and use lethal force.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    The Constitution can – and should – be changed.  It was designed to be changed and updated.  Otherwise, we would still have slaves and women couldn’t vote.  Like the 18th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated.

    Neil 

    • Shag_Wevera

      Merka.  Luv it er leave it.

    • nj_v2

      Yeppers!

  • 1Brett1

    There is that phrase in the 2nd Amendment: “well regulated.”

    • Fredlinskip

      Unfortunately the term well-regulated referred to being “well trained” or “well disciplined” back in the day.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

    So the liberal minds in this administration think limiting bullet magazines to 10 bullets and banning “assault weapons” will fix our gun violence issues.  What a crock!

    I currently own a 9mm that holds 14 rounds.  Since I would be considered a criminal under Obama’s retardation law I’ll have to go by 2 9mm guns that hold 10 rounds a piece.This law will do nothing but take away another small piece of liberty from Americans.

    • Gregg Smith

      It makes criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        No it doesn’t … unless you kill with it. Stop fanning the flames.

        • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

          If someone is in my house or points a gun at me or my family I have the right to defend myself with lethal force if necessary!

          Gregg is not fanning the flames.  

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            Yes, you should by law and right, WITHOUT HC weapons. ’til then, you may train your kids and wife to shoot too.

          • jefe68

            Get a dog or two.
            I have owned a hound for over ten years and I’ve never been robbed.

    • jefe68

      The thing that worries me is you seem to be an extremist with paranoid views who owns a gun, and that’s worrying to me.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

        Well I see you are using the liberal vocabulary “extremist”, lol.  Where is the paranoia in my statement?

        • jefe68

          Just about everything you post has a paranoid subtext. You do understand what a subtext is, right?

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Hey Ryan, glad to read you believe HC gun ownership is “another small piece of liberty”. I agree. It’s also one we all need to lose. Yeah, it’s all a pain the arse, but frankly, these things have no useful purpose except to kill. Protect yourself with pistol … you’re never going to have a standing chance against someone with an HC gun anyway. Thanks for understanding.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

        So what happens if 3 guys break into my house each having a gun?  Now I have to be a marksmen because I only have 3 bullets per person.

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          If you’re any good, you’ll dispatch them. If not, you’re still within law enforcement statistics: engaged officers hit their targets 20% of the time. I understand your point, but that scenario is very rare, and I’m beyond tired of having my right to pursue happiness interfered with NRA “activists”. The fact that victims’ families of the Aurora theatre shooting are suing that venue’s owners for “lapse security” equates into higher insurance liabilities for ALL businesses because there wasn’t a paid armed guard at every door. Because of this perversion of the 2nd Amendment, we ARE becoming a police state.

        • jefe68

          I think you have some kind of mental problem.

    • http://twitter.com/metasilk Studio Metasilk

      No law yet, just a couple people proposing possible ones, so plenty of times for details to be sorted without panicking.

      Should a bill that proposed no HC weapons get passed, it seems very, very unlikely that it would say “if you already own such, you’re now a criminal.” It might say “If you have such, you have X amount of time to document it and get a permit (and if you don’t then you would be committing a misdemeanor or felony).” I can’t even see a “turn them in” law getting passed for anything short of really HC military-grade hardware.

      Many of my neighbors have guns of various kinds. Some just like them. Some collect old funky ones. Some go hunting. Not ONE of them is against permitting and tracking the weapons (regardless of their opinions on laws of various kinds). And we have concealed carry, too. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

    So Obama’s photo op with the kids was disturbing.  Didn’t Hitler and Saddam Hussein use these kinds of tactics to win over the masses?

    • Gregg Smith

      Yes.

      • jefe68

        You show your true colors here and they are not very pretty.

        • Gregg Smith

          It’s not about me.

          • brettearle

            In this case, it is.

          • jefe68

            Yeah it is.

      • nj_v2

        Greggg jumps at every opportunity to demonstrate his ignorance.

    • jefe68

      That is one sick statement.

      • brettearle

        Ditto

    • brettearle

      Sir,

      Your manipulative and wanton propaganda is beneath the quality of discourse on this web site.

      It is highly likely that you recognize how short-sighted you are, coming here, on issues–and, sadly, you realize that all you have left–to BEGIN with–is vile ignorance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

        Just stating facts sir.  These kids were used as props to convince the masses Obama is doing the right thing, which is a shame.

        • brettearle

           MUCH, much more of a SHAME….that you see it that way….

          • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

            How is limiting law abiding citizens liberty to own guns going to make us safer?  Limiting magazine capacity is silly, I’ll just buy more guns.  So what happens if 3 guys break into my house each having a gun.  Now I have to be a marksmen because I only have 3 bullets per person.

            Nothing in this legislation would have prevented mass shootings in the news, right?

        • jefe68

          You are one hell of an a$$.

    • JGC

      Those who have difficultly finding the moral underpinnings of their argument often resort to invoking the names of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

        JGC, so I’m right?  Those who lack logic think this legislation is going to fix the problem.

    • nj_v2

      Signpost that anything that follows in complete, utter bogusness: Comparisons of Obama to Hilter.

    • malkneil

      No argument that they were a prop — but the intent was to try to affect some positive change.  To compare the use of them here to that of Hitler or Hussein (to cover up their oppressive regimes and genocidal agendas) seems a bit unfair.

    • http://twitter.com/metasilk Studio Metasilk

      Pretty much every politician poses with children when they propose policies that they think will help children. Reagan did it, Bush did it, I’m fairly sure Margaret Thatcher did it. So your analogy to Hitler looks fairly specious.

      About comparisons to Hitler:  Most such comments suggest a profound misunderstanding of Nazism, fascism, the Holocaust, as well as day-to-day political shenangians. You may not actually misunderstand those things, nor hyperbole, but the comment as posted does suggest that.

    • anamaria23

      Millions of children across the country were deeply affected by Sandy Hook including those in my own family.
      Large numbers wrote the President asking for reassurance.  He was publically acknowledging their concerns, hardly a nod to Hitler who had more in common with the heavily armed, vested  killer who eviserated children some beyond recognition. Your contempt for this President seems to be eating you up.  Your  comparison is vile.
       
      Perhaps you prefer the use of the President’s children by the NRA to mock him and in the process humiliate them.   The Obama family receives multiple death threats daily.
      All President’s children are required by law to SS protection.
       
      The President’s initiative is in response to the people including ER physicians, cops, mayors who daily attend the funerals,  first responders  and those who are living for a lifetime  with the sorrow that guns  can bring.
       
      Disagree if you wish, but skip the Hitler  crap.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ryan.hennings.1 Ryan Hennings

        I’m not saying Obama is like Hitler or Saddam.  What I’m pointing out is Obama used kids as props just like Hitler and Saddam did to convince the masses of his agenda.

        Millions of kids huh?  Do you think it was a class assignment or did they take their own initiative at home to write the letter.  I don’t buy elementary children getting involved with politics and writing a letter the President.

        Regardless, the legislation the left wants will do little to prevent gun violence.  I’m fine with stiffer penalties for illegal gun traffickers and background checks, but I disagree with limiting magazines to 10 bullets and types of guns.  Limiting magazine capacity is silly, I’ll just buy more guns.  So what happens if 3 guys break into my house each having a gun.  Now I have to be a marksmen because I only have 3 bullets per person.  Don’t limit law abiding citizens liberty.

        • keltcrusader

          “So what happens if 3 guys break into my house each having a gun.  Now I have to be a marksmen because I only have 3 bullets per person.”
          You keep saying this over & over. Maybe if you have such bad aim, you shouldn’t be wildly shooting at people with your family near by or perhaps take more target practice lessons. 

          • jefe68

            Maybe he should get a dog.

        • anamaria23

          I repeat, disagree if you wish, but skip the Hitler crap.  If you don’t know what else Hitler did besides use children for props, Google it. Your reference to Hitler is dumb at best.

        • jefe68

          No. You can’t make such an idiotic statement and then expect get off so lightly on a public forum. I for one am going toe tell you that the Hitler meme is not only offensive but it speaks to the kind of person you are. A complete wanker.

    • illustrated_man

      My, what an astute comment – because of course Obama and America are exactly like Hitler/Germany and Hussein/Iraq.

  • Michiganjf

    How hypocritical.

      Republicans have been de-funding America’s public schools right and left, through both the U.S. and state legislatures, complaining that we simply can’t afford so many teachers, and that they’re paid too much…

    … now, they insist it should be no problem to pay for some full-time armed guards to monitor every school in the country!!!

    … then the NRA can ALSO pay for bullet-proof glass and reinforced walls at every school, to protect the kids from all the armed firefights they expect will occur at schools nationwide!

    Brilliant!

    Such a better idea than simply passing a few intelligent restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/4GPRALU6M6QYWV6WBFYYDXAQYA #1 DAD

    “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.”
    Apparently we all read things differently, but it seems to me that the whole point of the second ammendment was to gurantee arms FOR the Militia. I am not advocating taking away the individuals right to have a weapon for protection, sport and hunting, but the ‘security of a free state’ is carried out by the Militia, or Military as it is now known. Nobody is suggesting restrictions on weapons for our Military.
    Now, we live in a Democracy and have every right to change any law at any time and to remove people from office when they are not representing the interests of the people, so there is no need for the average citizen to feel compelled to defend our country on their own, or with others, outside of the US Military and its authority.  And, because we are a democracy, if an individual did believe he/she compelled to do so, they should get the support of the majority of their fellow citizens, create a law that supports their position and then they will have their way.

    • brettearle

      One important point, that you may be ignoring, is that the Framers were very cynical of the potential for Government tyranny.

      For obvious reasons.

      That’s one of the major reasons that the Framers made an official move to give the citizenry the right to own firearms.

      They didn’t expect, however, high magazine clips nor did they take into account criminal violence and the ugly core of the deranged mind.

      • BHA_in_Vermont

        Nor weapons with high fire rates and the ability to shoot more than one “round” without having to spend at least a 20 seconds reloading (which was “fast” during the Revolutionary war with a Musket, rifles took 30 seconds or more).

  • Brandstad

    Can we get Obama to release the data on Fast & Furious gun running scheme before we try to pass legislation?

    • jefe68

      Yawn.

  • AC

    finally have some time to myself and what a topic to come back to!
    also, i have to say that attack ad was sort of insulting. only dummies wouldn’t think a PRESIDENT’s CHILD should be protected for the most obvious of reasons – how can that be hypocritical or elitist?
    nevertheless, i felt the president’s speech was a little lack-luster compared to the one he gave during the memorial service….i think he’s becoming sick of politics, i really do

    • Brandstad

      The ad was perfect.  If armed gunmen can protect the presidents kids, why can’t they protect ours?

      • AC

        because i don’t have access to nuclear weapons and do something drastic in a moment of desperation if someone steals my kids.
        i just think it was a stupid parallel, bad choice on their part

      • hennorama

        Brandstad – Not to put too fine a point on it, but generally “armed gunmen” has the exact opposite meaning as “armed security” or “armed guard.”  For example:

        “Deli Customers Tackle Armed Gunman Trying to Rob Man”
        http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Newburgh-Robbery-Gunman-South-Side-Deli-Liberty-Street-Good-Samaritans-187144321.html

        And we already have armed people protecting our children.  They’re called “the police.”

      • jefe68

        You are aware that all presidents since 1902 have been guarded by the Secret Service, and that includes their families. What is it with you? Are you really this inane?

  • Brandstad

    Everyone knows that Obama’s policies if invoked would do almost nothing to stop criminals from breaking our current laws and killing others.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Almost, is better than nothing.  

      • Brandstad

        not when it infringes on our rights as stated in the US Constitution!

        • Fredlinskip

          Please define your (gun) rights, as you see them, as stated in constitution.
          There seems some confusion out there. 

          • Brandstad

            “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” United States Bill of Rights

          • Fredlinskip

            Thanks
            Funny though, I thought it a longer sentence. 
            Something like: 
            “(Because) a well-trained militia is necessary for security of our country, the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
              
            I guess it just comes down to what you personally would like it to mean.

          • Duras

             Is it not the habit of a conservative to ignore information, even information that is in the same sentence or what?

        • NrthOfTheBorder

          Well, like it or not, the Constitution is open to interpretation and modification to suit changing times.  

          Besides why don’t you read some of the great comments on what the founders really intended when it came to gun ownership.  Seems to me that as far as this goes, gun advocacy in the US has managed to far exceed original intentions …. in their favor.   You know, despite all that contra-indicating business with “Well Regulated Militia” ‘n all.

    • http://twitter.com/metasilk Studio Metasilk

       Then please propose policies that do a better job of stopping criminals (preferably before they are in fact criminals). We do have evidence that the following things WILL (because they have already done so) prevent crime (and gun-related deaths):
      * reducing lead in the environment of infants, children, and teens
      * education (including Head Start programs)
      * effective, supportive communities
      * effective, community policing (I mean beat cops who know their people)

      …and specifically about guns:
      * locked weapons and ammunition
      * reduced weapons in the community (cf Israel’s restrictions on guns off base and the decline in violence and suicides)
      * renewable permits (see Switzerland, where you must re-apply for a permit and show reason)

      (There are many research papers on this over at PubMed and JAMA and other medical and social research sites. Enjoy!) I’d love to know of more real policies, and where they are being applied and how they are working.

  • terry7

    On the issue of background checks, I would hope that people who are known to be part of hate groups: neo- Nazis, white
    supremacists, Ku Klux Klan, etc. be included. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are now 2,145 active extremist hate groups in the U. S.  These people openly advocate violence
    and represent a major threat to our country.

  • http://wh.gov/IVp4 Yar

    Rand Paul, the Junior Senator for my state said principals and teachers with permits should be allowed to carry guns in schools. 

    Please discuss the requirements for holding a gun permit and compare it with the training required for a law enforcement officer.How long before little Johnny comes home from school and says “I want to be a teacher because I want a gun.”  
    Do we really want to have the rule of authority in school be represented by a firearm?  Accidents happen, what is the rate of accidental injuries from weapons by military, law enforcement, and gun permit holders?The data will likely prove why Senator Paul’s idea is a really bad one.  Johnny, You need to sit down, back in circle, and give me back my gun!

    • BHA_in_Vermont

      You can “concealed carry” in Vermont. There is no permit needed. Makes one nervous.

      However guns may not be in schools or on a school bus, other than police, while on duty, or others for a specific occasion or instructional purpose if approved by the school board. And guns may not be on school property with the intent to injure another person.

  • liminalx

    Context “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

    The real reason the Second Amendment was to preserve the slave patrol militias:
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery#13583928310021&action=collapse_widget&id=1131385

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       Yeah, I have a hard time thinking of tens of thousands of people, mostly unknown to each other, all owning high rate of fire weapons and high capacity magazines being a “well regulated militia”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    So when is the House going to allow concealed carry in their halls?

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    Sorry Greg, but your notion of what’s decent, HC gun ownership that is, should NOT be a right, and SHOULD be infringed. My right to the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT a reckless gun culture trumps your right to own a gun that can shoot more than 10 bullets without reloading.

  • nj_v2

    Why does the NRA have so much “influence”?

    About a third of the U.S. population own guns. Only about a fifth of those are members of the NRA. And not all of them agree with the extremist views of the NRA leadership.

    So why do we give a flying fart what the rabid NRA leadership thinks?

    • Brandstad

      Because the 2nd amendment must be defended by someone!

      • DrewInGeorgia

        Is the NRA a well regulated Militia?

        • Brandstad

          Have you read the federalist papers?

          I doubt it because our founding fauthers explained gun ownership is a right of the individual and a well regulated militia is an example of how these people could be put to use!

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Got it, the egg came first.
            So FIRST the individual is armed, THEN a Well Regulated Militia is formed. And a Well Regulated Militia is an “example of how these people could be put to good use”.

            What other examples are there of how these people could be put to good use?

            Crusade? Witch Hunt? Minority Persecution? Citizenry Intimidation?

            The possibilities are endless…

          • Duras

            Have you read the Federalist Papers?

            Federalist Paper 29; the one that concerns the 2nd Amendment.  I have perused it and even hit “Ctrl + F” and typed “individual” and nothing appeared.  Perhaps you are exhibiting ideological manipulation.

            But the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.  If the Framers wanted to be explicit in the Constitution, they would have been.  Given the actual 2nd Amendment, “Militias” and “the people” are the same subject, thus the only constitutional right endowed by the Framers is the right to form an armed militia that is to be “well-regulated” by the government.  Current law says that you can own guns, but it is certainly not unconstitutional to prohibit guns to people other than “well-regulated militias,” let alone prohibit assault weapons.

          • jefe68

            You are dim.

      • nj_v2

        ^ Winner of the Most-Stupid-Posts-in-a-Day Award

    • Mike_Card

      NRA membership is ~ 4.25 million, a number of whom are firearms manufacturers.  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month

      NRA is primarily a lobbying group that represents the firearms industry.

      Insisting that armed guards in every classroom is perfectly in line with an industry lobbying group’s charge–it would be great for business.

  • Jeremy McMullen

    Hi Tom – All of those high profile cases like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine,etc. were directly related to severe mental illness. The primary focus NEEDS to be put back on that. Our mental health sector have been pushing people with sever mental illness out of institutional housing into residential housing or the streets. The truth is now I want a high capacity weapon so that I am able to protect my family from all of these people we are not being dealt with as they should be.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       An earlier story on NPR this morning said there are exactly 2 factors that tell if someone who is mentally ill will do a violent act.

      1) Prior history of doing so
      2) Currently threatening to do so

      That means there is NO WAY to accurately predict which people should be put on the “can not buy” list.

      • Jeremy McMullen

        both of those factors can be applied to make my family safer. I too am in Vermont and am considered a liberal. I’m a naturalist, a hunter, and an environmentalist. I support responsible gun control like mandatory back ground checks. I live on a rural road out in the country of the NEK and the North East Kingdom Health and Human Services have just rented a house 3/4ths of a mile from my house and are housing a “heavy hitter.” That was a term used directly from NEKHHS employee who went on to tell me that I should inform my family that they should not be going by this rural residential house alone. Whomever they are housing there should be institutionalized and not impeding my family from safely walking, biking, hiking, snow shoeing, skiing in the roads and forests around that home. Its much greater than just putting a name on a “do not by list”

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    Yeah, but WHY should I pay for armed guard service just to appease all these NRA “activists”? How effective do you really think they’ll be? Standing there ALL YEAR LONG with nothing to do … and when action happens, will they be alert? Jeez …

  • Dab200

    When you refer to the Constitution written 226 years ago as a sacred document giving you the right to bear arms than you only should be allowed to own the types of guns that were available at the time the Constitution was written – and that means single bullet loading riffles. 

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    Nick: Horribly, I read a post at CNN yesterday in a similar thread that read: “My right to own a gun trumps your kid’s safety at school”. Not verbatim, but close. Dunno if this “person” was serious, but just to read it blew my mind.

  • Davesix6

    President Obama used the children with him in the White House yesterday simply as policital props.
    Where is the outrage over that?

    • mzdj

      The president did not “use” the children.  The children,  their safety and the response to the shooting of other children is what precipitated the discussion.  They are part of the discussion, not props as the FOX talking points want you to believe.

    • keltcrusader

      None, these were all kids who wrote to him about this issue and I am absolutely sure they had their parents permission to be there. Dial your outrage back a bit.

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

        May I suggest the word you’re looking for to describe Davesix6′s attitude isn’t “outrage”, but “poutrage”, a facsimilie of outrage.

        • keltcrusader

          yes, by gosh, I think you have it!!

    • nj_v2

      Dave, Dave, Dave…your talking points are incomplete! C’mon, your other right-wing pals will think you’re an unpatriotic wuss. 

      You forgot to mention all the dictators and tyrants that met with children!

      Baaad monkey, no banana!

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    The NRA ad is SO far out in space.

    The President’s kids have armed guards because it is more than reasonable to believe that they specifically are BY FAR more likely to be a target of kidnapping than any other children in the country. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=24803595 Allison Provaire

    I really feel this whole “why do Obama’s children deserve protection and yours do not?” argument is unfounded. “Your” children are not in the public eye 24/7 and “you” do not receive 30 or more death threats a day. So yes, his children get to be protected by HIGHLY trained members of the secret service. Individuals that would take a bullet for them and know when and when not to draw their weapons.

  • http://twitter.com/metasilk Studio Metasilk

    I caught the phrase “gun rights community” being applied just now as a collective noun for pro-gun and somewhat to anti-controls people. That’s a mistake.

    *All* of us who are concerned about who has guns, when we/they have guns, what type of guns, the role the Constitution has in our laws and in our day-to-day lives — ALL of us are in the “guns (arms) rights community”, not just those citizens who want more/better/easier access to guns.  You aren’t in a community just based on your position on a particular action or amendment. Community does not work that way. 

    Framing issues correctly helps us think about them more wisely.

    (Somewhat aside: being pro-gun controls or pro-gun limits or against gun violence is NOT identical to being against the second amendment. )

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    There are clearly costs involved with gun ownership being borne by the public at large – maybe more of that cost should be shifted back to gun owners instead of the rest of us picking up the tab?

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Because they couldn’t afford it. See it legally: Loss of life. Lost income. Pain and suffering. Rehabilitation / medical costs. Court costs. Legal fees. And so on …

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    The NRA has adapted a sad, extreme LIBERAL interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment actually states. HC guns have no place in the hands of ordinary citizens. None.

  • http://www.facebook.com/julia.gandrud.9 Julia Gandrud

    Interesting new article on the origin of this “sacred” second amendment protecting the south’s right to maintain slave patrols. Here is a quote:

    “Patrick Henry even argued that southerner’s
    “property” (slaves) would be lost under the new Constitution, and the
    resulting slave uprising would be less than peaceful or tranquil:
    “In this situation,” Henry said to Madison, “I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquility gone.”
    So Madison, who had (at Jefferson’s insistence) already begun to
    prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft
    of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous
    that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias. ”

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

  • AC

    yikes.
    the only reasons i can imagine needing these high capacity catridges are if i’m being chased by a grizzly or one of those ‘super’ pigs.
    what else do you need them for?

    • Brandstad

      If your house is robbed by a group of 4 drugged up criminals and they decide to do you bodily harm, how many bullets do you think it will take to save your life?  I would guess 10+ because you are likely to miss once and it might take 2+ shots per attacker to stop them!

      • AC

        little known fact about me; my marksmanship is dead on to 80 yards.
        after that tho, run away or duck, it usually goes wide
        no seriously, i think there are cases out there that prove these scenario’s false. more often than not, the avg person is not exposed to this kind of stressful situation, hence their behaviour is irractic at such moments. if they do have weapons, i think there are numbers showing how often their own weapons end up being used against them, not BY them.
        on the flip side, the criminal most usually enters a situation aware of the stress level, and it is his ‘livelyhood?’ to handle it and gain experience each time…

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        That’s why you have a PISTOL, Brand … your notion of such a home invasion is even more rare than the chance of some nutsack taking out a theatre or school!!!

      • jefe68

        If you’re in the woods and a tree falls…

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Zombies.

      • AC

        oh. good point. zombies. wanna go half-sies on a survival bunker? lol

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Can we equip it with anti-aircraft, anti-personnel, anti-armor, anti-common sense thermonuclear deterrent systems?
          I wanna feel safe…lol

          • AC

            but of course!

          • nj_v2

            I’ve always wanted a moat with alligators. Can zombies swim?

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Zombies are already dead and likely don’t need to breathe to function, they could probably just submarine it. I’m not sure about the alligators, decomposing zombie flesh may not entice them. Crocodiles would probably be a better addition to your compound’s moat. Crocs are foul tempered and would likely attack regardless of whether or not they saw the zombies as a food source.

            I realize this is a very serious topic, the zombie discussion is far more relevant than many might think though. We’re probably about as close to successfully defending against a zombie apocalypse as we are to putting an end to gun violence in the US.

  • WRB2

    Once again banning, the easiest solution for the uneducated
    and non-creative is used.  Why not require registration for all existing assault weapons and tax the first one at $100 for a five year registration.  The second costs you $200 for four years, third $400 for three years, fourth $800 for two years and all other assault weapons will cost the owner $1200 per year to own.  All registered weapons must have a micro-marking firing pin installed and tracked with the registration. 

    We would use the funding like this: 25% of this fine would
    go to fund the registration database care and feeding, 30% would go to teach responsible gun ownership and use (e.g. Appleseed Project, nothing NRA please and thank you) in NYS, and 45% would go to fund bullet-proof vests LEOs in
    counties who’s tax reviews are in the lower half of all counties throughout the country.

    Let’s do the smart thing and improved education and safety,
    not treat hundreds of law abiding firearm owners as a behaving children or worse.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Um, because HC weapons have no useful purpose other than to kill?

      • WRB2

        No, when you are hunting an aggressive predatory animal having 15 or 20 rounds can make a difference between being safe and not.  

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          … which is why it’s wise to never hunt alone. ‘cept if you’re Dick Cheney.

  • nj_v2

    Flush Limpballs…What a sad, vile excuse for a human being. How can any sane person take the man seriously in any way for any length of time? 

    • JGC

      Ummm…was the clip Tom ran of Rush blubbering as if he was a child, “Please, I don’t want to die!” somehow taken out of context?  

      • Ray in VT

        Sure.  It was taken out of the context of a show where mostly it is listened to by people who agree with him and repeated to those who (probably) don’t.  That’s a bit of a paraphrase from a Colbert piece.  Here’s a wider bit of the transcript:

        This will revive memories, I’m sure, that many of you have of other
        instances like this. The Future Children Project released a new ad. It
        was an ad for Obama featuring several unidentified kids singing a song
        about Obama. Remember all these “Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm! Mmm! Mmm!”
        songs? Kids immediately started paying homage to Dear Leader shortly
        after he was immaculated. To say that kids are not exploited and used?
        The children are writing letters to their president saying, “We don’t
        want to die! We don’t want to die!”

        How can we not listen to them?

        We must listen to the children!

        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/16/obama_provokes_the_american_people?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RushLimbaugh-AllContent+%28The+Rush+Limbaugh+Show+-+All+Content%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

        It’s about 3/4 of the way down the page.

      • nj_v2

        Since you’re too lazy to bother looking up the “context,” here it is:

        [[ RUSH:  But he's using these kids as human shields.  Obama uses kids as human shields.  The Democrats use kids as human shields.  He brings these kids who supposedly wrote letters to the White House after Newtown, brings them up there to present a picture of support among the children for the president to do something about guns.  It's gonna be very difficult, very difficult to oppose it.  You got these little kids there.  They don't want to die.  (crying)  How can you not listen to them?  We've gotta do something.  That's the picture.  That's the image that the presence of the kids is designed to create. ]]

        If you need more, you can read all of the drug-addled gasbag’s moronic ranting here:

        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/15/with_kids_as_human_shields_obama_will_unveil_left_s_long_held_plan_to_grab_guns

        And, through the miracle of the Interwebs, you can even listen to the blubbering horse’s ass here (at :47).  (As a bonus, you get to hear scum-sucker regressives Ed Meese and flaming vile-monger Ann Coulter. Sane people will be induced to spew their Cheerios.)

        http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/16/limbaugh-mocks-kids-at-obama-gun-safety-event-calls-them-human-shields/

        So have at it. Explain how the “context” makes Limpball’s comments any less reprehensible.

        • JGC

          I’m not trying to explain Rush’s comments as being anything less than reprehensible. (That’s Gregg’s job!)  But anybody just reading your original comment would not know what prompted your disgust with Limbaugh.  And now we know.  ;)

          • nj_v2

            Fair enough.

            Sorry, the Chief Gasbag gets me a little worked up. Jumped to conclusions there.

          • JGC

            No problem.

  • Michiganjf

    This argument that there are already too many assault weapons and high capacity magazines “out there” is BUNK!

    If made illegal, not only would no new ones be made and sold, but the existing ones will be confiscated/impounded by law enforcement at a decent rate, whittling down the number available on a daily basis.

    Sounds a WHOLE LOT BETTER than continuing to manufacture them and sell them!!!

    SOPHISTRY is the only tactic the NRA has left!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JL6WVTQL5QQHTDPW2CMXVRQDTY Daniel

    So there are millions of guns and millions of high-capacity magazines out there right now… so we should do nothing NOW to stop future gun problems. It’s a good thing we didn’t take the same position with auto safety back in the 60s… “There are millions of cars without seatbelts, so what good will it do to start requiring seatbelts in all new cars?” or more recently, “There are millions of cars without airbags, so what good will it do to require their installation on future cars?”

    Sooner or later those old cars wore out and were replaced. Won’t the same happen with guns and magazines? If we don’t do someting now, how can we hope the future will be better?

    • JohnKenobi

      Hi Dan, 

      Look out! We have made no real significant advances to make cars more efficient besides hybrids… Meh.  But you can bet we’ll have leaps and bounds of innovation for killing each other.  Look at your pop culture Sci-Fi.  
      Get ready for Blasters!  Microwave tightbeam, weaponized RF, railguns ect… It will never get better. 

  • Scott B

    Watching “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” was eye-opening. The NRA cried for enforcing existing laws, but they, and the people in Congress they backed, have hobbled the law and the ATF. The same laws that the NRAs loudly claiming they [allegedly] support.

      The Patriot Act slid in laws about the ATF director having to be approved by Congress.  There’s hasn’t been a full-time director of the ATF in over 6 years.
      The ATF can only inspect dealers once a year, but because the ATF has the same number of  2500 agents they had almost 40 years ago the ATF averages an inspection on a dealer once every 17 years.
      Background check records have to be destroyed within 24 hours.
      The ATF is Federally prohibited from making a national registry of guns.
      The ATF is barred from requiring gun dealers to take inventories.
      Gun dealers can ignore police requests from police.
      Banned the ATF from compiling gun violence data.
        Dealers are recommended, but not barred from, selling guns to people that are drunk or under the influence of drugs.

     

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Scott, there’s a whole problem with gov’t being completely behind the times on virtually everything. That’s why this whole idiot NRA debate P’s me off ‘cuz all this time waste COULD be going towards real solutions instead of continually kicking this moot issue down the road every year.

      Enforcement of law is one of the biggest problems we face.

      • Scott B

         But the law say that these “laws” the NRA, et al, claim exist, and want enforced, don’t exist, or are severely hampered. The NRA knows this because  the NRA’s lawyers were right there writing these laws. 
          The laws also can’t be enforced if the manpower and leadership doesn’t exist. Again, the ATF hasn’t had a director for over 6 years, and the number of agents is at the same level it was in 1972.

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          I agree that without enforcement there is no law … so if the law was already on the books, why fan the flames of the HC gun debate?

          • Scott B

             But that’s the whole point. The laws all say the things that can’t be done (as mentioned in my original post that were listed on Jon Stewart’s show), and a good deal of them are low-hanging fruit that would seem to be common sense.
              The NRA is saying, “There are (or need to be) laws that cover this!” But they’re not because the NRA is responsible for them not being there, and fight them when they’re suggested.
              It’s not just one thing, like a law, but the ability to enforce it. The ATF can inspect dealers, but with a limit of once a year, thanks to the NRA; and with only 2500 agents to cover the almost 130,000 gun dealers, 51,000 shops, 7,300 pawn shops, (not to mention tens of thousands of collectors) is anywhere where near enough to do the proper job. 

  • sickofthechit

    The President, his wife and his children are under a constant stream of death threats.  If not daily, then nearly daily. So of course they deserve full protection.

    As for the rest of our children.  Does the NRA suggest we have armed guards at all day-cares, including in home?  Why isn’t anyone talking about supplying the schools, etc. with  stun guns?  I say TRAINED TEACHERS WITH TASERS is the answer.

    Charles A. Bowsher

    • JohnKenobi

      Armed does not mean “gun”.  It means “not helpless”. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YMV2HJ2TBKMCN2QRAVI3I2OOGM Jim Jim

    the NRA is sick

  • JohnKenobi

    There are some really, really valid questions regarding the Newtown shootings parent reactions and evidence regarding the  FEMA action scheduled to occur during the exact timeframe the shootings occurred.   There are valid questions here.  That’s all i’m saying.  We should have a “Debunking Newtown Conspiracy” show.  There are some very serious questions that are not being addressed.  

    Go watch this: http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8

    It’s terrible with the sensationalized soundtrack but it has a place in the discussion.  There are real concerns here. 

  • carache

    Is it true, as reported on Jon Stewart’s show last night, that the NRA reviewed (and presumably, had the opportunity to approve) legislation that hogtied the ATF’s ability to enforce the existing regulations — and that that legislation was slipped in as a rider in unrelated legislation?  And that the sponsor and author of that slipped in legislation is the same talking head who is telling the conservative media that no new regulations are necessary because there is so much regulation already on the books (without also disclosing that his legislation prevents from being enforced)?  And what about the news that the gun lobby succeeded in squashing research into gun violence — and yet now, in the absence of any research, are alleging that the cause of violence is mental illness and video games??  How does this kind of cynicism pass as thoughtful debate?  Also, in a year when many have argued that it’s reasonable to require that people prove that they are entitled to exercise that most fundamental — and unequivocal and noncontroversial — American right to vote with picture IDs (in the absence of any evidence that voter fraud has effected the outcome of any election), how can people suggest that it’s unreasonable to impose  restrictions on those who seek to exercise their right to own guns, given the ample evidence of assault weapons and high capacity guns hurting innocents?

  • sickofthechit

    In the most recent “real poll” in  November we elected Barack Obama as President which Richard would have to admit means we should go along with what he says.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/Z6RRKF7UGGMWB5WDVWL6RLVNZ4 Merch Guy

    The guest is wrong about the user being the problem. More than half of the people killed by guns are killed by family member in their own homes. These are all legal guns own by licensed citizens.. It is the guns that kill people. They call it “accidental” death. Grow up people .. its the guns that are the problem

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      … and adults with severe emotional immaturity.

      • sickofthechit

         Or just angry!

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

    I’d like to see the firearms industry- the whole schmeer, from gunmakers to ammo producers to wholsale & retail distributors- sacrifice a few of their bloody billions to compensate victims of their products. Any shareholders care to comment?

    • William

       Why not the movie industry? That have made billions of dollars pushing out a very violent product.

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

        Because they don’t directly handle & make windfall profits from the weapons used to massacre other people. They are gulity of exploiting the public’s thirst for bloody images but not directly connected to individual murderers. Accessories before the facts? Maybe.

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

        Can you say anything about this rather than bleat that once sentence repeatedly? You sound like a parrot, and not a very well trained one at that.

  • liability4guns

    The President’s ideas are based on common sense.  I believe that mandatory liability insurance is also critically important.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      I wonder how many claim guns on their homeowner’s?

  • YohnnyYones

    People are attacking the NRA for their ad with Obama’s kids- what I find more offensive is this campaign for political gain on the backs of these kids who tragically died.

    • Mike_Card

      Not wanting to risk get gunned down during a shopping trip or a night at the movies is political gain??

      • YohnnyYones

        Life is risky. Ban cars if you don’t want people to die unnecessarily.

      • Brandstad

        More Americans are murdered with hammers and blunt objects than rifles accoring to FBI statistics!

        We must ban all hammers!

        • malkneil

          Are people still clinging to this argument?  Is the implication here really that hammers are as dangerous as assault weapons?

          (1) How many people could the Aurora shooter taken out if he had a hammer instead of multiple assault weapons?

          (2) If you had the misfortune of being in a situation like Aurora, would you rather the assailant be wielding a hammer or a Bushmaster?

        • jefe68

          You really are very dim.

      • Mike_Card

        My comment is about “political gain.”  I didn’t say anything about cars or hammers.

  • David Boundy

    The NRA has suppressed American statistics, but not international.

    THe NRA is fond of pointing to Switzerland, where every family owns a gun.  What the NRA doesn’t tell you is that Switzerland has the second highest firearms homicide rate in the first world (there are South American, African, etc countries with higher gun homicide rates, but in the first world, only the U.S. is higher.  Three times higher.)

    Australia adopted gun controls a few years ago.  Since then, there have been no mass shootings.  The homicde rate has fallen considerably.

    Gun control works.

    • sickofthechit

       My sister, nephews, nieces, and grand nieces live in
      Switzerland in four separate residences and none own a gun. What Switzerland are they referring to?

  • sickofthechit

    All guns and ammo in separate locked cabinets with trigger locks. You should only be allowed to have one out as your defensive weapon.

    • WRB2

      What about those who shoot as a sport?  It is in the Olympics summer and winter! 

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        No problem.

  • Michiganjf

    NRA membership has “sky-rocketed” NOT because of the recent issues, but because the NRA is doling out life memberships at a discounted rate of $300 dollars, down from the usual $1000 dollars.

      Then, they claim their membership is exploding due to fear of Obama!

    Nice lie if you can manufacture it!

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      It’s all marketing. Timely, cynical marketing.

    • http://twitter.com/Dragonsong73 Eric R. Duncan

      As a gun owner I would never give that group my money, especially as it would appear that i am actively delegating my own right to be heard as a citizen about the issue by doing so.

      I would love to see other organizations with an interest in firearms and the sociopolitical discussions around them gain more traction as an alternative to the loudest talker in the room

    • http://twitter.com/Dragonsong73 Eric R. Duncan

      As a gun owner I would never give that group my money, especially as it would appear that i am actively delegating my own right to be heard as a citizen about the issue by doing so.

      I would love to see other organizations with an interest in firearms and the sociopolitical discussions around them gain more traction as an alternative to the loudest talker in the room

  • nj_v2

    Apparently knowing next to nothing about the early history of the United States, many gun nuts rights advocates endlessly misrepresent the origins and intent of the Second Amendment. 

    They blatantly and ignorantly misuse the Second amendment to argue for no limits on arms based on their paranoid belief that having a basement-full of weapons will enable them to fight off some imagined future tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was in no way ever designed for this.

    There’s probably no changing their minds, but others should know the real history of the Second Amendment, which, in the modern era, is an anachronism.

    Can we have a show on this, please?

    http://consortiumnews.com/2013/01/14/more-second-amendment-madness/

    More Second Amendment Madness

    [[ The Right’s powerful propaganda apparatus has sold millions of Americans on the dangerous – and false – notion that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution incorporated the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so an armed population could fight the government that the Framers had just created.

    The organizer of that effort, right-wing activist Larry Ward, wrote that “the Obama administration has shown that it is more than willing to trample the Constitution to impose its dictates upon the American people.”

    In recent weeks, this bogus narrative of the Framers seeking to encourage violence to subvert the peaceful and orderly process that they had painstakingly created in Philadelphia in 1787 also has been pushed by prominent right-wingers, such as radio host Rush Limbaugh and Fox News personality Andrew Napolitano.…]]

    (excerpt) 

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

    The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

    [[ The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote.  

    Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
     
    In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state.  The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.  ]]

    (excerpt)

  • sickofthechit

    Great! Guns will solve the Deficit, that’s about as ignorant as saying war boosts the economy!

  • sickofthechit

    When they say background checks for all gun sales they need to include barter, exchanges, trades, and especially Auctions under the definition of “sales”.

  • Brandstad

    Violent crime is greatest in the cities in the US with the most strict gun restrictions and violent crime is the least where guns are less regulated.  I wonder why we are trying to make more of the country violent?

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Instead of comparing city to city try your logic on country to country.  Japan’s gun-homicide/violence rate is zero – and it has strict gun control.  While Canada’s rate of gun violence is not zero it has a far lower rate than the US.  Why?  Again, strict gun control.  

      In fact Canada’s problem with controlling the gun violence has a lot to do with having the US as a neighbour.  

      So, back to your argument:  Washington DC can have gun control but an adjacent state does not. See the problem? 

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

        Reagan was shot in DC with a gun from Virginia.

        Time to put ATF agents at every state highway border crossing to keep guns out of “tough gun” states, methinks. Not just late-model luxury SUVs with heavily tinted windows, or beat up ex-rental vans, but every vehicle.

        After all, it’s enforcing the laws already on the books, and the NRA keeps telling us that’s what they favor.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

       And the cities with the most strict gun laws are also the most populated with the highest crime rates regardless if a weapon is used in the crime and the highest rates of poverty.

      There are 2.7 MILLION people in the city of Chicago with a population density of over 11,500/ sq mi. That is 63 times the number of people in the most populous city in Vermont and a density 3 times higher..

    • jefe68

      Well you might want to take another look at those stats.
      New York City and LA crime is down.In Red states such as the South, gun related crime is up.

  • imjust Sayin

    NPR, please make it a standard procedure to actually read out loud the 2nd amendment when discussing it.

    I am a REAL supporter of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

    As passed by the Congress:

    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.
    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    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 infringedAs an army veteran, I do not have a gun of any kind.  Why?  Because I am not currently a member of a WELL REGULATED militia.The NRA is becoming, more and more, an enemy of the 2nd Amendment.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      good point!

    • nj_v2

      Thank you!

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      imjust Sayin: WELL said! Not only an enemy, but an active domestic terrorist organization and a professional corporate shill.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Exactly. The sentence has 2 clauses. To listen to the NRA, you wouldn’t even know the first clause was there. The word “being” in the first clause means that the second clause is a consequence of the first, that is, there is a right to bear arms BECAUSE of the need of the free state – ie the government – to have a well-regulated militia. It’s not because you have a god-given right to have a gun, it’s not because you have a right to get drunk and shoot your spouse, it’s because of the need for a well-regulated militia.

      The gub’mint haters also don’t want to talk about the right being in support of the “free state”, which sure looks like the government to me.

      They also don’t mention the “well regulated” part. Sure looks supportive of gun regulation to me.

      • Fredlinskip

        As I’ve seen pointed out by right-wingers, correctly, in other discussions on this topic, “well regulated” in the context of it’s original use did not have anything to do with types of weapons used or the like, it meant well trained and/or well disciplined.
           It’s seems large part of founders intent was: “please keep your rifles handy because we might again be attacked by a Foreign invader, at which time we will need you to help defend our country in an organized well-disciplined manner”.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Right, I agree. But a guy argued elsewhere that “the citizenry is the militia”, so in that case, fine, let the citizenry be “well regulated”, ie, the 2′nd amendment supports gun regulation.

          • BHA_in_Vermont

            Sounds good. ALL people who own guns shall muster EVERY Saturday at 9 AM for drills and target practice.

          • Fredlinskip

            Am just responding to what seems to be a preponderance of misunderstanding, perhaps justified, as to what the words “well reg” meant in 2nd amend.
            Hey I quoted a statement you made in another discussion the other day. Please don’t sue.
            Later.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            No problem :)

          • hennorama

            TomK_in_Boston – and the Supreme Court acknowledged that the Second Amendment is NOT unlimited, in Heller.  Here’s a portion of the holding in the decision:
            ” 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.”
            See:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

          • TomK_in_Boston

            good common sense

          • hennorama

            One minor problem – common sense isn’t. ;-)

      • Tyranipocrit

         dont ever forget, we are the governemtn–we are supposed to be. Im tired of hearing people talk about the government as some kind of authoruty–it allows them to commit atrocities.  we are the people and we are the authority over the governemnt–its time they understood that.  the 2nd amendmentas written does imply well regulated militas as a reason for bearing arms, but if we consider the times–it was easier to call up a force in order to protect the state (against slaves and other states) if the people all ready had guns–then they dont have to issue them.  it just makes things easier if the guns are allr eady present and the foot soldiers all ready know how to use them.  however, we certainly have better means to supply soldiers called up to fight if they had to,  morevover, the guns then were clumsy inneficient single-shot sticks.  They could not imagine assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.  Times change.  We must change with the times.  it makes no sense to worship hstory, especially 200 year old history.  we ar enot the same people with same issues.

  • William

    Tom, What is your reaction to CBS reporter Bob Schieffer comparing the NRA to the Nazi’s? Over the top? New tone at CBS?

    • Ray in VT

      Is it this quote or something else:

      Let’s remember: there was considerable opposition when Lyndon Johnson
      went to the Congress and…presented some of the most comprehensive
      civil rights legislation in the history of this country. Most people
      told him he couldn’t get it done, but he figured out a way to do it. And
      that’s what Barack Obama is going to have to do…what happened in
      Newtown was probably the worst day in this country’s history since 9/11.
      We found Osama bin Laden. We tracked him down. We changed the way that
      we dealt with that problem. Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely
      passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and
      before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable
      task than taking on the gun lobby.

      • JohnKenobi

        Shut up Ray.  We have no gun violence in VT because we all have guns.  Except for twats like you who think you know whats best.  

        • Ray in VT

          Oh, I’m sorry, was I not supposed to post anything that might be of a contrary opinion to yours?  I happen to be a gun owner from a farming family, so why don’t you take your beligerent attitude, and shove it straight up your behind, where I assume that your head also resides.

        • jimino

          You mean not even one of the scores of murders in Vermont over the past decade were committed with a gun? 

          http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm

          That really is amazing, in a self-deluded ignorant sort of way. 

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      If he did say that, he was over the top, but point taken: The NRA has cynically divided the public and cashed in on the HC gun debate, and controlled Congress and DC as well. Such power in so few hands is always dangerous.

  • sickofthechit

    I heard the stat that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to injure or kill a family member than a robber.  Can anyone verify this? 

  • Davesix6

    There are armed “Resource” Officers in many many schools already.
    Too bad there wasn’t one in Newtown, at least they would have had a fighting chance.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Pretty sad there’s even any in any school, right?

      Sounds like the days when blacks had to be protected going to white schools, girls in the Middle East being protected from the Taliban, but it’s here, right here. Beyond sad and pathetic.

  • sickofthechit

    Are these gun advocates willing to pay for body armor for the rest of us?

    • Ray in VT

      Probably not, but I’d bet that there’s an industry that would be willing to sell us that body armor, or armored backpacks, etc.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        … and so the circle spins out of control … the cat turns to butter chasing its tail …

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

      When the personal body armor industry becomes as lucrative as the assault weapons industries it will be too late. Armor design always follows weapon design. A full-body forcefield-shield? Maybe I’ll save up for one of those….

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

        Talking about lucrative industries of the future: What about the surface-to-black-helicopter missile market?

        (It may already exist–it’s hard for my fervent imagination to keep up with reality sometimes.)

  • beeste
    • Ray in VT

      I figured that they were referring to the Secret Service.

      • beeste

         When pointed out how silly that point is, they’ve claimed to be referring to the guards at Sidwell Friends…
        Who happen to be unarmed.

        • Ray in VT

          I see.  I had not heard that.

    • DrJaneFromJP

      We also don’t want the ability for rogue terrorists to take  the President’s children hostage. That would cripple our country. The NRA campaign is really nasty and inappropriate.

  • Scott B

    I live in NY, where we just had a gun bill rammed through the legislature before the ink could cool on the desks of those that signed it.

    I am for sane gun measures, but I think I was just made an owner of several now illegal guns!  All of them are at least 50 years old, two being closer to a century or more, because of what defines a pistol grip and bayonet fixture (WWII Japanese carbine); and a lever-action .22 that has a magazine tube that will hold more than 7 rounds. 
      How many households have an antique gun with a bayonet mount over their mantle? Or have a .22 like mine that were our introduction to firearms and were only responsible for the deaths of dozens of empty pop cans?  Or that have a gun with a pistol grip that is far from an assault weapon? 
      Now we have to register them “or else”?  We can only sell them out of state or turn them in?  I haven’t seen any answers.

  • sickofthechit

    Education is the answer.  Let’s get the facts, not talking points on the table for everyone to see, read, digest, discuss, decide.

  • art525

    I travelled around Europe in 1982. Everywhere I went I saw armed police and Soldiers particularly in Rome. There were guards with machine guns on every corner. I was shocked and freaked out. It was chilling. I thought “Thank God I live in a place where we don’t have to deal with this”. And now that is what we are facing. That is scary and dperessing. And what is even more scary and depressing is tht this is being discussed as if it is a sensible course. 

  • WRB2

    Tom, you can own a machine gun (fully automatic) weapon in for a $200 tax stamp.  Some states wisely ban them and over ride the federal law.  We need to tax assault weapon ownership in a sliding scale more assault weapons your yearly cost goes up logarithmic.

  • DrJaneFromJP

    What about making guns regulated in the same way that cars are?  After all, there are many similarities- both are owned and used by individuals but have public safety impact.  Have each gun registered with a title, pass some sort of safety test (like a driver’s license), and have to re-register every few years (like a car has to be registered).  Have the owner bring the gun in every 4 years.  And if someone doesn’t comply, have an ability for government to issue fines, etc.
    The details could be developed, but some sort of registry, with fees from gun purchase the way to finance this.  This will help cover the true costs of gun violence. 

    • WRB2

      Exactly what we need to do!  If you want to own it, it will cost you in time (training, testing, and community service) and money.  Don’t ban them, use the desire to make the country better.

    • hennorama

      DrJaneFromJP – don’t forget insurance.  Repeating myself from an earlier post:

      “Firearms and vehicles are roughly equivalent in both their numbers and involvements in fatalities in the US.  We require vehicle operators to pass an eye exam and a driving test, and to have a license on public roadways.  We also require vehicles operated on public roadways to be registered and insured.  Why can’t we do the same with firearms, especially in light of the risks involved when firearms are misused?

      Personally, I’d go a bit further than Pres. Obama, and require all firearms to be registered and insured if they are to be used off the owner’s privately-owned property.  This is similar to vehicle registration and insurance requirements.  I’d also require anyone purchasing a firearm to be certified free of “mental defect” via an examination by a mental health professional.  This would be somewhat similar to passing an eye exam for a driver’s license.

      I presented six “firearms ideas” about a week ago, the first 4 of which were in complete agreement with Pres. Obama’s, in this post:”

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/11/week-in-the-news-228#comment-763850960

  • jim_thompson

    I agree wit the proposals put forth by the White House, it just makes common sense.  I own guns, I am a concealed weapon permit holder, often carry a 9mm, have been a lifetime NRA member for twenty years  and am tired of the radical fringe setting the terms of the debate.

    Jim T.
    Fort Mill,SC

    • nj_v2

      Thank you!!

      Why doesn’t the NRA leadership reflect views such as yours? Or, in other words, how do people with such radical views get elected to leadership positions when so many of the members like yourself seem to be reasonable, thinking people?

  • WRB2

    Australia fines people who do not vote!  Should we do that?  
     

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

      Voter restrictions are so tight here, already, that fining the disenfranchised would reveal the US as the ultimate totalitarian nation. Wouldn’t look good to the rest of the “free” world.

      • WRB2

        Good point.  Taking it down the line a bit the USA is different from every other nation on earth.  We have a system that works in some areas today.  What we should do is look at it and make adjustments, not wholesale changes.  The time to do this was 20 years ago, 15 years ago but sadly the NRA acts like a spoiled child fighting not to go to bed.

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

    Why are Americans so obsessed with guns? Well, all depends on which side of the barell you’re on. Anti-gun folks are obsessed with NOT being shot by a wacko & pro-gun folks act like the government is coming for their private parts everytime a regulation is suggested.

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

    Why are Americans so obsessed with guns? Well, all depends on which side of the barell you’re on. Anti-gun folks are obsessed with NOT being shot by a wacko & pro-gun folks act like the government is coming for their private parts everytime a regulation is suggested.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      LOL, there may be a black market for blue balls!

  • Matt Wade

    Let’s regulate guns like we regulate cars.

    1. You have to pass a proficiency test to get a license, and get that license renewed at specific time intervals.2. You have to purchase vehicle/gun insurance.3. You have to pay an annual registration fee per vehicle/gun.4. There are restrictions to the kinds of vehicles/guns you can own and operate. And restrictions in the places you can operate them. Just like street cars with nitrous oxide injection are illegal in many places, so too can multiple-round magazines be banned.5. You can’t operate vehicles/guns if intoxicated.6. You must abide by various safety regulations, be it wearing a seatbelt or mandating gun locks.7. You must pay a transfer tax when selling vehicle/gun to a third party.8. We should create a federal agency, along the lines of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, tasked with improving gun safety.

    • WRB2

      Make the tax if you want to own one assault weapon reasonable.  If you want two a little more, three a lot more, four even more, etc., etc.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Yup … but “they” whine about that, too.

        • WRB2

          Reasonable and respectful controls, trust but verify, and make is self funding.  Make it accessible for most.  ObamaCare proved that the government can levy taxes so let’s use the demand to make it better for everyone.

  • Matt Wade

    My Right to Life (aka, not getting shot) outweighs your right to own a well regulated firearm.

    • Davesix6

      Matt, how far does your claim of ”Right to Life” go?
      Does it extend to helpless babies in the womb?
      There are many, some studies and polls would indicate a majority, of us in this nation who believe abortion should be regulated on behalf of the life of yet born child.
      Do you agree?

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

        Anyone wanna teach this fellow what the word “fetus” means?

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Matt, I’ll go further: My right to enjoy a night out on the town, walk down my street, my kid enjoying a day in school, exerting my simple freedom to enjoy myself unfettered in respect of the law without the fear of firearms invading my or anyone’s space trumps anyone’s perceived “right” to bear a weapon of any kind in public.

  • Davesix6

    Tom, in this nation we have a very healthy sceptisism even distrust for government.
    That distrust was practiced and celebrated by the left in the 1960′s and 1970′s.
    Yet now as the left has taken over much of government this same type of questioning the government is portrayed as paranoid and even backwards.
    Double standard? You bet.

    The 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with firearms for hunting or sports.
    It has everything to do with the citizens ability to defend freedom. 

    • nj_v2

      [[ "The left has taken over much of government. ]]

      Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!! Good one!!

      [[ The 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with firearms for hunting or sports.
      It has everything to do with the citizens ability to defend freedom. ]]

      Pure and utter horse crap.

      Dave is exactly the kind of person i referenced earlier. Ignorant and proud of it.

    • Thinkin5

      Who the hell wants the NRA to take over the U.S. government??!! Just what America doesn’t need, fascists with weapons lording over us! The right/wingnuts act like the NRA is some kind of benevolent organization. Their loudest spokesmen are angry lunatics.

  • Ray in VT

    I have a bit of an issue with the caller who seemed to say something to the effect that he needed what we could generally call a military style assault rifle in order to defend his home against an intruder (that was my take on his comment).  By and large I feel just as confident in my ability to defend my home, property and family with my old hunting rifle as with an assault rifle.

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

      A watchdog with a loud bark might work as well.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Or one of my deadly farts.

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

          Now Buzzherd, don’t derail this thread into the realm of chemical weaponry.

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            I am the DuPont of chemtrail sources.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Weapon of A$$ Destruction. lol

    • GKoenig

      A can of mace or pepper spray that can shoot a stream 20 feet.  Or a Taser in the drawer.  Baseball bats in various places around the house.  There are plenty of non-deadly weapons available, high tech or not.  We don’t need an AK-47!

      • DrewInGeorgia

        A well placed Katana works wonders. Not necessarily a ‘non-deadly’ weapon though.

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

      I ask you as a gun owner in a rural state: What about the idea that a shotgun is the best weapon to defend against someone invading one’s own home?

      I don’t know where I heard it first, but the idea is unless one regularly takes both shooting practice and “moving cardboard” practice (shoot the cutout cardboard burglar with a burlap sack marked $, don’t shoot the lady pushing a stroller), one’s adrenaline makes “target practice” skills with a normal capacity handgun or rifle undependable.

      (And I think we’ve all been warped by shootouts in movies and on TV, consuming pounds and pounds of ammo at a time.)

      • Ray in VT

        A shotgun is pretty effective in my opinion.  I’m a fan of well placed shots as opposed to spray and pray.  One of my former co-workers is a Vietnam veteran, and he has a great disdain for anything like an AR-15 or a AK-47.  His view is that his scoped 30-30, training and practice is more than enough to take on whoever might be coming at him.  Your last point is pretty right on too.  He always told me that in combat weight is key, so you don’t carry too much and you make your shots count.

        • BHA_in_Vermont

           I would think that the odds of taking out an intruder in your home with a shotgun is magnitudes higher than with an AR-15. You pretty much don’t even need to aim, certainly not with the sights.

          One shot from a 12 gauge will blow away someone at close range and cause massive damage at 20′ without launching dozens of high velocity rounds through the walls and windows potentially killing someone outside or the members of your family you are trying to protect that are sheltering in another room.

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

          Any truth to the idea that the sound cocking a shotgun, in a real life bad guy in my living room in the dark of night situation, is a deterrent?

          I’ve given up making fun of movies where ever time someone touches a gun the soundtrack gives us the “chkchuck” sound. And that goes for blades too: “Sfring!” is not a sound a katana makes when you’re pulling it out of a leather holster!

          • Ray in VT

            There might be.  Some of those sounds, like that made by a pump shotgun, make fairly distinct sounds, and I wouldn’t want to hear one if I thought that the intent of the other person was anything besides benign.

          • DrewInGeorgia

            Cocking the shotgun in that situation will do nothing more than give the ‘bad guy’ a target. Unless they’re deaf of course.

      • rvl1

         I like the idea of a flame thrower – if they manage to get past the punji stick pit at the front door and boiling oil trip switch at the foot of the stairs.

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

          …as long as you have a type AB&C fire extinguisher with the “firepower” to put out whatever the flamethrower starts.

      • nj_v2

        The average hit rate for trained police officers in active, real-life situations (not target practice) is something like 20 percent.

        Trained, experienced gun handlers miss their target four out of five times.

        Yet the gun nuts think that arming everyone will somehow make us safer.

        Idiots.

        • sickofthechit

           Not just idiots, dangerous idiots.

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          Imagine how many more dead would’ve turned up inside that movie theatre if more were packin’ heat?

          • nj_v2

            Arm teachers! Arm principals! Arm convenience store managers! Train kids to shoot starting pre-kindergarten.

            Idiots!

    • DrewInGeorgia

      When I had my house I had a shotgun and a revolver. This will sound silly but on the occasions someone came around unwanted the first thing I would grab was my sword.
      I kept it dark in my house at night – my advantage.
      It was my house, I knew the terrain – my advantage.
      They have to make it through the door, I only need to stand behind it – my advantage.
      They have to acquire me as a target, then shoot accurately. I need only swing adequately – my advantage.

      With the revolver and shotgun there was always concern that I might hit my child with an errant shot. It doesn’t matter how good a shot you are at the range, a dark chaotic environment changes everything.

      • Ray in VT

        So Drew, are you making the outrageous claim that having a bunch of people returning fire in an instance like Aurora might not be such a great idea?

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Outrageous claim, I know. Ask a trained Law Enforcement officer that lacks the Rambo mentality this question:
          Would you be more comfortable watching a movie in a darkened theater where one person might be armed, or in a darkened theater where four-hundred plus people are definitely armed?

    • hennorama

      Ray in VT – my take was that he had a bit of a “spray and pray” attitude – fire as many rounds as possible in the general direction of the threat.  If you’re a panicked or inaccurate shooter, greater ammo capacity is needed to hit the target, almost by chance.  The risks to others and possible consequences are similar to firing a gun in the air when celebrating the New Year – quite significant.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Actually a lot of folks seem to feel the need of a pistol just to walk down the street. I wonder if carrying a gun in this case is just a sign of never having grown up to the point of being able to deal with an uncomfortable situation.

  • Brandstad

    What makes a gun an asault weapon?  aren’t all guns assault weapons?

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      A gun is an assault weapon when its force is unfairly superior to the abilities of its target to defend itself.

  • GKoenig

    If Australia could do it, why not we?  The answer is, we are not like any other nation on earth.  We are the third most populous country on the planet.  We are a patchwork of a variety of sub-cultures which vary by state and region.  Trying to get ‘everyone’ to get behind any single nation-wide major change is orders of magnitude harder than it is in a place like Australia.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      The center cannot hold and the worst are full of passionate intensity…that’s why.

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

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2011/January/mental-illness-and-violence

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

    the AP guy is an alarmist pig typical too the associated
    press can be very alarmist but he is also lying about violence mass killing and
    mental illness  he probably had is wife committed
    his genre tends to be very controlling and very butch to prove they are men not
    sissy writers .

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

      he probably had is wife committed his genre tends to be very controlling and very butch to prove they are men not sissy writers

      Submitted without comment.

      • Potter

        thank goodness she says she does not have a gun

  • Prairie_W

    I’m troubled by the rationale many gun fans offer for owning multiple military-style weapons.  The apparently earnest belief is that the government is going to turn on its citizens and that a simple anti-intruder hand gun would hardly be sufficient to beat off the blackhawks helicopters landing on the front lawn. I’m  talking about people who cite Waco and other godawful excesses on the part of federal and state law officers as a good reason for building a bunker full of AK-15′s and worse.

    (When we talk about “the mentally ill,” we are often forgetting that the hospitals opened their doors and released many mentally ill into the streets, partly for economic reasons and partly because of a belief that patients were being held against their will.  That’s one consideration in the mentally ill situation.  But there’s another consideration that goes right back to those who fear “tyranny.”) 

    Who are the most tenacious defenders of the “right” to own military-style weapons without limitation?  Well, of course, the gun lobby.  The profiteers.  But right next in line is the wannabe heavily armed “tyranny” group. Is it out of order to suggest that the latter are driven by a mental disorder, a certifiable paranoia, perhaps at least a low level of sociopathy?  That when we talk about the mentally ill, we should include, at least provisionally, the paranoia sufferers who aren’t being treated?  Past a certain point, weapon ownership can move well past a perceived need for defense and into aggression, pure and simple.  Wouldn’t that account for at least some of the 926 deaths we’ve seen in the month following Sandy Hook?

    Another quote from Antonin Scalia might be useful:

    As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia concluded in Heller v. DC, the government can restrict ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons and that “nothing in our opinion should 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.” …Think Progress

    • Unluckyimmortal

       AK-15s? 

      Part of the problem with the gun-related discourse in this country is that we’ve got two very large groups seemingly talking past each other, happy to misrepresent the other side’s position, and unwilling to treat the discussion with intellectual honesty.  3% of people killed with guns in the US are killed with rifles.  Therefore, 3% at most of our gun killings are “military style assault rifles.”  They’re not what we should be targeting if we want to reduce violence, but that fact doesn’t seem to be part of the conversation.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Of course in debate there’ll be spin … that’s why the Greeks invented logic, to pinpoint BS wherever it appears … background checks remain the backbone and most passable of all aspects of this proposal.

      • WRB2

        AK-15  Must be a piston operated AR-15?  Banning assault weapons will not fix the handgun violence problem Chicago and other large cities have.  Come to think of it handgun ownership was banned in Chicago up until recently and they have been in the top 10 cities where people are killed by hand guns for more than 20 years.  

        Bans are not the answer, they do not work.  

      • Prairie_W

        Unlucky, let’s you and me agree on some acceptable term that those of us who aren’t familiar with the use of military or near-military weaponry can use so we don’t talk past each other.  I need words that cover the ability on the one hand to defend oneself against a burglar, mugger,  or a couple of guys trying to highjack my car, and on the other hand a gun that would enable someone in a matter of seconds to wipe out a whole bunch of schoolchildren.  (I’m leaving out shotguns and rifles for hunting — sport guns.  They’re not the problem.)

        The handgun is, in my book, a perfectly reasonable weapon in the hands of a reasonable person who knows how to use it and anticipates a situation in which it would save lives rather than just kill. Obviously, the handgun owner knows how to use it and how to disable rather than kill with it. The military-style gun, intended to kill people, should be, as they say, off the table. Guns which are manufactured for the purpose of killing people don’t belong outside the military.  If there are people who truly want/need to shoot the more dangerous weapon, then maybe let private groups set of firing ranges and provide the weaponry for safe use only within those precincts.

        And no one has explained satisfactorily why Mrs. Lanza had the weapons in a town which had known no violence of that kind — and, of course, in a house containing a troubled teenager with mental health problems. 

        A clip from the NYT:

        “Investigators have linked Ms. Lanza to five weapons: two powerful handguns, two traditional hunting rifles and a semiautomatic rifle that is similar to weapons used by troops in Afghanistan. Her son took the two handguns and the semiautomatic rifle to the school. Law enforcement officials said they believed the guns were acquired legally and were registered.

        Ms. Lanza, 52, had gone through a divorce in 2008 and was described by friends as social and generous to strangers, but also high-strung, as if she were holding herself together.”

        • Unluckyimmortal

          I understand your point about handguns being perfectly reasonable weapons for self defense.  I don’t mean to be rude to you regarding your point about semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines.  My problem is with the numbers.  We’re talking about gun control in terms of banning “assault weapons” which are used only very rarely in murders. 

          Unfortunately, the reason Lanza killed as many children as he did was that he was shooting five year olds with a rifle.  I don’t think the outcome would be much different even if it weren’t semi-automatic, nevermind if he were simply restricted to a 10 round magazine in an otherwise legal rifle.  The Virginia Tech shooter killed a lot of people with a handgun and ten-round magazines, and he killed adults.  I agree that rifles and shotguns used for hunting aren’t the problem, but I think Lanza could have murdered a bunch of kids with a hunting rifle almost as easily.  Again, Lanza was successful, in large part, because he was shooting completely defenseless children, not because the rifle he used was “similar to weapons used by troops in Afghanistan.”

          The vast majority of murders are committed using cheap
          handguns that are sold and passed around in ways that are already
          illegal.  The vast majority of guns used to murder children are again, fairly cheap handguns.  If we want to talk about reducing murders, let’s actually talk about the common elements in so many murders:

          Cheap, illegally purchased or transferred handguns in the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.

          Illegal drugs, which are related to so many murders in American cities.  Most kids killed using guns aren’t white, suburban, or middle class.  They aren’t killed by a man with a rifle.  They’re shot by other kids or young adults in the inner city. 

          The problem isn’t, in my view, that people own assault rifles.  The problem is that we need medical care, including mental health care, provided to everyone while the government picks up the tab.  We need to end the war on drugs, because it’s hurting us and our neighbors, and we need to at least try to aggressively enforce our current laws before we add more laws which will, naturally, restrict the people that are already willing to follow them. 

          A minor point: the rifle cartridge used by Lanza is actually one of the least powerful rifle cartridges. Most hunting rifles are far, far more powerful. A WWII era M1 Garand, which is semi-automatic but has a fixed magazine that accepts 8 rounds, fires bullets packing twice the punch of those fired from a AR-15 clone. Either, of course, will kill a young child easily. Hunting rifles can be used to terrible effect by mass murderers — consider the DC Beltway sniper or the sniper at UT Austin.

          • Prairie_W

            This is from an early January report. 

            “It’s just weird [that he popped in earplugs] given what he was about to go do,” a source said. “It’s not like he had to worry about long-term protection of his hearing because he had to know he wasn’t coming back out of the building.”
            As police wrap up at least the
            crime-scene portion of their investigation into Lanza’s murderous spree that left 26 people dead in the school, including 20 first-graders, the
            earplugs are not the only evidence that shows Lanza might have carried habits either from the shooting range or the virtual world of video games into his real-world massacre.
            Lanza changed magazines
            frequently as he fired his way through the first-grade classrooms of Lauren Rousseau and Victoria Soto, sometimes shooting as few as 15 shots
            from a 30-round magazine, sources said.
            More than a week after
            the shooting, investigators were still finding bullets under doors and in carpets and walls in the school as they tried to match the casings to the magazines.
            Investigators are aware that frequent reloading is common in violent video games because an experienced player knows never
            to enter a new building or room without a full magazine so as not to risk running out of bullets. This has led them to speculate privately that this might be a reason that he replaced magazines frequently.
            Investigators have not said how many shots Lanza fired with the Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle after he entered the school by firing half a dozen rounds through the glass at the school entrance. Sources said that he fired approximately 150 rounds during the shooting spree.
            Hartford Courant

          • Unluckyimmortal

            Lanza reloaded a bunch of times and sprayed bullets around with an AR-15.  He killed 26 people at  Sandy Hook. 

            Cho Seung-Hui killed 32 people at Virginia Tech using two pistols, a .22 LR pistol with a 10 round magazine and a .9mm pistol with a 15 round magazine. 

            He didn’t use a rifle.  It would appear that he didn’t need to.  I don’t think Lanza would have been any less dangerous if he traded weapons with Cho.

            The “assault rifle” is a red herring.  Most people murdered with guns in the US are murdered by someone using a handgun.  Handguns have also been used in other mass murders, such as the Columbine massacre.

            Again, I don’t think the US has a gun problem per se, I think we have a violence problem. Focusing on the weapon the most recent mass shooter used is missing the forest for a tree, as is focusing on mass shootings at all.

          • Prairie_W

             You’re absolutely right about the violence problem.  We seem to have gotten to the point where each entertainment has to include more graphic violence than the one before. That doesn’t mean, in my book, that we don’t also have a gun problem.  What we do have are a batch of social ills more complex than our current Congress is willing to confront.  Biden has done a remarkable job in a short time, a job that reveals the complexity. 

            But we’re dealing with elections skewed by gerrymandering, not to mention vote suppression.  Even if we manage to move forward, it will be inch by inch.  If drawing the line at assault weapons makes things a little better (and saves more lives) then we’re honor-bound to draw that line, in my view.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      What an intelligent post!

    • hennorama

      Prairie_W – well said.  One must also consider how silly this “rationale” is.  Untrained citizens armed with semi-automatic small arms would have absolutely no chance against the US military if the US government suddenly turned on its own citizens.  No armed force currently in existence would have any chance either.

      • Unluckyimmortal

        That is the case, but in every oppressive state I can think of, in history or today, the police, not the military, is the force that turns on the citizens. 

        Think about the SS, or the NKVD, for example.  In Nazi Germany, it was the SS that suppressed dissent against the Nazi party, not the Wehrmacht.  In Stalin’s USSR, it was the NKVD, not the Red Army.

        Now think about the recent revolutions in Libya and Egypt.  In Libya, a large portion of the Libyan military defected to aid the revolutionaries.  The secret police remained loyal to Gaddaffi.  In Egypt, the army parked APCs and tanks in Tahrir square to protect the protestors from the police. 

        History shows us that when people successfully overthrow tyrannical regimes, it’s because they persuade at least some of the military to support them.  The enemy is always the forces of state security and control, rarely the forces constituted to protect the country from external threats.

        • hennorama

          Unluckyimmortal – TY for your response. Your points are well made and well taken.

          However, the US is far from analogous to Nazi Germany, Stalins’ Soviet Union, Gaddafi’s Libya or Mubarak’s Egypt. There are also the counter examples of China, and their use of their military to suppress the 1989 student protest in Tiananmen Square and nationwide, and the current civil war in Syria, that has lasted nearly two years thus far.

          • Unluckyimmortal

             That’s true, and I hadn’t remembered Tiananmen square.  What we’re seeing in Syria is a civil war that may be termed a revolution after the fact.  There are certainly a lot of Syrians in revolt right now and supported in that by at least part of the Syrian military. 

            The US is far from any of those authoritarian states that I mentioned.  I avoided drawing any parallel there between the US and those states because I don’t really think there are any. As worrisome as I find the willingness of mainstream political parties in the US to chip away at the Bill of Rights, we’re not there yet and not likely to be.

            However, my point is that, when we consider those states, we see that citizens that are forced to rebel against oppressive governments need to defend their revolution first from the police and other state security apparatuses, then, hopefully, secure military support within the state.  Obviously that didn’t happen in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR, but that describes almost exactly the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, or the Libyan revolution, or the Tunisian revolution. 

            In any case, successful revolutions occur only when the situation is so dire that some of the national military will defect to the revolutionaries.  To reach that point, the revolution must typically be defended from the low-level instruments of state security — in the case of the Libyan revolution for example, secret police with small arms and armored cars, not regular army soldiers with tanks and warplanes. 

          • hennorama

            Unluckyimmortal – as I said, your points were both well made and well taken. They also point out that civilians armed soley with small arms are unsuccessful against modern militaries. That’s the point – civilian small arms alone cannot win without the aid of modern military heavy weapons. This obviates the argument that US citizens and legal residents need semi-automatic, high ammunition capacity, and high rate of fire small arms as defense against a hypothetically tyrannical US government.

  • NrthOfTheBorder

    America’s obsession with guns is a disease, a curse stemming from outdated myth and misbegotten fantasy.  

    It’s time decent citizens speak as louder the gun lobby and call its advocacy what it is:  protection of profit built on stoking fear and feeding an immature and overwrought need to feel powerful. 

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      I agree … too bad that the cynical gun lobby has more lawyers and money and bought off Congressman to suppress the people’s right to free speech.

    • brettearle

      Well, I support what you say.

      BUT you’re forgetting that a lot of people regard gun rights as liberties for family protection and a fundamental regard for consititutional rights.

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        This argument is certainly the sub-text of the whole issue: “family protection” & “constitutional rights”.  

        But what kind of nation is it where a good many of its citizens feel compelled to protect themselves with firearms?  

        And what would you call your democracy if you had to take to the streets with guns? I’d say non-existent and…too late.

          

        • brettearle

          Oh, I `kinda’ strongly agree.

          But your complaint stems from an idealized perception of our Democracy.

          It doesn’t take into account the UGLY making of the sausage:

          that this country is FILLED with many angry, excessively fearful people, who need to cling to their anachronistic ideals.

          The Framers, I don’t think, geared the country toward the kind of entrenched convolution that our country has become:

          Cultural wars; mortal fear of 9/11-type  enemies; and an Economy that is highly unstable and perhaps continuously vulnerable and volatile.

          The Framers did not think of population explosions and nuclear power for Weaponry, much less for Energy.  

          The only way to get the fringe Right and the biased Libertarians off our backs is through a Formal Constitutional Congress & Convention for the purposes of transformation and revision.

          Yeah, right….

          In….Our…..Dreams….

  • Potter

    Why do we need assault weapons? Regarding those assault weapons already out there, why can’t this also be controlled through ammunition purchases?

     Cultural attitudes and a change in interpretation of the 2nd amendment can also go a long way.

    I am struck by the negativity of those who want stricter control over guns in this country- the use of the refrain that this will be  ”an uphill battle”. That starts off defeatist. 

    If only 1/3 of us have guns, then the other 2/3 should prevail.

    • WRB2

      Why do you need an automobile that goes 100 mph (or 150 for that matter)?  While do we all any alcohol in the blood system of drivers (Zero tolerance is my preference)?  Why do we nee electricity?  Because we choose to.  
      The federal government does not ban automatic weapons.  They require some special (onerous) licensing, tighter regulations (they can inspect your home at any time), and a $200 tax stamp.  Lets adjust that and take the same approach with assault weapons.  Many states ban automatic weapons and suppressors (cans or silencers), this is where people should be working.  Regulated by the Feds and controlled state by state.Just because I want something and you do not is not a reason to ban it.

      • BHA_in_Vermont

         The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 contains a provision banning the ownership of any
        fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986.

        The business of the $200 tax dated back to the era of Bonnie and Clyde. Implementing an onerous process and (at the time) costly tax to buy a fully automatic weapon made them pretty much non existent. Since no one was buying them anyway, the NRA didn’t mind the provision in the 1986 Act.

      • Potter

        By your reasoning, I say we collectively (we the people as represented by the government) should CHOOSE to ban automatic weapons just as forbidding weapons of mass destruction is a no- brainer. 

        Maybe someday we will choose to ban personal nukes. 

        Why on Earth does ANYONE need an assault rifle?

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

      just about any gun is an “assault weapon” the term is meaningless

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

        We are in a police state now and are being disarmed as such

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

          You’re too scared to think straight. Is this what gun ownership does to you?

          • brettearle

            She was probably that way before she put her finger on a trigger.

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

            bully I have never shot a gun

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

            charming men like you do give me pause it is usually butch men on both sides of the fight who end up being dangerous

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            Beth, I uphold your right to own any non-HC gun. Buy it, learn to use and store it, and never allow it in the hands of a minor who is not so trained, and agree to periodic checks and a mental evaluation. There, that was easy!

      • Potter

        The term is NOT meaningless. A kitchen knife of course can be used to assault. But by “assault weapons” we are talking about something SPECIFIC: the ability to shoot many rounds and kill many people at once. 

        I agree with TF below also, that your comment shows how scared you are. But if you think about it having more assault weapons out there will not make you feel any better… quite the opposite. Good grief! We are in a “police state” ??

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          We are in a police state when there are armed guards in schools and notions to plant them in movie theatres, which is what the victims families of Aurora may ultimately assert.

          • Potter

            right.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        I can help you: An assault weapon is one that is superior in force to the defenses of its target.

  • Richard Pigossi

    We must realize that the vast majority of gun-owners are decent, law-abiding citizens in whose name a fringe group of anti-government zealots in cahoots with a rapacious firearms industry are fighting gun control. The only solution is a national registry of all firearms. It will take time to implement, but most gun owners will comply once the requirement has the force of law and they realize that nobody is trying to take away their guns.

    • WRB2

      Could not agree more.  IMHO the ones that do not are part of the problem.  Sadly not the Sandy Hook problem, but another one.  They share a few causes but have more not in common.

    • brettearle

      Well-stated.  And a rational idea, at least theoretically.

      But is there more of a middle ground?

      To register all firearms, in a national database, has a `Big Brother’ feel to it, does it not?

      • WRB2

        So does ObamaCare, but that is part of the balance we have.  Democracy sucks but it’s 10,000% better than everything else ever invented.  It takes work and diligence on the part of the electorate.  In the past 50 years or so we have progressively lost our way with respect to that side of the equation. 

        Why not register, require training and certification?

      • Richard Pigossi

        Point taken, but is it really any different than having to register for Social Security? 

        • Thinkin5

           The NRA has a “registry” of gun owners. They know where most of the gun owners are and they are a potential threat to our democratically elected government. I resent their threatening my country’s government.

        • brettearle

          In a way, no….

          But Social Security benefits, to many–perhaps most–is more benign and less proprietary.  And, therefore, for one thing, entitlement programs are issued by the Government.

          But unless you’re in the armed forces, one’s firearms are  purchased privately–and, therefore, regarded, as one’s own business.

          • Richard Pigossi

            In the end it’s all in the packaging.

      • hennorama

        brettearle – do you get “a `Big Brother’ feel” when you register your vehicle(s)?

        Firearms and vehicles are roughly equivalent in both their numbers and involvements in fatalities in the US.  We require vehicle operators to pass an eye exam and a driving test, and to have a license on public roadways.  We also require vehicles operated on public roadways to be registered and insured.  Why can’t we do the same with firearms, especially in light of the risks involved when firearms are misused?

        Personally, I’d go a bit further than Pres. Obama, and require all firearms to be registered and insured if they are to be used off the owner’s privately-owned property.  This is similar to vehicle registration and insurance requirements.  I’d also require anyone purchasing a firearm to be certified free of “mental defect” via an examination by a mental health professional.  This would be somewhat similar to passing an eye exam for a driver’s license.
        I presented six “firearms ideas” about a week ago, the first 4 of which were in complete agreement with Pres. Obama’s, in this post:
        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/11/week-in-the-news-228#comment-763850960

  • IowaGerry

    I’m happy with my well-regulated militia called the National Guard. Don’t want another. Let the NRA crowd use hunting guns for sport and target guns for the range (leave that at the range), and (if so disposed) join paintball clubs. Leave the heavy weaponry to the real soldiers and trained police. My neighbors don’t need a bazooka or a semi-automoatice army-style rifle to exercise their pleasures.

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

      National Guard is the Government not regulated militia the point is to prevent a police state

      • imjust Sayin

        the point of this discussion is that gun owners are not well regulated militias.

        We can’t even get background checks on individuals.

        and as for mentally ill people?  a good red flag for me is a gun owner who refuses to join a well regulated militia, that is, a militia that eventually answers to the community… and honestly, that includes the government.

        any other answer has some element of dishonesty.

    • JobExperience

      I’m expecting a Bushmaster thug at the paintball court any day.

  • mumtothree

    While I am concerned with the easy accessibility of guns because of the gun-show and private sale loopholes, I am also concerned about what types of questions will be asked of applicants for gun permits, and how the licensing authorities will verify the information.  E.g. will there be a question on whether an applicant has ever consulted a psychiatrist, psychologist, therapist, or social worker?  Will the burden be on the applicant to show that the diagnosis is NOT a mental illness likely to tip him/her into gun violence?  Is there going to be a national database of “mentally ill” persons?  

    I think because that’s a slippery slope, and in the interest of privacy of personal medical information including mental health information (which is already accorded the highest level of medical privacy), the alternative is to maintain our relatively liberal policies on gun purchase, but put the burden on gun owners to show that the guns are being stored securely and used safely.  I like the insurance idea.  Cars are very dangerous, and most states require that drivers have insurance.  Large trucks are more dangerous, requiring a higher skill level and therefore a special license.  Inspections are required.  Only licensees should access to their own guns, and they should have to show their security measures to their insurers, e.g., you don’t keep the keys to the gun locker hanging on a hook next to it.

    • brettearle

      The mentally ill, if indeed they are accurately diagnosed, should not be disclosed, for reasons of firearm purchase–UNLESS they have a PRIOR history of violence or the threat of violence.

      If we go further than that–wherein we expose all those who have been diagnosed with a mental illness to a reduced opportunity for fundamental rights–then we are, for sure, trampling on the constitutional rights of the individual.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Off topic, but I’m sure people with mental health issues are quietly being denied employment without diligent cause due to new rules in health disclosure and it’s impossible to prove an applicant has been denied in court.

      • hennorama

        brettearle – this sounds a bit like “the one bite rule” for dogs and their owners.  It’s the old “well… he never bit anyone BEFORE” defense.
        My idea is different.  Rather than have this very involved database, and the risks to privacy, I’d require anyone purchasing a firearm to be certified free of “mental defect” via an examination by a mental health professional.  This would be somewhat similar to passing an eye exam for a driver’s license.  Since purchasing a firearm is optional, any mental health status disclosure would be completely voluntary. Further, the actual exam remains private and still subject to HIPAA.

        Consider also that The US military has done recruitment and predeployment psychiatric screening for nearly 100 years, focusing on identifying and disqualifying only those with gross psychiatric disorders. They recognize that not everyone should be given access to or training in the use of weapons designed to kill as many humans as possible in the shortest period of time.

        This seems reasonable, and something we might consider for firearms ownership, especially in light of the fact that one can legally purchase firearms with capabilities similar to military firearms.

        • brettearle

          I have not thought this through, to the degree that you certainly have.

          However, I ought to offer the following disclaimer.

          I do not now, and never have, supported an accessible database that would curtail, or has curtailed, any rights by individuals.

          As a matter of fact, when “On Point” had the director of a major mental health research organization on–affiliated with the NIH–shortly after Newtown, my own online comment was read by Tom Ashbrook.

          It was about how I was concerned that forced treatment of those individuals, who potentially could become violent, would take us down a slipper slope of the trampling of individual rights.

          But denying guns to those who have threatened violence is NOT really forced psychiatric treatment.

          However, it seems to me that an individual–who has not, as yet, been violent–would had to have demonstrated a flagrant and possibly repetitive form of behavior that would directly imply danger, before that person would be denied gun rights.   

          As for HIPPA and the disclosure of past history, you raise a very important point.

          But I am not at all sure that mental health appraisals, at the time, of purchase, will necessarily suffice.

          Such interviews may be fraught with bias by the practitioners and the interviews may be strategically geared toward negative checklisting.

          What’s more firearm applicants may easily conceal their pathology–both in an in-person interview and, possibly, via personality tests.

          By the way….

          I want to apology for all the effort you put in to explaining to me, what Romney met by Obama’s gifts to his electorate.

          I read your explanations.  It was appreciated–but at the time, I was too busy to respond.

          Thank you, again, for your effort.

          • hennorama

            brettearle – TY for your response and your kind words.

            My reference to “this very involved database, and the risks to privacy” was related to the new provision in New York State firearms and ammunition control laws that requires mental-health professionals to report potentially dangerous patients, and that if a person is found not to own any firearms, the patient would be added to a statewide criminal background check database. I didn’t mean to imply that you thought this was a good idea.

            I think this particular NYS provision is well-intended but fraught with potential problems, particularly privacy issues. That’s why I discussed my alternative idea of pre-purchase mental health certification of potential firearms buyers.

            This idea is not problem-free, but it removes the objectionable massing of searchable mental health records, and would seem to comply with HIPAA. Only the certification would be part of the purchase application, similar to a driver’s license eye exam. It also removes the issue of states not reporting mental health info to the NICS. To me, this is far superior to the present situation.

            Currently, one needs only to attest to never having been “adjudicated mentally defective” and never having “been committed to a mental institution.” And if the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) finds no matching record that shows an adjudication of mental defect or involuntary commitment (or other disqualifying records), then “the transaction is automatically proceeded.” This is much less restrictive than having the Buyer provide positive proof of being free from “mental defect.”

            While it’s certainly true that the applicant could try to conceal their pathology, having some sort of examination makes this less likely to be effective. And while the mental health professional might be biased (AKA “Dr. Firegood”), this problem could be combatted by the Professional Boards of Review, as well as the potential liability aspect if someone they certify to be free of “mental defect” purchases a firearm then murders someone the next day.

            Thank you again for your response.

  • Unluckyimmortal

    As a country, we’ve imprisoned millions more people than any other developed nation.  We can regularly read about police abuses of ordinary citizens in major American cities.  According to multiple supreme court rulings, the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect citizens, not even to properly enforce, say, restraining orders against dangerous people. 

    Last week, a brilliant and visionary young man killed himself because a federal prosecutor decided to make an example of him by charging him with felonies worth 35 years of prison time for “hacking” because he changed some very basic settings on his computer.  Under that same law, I could be prosecuted for changing my router settings to get it to work with my comcast modem.  I won’t be, because no federal prosecutor wants to come after me, but our government is clearly happy to criminalize broad categories of behavior and only go after the people it wants to. 

    Within the last decade or so, we’ve seen numerous laws that spy on ordinary citizens and restrict our rights in new and scary ways — see the USA PATRIOT ACT and warrantless wiretapping of American citizens in the USA, for example. 

    We’ve now elected a centrist politician that is very happy to expand executive power and viciously pursue whistleblowers like Bradley Manning.  Barack Obama is better than Bush, but neither party particularly loves the Bill of Rights anymore. 

    Why on earth would I trust the government, again?

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Oh, I barely trust the gov’t either, but I’m not loading up, either. It’s just enough for us to keep our heads above the sand than to be worrying about theoretical invasions by what- and whomever worthy of the National Enquirer.

      • Ray in VT

        I believe that there was an excellent documentary made in the 1980s called “Red Dawn” that laid out the case for using guns to repel an invasion by those darned commies.

        • WRB2

          да мой параноидальный друга, это то, что вы хотите думать. Вы должны беспокоиться больше о кибер-войне, чем традиционные

          • Ray in VT

            Care to translate?  I only know a few transliterated words of Russian.

          • WRB2

            yes my paranoid friend, that is what you want to think. You should worry more about cyber war than traditional

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            I think it says, “Chinese Chicken, Enjoy Our. All the Give.”

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          … let’s not forget the Chinese or the coming Zombot Apocalypse. Load! Aim! Fire!!! Ooops, missed again …

          • Ray in VT

            Come on, everybody knows that a cross bow or some sort of slicing weapon is better against the zombies.  If you make too much noise it just attracts more of them.

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

    first the guns then they will use medical information to
    lock up dissenters like a  fascist state
    that is how psychiatry was originally used to say people who don’t go along are
    dangerous and they will not even have to explain it they will say you are
    dangerously mentally ill and quietly lock you away for anything that could
    disrupt their rule you don’t have to threaten any one to be committed and those
    in government have armed guards all the time don’t forget it they have secret serves
    protection .

    • WRB2

      And we have something more powerful than a 50 cal, the vote.  Let’s start getting some good representatives in there who follow the electorate not the donors of big money.  Let’s get some representatives who find logical compromise and don’t have binary minds. 

  • JGC

    Does anyone ever fight to uphold Third Amendment rights? The First and Second seem to always hog all the attention…  

    • WRB2

      RATFLMAO!  Thank you

      • JGC

        Awhile back, I was considering changing my occupation to “socialite”, but the socialite business has pretty much gone bust since Jill Kelley got into all that trouble in the Petraeus episode. I identify myself as “socialite”, and bam, they slam the phone down.
          Now I am thinking about becoming a lobbyist on Third Amendment issues.  Seems like there is not much competition out there, so might be plenty of upside here.  Of course, I’ll first have to educate myself on the issues a bit, though having no real knowledge or expertise about guns never seemed to hold back Wayne Lapierre on being a champion of the Second Amendment.  Hmmm, still not sure if I should be FOR the Third Amendment, or AGAINST the Third Amendment…I think I can make a go of this, though…    

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Define “soldier”. Good Luck.

  • JobExperience

    Wowee! Guns as a pet project! That won’t work because all of American history and all of American (concentrated) wealth opposes peace. Gunism is a symptom of pathology. It is of little use to cut out a cancer in a rampant carcinogenic environment.

    Tom Hartmann got it partly right Monday when he observed that the Second Amendment is an artifact of Slavocracy, a Grand Bargain to get Virginia to ratify the Constitution. (Militia is the key word.) Moreover, gunism has been instrumental in Native American and racial minority genocide, sexist repression, and expecially enforcing the classism of wealth. Even the NRA ad calling Obama an elitist over the Secret Service protection of his daughters reinforces such an idea from several points of view. For instance, we are in the habit of assuming all our layers of police are there to protect the property rights of the rich before they protect human life or our Constitutional rights in general.

    If you get what I’m trying to communicate you will understand that far more radical changes are in order than keeping combat rifles and hollow nosed bullets off our streets. By delaying sobriety we’ve worked our commercial travesty to a place where the most radical right wing element are hoarding mass destruction in their dens, and where most of our citizens are so ill-informed and anxious they don’t care what rights they may have. A hard balancing act would be necessary to police media and the financial class while restraining the lawless militias these presiding Oligarchs might summon forth. James Yeager’s call to “start shooting some people” is gauging explosive force on the hatred dial.

    It has come to a point where people are entertained by the prospect of disaster because there remains no prospect of justice.
    Hijacking the economy by refusing to up the debt ceiling enhances the popularity of traitors as they exercise suicidal power. It’s not a trainwreck. Trains don’t veer too far from the tracks. Whatever chaos is created it is guaranteed that lower waged tax payers will be called upon to fill the resultant shortfall with job and compensation cuts along with denial of sustaining benefits. It doesn’t surprise me that the sadistic element runs toward the roadbed for a better view of catastrophe.

    This is not the “Restaurant at the End of the Universe” and it will be a shame if most of us are incinerated because the rich need Gunism.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      There’s our paranoid rant of the day.

      • JobExperience

        Thanx- I feel validated by your warped evaluation.

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          Anytime.

  • JobExperience

    The point was to suppress slave revolts. (find Thom Hartmann)

    Intended as reply to im Just Sayin, concerning militias

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      And later, to keep suburbs safe from free blacks.

      • JobExperience

        Did you shoot another “buck” this season Mr. Zimmerman?

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          Nice try … I may be from there, but I’m not one of “them”. Sure don’t need a fence, either, never mind a wall or gate with a guard.

  • jimino

    I just wish those who support the NRA’s position would be honest and admit that shootings like Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc., are inevitable in a country where there is a right to the type of guns they advocate, and that they are willing to accept those repeated occurrences as a price of exercising their rights.

    Their claimed concern for the dead victims is nothing but fake, sanctimonious bullshit.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Yup, if they had to pay for the right to bear such arms in the form of victim compensation, they’d claim poverty.

  • Molly Pittman

    The mentally ill are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      … victims of perpetual poverty and neglect is more like it, but I appreciate your post.

      • WRB2

        I think Molly meant the mentally ill are more likely to be shot than do the shooting.

  • JobExperience

    Look, this government has been unable to master asymmetrical warfare in any setting. (watch Algeria/Mali) Big Brother is a threat that makes terror examples by destroying a few individuals for show.

    But I doubt that most gun nuts are decent law-abiding citizens (for ill or good). Most boasters I debate on blogs assert that if chaos comes they’ll take what they want by force and firepower. When they are masked by Internet anonymity they get too frank. Registration then is a hopeful step and not a threat. After all, murdering is quicker and easier than healing, and Americans have been lulled into laziness. If I can get it by gun threats they think, then working for it would be stupid. Nihilism!

    Intended as a reply to R. Pigossi and bretearle on universal firearm registration. Disqus makes reply challenging. I wonder why.

    • WRB2

      “ this government has been unable to master asymmetrical warfare in any setting. ”  very sad and very very true.  I’m hoping the War Colleges take the hint here.  Heck, we won our freedom by using those tactics.  

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      So, you’ve visited survivalist websites? Kinda charming like the KKK, no? I’ve been there, too … same mindset. You’re right … guns are the lazy man’s answer to complex world problems.

    • Gregg Smith

      “Most boasters I debate on blogs assert that if chaos comes they’ll take what they want by force and firepower. ”

      That’s hard to believe. Or are they saying they will protect their family and property with force and fire power? That would be righteous but armed robbery is not. Most people are decent.

      • JobExperience

        So you come up with your piece on your hip and ask me if I think you are “decent”? Might as well say, “Go ahead and make my day.”

        We were having a good meeting at Riverkeeper Monday night. People had carried two disabled guests into the church because we didn’t have the ramp door key. People were talking candidly and making protest plans against the utility company. Then two armed men joined us and began talking about how we should not criticize the laudable corporation providing our electricity. Five minutes later the meeting broke up and the last 3 of us had to beg the armed men to leave so we could lock the building. Maybe you see the basis of my disgust.

  • JobExperience

    On Deterrance
    Too bad commentators don’t have audio.
    I want to hear Mari McAnenia bark like a big dog.
    (no offense meant, just want to test scariness)

    • WRB2

      If no offense was meant, why not delete this post after five minutes.

      Get some respect for people with opposing views and yourself.

      • JobExperience

        Mari is a person in Rhode Island I know personally and that was my way of offering my support for what she wrote. Generally, she and I are of a like mind on political issues. Not that it’s of concern to you.

        • WRB2

          Sorry, not the way I read it at all.  

  • http://twitter.com/DKM33 D K M

    http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/nov/09/officers-used-surprise-to-apprehend-fillmore-of/

    I work in Ventura County in California and most of the schools have resource officers. These deputies and police officers know the kids well, know the gangs, family histories, etc. They do a great job and do not just function as an enforcement tool. They are tied into the educational and psychological needs of the “at-risk” kids.

    • WRB2

      It would be wonderful for them to take the next logical step (at least it is to me).  Increase the number of COPs and get them out of the cars.  Let them get to now the people, become part of the community. 

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Point, but let’s be honest, LA isn’t like anyplace else.

  • Pete Van Slooten

    People who use the comment that they must have guns to protect against government tyranny are using these new regulations as an example of government tyranny. Whenever I hear someone use this reasoning, I have pictures of the branch dividians and other armed conflicts that end in tragedy. 

    Also game theory has shown that when mulitiple parties are both armed in a conflict situation, one or both parties are  more likely to be shot than if only one party is armed. More guns, even for protection = more homicide.

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      … which is why I keep pushing for a clear, uniform registry database and a ban on HC weaponry. To Hell with these self-appointed defenders against “Tyranny”, “Guhvinmint” and Spam.

      • WRB2

        What is HC to you? 

        To me I would say 25 for a .22 cal rifle, 15 or 20 for any rifle and say 17 for any handgun.  We should get rid of all the 50 cal rifles of any type.

        • TheDailyBuzzherd

          WRB2: 10 is a reasonable limit. Now, Ryan proffered a hypothetical scenario: What happens if he’s confronted by 3 gun toting strangers inside his home, he’s got only 3 bullets to use on each. Being that we now know that engaged cops only hit their targets 20% of the time, Ryan’s luck is in the red. So I suggested he got a gun for his wife too, because home invasions as the one in Cheshire, CT in ’07 are also rare. I’d also invite the possibility that enabling perpetrators with HC guns will only embolden them to use them … so STOP making them already and dispose of what is confiscated.

          • WRB2

            I do not disagree that 10 is an OK limit, I can think of times (e.g. hunting wild boars in the south) that I would like more.

            For home protection 10 is fine,  if I used my guns for that I would carry extra magazines and train at swapping them.  If I were to have a weapon for home protection it would be a shotgun and with two exceptions, if they carry more than 5 rounds IMHO they are too big to move within a confined space.

            I have never need to protect my family in that sort of situation.  Nor have I served in a combat situation. I remember my father telling me about new Nazi troops.  Shoot a few yards ahead of them and they freeze long enough to get them give up or make very good targets.  I’m not sure how I would react in a gun fight.  Pray I never need to.

            For someone who trains to swap mags quickly it a matter of between 1.5 and 3 seconds before they can send out another round.  So lets say three 10 round mags vs one 30, not a heck of a lot of difference.  Not enough time for targets to make an escape.

            The focus on the number of rounds in a magazine between 10 and 15 is silly.  We need to get the 30, 50 and 100 round mags off the streets.  I think it would not be a fight if we did it by size of the round and speed of the bullet.  

            A 22 LR can hold 25 where a 177 can only hold 15.  A 223 can only hold 15, where as a 9mm can hold 17.

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            I know gun enthusiasts get very precise in their knowledge of each class of arm and love to sling it, so for me to parse each one is impossible. The problem with most laws is their complexity. Only the hard core are going to take the time to read through everything, that’s why repeaters up to 10 is the perfect limit: Cuomo advised the range, up from 7.

            Net: 10 is easy to remember and manufacture.

            Note to anyone who disagrees: If you want to shoot assault rifles, join the Marines. We need a few more good men.

          • WRB2

            I agree that 10 is an easy number but so is 15.  I would submit that 10 will cause a much bigger fight than 15.  15 for all guns of any type.  I think it’s a good middle ground between the Como-ites and the crazy folks who want to keep their  100 round (that jam often thank God) mags.

            I think that if someone wants to have an assault weapon they should give five years to the national guard and qualify every year they own it from then on.

          • hennorama

            WRB2 – thank you for your thoughtful comments. 
            One point.  You typed “For someone who trains to swap mags quickly it a matter of between 1.5 and 3 seconds before they can send out another round.  So lets say three 10 round mags vs one 30, not a heck of a lot of difference.  Not enough time for targets to make an escape.”

            You may not be aware of this, but there were reports that the Newtown shooter paused long enough, maybe to reload or due to a jam, for some kids to escape.  According to The Hartford Courant’s website:

            “As many as a half-dozen first graders may have survived Adam Lanza’s deadly shooting spree at Sandy Hook Elementary School because he stopped firing briefly, perhaps either to reload his rifle or because it jammed, according to law enforcement officials familiar with the events.”

            Also, the guy who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six other people was stopped while trying to reload.

            Does that affect your views at all?

            http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-23/news/hc-lanza-gunjam-20121222_1_rifle-school-psychologist-classroom

          • WRB2

            No, it does not.  You can add to the list that the jerk in the theater stopped when his gun jammed with I think a 50 or 100 round mag in it.  Many large sized magazines are not as reliable as smaller mags.  Springs to move 100 rounds smoothly do not work as well the last 20 or so rounds.  That is why large machine guns use belts, they just work.

            On the plus side these jerks do not do enough training to be skilled enough to do more.  Thank God they didn’t.  

            I think 10 is a number where a lot of knowledgeable gun owners will say no step to the wrong side of the vote.  I think 15 is a fine number for all rifles and pistols and 8 shotguns.  We are up against a very formidable opponent in the NRA.  While they are doing some very silly moves right now they could wise up.

            If I were making the law I would say 25 for rim fire, 15 for center fire and 8 for shotguns.  All firearms no matter what the action type (bolt, semi-automatic, automatic).

            If he was reloading or clearing a jam we will never know.  Thank God it happened in Sandy Hook and in Colorado.

            Could you live with 15  if we can get it enacted quicker?
              

          • hennorama

            WRB2 – TY for your response. I don’t have a fixed number in mind as to ammo capacity limits, but 10 is just a nice round number. Certainly a limit under 30, but the new NYS limit of 7 seems too low. 15 seems too high, but I could live with it.

          • WRB2

            15 is where many hand guns are today.  I think we will have less of a fight with folks I prefer to call the mature responsible gun owners.

            15 for all firearms, PERIOD.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well as long as it “seems” thats a well reasoned argument. let me know what law “feels” right and we will pass that

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – again, I implore you to use a dictionary to determine the difference between “argument” and “opinion.”

            You could also read these articles:

            http://rhetoric.nuvvo.com/lesson/2292-argument-vs-opinion

            http://www.brad.ac.uk/developme/developingskills/academic_voice/index.html_08.htm

            Is this now strike eight or nine?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats this in response to?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            wow you really think the magizines are responsible for people murdering? like they would not have done it anyways. i guess you would have been happier if the aurora guy had just used the bombs(which he had) to blow the theater up?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lets do some math the cops took 10 minutes to arrive at sandy hook. a revolutionary minuteman could fire three rounds per minute with his muzzleloader. lets see thats 30 rounds in 10 minutes. lets stop being so silly thinking the gun is the problem its the guy who decided to murder a bunch of small children we should be worried about.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – congratulations on your arithmetic. Is your point that the police were too slow to respond in Newtown? How does that relate to my post that the Newtown shooter paused long enough, maybe to reload or due to a jam, for some kids to escape, and that the guy who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six other people was stopped while trying to reload?

            Also, please point out any instance where I typed anything like “the gun is the problem” Good luck in you quest.

            Strike eight? Might be seven, but I’ve lost count.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            100 round magazines suck we would all be alot safer if the criminals all had 100 round mags as they always jam

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and how will you dispose of the millions of legally owned guns?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          because no .50 cal rifles have ever been used in the commision of a crime we should ban them? how fast should cars be allowed to go?

          • WRB2

            That style of argument less that than productive.  I don’t like banning anything.  I would rather the government make it VERY expensive to purchase (with taxes) and continue to own (registration fees and inspections) something like a .50 cal.  Ma Duces make a powerful impression on people and so do the bolt actions that are easy to come by.  While I think we should not allow them, I kind of worry about starting to draw a line and then five years from now some wacko cutting back more and more.  We can not own an RPG so why should we make it easy for someone to own a .50 cal?  Charge $1000 tax for the purchase and $300 per year after that.

            I feel the same way about assault weapons.  First one costs $200 to purchase and $100 per year to own.  You need to take a hands on class and pass a live-fire test every two years.  Register and micro-stamp all firing pins (makes people feel better but does not work).  If you want a second then the purchase tax and yearly registration fee doubles.  Third it double the second, and so on and so on.  Use the money for education, care and feeding of the background check databases and fund School Marshals people who are randomly stationed at schools who can not afford a full time professional resource who is armed.  The school marshals program should be run and staffed by the county sheriff deputies with guidance from local principles and such.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            making it so difficult and expensive just funnels people into the illegal market expecially poor people. why should they have any less of a right to defend themselves? for example in mass when the changed the laws we went from 1.5 million legal gun owners to 300,000 it dosent make the guns go away just ensures that they are in the hands of folks who don’t care so much about the law. i really don’t see how the .50 cal even comes into this since no one has ever used one in a crime in the US. they are already huge and very very expensive. a gangbanger would have a real hard time trying to haul one of those around. also  why is more than one gun bad? (you can really only shoot one at a time)
            we should make it easy for anyone who is legally allowed to own and maintain weapons if they desire not only because thats their right but because it is the right thing.
            btw all schools are allready full of professionals they just need to be allowed to exercise their rights at work more freely and i am guessing you arent from Mass since county sherrifs dont really have any law enforcement power here they run the jails. maybe they could be trianed like jail guards? lol

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what’s wrong with owning .50? a .50 has never been used in a crime in the USA. so thats a red herring and a scare tactic. this program of excessive fees is already in use in Mass to disenfranchise people of lower socioeconomic classes from exercising their legal right in a legal manner. making it super expensive will just funnel otherwise law abiding people into the illegal market.
            our schools are already full of professionals you need only make it easier for them to exercise their right of self defense at work. lol its clear you are not from Mass the sheriffs are not law enforcement but they only run the jails. maybe you would like the schools to be more like the jails?

          • WRB2

            My opinion about .50 cal will not change, they could cost a Extra large amount to own.

            I’m not talking about owning any type of gun, I talking about what people are calling assault rifles.  We might call them semi-automatic rifles and realize there is not a lot of difference between them and an old Remington hunting rifle you fathers used to use.  

            I am not talking about increasing taxes on ownership of bolt action or break action rifles, semi-automatic that are not  ”assault rifles”, or handguns.  Some of the things we are talking about will impact hand guns. (e.g. I would prefer to limit all magazines in all fire arms to 15).

            You can still get a M94/31 with a can of ammo for about $250 with transfer fees.

            I’m not saying we should disenfranchise anyone.  What I am saying that if you want one there should be a reasonable fee.  Keep in mind that a complete AR starts at about $700 or so, add a few mags, a strap and some ammo and you are at $1000 in no time.  If you can afford $1000 you can save another month or two and pay the $100 or $200 fee for your first.  If you assault weapon was imported then the fees double.  How you get it, make if from parts, from a kit or completed you pay the registration fee.  By it from an individual sell, you pay the fee.  You buy your second and it all doubles, third it doubles again (400 or 800 at that point), fourth it doubles again.  If you want to own a dozen AR/AK/FALs then you better have very deep pockets.  Oh and mix and match gets treated the same, it’s the segment (assault weapons) that has the tax.

            If deputies can guard prisoners they can guard our children.  Might be a good break from time to time for them to rotate through.

    • Gregg Smith

      If Waco isn’t an example of government tyranny, nothing is.

      • Duras

        As horrible as Waco was, memory serves me that there was a tank involved–so, are you suggesting that citizens be allowed to buy tanks and start a neighborhood airforce to combate a government that supposedly has democratically elected officials? 

        Because if the 2nd Amendment was really to combate an American government (which it is not), then isn’t it un-Constitutional for the government to have a military stronger than what the average militia (or citizen I suppose) can carry?

        Or, do you not always think before you write?  

        • Gregg Smith

          Now that was just weird. No, I don’t remember a tank.

          • Duras

            You are implicating that the 2nd Amendment is for the people to have guns in case their own government becomes tyrannical (which really isn’t at all what the 2nd is for).  If that is so, then by your backward right wing logic, either civilians must have the ability of owning arms that would out match the military’s, or the military needs to weaken their arsenal so they can’t overrun the civilian population.   Otherwise, it is utterly unrealistic (as most right wing theory is) to think that a lone civilian with an assault rifle can protect him or herself from a tyrannical government.

            If you are to assert that the 2nd is for such purposes, you need to flush out the rest of the logic. 

            Here is a tap of the tank:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KpQxS1KA5k

          • Gregg Smith

            I guess I misunderstood the depths of your depravity… with all due respect. The Branch Davidians didn’t have the tank, the government did. And your argument is the Koresh crew should have one too… or something. Just don’t be infringing them, that’s all. Tyrannies burn you (and your children) alive. They come at you with tanks.

            Speaking of which, you wrote: “… it is utterly unrealistic (as most right wing theory is) to think that a lone civilian with an assault rifle can protect him or herself from a tyrannical government.”

            BS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-nXT8lSnPQ

          • Duras

            China is just a model of democracy now.  Gee, I bet if he had an M16, they would have unions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            maybe you should go listen to what the dali llama says about self defense and dealing with the chinese using non violent tactics

          • jefe68

            Hyperbolic BS.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol its the people vs the tyrannical govt not one person

          • WRB2

            There was an armored vehicle of some type, might have been a tank but I do not remember the pictures.

          • Prairie_W

             The Special Counsel noted that the military provided “extensive” loans
            of equipment to the ATF and FBI including, among other things, two tanks
            the offensive capability of which had been disabled. Additionally, the
            military provided more limited advice, training, and medical support.
            The Special Counsel concluded that these actions amounted to indirect
            military assistance within the bounds of applicable law. The Texas
            National Guard, in its state status, also provided substantial loans of
            military equipment, as well as performing reconnaissance flights over
            the Davidian complex. Because the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to
            the National Guard in its state status, the Special Counsel determined
            that the National Guard lawfully provided its assistance. …Wikipedia on the post-Waco “[Senator] Danforth report”

          • Gregg Smith

            Looks like tyranny to me.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          the afgans dont have tanks or planes (which americans can and do have) yet they ave held us off for over a decade

      • jefe68

        So you supported David Koresh?

        • Gregg Smith

          I am not in favor of the government burning children alive.

          • jefe68

            That’s not what I asked you.
            What happened at Waco was tragic and gross incompetence on part of the government. You use hyperbolic memes such as “tyranny” as it’s easy for you’re extremist paranoid world view.  Today your true colors have come out, right wing extremist. 

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s not about me.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            when the ATF murders kids with AR15s no one blames the guns for some reason

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

          There’s just something weird about how David Koresh is the right’s go-to poster child.

          Not defending what the government did, but it passes the laugh test about “If it could happen to Koresh it could happen to any innocent Jed Clampett hunting rabbits or Hatfield and McCoy defending their property”.

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m not dealing with “If it could happen”, it’s what happened.

      • Prairie_W

         It was great example of incredibly bad judgment on the part of one (lousy, I thought) Attorney General not comparable — or even close — to a president and vice-president lying us into two wars.  Now that was “tyranny,” particularly since Congress was conned (lied) into going along with it.

        I was living near Waco.  It was deeply shocking, horrible.  But you’d have to be a real wingnut to have seen it as government tyranny.  Government incompetence in spades? yes.  And, for me, reminiscent of the “Move” raid in Philadelphia in which the authorities went nuts. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so whats your suggestion?

  • Duras

    56% of republicans think teachers should carry guns:

    “Hey teachers, even though we believe that you are not only overpaid parasites who are the thrust of our budget problems, even though you statistically make less money than your fellow-college educated counterparts in the private sector, even though we want to deprofessionalize you and take away your only realistic ability to ask for a raise in pay, we want you to not only educate the future of America but gun down anyone who comes to the school with a high powered weapon that our representative republicans have allowed to be legally available.”

    God Bless America

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      Hoo boy … my ex-stepfather ( Thank God ) had no problem cutting into teacher pay, never mind he got overpaid in his useless career. For teachers to have this level of distraction, gun violence, really doesn’t help our already compromised educational system.

      BTW … wanna make schools better, parents? Take away your kids’ gadgets, monitor TV and ‘puter time, and throw ‘em outside to play in the yard if ya got one … as for older kids, have school start times synch with their bodies and have the young kids go earlier! My 2 1/2¢.

  • omahas9000

    I believe most, the vast majority for that matter of people are “good.”  Certainly there are those who might be considered dangerous folks, I’m thinking of the sort of vigilante or posse commitatus types, but I believe they comprise a very small percentage of American citizenry.  Maybe I’m living with closed eyes, but I don’t think so.
     
    I had fully supported the 1994 gun restrictions and frankly didn’t think they’d gone far enough.  That was then.
     
    However, I am fully reversed at this point.  I don’t believe the proposed restrictions on gun types and magazines will have a measurable effect upon crime.  Not now, not in the coming years.  Since I don’t believe any such restriction will be effective it becomes far more important to me that I don’t believe it right to impinge the freedoms of nearly all citizens in what I believe will be a fruitless effort to eliminate the actiions of a very few.  I don’t like the idea of allowing the one bad student to keep the entire class from going out for recess.
     
    I do support increased buyer scrutiny, I think that might make some difference.
     
    Most certainly not only because of the recent tragedies will I state that I do believe the mental health system needs a major review and probably major tweak.  This is a system doing a deplorable job of seeing to a large sector of our nation.  Doing so will cost all of us, but today it is not a system functioning well and it badly needs attention.  I think many will benefit in the long run.  The problems with this system won’t be repaired over night, but work needs to begin soon, serious work.  One earlier poster has noted that the mentally-ill are more likely to be the victims of abuse than the perpetrators thereof.  That is a very true statement.  However, there is clearly no question that those involved in the recent tragic incidents were seriously “mentally challenged.”  Could it be that the stigma borne by those with mental illness might have acted to prevent one or more of these individuals from receiving care, possibly preventing their actions?  Of course I don’t know, but it’s certainly possble.  The mental health “problem” is a huge issue which will take an awful lot of work to meaningfully improve, there are so many sides to it, but our nation should be able to do a better job of serving those with mental issues rather than what I believe is too often a “sweep ‘em under the rug”, a “just put ‘em in the back room” sort of environment.
     
    Sorry to have run on so, but one last comment, please.  I sure hope those who want to bring about these “gun” changes are happy that their efforts have brought about the sale of millions of rounds of ammunitition and many, many thousands of “assault” rifles, to say nothing of other firearms.  Their actions have resulted in a virtual backfire before they’d even started.

  • hennorama

    Two birds, one stone idea:

    Balance the Federal Budget with a $100/round tax on ammunition.  Roughly 10 billion rounds are sold annually in the US, and the deficit is roughly $1 Trillion.  As Pres. Clinton said “It’s arithmetic.”

    • $24351792

      Bullets only for the wealthy. How elitist and tyrannical of you! But we live in an age when no government would ever become oppressive to it’s citizens. We live in an age past history don’t we? You’re a useful idiot. Nazi’s and Commies would love to use you and kill you second. 

      • hennorama

        Guest – TY for your response. I anticipated similar comments. Given that you’ve signed in as “Guest” you likely don’t realize that I occasionally make satirical, sarcastic and reductio ad absurdum comments.

        Although, a $100/round tax would very likely eliminate innocent bystander deaths, and drive-by shootings. Of course, many would “load their own,” but alternatively one could regulate lead as a controlled substance.

        And do you seriously think only “the wealthy” could afford $100? Not very well-thought out there, Guestie.

        Congratulations on your bravely anonymous impolite extremism.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          and that would show all those people who want to train for the olympics too right!

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – the post you commented on includes these words “you likely don’t realize that I occasionally make satirical, sarcastic and reductio ad absurdum comments.”

            I suggest you employ a dictionary, and/or take a course in reading comprehension.

            I believe you are up to strike seven now.

      • hypocracy1

        Looks like someone forgot to take their meds…  don’t forget to schedule that follow-up appointment with your mental health physician.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      thanks chris rock! the goverment just bought 1.5 billion rounds. why do they need enough ammo to shoot every american 5 times?

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – again, are you attempting to address my post or simply asking a rhetorical question? Your question does not address my post. I am not part of “the government,” so I can only speculate about your question, which notably cites no source for the assertion that ” the goverment just bought 1.5 billion rounds.”

        Assuming you are discussing non-military ammunition purchases, one needs only consider the use in training exercises, as well as equipping those who use firearms as part of their job. If you have any actual evidence of some nefarious intent behind your claim, please provide it ASAP. And also please provide some evidence that actaully proves your claim that “the goverment just bought 1.5 billion rounds.” Proof as in original reporting, not echoes of the claims of others, if you please.

        Are you on strike five or six now?

  • Brandstad

    According the latest Gallup survey, which was taken after the Sandy Hook murders and Wayne LaPierre’s press conference, the NRA, despite being demonized 24/7 in the media, enjoys afavorability rating of 54%. Today, according to Gallup, Obama’s approval rating sits at 53%. 

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/01/17/Media-Ignore-NRA-and-its-ideas-as-popular-as-obama

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      I have a habit of going against the grain and have no insecurity about it whatsoever. Besides, anyone can manufacture numbers, kinda like poop. It happens.

    • Duras

      The assault weapons ban is approaching 60% approval.  If it hits 60% before the state of the union address, Obama is going to hammer republicans accross the all the networks on the issue. 

      • WRB2

        It should not be a ban.  It should be highly taxed and tightly controlled (registered, owners trained and tested).  Let the states ban what they want. The federal government should make it safe, let the individual states ban what they want.

        • Duras

          Adam Lanza’s mother bought the assault weapon and moved it into her state where it is banned.  A federal ban would have prevented Adam Lanza from getting his hands on the gun.

          But it is nice to see republicans are starting to use the “let the state decide” rhetorical technique.  Not that you are necessarily a republican, but that is the rhetoric they employ when they no they are losing an issue. 

  • Brandstad

    A new CNN poll released today shows that an overwhelming majority of the America people agree with the NRA’s proposal to put armed guards in schools, 54% to 45%.

    This same polls shows that while a similar percentage of Americans favor stricter gun laws (55% to 44%), a full 61% do not believe those laws would reduce violence. 

    http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/3381

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      How much are you being paid, exactly?

    • TomK_in_Boston

      I have no problem putting armed professional officers in the schools, but those who don’t believe in paying for the USA might have a hard time finding the funding as municipal budgets are slashed.

      It’s similarly amusing to hear the Official Party Line of trying to misdirect any talk of guns to mental health, since the right won’t pay for any of the associated costs.

      I think the NRA was offering armed gun nuts to volunteer in the schools.  Definitely don’t want to go there.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

        Can anyone say, “Police State”?

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Yeah, I know.

    • hennorama

      Wow, that really “overwhelming” – 54%, huh?  MOE is 3.5%, making this as low as 50.5%.  Count me as “underwhelmed.”

    • hennorama

      Brandstad – there are two inaccuracies in your post. You described CNN’s showing that 54% “agree with the NRA’s proposal to put armed guards in schools.”  This is inaccurate on in two ways:

      1.  CNN’s polling question did not mention the NRA.  The question was “Would you favor or oppose a proposal to put armed guards in every school in the country?”  I suspect the result of the poll would have been different had the question mentioned the NRA.

      2.  The NRA proposal was not “to put armed guards in every school in the country” but was instead to “to put armed police officers in every school.”  BIG difference.  It also called for using volunteers – “an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens.”.

      Imagine if the question had instead been “Would you favor or oppose raising taxes by billions of dollars to pay for the NRA’s proposal to put armed volunteers and armed police officers in 132,000 schools across the country?”  One doubts the polling outcome would be similar.

      • Prairie_W

         Makes me wonder whether there should  be a poll measuring the approval rating of the  NRA and asking “If you could put the NRA out of business, would you?”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what would the point of that be?

  • $24351792

    Simple answer to these Gun Control proposals: “Nope!” No matter what, the answer will always be No. 

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

       Thanks, Party of No One.

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    Derick: I think it’s called S A R C A S M.

  • Brandstad

    So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?
    Because these weapons have been used in many murders, and crimes involving them have increased dramatically in the last 20 years, when gun control advocates coined the term “assault weapon,” right?
    Wrong. According to the FBI’s most recent Uniform Crime Report, a summary of all serious crimes committed each year, in 1992 violent crime incidence was 752 per 100,000 people and 9.3 murders per 100,000.
    In 2011, the violent crime rate had dropped to 386 per 100,000 and the murder rate to 4.7 per 100,000 — nearly a 50 percent decline in both. This precipitous drop occurred at a time when the number of firearms increased dramatically — including the sale of more than six million “assault weapons.”

    • Sy2502

      None of these laws are made with any kind of common sense. We already know the assault weapon ban during Clinton did NOTHING, not a single thing, so what do we do? The same thing all over again. 
      And all this talk of mental illness, has anyone actually bothered to check statistics about mental illness and violence? Because if they did, they’d find out that mentally ill people have the same incidence of violence as mentally sane people.
      This data is publicly available, so I can’t believe the law makers didn’t already know them. Which shows all their bad faith. The problem is that their political followers swallow everything their politicians say without even bothering to look into it for themselves. Why have a brain and think for themselves what they can just regurgitate political propaganda spoonfed to them?

      • WRB2

        It didn’t do anything because folks found way too many loop holes.  We need something better thought through.  

        I’m torn on as I see the reason for SKSs for hunting and sport but many people see it as an assault rifle.  I see NO reason to own an AK be it 47 or 74.  The AR platform while not as robust and simple is much more flexible.  You can make one shot 22 LRs with the change of a bolt.  You can make the straight pull bolt action with a new upper.  You can shoot .410 shotgun rounds with a new barrel and upper.  How to manage the control of guns is as complicated as identifying the causes (root cause to me denotes a single cause and there isn’t) of mass shootings.

        • Sy2502

          It didn’t do anything because 
          a) Most gun violence does not involved assault weapons anyway
          b) Making something illegal doesn’t make it magically poof out of existence

          Also I have a real issue with the “you don’t need …XYZ” argument. Last I checked, in free America we don’t need to justify why we buy something, or whether we need it or not. Unless of course next thing we know, Obama is going to come pick a fight about my closet full of shoes, and how I don’t need that many. No, the onus is on the government to provide a darn good reason for why I can’t own something. And so far they haven’t.

          I absolutely agree with you that the issue is complex, which is why knee jerk laws are the worst possible thing, because as you said, we need something well thought out, something that really addresses the problems. 

          • WRB2

            The time to start the conversation was 15 years ago.  When we start down the road of talking after a major event we get into knee jerk mode.  If the NRA had any clue about how to approach meaningful change we would not be in the place we are.

            I agree with the idea of freedom.  We have enough laws on the books, we need better ways to enforce them.  Same old tired ways are just not working.  It will cost us more money but the end will be much better.

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

            Agreed to much, but at some point a reasonable question one may ask is if the NRA wants “reasonable change”.

          • WRB2

            The NRA has become nothing more than a PAC that is cloaked in the clothes of a grass roots organization.  

            They do perform a lot of great things (e.g. education) but so do a LOT of other organizations (e.g. Project Apple Seed).

            They are a PAC and I do not like any PACs, even ones I agree with.

  • Brandstad

    So, why all the political focus on “assault weapons”?
    The 2011 FBI data shows that there were 323 murders committed with rifles of any kind. However, guns defined as “assault weapons” by the federal government were used in less than 0.5% (one-half of one percent) of all murders with guns in 2011.

    • jimino

      So what you’re saying is that, statistically speaking, nothing happened at Sandy Hook.  We therefore need not consider it in policy making.

      I disagree.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        maybe we need to stop making laws for the general public to respond to isolated incidents its like punishing the whole class because one kid is being a jerk. It was not right in school and its not right now. not to mention that any of the laws currently being discussed would have prevented sandy hook

  • Mike_Card

    Gonna make a cherry pie after all that pickin’ ?

  • Duras

    Politics of Guns in America:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NABTiVUnh0

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    Legislation is like old computer code. It oughta get the broom and be stricken from the books and rewritten from the first word on. If we didn’t keep writing all this crap and getting things all complicated we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. Problem is, all states have to be aboard, hence the dream.

  • hennorama

    Here’s an example of how the use of data can help enforce firearms laws, and get rid of firearms from those not allowed to have them:
    “SACRAMENTO, Calif.—California’s attorney general says the nation should follow the state’s lead in seizing guns from felons, the mentally ill and others who are not allowed to possess firearms.
    In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Kamala Harris says the state’s Armed Prohibited Persons System has led to the confiscation of more than 10,000 illegally held weapons since it was created in 2006.
    The computerized system cross-checks five databases to find people who bought firearms but are not permitted to own them. State Department of Justice agents have conducted a series of sweeps, seizing 1,900 weapons last year alone.
    California is the only state with such a system.”
    http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_22396775/calif-gun-control-program-offered-federal-model
    Prior to 2006, there were no available resources or existing processes to compare and match firearms registration and/or ownership records with records on people prohibited from possessing or legally acquiring firearms.  Then came the passage of California SB950 and the development of the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS.)

    Cal-DOJ populates APPS with all handgun and assault weapon ownership info and matches it against criminal history records.  This determines who might fall into a prohibited status. Automatic notifications from State and Federal criminal history systems are received daily to determine if there is a match for a current California gun owner. When a match is found, the system automatically raises a flag to Firearms Division staff, which triggers an investigation into the person’s status.

    APPS also allows officers in the field to get immediate info about a suspect’s status, helping to enforce laws that prohibit certain people from possessing firearms.

    Sources:
    http://www.nascio.org/awards/nominations/2006California6.pdf
    http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12010.php
    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/Cfl2007.pdf?

    • WRB2

      I like the idea but part of me wants it to be on a state level, not federal.  That said all states should share 100% of their information with each other.  There needs to be a standard way of categorizing people as some states will have higher bars to purchase than others.  Feds should set a basic level but leave some aspects (like which/how much/how long with things like mental illness).  I haven’t a clue right now on how I might implement the Mental Wellness aspect of gun control.  My gut tells me we need to get the basics down and come back around again for a check on that aspect, say in three years.  We really need to admit that this is going to take several passes over ten years to get it right.  Set peoples expectation up for that now.  Put in place some measurements and metrics that everyone can watch and see that measure how good we are doing.  Let’s run this with respect, honesty, transparency and communications.  Not like the patriot act.

      • hennorama

        WRB2 – TY for your response. I appreciate your views. I agree that the initial changes to firearms laws and regulations will need periodic review, especially in light of some failures of prior law. Given that there are something approching 300 million small arms in private hands in the US, any changes will take time to implement and to show even marginal impacts.

        The California APPS system reflects the particulars of state law there, including the list of both felonies and misdemeanors that disqualify one from firearms possession. The software could easily be customized by state, but it requires state willingness to use the system. As it stands now, putting it as neutrally as possible, the record of state information reporting is spotty. This is partly due to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that held that state reporting of mental health records is optional, and partly due to differing state and regional attitudes and politics.

        Events can provoke change, however. Witmess the changes in Virginia law and reporting after the Virginia Tech shooting, where the shooter bought firearms despite being ruled mentally ill. Virginia did not report that info to the Federal database because of a legal loophole. The law
        there has been changed and Virginia now leads the US in per capita mental health reporting.

        see:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595704578244153323837058.html

        I have a different take on the mental health aspect that cuts through some of the associated problems – require a pre-purchase mental health certification of potential firearms buyers.

        This idea is not problem-free, but it removes the objectionable massing of searchable mental health records, and would seem to comply with HIPAA. Only the certification would be part of the purchase application, similar to a driver’s license eye exam. It also removes the issue of states not reporting mental health info to the NICS. To me, this is far superior to the present situation.

        You can see more about this idea in some of my earlier posts:

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/11/week-in-the-news-228#comment-763850960

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/11/week-in-the-news-228#comment-764034012

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/17/president-obamas-call-for-action-on-guns#comment-771149315

  • Tyranipocrit

    NY has passed the strictest gun laws in the States.  Assault weapons are banned.  Real time background checks will be mandatory.  and more.  The other states should follow suit.  NY and cuomo are shining examples for humanity.  It doesnt go far enough because i detect some loop holes for gun nuts but it is more than we’ve seen before.

    The 2ndamendment was instituted to protect slave controlling militias in the south.  Well-regulated state militias regulary brutalizing, bullying and lyinvhing slaves kept them in check.  They regularly checked slav homes for weapons, including guns, confiscated them, and sentences the slaves to 20 lashings.  it was mandatory for all white citiznis to serve in the militias (or lynch mobs) and special waivers allowed you to be exempt. When people ask–why didint all those slaves revolt–it wass because the well-regulated armed militia made rounds everyday thruought the south–performing terrorism.  The NRA is historically a part of this–terrorists by nature, terrorists by conception, by history. The senate accepted the 2nd amendment to placate the southern states and keep the states united.  A federal army was one way to break up the militias and erode slavery–the fed could call up soldiers in all states to serve elesewhere and that included the lynch mobs–without lynch mobs in full capacity–the cohesion of slavery controlled by the terrorist south was threatened–one of the reasons why they objected to a federal army.  The federal power also enabled them to call up slaves to fight–further breaking the control over the slaves–to serve meant freedom.  The brits used this tactic in the revolution.  It later led to emancipation and victory fot he north in the civil war.  The well-regulated terrorists with their guns then unified under kkk and nra and such continuing to terrorize human beings–murdering, and threatening people with guns.  The 2nd amendment is a token for terroists and its history is grounded in slavery and terrorism. it is clearly about bearing arms in a well-regulated state controlled militia–such as a national guard, such as the brownshirt thugs organized by the southern states to kill and terrorize. 

     

    • Mia Bostic

       Wow, that’s something I never knew.

      • WRB2

        I never did either.  I’m betting he is a French model….everything you read on the internet is true….why not……

        Yaknow, I think we have found a new level of spin.  Makes CERN look like a Merry Go Round.  Be careful of the God Particles my friend, could mix with matter and then nothing would matter.

        • Tyranipocrit

           why dont you people talk to me,rather than about me.  If you think i ma nut you clearly are ignorant of your history.  Knowing history and fact ddoes not make you a nut.  it is called being informed.  i reccomened and education.  I will tell you another thing–there was a president named JOhn F. Kennedy.  No its true.  Im not a nut–he really was president–its in your history books.  I suggest you look it up.  And stop talking about me–talk to me.  i am happy to respond without hostilty.  I know some of you dont really want truth–you like your bearded white gods in the sky and you like pretty fairry tales with good and evil and the villain wears black, never red, white, and blue–and everyone is evil except americans.  i wonder, then, were all the storm trroper and plumbers on the death star innocent?  Did they choose to be on the dark side because like the emperos story better–the one where they all very very special and can do know wrong but everyone else out there on those other planets–they are so very bad. right?  read a few books.  And i am not french–you would have known that if you knew anything at all about hiistory, as my name is not french but it is timeless and forgotton and speaks volumes.

          • Tyranipocrit

             and dont comment on my typing to deflect the issue. my hands hurt. if you must know I am an American and i was trained to use a weapon but i abhor them.  Its easy to kill, not so easy to find a huamne solution.  i dont fear peaople–i dont need to shoot them.  Think about why you want to shoot people?

      • Thinkfreeer

        My wow, was holy crap! What a nut!

    • WRB2

      Tyranipocrit, please keep in mind that much of our early days fighting wars was much in the style we call today terrorism.  Though it did not have all the parts we see today (e.g. terrorist willing to kill themselves for the cause) the colonists did not fight all there battles in lines the way the Brits did.

      I would like to submit to you that the thugs (brown shirt, white hood, what ever) used the 1st and 2nd amendment to their advantage.  It’s sad but that is no reason to scrap them.  We need to move forward, acknowledge the past that make things better.  

  • Tyranipocrit

    Why is it acceptable for the government toenact tyrannical policies that virtually erase our bll of rights thru the patriot act, etc. and w can do nothing about it and life goes on as and ther eis no revolt–as there should be.  Why is that we accept widespread police brutality–and a plicie force that is martil and using military weapons and we do nothing and it is not mentioned in the media and nobody cares.  Why is that the feds can enact foreign policies like nafta and cafta and WTO and IMF and we have NO say whatsoever–we have to put up and shut up –no matter how much it contributes to world wide terroism.  We go to war all the time without any say whatsoever–we have to obey–remember war is never democratic or grassroots–we are told of a new country that is a threat and we must go to war–and we can do nothing about it accept die–if ur poor.  countries you never heard of and suddenly they are everything.  war should be a mass movement that the nation agrees on in self-defense–not profit and power for a few individuals. So, why then must we all have to aggree unaminously to control guns or even ban them–why cant we just do it.  i think people will put and shut up after a period of complaining but frankly ther is nothign they can do about it–the government does what it wants and apathetic americans accept it and actually find reasons to agree with soemthign they fundamentally know is against reality because shoping, and conformity is easier.  So why dont we jsut take the guns away–at least make very strict laws.  The people will aaccept–why do we keep taking about issues that matter but we kust take action when it incolves the rich in thier exploits to terrorize other nations and suck th eblood of american and steal from americans and rape amercan and rob us.  we do nothing we accept it.  people will eat sh33 if you feed it to them. so lets make them eat their vegatables. its good for us.

    • WRB2

      We did have a say with NAFTA, could have elected Ross P, never would have happened.  For the past four years we have been busy getting out of wars that we went into with our eyes wide shut.  There are people out there in countries that need our help.  Some times we do, other times we don’t, and some times it’s way later than IMHO it should be.
      There are many of us who do not want a ban at the federal level, but will accept rules and regulations.  If there is a ban on anything let it be put into place at the state level.  At least we have a better chance of removing those jokers quicker.
      We have strict laws now, we need to tweak them (e.g. universal background checks for ALL gun sales) and find ways to enforce them more effectively (e.g. more ATF agents, dump the stupid rules about only one inspection per year, more police on the street NOT in cars).  Problem is it will cost money and not be as newsworthy as some want.

  • Bill Trinh

    Response to Austin in Richmond Kentucky who called in 36.15 into the show:
    Austin, I am an Army veteran, and I can assure you that the U.S. Army has stronger gun control regulations than the federal government.  Let me ask you, when was the first time the U.S. Army trusted you to operate your weapon?  Was it when you first got off the bus at basic training?  Hell no!  You had to go through 3 weeks of brutal training  and indoctrination before you were allowed to even touch a firearm.   And then you had to train for another three weeks on how to maintain and safely operate your weapon before they gave you a chance qualify on it.   Did your drill sergeant let you keep a loaded weapon under your bunk every night or let you go to the armory as you pleased to grab your weapon when you felt like it?
    Ok, how about after basic training at your regular unit.  Did your command let the soldiers bring their weapons home to defend their families against home intruders?
    Come on now Austin and all of you people out there who think this way, wake up!
    Soldiers and Marines are rigorously trained and qualified to operate assault rifles and firearms safely and responsibly, yet they are not permitted to freely draw weapons from their unit’s armory for use at home or anywhere else for that matter.  There are prohibitively restrictive regulations in the military controlling who gets to handle a weapon, when, and under what circumstances.
    Do you think the U.S. Army would ever allow an untrained, unqualified, unaccountable civilian to handle an assault rifle?    

    Then why on God’s green earth should the federal government?

    I am not against gun ownership.  But I do advocate that civilians who want to own guns must at a minimum go through  the the same training and certification process that our military servicemen do, and adhere to the strict regulatory controls that maintained good discipline and order in our military for over 200 years.

    • WRB2

      Well said.  If someone wants to own an assault weapon then they should prove they can safely.  If they want to own multiple then they have to qualify with each and pay a fee (tax) that gets steeper with everyone they own.  Certify every year with an assault weapon.

      How do you feel about limiting the magazines or clips to 15 rounds max for every type of firearm? Are you a 10 in enough person?  Should there be a test for ownership of mags between between 16 and 31?  Should we limit ownership of mags over 30 to fire arm manufactures?

      I like 15 because it’s a nice middle ground, many pistols hold that today and it’s more than 10 but less than 30.

    • peterlake

       How about tests for permission to operate the First Amendment? Should the government permit printing presses only when owners have undegone rigorous training and certification and paid a special tax?

      Does the army let you operate a printing press?

      In fact, the army’s rules about firearms and antithetical and irrelevant to covilian ownership of firearms. It was the very suspicion of a standing army that led to the Second Amendment.

      There’s no way civilians should be subjected to being second-rate members of a standing army.

      Sorry, but what works for the military has no business in the making rules for civilians.

      Unless you think with training I ought to be able to run full auto M-4′s.

  • jefe68

    Some historical background on the 2nd Amendment.
    I’m sure there will be those on the right who will cry foul, but facts are stubborn things to quote another member of the Founders.

    http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

    • Gregg Smith

      That’s sick.

      • jefe68

        No, what’s sick is you’re reaction to history that does not conform to your ideology.

        • Gregg Smith

          Is your ideology that gun enthusiasts are racist? The bigger the gun the more racism? It’s sick.

          • jefe68

            No is it not. If you took the time to read the article you might have some insight. If you did read the article and you came away thinking what you posted it shows that you indeed do have some serious comprehension issues.

          • WRB2

            What does it matter how the 2nd amendment came about, it is wonderful. 

            Should we worry that the new testament was actually selected from many other books/observations that were deemed not acceptable to be included?  Does that make what is written any less powerful or important?

            Let’s talk about the facts on the table.  Let’s talk about solutions.  Throwing this crap around does not help address the issues and find an answer that works for both sides.

          • jefe68

            It matter to me. As history has consequences and our gun laws are full of them. The 2nd Amendment is there and well intrenched in our nations laws. 

            Slavery use to be part of our nation as well, we managed to get rid if that evil.

            You gun advocates are not really looking for solutions, it’s all about your right to bare whatever arms you deem fit. That’s the way it is and in my view will remain for many decades to come.

            One day we may come to our senses over this absurdity about a 18th century idea about arms and the wording of a well regulated milita. However I doubt it will come to be any time soon.

          • WRB2

            No J68, I am looking for a good start and an ongoing discussion as there is not a quick answer that is respectful to both sides. 

            Yes, slavery was part of our state laws and culture.  It took a lot of national laws and a very ugly war to get over it.  We need to look at how we can empower the states to make better laws.I have been trying to find a middle ground and get people on both sides to see the other.  Frankly I am about 1000% in favor of banning magazines over 30 rounds.  I suggest and can accept limiting all magazines to 15 rounds no matter what type of firearm (hand guns or rifles).

        • WRB2

          There are always two or three sides that all claim to be factual and are from their perspective.  I’ve read a lot about slavery and NEVER had that come up.  I’ve never heard that before about the 2nd either. 

          I’m declaring shenanigans with a load of melarkey piled high on top.

          • jefe68

            Maybe you should read some more.

          • WRB2

            Perhaps I should, but now I come to reading history with a lot broader knowledge than I did thirty years ago.  I realize that not all history that is recorded as views from both sides and is completely inclusive of all the reasons why things happen.  Also there are often books written that claim to be factual but are not.  

            Keep in mind there are many books that say the Holocaust never happened.  My father helped liberate one camp and I have been very lucky to meet many survivors over the years.

    • peterlake

      Revisionist history.
      Many northern states had clauses in their own constitutions protecting the right to bear arms before the US Constitution was written.

      See Professor Joyce Malcolm’s book about the history of bearing arms in England, a tradition adopted by the USA.

  • Sy2502

    The state of California already implements several of those gun restrictions. If they worked, Oakland wouldn’t be asking for the National Guard to step in to stop the slaughter. Why doesn’t anyone ever look at past lessons before repeating the same mistakes?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yeah like chicago where guns are banned and 900 people got shot down

  • jefe68

    PBS commentator Mark Shields says more killed by guns since ’68 (Robert Kennedy’s assignation) than in all U.S. wars.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/
    Amazing but true. 

    I’m sure the gun advocates will point out that more people have died from hammers, axes, knives and automobile accidents, but that’s beside the point of this fact. It’s about the guns.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      wow i thought  it was about the killers who want to kill people. i am sure they wont want to kill anyone if guns arent for sale at walmart they will probably paly pokemon instead right?

      • jefe68

        Are you really this inane and hyperbolic?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          jeff do you  really believe guns themselves cause people to commit crimes? thats a pretty straightforward question can you answer it?

          • WRB2

            Guns are a tool that often make it easier for a larger population to commit crimes that without them they would not.  

            Locks are made for honest people. So are guns.

  • Fredlinskip

      Apparently the best arguments “rational” folks make against ban on certain “assault” weapons are: 1) It’s 1st step to taking all our guns away. No legislators advocate that. Get real. 2) They think “good” guys need same capacity weapon as “bad” guy. Lots of holes that can be poked in that argument.It’s not because there aren’t enough guns that our murder rate is about 20 times average of other developed countries. 
      For one, studies confirm that having gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death and that of your spouse and children- No matter how guns are stored or what type owned.  I can understand NRA efforts to suppress actual studies of such issues.  Most burglaries occur when no one is home. In those rare incidents where a burglar is in your home while you are, if you think he(she) might be heavily armed you may want to think twice before going out of your way to initiate shoot-out, EVEN if you were highly trained. If the burglar turns out to be some local kid in once in a lifetime drunken act you shouldn’t need to spray him(her) with dozens of bullets to make your point.  Supplying military arsenal to everyone will not lead to less gun violence. This is common sense. 
    (repeat comment from This weeks news thread)

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i am sure you are a lot more likely to be bit by a dog if you own one should we ban dogs?

      • WRB2

        No but often dogs are put down when they attack someone…….

  • Jacob Wilson

    Nice use of children to falsely appeal to the conscience of your listeners. Bias.

  • Pingback: The Exploitation Of Gun Violence In Hollywood, And Why Obama Needs To Stop It | Cognoscenti

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

 
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment