90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The Fate Of Gun Reform

Three months after Sandy Hook.  Will gun reform be gutted in the U.S. Senate?  Is it happening right now?

Neil Heslin, the father of a six-year-old boy who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, holds a picture of himself with his son Jesse and wipes his eye while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. (AP)

Neil Heslin, the father of a six-year-old boy who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, holds a picture of himself with his son Jesse and wipes his eye while testifying on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. (AP)

On December 14th, just before Christmas, 20 little children were gunned down, massacred, in their school in Newtown, Connecticut.  Within a month, in response to national anguish, the Obama administration had proposed the most sweeping gun control policy reforms in a generation.

Emotions were so high, poll numbers for reform were so strong, some people called it inevitable.  This week, three months after Newtown, it appears to be coming undone.  In the Democratic-controlled Senate.

This hour, On Point: taking down gun reform, after Newtown.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Fawn Johnson, national reporter for National Journal. (@fawnjohnson)

Jackie Kucinich, congressional reporter for USA Today. (@jfkucinich)

Stephen Barton, outreach and policy associate for Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He was shot with 25 shotgun pellets in the face, neck, chest and arms during the Aurora movie theater shooting. (@scubarton)

Senator Chris Murphy, Democratic Senator from Connecticut. (@chrismurphyct)

Charles C.W. Cooke, writes for National Review, where he covers Second Amendment issues. (@charlescwcooke)

From Tom’s Reading List

USA Today (Jackie Kucinich) “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday he hopes to have a bill to address gun violence on the Senate floor soon after the Easter break, but confirmed that measure will not include the assault weapons ban.”

National Journal (Fawn Johnson) “The Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote Thursday approving an assault-weapons ban was a sham—if you think the purpose was to ban assault weapons. If you think the committee’s vote offered an opportunity for lawmakers to parse and deliberate complicated and unresolved questions about the Constitution, guns, and violence, then it was a highly productive 90 minutes.”

Businessweek “When the Senate returns from a leisurely two-and-a-half-week recess, scheduled to commence on March 23, Reid promises to get some kind of gun-control bill to the floor for a vote. Its precise contours remain uncertain. Still, after 12 weeks of politicking on the gun issue, it’s possible to make some predictions and observations:”

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

    I am not presenting a position on gun control.  But from the news report that I saw last night, it appears that any bill will go down to defeat in the senate because a number of Democrats (15 or so out of 55) are opposed to it (along with most if not all of the Republicans).  I would hope that if those Democrats are against it, they are against it as a matter of principle rather than simply because they will lose votes.  Not that Republicans uniformly stand on principle, but at least Republicans will generally maintain their position on certain issues (against gay marriage, abortion) as a matter of principle even if/when it costs them an election rather than take the easy route and cave in just to get re-elected like many “which way is the wind blowing” Democrats do.

    • brettearle

      It is often easy for Republicans to maintain their positions on Gay Rights and Abortion–because their constituents feel the same way.

      In that regard, their `principles’, on these issues, have hardly been tested….

      There should be open hearings on gun legislation that prove or disprove claims and statistics.

      It is indeed very, very difficult to watch gun control measures being voted down, in the Wake of Newtown.

      I will concede that some statistics back up gun rights’ advocates.

      But to me, not to re-implement the assault weapons ban is like the Department of Public Works adding more water, filled with bacteria, to the town supply–after learning of a cholera outbreak in the neighborhoods.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        I am not saying that I am against gun legislation.  I am simply saying that politicians should show some character and stand on principles that they believe in rather than simply doing what is personally politically expedient.

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

        thats not a very good analogy. the AWB had no effect so it would be like adding water to the water supply

  • LinRP

    Sensible gun control after Sandy Hook. If not now, when? Looks like never.

    What the hell kind of country have we become? Now weapons of war are in the hands of anyone, on our streets, protected by cowardly lawmakers afraid of losing an election rather than dong what’s right–all bought and sold by the corporate money machine. Nothing is truthful about this “debate,” or what our lawmakers claim as reasons for non-passage.

    At this point, what’s next? Protecting bazookas in the hands of private citizens? Grenade launchers? I don’t see why not.

    • Gregg Smith

      “After Sandy Hook” is the worst time. Emotions should play no part.

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        Gregg… what never seems to be accounted for in this whole debate is the fear-based emotions of the NRA. This is not to mention the immaturity of a good many gun owners who seem to feel a need to equal the playing field in their dystopic vision of the country.l 

        • Gregg Smith

          Even if I accept the premise, the NRA does not make laws. To me the biggest thing never accounted for are the times guns prevent tragedy.

          • sickofthechit

             Suppose you have two people involved in an argument.  Neither has a gun.  Result is no one is shot.  Same two people, one has a gun.  Possible results?  No one shot, one shot, two shot, bystanders shot.  Same two people, both have guns.  Possible results?  No one shot, one shot, two shot, bystanders shot, general mayhem.

          • Gregg Smith

            Suppose? All right I’ll play, suppose the principal at Sandy Hook had a gun and dropped Lanza before he got out of the office? Possible results? She fails, is shot and the result is the same, or 26 kindergarten students return home to their loving families.

            But the chilling thing is what I infer from your comment which is two fold. One, we would be better off if no one had guns which is at least plausible albeit naive IMO. But the scary inference is how to bring it about. What are you suggesting, if anything? Please clarify.

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Gregg. Look to other countries where owning firearm is severely restricted (Japan, Canada, UK etc). People in these places don’t need to waste time playing out highly improbable cowboys ‘n indians fantasies. But, stock schools with weapons, slacken control on acquisition…and watch it all replay itself ad nauseam. 

          • Gregg Smith

            “But, stock schools with weapons, slacken control on acquisition”

            Who advocates that?

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            You’re right. I exaggerate. How ’bout “Every school, a weapon”

          • Gregg Smith

            I think it’s a good idea but the actual issue is whether to prohibit them.

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

            yeah the japonese are too busy killing themselves

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Gun homicide rate in Japan is zero.  Look it up.

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

            yet somehow they kill themselves in record numbers i guess that proves guns are irrelevent to suicide

          • geraldfnord

            Yup, there are so many more ‘good people’ than ‘bad guys’—two orders of magnitude more, on average, even in bad neighbourhoods—that under conditions of general armament your chances of being shot by a ‘good person’ who is momentarily not so good are higher than those of being shot by a bad actor.

            Physicists sometimes call the relative probability of something’s happening as being ‘phase-space driven’—differences in proximity in space and in momentum (e.g. particles close to each other and heading toward each other vs far off and away from each other ) matter more than differences in reaction rate—you’re much more in danger from a close dog heading your way than from a dire wolf running from you a mile and a millennium away.

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

            you forgot in the scenerios to add beaten to death

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Greg. Can you cite statistics?  I’ve read they’re minimal, and many instances toted are questionable. 

            In my experience. gun owners – the pistol packing type – are always quick to mention dicey situations where they were glad to have been packing, or wish they had had a gun.  

            Now, really.  What America do these people live in? 

          • geraldfnord

            There are really only two places where the average man is more likely to stop a crime with his gun than to use it on a spouse or a friend or a cow-orker or have it used on him: TV and the movies.

            (Actual stats from [I believe it was] 2010 vary from 20.000, counting only times the weapon was actually fired, to 2.000.000, counting every time another pobucker said, ‘I heard something!,’ grabbed his shotgun [as Our Joe recommends] and a minute later said ‘I musta scared him off,’ another imaginary dusky thug vanquished ad maiorem gloria NRAi.)

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

            that stat of more likely to use on a spouse or a “cow-orker” is not true although i dont know the specific stat about “cow-orker”s

          • Gregg Smith

            John Lott wrote a book on it. There’s this:

            http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

            There has actually been several studies but there is no real way to quantify with certainty. So often it is not reported.

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Or, it just doesn’t happen that much. 

          • Gregg Smith

            Do you really believe that?

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            (we’re really going at it today, aren’t we?) No I don’t quite frankly. It supposesa lot things coming together at the right time .  Meanwhile, the other statistics of violence because there’s so many guns isn’t worth the cost. I.e. for every one instance of someone “protecting” themselves against for instance, a  burglar, there are thousands of gun deaths that wouldn’t happen if the US was a nation that didn’t have any.  (See Japan). The benefit of having a weapon for protection is mostly myth. 

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

            check the statistics

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

            you gun gun owning friends have many anecdotes about preventing crimes with guns. these stories do not make the news and when they do its just a one off piece because the defender was interesting. like when a 87 year old man or a young woman kills an intruder. if the news was real then black on black crime is rare and only blond haired blue eyed white girls ever get kidnapped or killed 

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

            the lowest figure from a progun control campaigner is that guns are used 100,000 times a year to prevent crime. the high end estamate is 2 million times a year. the problem is that its very hard to measure how many crimes and deaths did not happen because of a firearm. how can you do that?
             in america there are lots of criminals and prohibition financed gangsters running around with guns. to protect themselves from them many people choose to also be armed

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Hey FB. You avatar looks like the iconic photo of Lee Harvey Oswald. Remember him?

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

            oh its an iconic individual. guess again though. does anyone want to help him out?

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Help out Lee Harvey Oswald?

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

            no help you identify the iconic figure in the picture. hint: he is not white 

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

            help you to identify Malcom X, turkey

          • Gregg Smith

            Mr. X.

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

          because their opponents are not also “fear based”?

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Everyone is fearful when it comes to guns: either as a good part of the reason why they feel they need one; or of getting caught in the cross-fire. 

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

            more concerned about liberty

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Yes, but your concern about liberty is a real fear of losing it isn’t it?

            In your book who’s going to take it away?

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

            the politicians who are trying their best to do so?

      • LianeSperoni

        When is a “good time?” In case you haven’t noticed, we seem to always be “after a mass shooting.”

        why is that?

        • Gregg Smith

          A good time is if after a sober debate it can be proven the law (any law) will have a positive affect and guarantees law-abiding citizens will not instantly be turned into criminals with the stroke of the legislative pen.

          • LianeSperoni

            You didn’t address my point. If after a tragedy is not a good time to have a “sober debate” when is a good time? We are always “right after a tragedy” because they happen so frequently.

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

            Tangent: Funny you should mention “sober debate” on this issue. Because we just had a show on the Iraq invasion, and I consider very little “debate” about that to have been sober.

            A decade ago, I remember watching approval polls for the invasion of Iraq, and when the first one hit 50.000001% “in favor” it was treated like a fait accopmli in the press.

            Curious that the press en toto seems to be more afraid of the NRA than a “mad dictator with WMDs”.

          • Gregg Smith

            I already answered the question.

          • LianeSperoni

            You may have answered the question, but you didn’t address the point. You can’t address the point because you would have to concede that there is not a “good time” because we are always “right after a tragedy.”

        • geraldfnord

          For some men, the only ‘good time’ they get is whilst shooting targets or fantasising about shooting people who deserve it (for trying to kill or rob them, or cutting them off in traffic, or looking at them ‘funny’). I think this issue won’t be resolved until more men don’t feel like they’re being cheated of their notional birthright to rule a family they support all by themselves…cheap and effective penile enlargement might not hurt (the problem—the surgery probably still will, unless we tweak the nanobots _just_ right) either.

          • peterlake

             Where do you come up with your inventions of what motivates shooters or the size of their penises?

            What kind of liberal fanatasies do YOU have?

            The fact is, you know nothing at all about what motivates shooters, right?

      • sickofthechit

         Looking to live in the age of robots are you?

        • Gregg Smith

          Yea, that’s what I want.

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

          already here

      • sickofthechit

         I guess reason shouldn’t have a place either?

        • Gregg Smith

          Of course it should, that’s what is absent.

      • J__o__h__n

        There isn’t much downtime to calm down before the next shooting. 

        • Gregg Smith

          I get the point and it has some merit. Add to that Sandy Hook was not yesterday. However, Obama issued EO’s without debate based on emotions.

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

            i feel like obomas move was more cold and calculated than emotional for him. never let a crisis go to waste is the motto

          • Gregg Smith

            I agree but I don’t think he could get away with it so easily if not for the emotional state of the country in the aftermath.

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

            yeah thats whats great about crisis, right out of the goebels playbook

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

        it reminds me of noun+verb+911 for justifying the restrictions of liberty

    • Roy-in-Boise

      What exactly is sensible gun control?

      • NrthOfTheBorder

        How about starting with mandatory background checks? Mandatory registration. Mandatory safety training. Securely locked and out of sight when transported, stored, or in a gun rack? 

        This would put “well-regulated” in  “militia” and would  reduce the carnage. 

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

          registration leads to confiscation which generally leads to genocide

          • NrthOfTheBorder

            Wow! You’re out there FB. Please don’t move to my neighborhood.

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

            its history, recent history. those who ignore it are doomed to repeat it. that does not sound fun to me

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

      well pat leahey just was suggesting people arm themsleves with 1911 style pistols which are not “military style” weapons but actually military issued weapons. now you want to take peoples bazookas away? have they been causing a problem?

    • peterlake

       What is this “protecting bazookas” and “grenade launchers”?

      Do you know of any crimes committed with bazookas or grenade launchers?

  • StilllHere

    Reid has shown no leadership.  This is not a surprise.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Agreed!  Spineless if you ask me…always quick to give in without facing down the very worse sentiments of their constituents. 

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    Why are we surprised that congress isn’t acting on this issue? What have they
    done on immigration, the deficit, and other major issues? Congress has an
    approval rating in the single digits and we expect this outfit to pass laws that
    are reasonable, effective and fair? The same organization that put us in Iraq
    and Afghanistan? Most people want responsible gun legislation. But they simply don’t
    trust these people to do so. I wouldn’t trust them to set up a free lunch.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Steve…high time “We the People” – (and by that I mean sensible main stream middle of the road Americans) need to  insist on a responsive government.  

      Granted, Obama’s re-election was a determined step in the right direction but it wasn’t (and isn’t) enough. We also need to start talking to our neighbors – the Tea Baggers especially.  I think, at the end of the day, we’ll discover we have more in common that not.  And, you can’t miss the fact that they’ve figured out how to get their elected officials to dance to their tune. 

      • http://twitter.com/mikenoe Mike Noe

        adolescent name calling (“Tea Baggers”) is always a great way to get a dialog going.

        • NrthOfTheBorder

          Mike. My apologies. You’re right.  I hate when the word “liberals” is bandied about likewise.

  • Gregg Smith

    “The Constitution did not guarantee public safety, it guaranteed liberty.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ledhyTAE2zo&feature=player_embedded

    • sickofthechit

       Uh, I think “Liberty” is trumped by “LIFE” especially since it comes first!

      • Gregg Smith

        I agree.

  • Gregg Smith

    Reid couldn’t muster up even 40 votes in the Senate so he killed the bill without a vote. When the outcome is known, or feared, this is what happens. The inverse dynamic is also true and that is why so many House passed jobs bills have not been brought to a vote. They might have passed and we can’t have that.

    • sickofthechit

       Gregg, aren’t the “jobs bills” passed by the house simply tax cuts for the rich to create even more invisible jobs than were “created” in the Cheney/Bush admin?

      • Gregg Smith

        No, but even if they were, vote.

  • LianeSperoni

    It’s hard to understand how senators who are now outspoken on the need for gun control supported the war in Iraq. I fail to understand how America’s decision to invade Iraq is any different than what made that troubled boy kill 26 children at Sandy Hook elementary.

  • Pete4BUR

    It’s a sorry political reality that we can’t even bring a bill on the assault weapons ban to the house and senate floors so that legislators’ positions are right out there in public, but it’s outright disgusting that legislators are so intimidated that they’re already compromising on something as valuable and non-threatening as universal background checks.

    The gun lobby/NRA opposes EVERY reasonable measure on the bases that they either “won’t do anything about the hundred million guns already out there” or “criminals are not going to register” but those are no reasons to fail to start reining in gun trafficking and instant access for those bent on harm to others or to themselves.

    The BALANCE in gun control measures has been shifted way to the no-controls-at-all side for decades. It’s time for the vast majority of reasonable people to make their voices heard and restore the balance.

    • Henryfromwayland

       Agree entirely. Pathetically, sadly true.

    • sickofthechit

       Actually it is in excess of three hundred million guns (300,000,000 guns) out here.

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

      how will you get the criminals to comply with the background checks?

  • Michiganjf

    Can you imagine if LaPierre and gun nuts got their way, and most adults at schools and the like were armed… you know, to thwart would-be attackers?

      Imagine a police call that there is a shooter at a local school… the police show up looking for a madman wielding a gun, and instead, nearly every adult they encounter has a gun drawn!!!!

    This must be any police officer’s worst nightmare!!

    … and this eventuality would be the same at any shooting anywhere, if gun nuts have their way and nearly EVERY citizen becomes an armed vigilante!

    Of course, a police officer looking for a shooter wouldn’t be the only “good guy” faced with this dilemma… every would be “good guy” looking for the shooter would have to pick out the “bad guy” from among dozens of armed citizens!

    Could LaPierre and his ilk have concocted a more IDIOTIC idea??!!!

    … and imagine all the stray bullets flying around, in these “massive, ‘multi-player’” gunfights!!!

    No, the ONLY reasonable way to make ALL of us safer, is gun laws restricting access to the worst kinds of weapons, and to the worst kinds of people.

    Don’t buy into the stupidity or the MORONIC ideas of a few boneheads!

    OH… and like MOST Americans, I’m all for a REASONABLE firearm for home defense!

    • Gregg Smith

      No one advocates anything of the sort, certainly not the NRA. It’s easy to criticize what you imagine people are thinking.

      • Michiganjf

        Denial is just the first stage… you have a long way to go.

      • sickofthechit

         What do you think happens with the rapid growth in concealed carry?  I ought to at least be able to see when I walk in a bar if there are people packing so as a non-carrying person I can exit before to much alcohol flows, holsters are un-clipped, guns are drawn, and bullets start flying..

        • Gregg Smith

          “What do you think happens with the rapid growth in concealed carry?”

          What happens is crime rates plummet.

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

          in states with concealed carry crime has dropped

        • peterlake

          You need to stop watching Silverado and old Gunsmoke reruns.

    • Bluejay2fly

      The police do NOTHING in school shootings anyway. Read about the account at Columbine. Either it’s over long before they arrive or they stand around and form a parameter. Only a quick intervention with a response team already in place would work to reduce deaths. I say team because one school cop with a gun would most likely be the first victim if the shooter was seriously committed to mayhem. PS Mass murder does not always result from an “Assault Weapon” go ask the people at Virginia Tech or on that Long Island RR car with Collin Ferguson if they felt better that those maniacs only had  handguns. P.S. Worst school massacre in US history Bath, MI  with 45 people dead and the weapon used was explosives and that occurred when our army was still using bolt action rifles.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Another take on “live by the gun, die by the gun”

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

      Could LaPierre and his ilk have concocted a more IDIOTIC idea??!!!
      could you? ccw owners have shown themselves to be much more careful in their use of force than the police. what happened in the gabby giffords shooting was a ccw holder did not pull his firearm because he did not have a clear shot. thats a real situation not your fantasy world

    • peterlake

      The police are not required to protect the public, according to case law.
      They carry guns to protect themselves.

      Or did you mistakenly think they’re armed to protect YOU?

      If so, get over it.

      “Able to come home safely” is their catch phrase.
      Listen for it.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Why don’t they focus on the illegal guns and violence in places like Chicago instead of trying to restrict the liberties of law abiding citizens?  There has been almost zero discussion about Chicago and yet there are far more gun deaths in Chicago and all by illegal guns.

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

      Fine. I’m sure the NRA has no problem with the cops stopping every vehicle* going into Chicago, or NYC or a state with tough laws, to enforce those laws.

      Because if there’s one thing the NRA keeps saying when the talk is about changing gun laws, it’s “Enforce the laws on the books now”.

      *And I mean every car. Not just the “rolling probable causes”.

      • Gregg Smith

        The focus should be on gang violence.

        • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

          Gangs had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Columbine, Va. Tech, etc. MOST people are not worried for their family, friends, and own safety because of gang violence!

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             You don’t know anyone who lives in Pheonix or Chicago.  The threat of gang violence is real in some communities.

          • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

            You’re right on one account, I don’t think I do know anyone in Phoenix. That’s very astute of you! However, I do know people who live in Chicago, and many other cities. I agree gang violence is very real in many places. What I am saying is that gang violence is not the only gun violence threat to Americans. 

            What country are you worried for anyhow? I’ve never quite gotten that.

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

            the mass shooting threat is pretty low

          • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

            Very low, unless it actually happens to someone you care about. So what? Plane crashes are very rare, but thankfully there are regulations to keep the likelihood down.  

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

            so do you fly or not? if so you accept the risk because its so low

          • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

            I wouldn’tif there weren’t many regulations.

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

            yes but for every one like you there is someone who does not fly because there are too many regulations now

          • Gregg Smith

            I disagree. Gang violence is a far far greater problem responsible for far far more murders. The people involved (Chicago for example) are certainly worried for their families, friends and safety. I encourage you to look into it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

            I said, most, and I disagree with you. Of course people who live in the major inner cities are frightened of gangs. Those of us who do not live in the city are worried about our children while at school. As far as I know, no gangs have barged into a school to shoot kids. We’re worried about violence of workers onto co-workers. We’re worried about being randomly targeted by an individual as we shop for groceries, or sit and enjoy a movie. Why do you want to limit this debate to gang violence? Because it more easily, in your mind, supports your anti social argument? 

          • Gregg Smith

            Gang violence does not get the headlines. No one seems to car if it’s blacks killing blacks.  The numbers dwarf mass shootings.

          • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

            The issue is Gun Reform, did you think it was America’s Apathy Towards  Gang Violence? 

          • Gregg Smith

            In short, yes, if I understand the question. We had a decade of the AWB (1994-2004) and the data showed no positive affect.

          • http://www.facebook.com/suzanne.sheldon.50 Suzanne Sheldon

            ????????

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

            i have noticed it and been disgusted by it. yet another reason to distrust the media

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

            suzanne it sounds like you are ready to become a legal concealed firearm carrier. when would you like to go to the range?

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

            i don’t think most people are too worried about something thats less likely than getting hit by lightning. like staying inside during a lightning storm you could avoid the low risk of being shoit in a mass shooting by avioding gun free zones

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

          absolutly, and gang violence is 100% caused by prohibition which could be easily ended

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Who cares what the NRA thinks about your proposal?  What does Mayor Rahm ‘Dead Fish’ Emanuel think about it?  He is the one tasked with enforcing the laws.

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

          A lot of politicians care when the NRA throws a little fit and tells its low-information persuadables that “the government is coming to get all yer guns!!!”

          What does “focus on the illegal guns” mean to you? Because to me it sounds like “have the government get rid of illegally owned guns”.

          Do you pitch that solution on right-wing forums, too?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country (ie, it is difficult to legally own a firearm) and yet it has the highest rate of gun violence.

            Where was Piers Morgan when more American’s were dying in the streets of Chicago than on the fields of Afghanistan?

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

            Answer a simple question: What does “focus on the illegal guns” mean to you? Because to me it
            sounds like “have the government get rid of illegally owned guns”.

            Do you pitch that solution on right-wing forums, too, or do you just like to JAQ it on middle-of-the-road places like here?

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

            arent you JAQing right now? am I? where does it end?

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

        how bout actually prosecuting the people who get denied in the background checks we have now?

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      Worried. Allow the proliferation of guns and gun related deaths climb accordingly. It doesn’t seem to matter if you’re talking about illegal guns or not. 

      What kind of country do you want? 

      Nah, forget it.  

      The number of guns is so large that anything you done at this point is, well, pointless.  

      Just grit yourself for the next Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech…(not to mention everyday gun homicides) and pray your child, sibling, friend isn’t  another sad statistic. 

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

        we could get rid of the deadly gun free zones cheaply and easily

    • J__o__h__n

      The guns get on the street through things that the NRA opposes like background checks and tracking of purchases.

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

      that does not fit the narrative. its proves gun control is always a failure

  • andrewgarrett

    Again, why can’t I own a nuclear arm? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say I can’t own a nuclear arm? The 2nd amendment says nothing about guns or self-defense. Go read it.

    • Gregg Smith

      The Constitution is not a document that says what you can’t do. It says what the government can’t do.

      • creaker

        Apparently they feel they can define what “arms” means – there are lots of weapons that fall in that category that are restricted or banned for civilian use or possession.

        • Gregg Smith

          I was just answering the question.

      • LianeSperoni

        “We the People of the United
        States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
        domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
        Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
        ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

        Regulating guns is a way to establish justice (by preventing vigilantism), to establish domestic Tranquility, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ouselves and our Posterity (our children)

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

        they don’t seem to get that

    • TomK_in_Boston

      The whole discussion is crazy. No rights are unlimited. The classic example is that the right to free speech does not protect “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”. Putting limits on the right to bar arms, like your nuke, is no different and plain common sense.

      Furthermore, while the first amendment unconditionally states a right: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”, the 2′nd amendment makes the right conditional upon the government’s need for a militia. It is a much weaker statement and much more subject to limitations.

      In my opinion, in plain English, the 2′nd amendment is irrelevant to non-militia-related arms.

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

        “shall not be infringed”

        • Gregg Smith

          ‘Nuff said.

    • peterlake

       The Supreme Court in 1938 said you can’t go nuke.
      Why do you want to even comment when you don’t know anything about the subject?

      Oh, wait…..you listen to Joe Biden, who also knows nothing about the subject.

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

      you can’t afford one

  • Gregg Smith
    • WorriedfortheCountry

      The police state is alive and well in New Jersey. Frightening.

    • MrNutso

      I am familiar with this local story.  What is the problem.  My understand is that this picture of a child (he’s 12 I think) was on face book.  The cops came to check it out.  Is mom was find with it but dad took issue.  I would think that a parent would err on the side of caution in this instance.  If there’s no harm there’s no foul.  All dad had to do was explain the situation re: the gun, and that he was aware of the picture.

      What would your reaction be if it turned out the kid got the weapon out a locked cabinet without the parents permission and he and his friends were fooling around with it or worse.

      • Gregg Smith

        The cops have no right to threaten to take the kid away or to demand entry. 

        • MrNutso

          The cops did not threaten to take the kid away, or demand entry.  They asked to see the guns and were told no and left.

          • Gregg Smith

            According to the father and his lawyer they did.

          • peterlake

             Child services threatened to take the kid away if they were not granted entry.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        You are familiar with the story?  Didn’t the police (under the direction of child protective services) harass and bully this family for several hours.  Only after the father arrived home and stood up for his 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure did they leave.

        If they simply checked with the parents — as you imply — then there wouldn’t have been an issue.  If they weren’t over zealous then it would have been a 5 minute visit.

        This is what a police state looks like.  I hope he sues those clowns to send a message.

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

        i dont like the fact that they are using the fact this guy has a kid to try to do illegal searches luckly the guy knew his rights and had a lawyer on the phone when the cops came

    • William

       I’m surprised the police did not arrest him.

      • Gregg Smith

        They clearly had no cause or even a warrant. It was a nanny state shakedown.

      • jefe68

        Why, he did not break the law.
        The man was in his rights to refuse entry to his home without a warrant. 

        To his credit he kept a cool head about him.
        As did the police.

        If he lost his temper he would have been arrested. The police have to respond to a complaint. 

        Of course the right wing conspiracy brigade are going to jump all over this. Except when you need a cop, or want them to protect your kids in school.

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

          and when you do need them rest assured they will be 10 minutes away

      • StilllHere

        Or take him out pre-emptively.

    • peterlake

      Doesn”t bother me.
      Why should it bother anyone else?
      I learned to shoot at that age.

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

      its kind of funny. maybe that kid will get out in the woods now and lose some weight

  • jefe68

    Not all gun owners are in the same camp as Wayne LaPierre’ extremist views on gun control. That includes a pretty good percentage of NRA members.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/gun-owners-arent-always-gun-lovers.html?hpw

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

      yes many of us don’t like how the NRA has caved on so many issues

  • UmbrellaHolder

    At various points in our great country’s history we have
    collectively acknowledged imperfections built into our Constitution as written
    by our Founding Fathers.  One of
    the things that makes our democracy strong is the inherent structural ability
    of our government to recognize and correct the Constitution’s original
    flaws.   Although there is a
    tendency amongst some to treat the document as a sacred text, never to be
    tampered with, questioned, or interpreted in any way other than its
    “original meaning” (never mind the inherent contradiction), its
    authors deliberately baked in a certain flexibility meant to be responsive to
    changing cultural mores.  If
    courageous and responsible leaders over the centuries had not made adjustments
    to some of the Constitution’s central tenets, we would, for example, still be a
    country in which slavery was legal, and the only people who could vote were
    land-owning white men. 

                One
    of the most controversial amendments is the Second.  It was written at a time when the country had no military,
    other than local militias made up of farmers and bakers with front-loading
    muskets.  At the time, it made
    sense partly because it defined the
    military.  Now it does not.  

                I
    say this as a gun-lover myself.  In
    my younger days, I spent quite a bit of time at shooting galleries and in the
    tropics knocking coconuts off trees at a thousand yards.  I would have made a good sniper.  Guns can be fun, and in the words of
    Dan Baum (a fellow Democrat who has recently been going around evangelizing the
    rights of gun ownership), they are “beautiful machines.”  But guns are not toys, and there are
    lots of other beautifully crafted mechanical objects whose primary purpose are
    not lethality. 

                A
    few years ago, a good friend of mine — then just starting out a promising law
    career, a loving husband and a father of a young child — was walking his dog
    one Sunday in the woods near his family home while visiting for Thanksgiving
    and was shot to death at close range by a hunter who was going out that day to
    try out his new rifle.  Not only
    did this tragedy sadden me because he was my friend, but it also manifested my
    own childhood fear of being mistaken for a deer while walking in the woods on
    my parents’ property in central Connecticut.  Often we could see hunters from our kitchen window, despite
    the “NO TRESPASSING” signs posted around the 30 acres of our woodland
    homestead.  Since then, my parents
    have moved to rural New Mexico, where they’ve had the locks on their gates shot
    open by elk poachers and their “NO TRESPASSING” signs riddled with
    bullet holes. 

                Chief
    Executive of the NRA Wayne LaPierre responded to the recent massacre of
    first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School by saying, “The only thing
    that can stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”  That kind of logic is not only deeply
    cynical, it is also indicative of the “crouched, defensive” position
    that Dan Baum describes American gun owners take when anyone even remotely
    whispers the words, “gun laws.”            LaPierre’s
    and Baum’s comments also reveal something else about gun-owners in this
    country.  Namely, they are
    paranoid.   The idea of discouraging gun violence
    with the threat of retaliation with more gun violence creates an arms race
    reminiscent of the Cold War rationale of “Mutually Assured
    Destruction.”  But iterative
    escalation only feeds cultural paranoia. 
    What kind of peace is it that is kept at gunpoint?  Shouldn’t we be seeking a societal norm
    of trust rather than suspicion?  It
    takes courage to put down a gun.  Resorting to guns as pacifiers is not
    only cowardly, it’s childish.

                Rationale
    for gun ownership tends to fall into a couple of categories:  A. Protection and B. Fun.   Neither makes sense.  Nor is either reason specified under the
    Second Amendment.   Under
    “Protection” fall misguided and unsupported claims that follow
    Hollywood scripts about good guys and bad guys.  Supporters of this theory still live in childhood fantasies
    of cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians, fed by dreams of being like Clint
    Eastwood, John Wayne, or James Bond.   Or perhaps we never developed the social skills
    necessary to conduct ourselves maturely amongst society either because we were
    bullies or bullied as youngsters.  We
    hide behind the false sense of security and projection of power that a gun
    provides to compensate for our own sense of powerlessness and fear in a society
    that has abandoned us, seeking out company amongst fellow gun-owners for lack
    of more positive forces over which to bond.

                Those
    of us who use guns for “Fun” also have never matured fully.   I make some exception for those
    who hunt for food out of necessity, but even then I have come to question
    societal values that place the rights of those bent on the destruction of
    sentient beings with assault rifles over the rights of children to wander
    amongst their natural surroundings in peace, as I sought to do as a child.

                I
    find it ironic that so-called conservatives have called for a “war on
    drugs” and a “war on terrorism,” citing the need to curb
    violence, when the violence is generally conducted with guns, which they
    support without any meaningful restriction at all.   Why don’t we get to the root of the problem and stop
    cowering before the steroidal hyperbolics of the gun lobby?  Let’s declare instead a “war on
    guns.”  Imagine all the money
    and lives we’d save by buying back all the guns in this country and cultivating
    instead a culture of mutual trust and communal good?  Like an addict who has been saved, I have sacrificed my own
    love for the beautiful lethal machines in the interest in a greater good than
    my own self-interest.  I invite my
    fellow gun-lovers to do the same.  In
    the words of John Lennon, “Some may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the
    only one.”  Let’s repeal the
    Second Amendment.  It’s time has
    come and gone.  Let’s find
    something more positive into which to focus our efforts.

     

    • nj_v2

      Yes, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. It’s time for the 28th.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        I assume by the 28th Amendment you mean an amendment that defines marriage as a monogamous male-female relationship only?  Just checking.

        • nj_v2

          We all know what happens when one ass-u-me-s.

      • Roy-in-Boise

        Who will you send to enforce your 28th amendment rescinding the 2nd?

        • UmbrellaHolder

          Is this the “crouched, defensive” position that Dan Baum describes gun-lovers taking when adults threaten to take their precious toys away…?

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

        yes lets all rally together and demand less freedom!

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

      wow, buy an orange hat for the 2 weeks of deer season if you want to wander the woods safely. more hunters drown than get shot.  the wars on drugs and terror have worked so well what could possibly go wrong with a war on guns? maybe it will be as quick and effective as our war on poverty. have you ever heard about alcohol prohibition? after we ended that foolish policy the murder rate dropped 99%

    • peterlake

      You say the Second Amendment is one of the most controversial amendments?
      Let me put your mind at ease.

      Read Heller and McDonald and take two aspirin.

      The Second Amendment is no longer controversial, just despised by the pussilanimous.

      • UmbrellaHolder

        If you’re going to use big words to try to insult me, at least spell them right…

        • peterlake

          Why bother?
          You have to look them up anyway.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    Gutless, spineless, corporate tools pass tax loopholes for billionaires in a matter of weeks, yet here we are, three months later with nothing. 

    Just because no one measure will stop this tragic violence is no excuse for not enacting incremental measures to reign in the violence.

    How many experts are needed to state that no one needs a 20, 30, 50 or 100 round magazines for hunting or self defense?

    Why does the significance of the second amendment’s preamble “A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State” escape the discussion?

    NRA backed politicians have no problem sending other people’s kids to war to be ground up and traumatized, but God forbid they should take a political risk, show some courage and do something unpopular for the safety of children and others.

    They need to demonstrate some of that courage and patriotism that they love to invoke for any cause that promotes their personal interests.

    Shame on them.
    How many more children must die?
    How many more survivors must be scarred for life?
    Sadly ever more blood will be on their hands for not trying.

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

      can’t we all agree that gun free zones are a deadly failure that make children and others unsafe?

      • Fredlinskip

        Can’t we all definitely agree that more guns DO NOT coincide with more safety.
        Comparison of Gun Related Death Rates and Gun Ownership Rates of developed nations clearly illustrates this point.
        U.S. has multiple times GRDR as vast majority of developed nations.

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

          ah so you see a causation  in your correlations

    • Fredlinskip

      Agree with much of your message and passion.
      however it should be pointed out, so Dems don’t continue to show their naivety, that “well-regulated” meant “well-trained” or well-disciplined”- At least this is the vast consensus of historians. 
         This relates to how soldiers were once often referred to as “regulars”.

  • sickofthechit

    Why can’t we have teachers and administrators in the schools equipped with Tasers? (Tazers?).  Newtown might have been much different.

    • jefe68

      Maybe, maybe not. One could say the same if the mother did not own any of the weapons used in the attack. Or if she did that she had them in a secure gun safe. Still none of these things might have worked.

      Remember that there were two armed security guards at Columbine High School

      • Gregg Smith

        “Remember that there were two armed security guards at Columbine High School”

        That’s not true. There were police in nearby assigned to the school but not as armed guards.. Are you suggesting they should not have been there? Or are you saying that because they were unable to stop the tragedy it means a good guy with a gun is never appropriate?

        • jefe68

          Wrong. I found plenty of news reports to support my claim. I’ll go with this one as it has a face and the man exchanged fire with the killers. 

          I’ve read there were two but it seems there was definitely one.

          On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and one teacher at Columbine. On the scene that day was Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff’s deputy who had been policing the school for almost two years.

          Stop putt words in my mouth. Oh who says that all the time… you.

          I’m not saying there should not be armed police or some kind of trained professional. But it’s clear in some cases even this does not help. Neither would armed teachers be a help. What I’m saying, if you’re able to parse my point, is that these events are chaotic. There is no way to know if armed guards help or not. Clearly in the case of Columbine they did not.

          • Gregg Smith

            Neil Gardener was not there when it started. He was not an armed guard, he was an armed policeman nearby.

            I didn’t put any words in your mouth at all. What are you referring to?

          • jefe68

            The man was there. He made regular stops at the school every day. 

            The point is he was there, he engaged the killers.
            What part of this do you not understand?

             Are you suggesting they should not have been there?
            I was pulling your leg a bit. You posted this statement making it seem I was not for armed guards when I was not saying anything one way or another. You tell people all the time to stop putting words in your mouth for simular comments you directed at me. I’m not really that thin skinned.

          • Gregg Smith

            He was nearby, he was not there when it started or things may have been different.

            “You posted this statement…”

            It was a question not a statement. I put no words in your mouth.

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

            so how did you determine”Neither would armed teachers be a help.” whats that based on?

      • TyroneJ

        Agreed. Remember the Bath School Disaster? That was the worst killing of elementary school kids in the US, and it didn’t involve guns, but lots of explosives.  Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan, blew up a school which killed 38 elementary school children and 6 adults, and injured at least 58 other people.

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

          wow thats more than the govt killed at Waco with a smoke grenade

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

        I too wish the mother in CT had followed the law and properly secured her firearms.
        i guess those guards were not around although i also question the effectiveness of openly armed guards in schools

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

      tasers are illegal in MA

  • creaker

    I don’t understand the mindset that says buying an assault weapon and letting it collect dust in the bottom of a closet is somehow “protecting” yourself – while doing things like wearing a bullet proof vest or avoiding higher risk places is considered akin to wearing foil hats.

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

      i don’t understand how keeping a dusty gun in your closet harms anyone. well besides the fact that a dirty gun is not a reliable and thus may not work when needed and thus dangerous. if i lived in chicago i dont think a bullet proof vest would be a bad idea but i avoid sketchy places when i can

  • sickofthechit

    Please don’t call Harry Reid a “Leader”, he has not been one for a very long time.  He is the most spineless Majority leader imaginable.

    • StilllHere

      Maybe he’s too busy working on crooked real estate deals.

  • creaker

    A restriction I’d like to see is required training and testing to own and use a weapon. We require proof of knowledge and proficiency to be able to drive a car, it should be the same for something just as potentially lethal.

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      What a great idea!

      Afraid however the NRA would scream that this would amount to an undue restriction of liberty & a set up to eventually confiscate guns altogether. 

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

      we already have that in MA. other states have that as well and others can pass that if they wish. whats the problem?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/WDJAJMYLFH4UCIYM5VJYZHWHXE Amanda

    i think the country has lost faith in its federal, state, and local government. from the army down to our local town and city police. This feeling of vulnerability is why so many americans feel the need to bear arms. I hate to sound like a paranoid crazy person, but do i believe a faction of radical islam will hit our infrastructure or launch a cyber attack  and dont believe our military will be able to stop it. Therefore, chaos will ensue, and it will be every man for himself. We have a judicial system that’s broken, justice that is never served. until we have someone to stand up for us, because our senate is bought by lobbyists and no one is on the side of the american people…the only protection i have is my weapon.

    • StilllHere

      That and your paranoia!

    • NrthOfTheBorder

      The reason why this has happened is:

      1) We the People have, for the longest time, voted (if they voted at all) – then forgotten to exercise proper vigilance  

      2) Failing to be properly informed we are then unable to insist on reasonable and effective governance.The result is a deep seated paranoia boiled down to a sense of powerlessness and fear where it’s you – and your weapon – against a host of enemies, real or imagined.

  • creaker

    It’s interesting folks think the “danger” of who might vote warrants more action than the danger of who might buy a gun.

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

      voting for george bush caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people

  • UmbrellaHolder

    Here’s a telling image:

    • StilllHere

      Looks like he’s aiming at one of the stuffed animals.  Outrage!

  • Pete4BUR

    Stop Handgun Violence Chairman and Founder John Rosenthal
    appeared on MSNBC yesterday morning talking about what it will
    take to get Congress to pass common sense legislation to prevent gun
    violence.  Apparently 87 deaths per day by handgun is less important to legislators than stopping White House tours due to the sequester.

    Following is the clip, which
    is well worth watching.

     

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/51257926#51257926

     

    Again, here are some calls to action to keep the pressure
    on and let your voice be heard in the name of gun violence prevention…

     

     

    ·         Contact
    Congress at 202-224-3121 to demand the 3 changes to federal gun policy outlined
    above

     

    ·        
    Write/call your local Representatives. For a Congressional directory: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

     

    ·         For a MA
    directory of local representatives: (617) 722-2000 or http://www.wheredoivotema.org

     

    ·         Get
    involved by joining: https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/organizing-for-action

     

    ·         Sign the
    petition at: http://www.demandaplan.org  demanding that Congress step forward with a
    plan to end gun violence

     

    ·         Share
    your thoughts on ending gun violence at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/share-your-thoughts-reducing-gun-violence

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

      i’ll let them all know that the best way to reduce crime is to increase legitimate gun ownership.

      • Pete4BUR

        Fine. LEGITIMATE gun purchases make sense for those who want them.

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

          look we found common ground!

  • Roy-in-Boise

    Deer hunting is not part of the 2nd Amendment. Every time a media commentator mentions hunting in the same breath while discussing this issue they “nullify” their own argument.

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

      like biden who clearly understands nothing claims the right has something to do with hunting. then he pretends that deer are the only thing people hunt

    • Fredlinskip

      While I agree that 2nd amendment principally addressed the need for arms so as citizens could come to the aid of their country in time of need, I think it safe to assume that FF’s realized that not everyone would be in a militia.
      Therefore they were granting the right for purposes of hunting as well.
      IMO

  • albert Sordi

    Americans are going to need their guns….. to shoot down drones.

    • StilllHere

      Can we just arm our own drones?

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

        of course the herocam drone is $699

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

    I find it noteworthy that at the same time the Prison Industrial Complex has been building for-profit jails, the potential “customers” (ie. the American population) has been arming itself up with assault weapons. It would be fine with me if the law began to clamp down on civilian arms dealers who obey no laws at all. Always room for one more in the corporate Big House.

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

      so you support the prison industrial complex

  • William

     The administration says “trust us” but released a few thousand criminals from jail as a political stunt during a recent budget battle. There is little reason to wonder why new gun control laws are not going to succeed.

    • StilllHere

      Couldn’t they have gotten those prisoners to lead White House tours?

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

      i love how they spend billions to send arms to egypt and isreal but are trying to disarm us

  • twenty_niner

    Why not ban all firearms?! 

    Oops, I almost forgot, we’re supposed to do this in stages.

    • peterlake

      Yes, ban all firearms in stages.
      Hitler did it and we can try it, too, I’m sure.

      For an historical precedent, see the German gun confiscation Weapons Laws of 1938.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

      • nj_v2

        When in doubt, invoke Hitler.

        • peterlake

          I never mentioned Hitler at all.

          In November 1938 it was the Nazi Minister of the Interior Wilhelm Frick who drew up the gun control law, Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons.

          It could have been a blueprint for many of the current proposals I’ve seen here, however.

          Try reading it. I’m sure you would approve.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I missed the first few minutes.  Has somebody calculated the cost to the US Treasury in terms of costs to the judicial system, cost to the prison system, cost to the medical system to repair gun damage?  Versus the cost per citizen in countries with more restrictive gun policies?  I think I heard 30,000 gun deaths per year.  Multiply that out, by all the individuals involved.

    • creaker

      Maybe that cost should be put on gun sales, much the same way cigarettes get taxed to help defray some of the costs of smoking.

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

        there are already taxes on guns and ammo

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

      don’t you realise that 100% of those “gun deaths” are caused by humans? 2/3 are suicide, people don’t decide to take their own life because they have a gun nor do they decide to kill others because they have a gun. would you rather those 30,00 was pushed or jumped out of windows?

    • StilllHere

      what is the price of freedom?

  • burroak

    Why is it that our congress cannot even agree with meet-in-the-middle legislation, for example universal background checks? Is it that difficult to protect our children?
    And what messages, and images do we project to other nations when our congress cannot work together? At least something to protect our citizens and law-abiding gun owners.
    We have the most violent gun culture of an industrial nation and we want to police other nations. We screem W.O.M.D, no wonder they reply M.Y.O.B.

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

      so tell me how a “universal background check” will work. will jimmy gangbanger and bobby straw purchaser/gun thief/ illegal gun importer just head on down to the gunstore when its time to do their deal? you know the “gunshow loophole” is a myth right?
       i do agree with your criticism of the hipocracy of american imperialism

    • peterlake

      Since you think it’s such a good idea, please point to the mass shootings that were accomplisshed because of a lack of “universal background checks”?

      Or is this just something you think would be a good idea but have no supporting evidence for?

  • NanSS

    So far in the program I haven’t learned: *Why* are the assault weapon and background check portions of the bill not supported in the Senate? *Why* are moderate Dems and Republicans against these? We have laws about selling cars privately (transfer of title, transfer or purchase of license plates), getting driver’s licenses, excise taxes, that keep track of cars. *Why* not for guns?

    • creaker

      Explosives are heavily restricted and regulated – because they are dangerous.

      • Gregg Smith

        In 1981 I was building a road up a mountain. I could drive to nearby Spruce Pine, NC and with only a valid drivers license, I could buy a pick-up truckload of dynamite. 

    • Roy-in-Boise

       Driving a car is a privilege. Ownership of a firearm is a right. Big difference.

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

      cars dont keep us free?

    • J__o__h__n

      Why are we calling conservative Democrats moderate?

  • Bluejay2fly

    It’s a magazine or “clip” it is not a magazine clip! This is the problem! You always have people involved in this debate who know little or nothing about guns, how crime works, and are blind advocates against firearms. This is why the NRA is so intransigent.

    • Roy-in-Boise

       Amen Bluejay2fly!

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

      i have gotten sick of trying to explain its not a “magazine clip” the president keeps mentioning, and that guy is in charge of the most powerful military force on earth

  • Matthew Ruby

    As a society, it seems like we are just coming to grips with the uselessness of the war on drugs.  A war on guns is equally a no-win since, beyond all the resources we’d spend and limits on law-abiding gun-owners, those wishing to do violence will always have access to any kind of guns.

    How do we shift focus to the problems of growing violence and diminishing personal well-being among so many in our society?

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

      ending the failed war on drugs would reduce the murder rate significantly. when we ended prohibition of alcohol the murder rate dropped 99%

  • DrewInGeorgia

    If a National Vote of the populous was held today would it differ from the results of our do nothing Congress? Bet it would.

    Do you support Universal Background checks for firearms? Yes or No
    Do you support large capacity magazine restrictions? Yes or No
    Do you support a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons? Yes or No.

    I’d wager that the first two measures would pass with flying colors. How silly of me to think that Congressional action should reflect the will of the majority.

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

      biden admitted the “vast majority” was about 56%.

      • DrewInGeorgia

        For Universal Background Checks?
        For restricting magazine capacity to ten rounds?

        What are you talking about? So you already know how a vote by the people would pan out?
        What are you talking about?
        I’m so sick of having this same discussion over, and over, and over again.

        The saddest thing of all is that if there was a national vote with gun-control on the ballot I guarantee you that FAR more people would show up to vote than they do for Elections.

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

          Now Drew, you know that 56% is only a “mandate” when it comes from the right.

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

          thats why we don’t have votes “by the people” if we did then all civil rights would be in danger. do you agree with the people of california that gays should not be allowed to marry. look up the difference between a democracry and a republic

  • Scott B

    The difference between a 10 round clip and a 30 round clip would have meant 14 clip changes instead of 4. That’s 14 chances for someone to stop him. 14. 

    • peterlake

      Anyone who refers to a magazine as a “clip” has no knowledge of the subject and should just sit quietly on the sidelines.

      • nj_v2

        Righto, any citizen not fully versed in the completely vocabulary of any issue should not participate in any matters of government.

        • peterlake

          And what exactly are doing to “participate”?

          Have you read Miller or Heller or Sandy Levison or Joyce Malcolm or ANYTHING about the subject?
          Have you donated money?
          Have you written a letter?

          Or do you just have an uninformed opinion?
          Everyone has one of those, just like a certain body part.

          • nj_v2

            It’s funny how all you Liberty types, especially the condescending jackassy ones like you, are usually all down with Constitutional originalism, unless it doesn’t favor your pet delusion. If a recent SC decision didn’t comport with an orginalist reading of the Constitution, you’d have your shorts all twisted. 

            I think Heller was wrongly decided by a group of conservative extremists. Four justices dissented, and i think they were right.

          • peterlake

            You think Heller was wrong??
            Well, swell, but that’s the great thing about America –
            anyone, no matter how ignorant or illl-informed, can own an opinion.

          • nj_v2

            Four SC justices thought is was wrong. Clearly they are ignorant and ill-informed.

            Not as much as you, though.

          • peterlake

            Of course they were ill-informed or they wouldn’t have voted as they did.

            Did you think all SCOTUS justices were always smart and well-informed?

            I bet you think the majority was ignorant and ill-informed in Citizens v. United.

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

          thats a good idea. then we would not have republican men discussing rape babies

      • Scott B

         You’re splitting hairs, which is a typical tactic.  To the general, anything that holds several round is a “clip” or “magazine”.  To gun people they’re two different things.  But again, that’s splitting hairs, much like people saying the AR’s are assault weapons because they’re not made to be fully automatic and/or a certain  caliber (which seems to always be some ever higher caliber than the weapon in questions), yet Gen McChrystal calls the AR a “weapon of war” and LaPierre himself switches up “magazine” and “clip”.  You remind me of the D&D guys I’d have to sit next to in high school study halls, arguing over the tensile strength of rope per foot  or some such nonsense. Get over yourself.

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

          the DHS calls the Ar15 “suitable for personal defense” maybe the general did not get the memo. yes many gun owners are nerds and geek out on details but it is annoying to hear people use such wrong terms. the man in charge of the most powerful military force on earth does not know what the things that hold rounds in a firearm are called. thats scary

        • peterlake

          Call the guns and their magazines whatever you want:
          “Sugar plums” and “bang-bangs” or whatever.

          But I caution you that you’re speaking to the un-converted and if you want them to listen then you better learn to speak their language.

          Otherwise, you remain on Square One forever.

          Which is fine with me, by the way, since that’s a good place to keep on eye on you.

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

        he apparently has no knowledge of math either

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

      they were not able to stop him the first 4 times so how many times would he have to change clips before a kindergartener or an unarmed kindergarten teacher was able to take him down with their bare hands?

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

      you wanna check that math again there cowpoke?

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

      check your math there chief. what number of magazine changes would have allowed the kindegarteners or their teacher to stop the gun man?

  • http://twitter.com/mikenoe Mike Noe

    It seems like they are going after the wrong firearms.  Long guns in general are responsible for 5% of gun crime, and I believe that the “assault” type weapons are responsible for about 2%.  Shouldn’t we focus on the 95%?  It seems like we’re wasting a lot of effort focusing on the smallest piece of the puzzle.

    • Bluejay2fly

      You are should not comment on this forum. This is about an emotional reaction not an intellectual contemplation. Do not think, be angry!

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

      i think its even less  than that great point

  • Bluejay2fly

    The First Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban did not prevent the purchase of AR15′s it just could not have a flashhider, bayonet lug, collapsable stock, and grenade launcher. That weapon could still kill just as effectively as those with those features. It was a travesty, a scam, a piece of feel good legislation that did not prevent any mass murders.

  • David Nihsen

    I’m a former marine. I know weapons. Pass the damned bill.

    • Bluejay2fly

      Shame on you. As former military should know handguns  kill 95% of people. Preventing law abiding people from collecting military weapons, using them for target shooting, or owning them for nostalgia because less than 1 percent of crimes are used by them is an affront to people’s rights, many of them veterans.

      • David Nihsen

        Please see my response to Peter above. 

    • peterlake

      So are Marines supposed to have more rights than civilians?

      And my Marine family would be very upset to have a retired Marine say he was “a FORMER Marine”, unless he received a less than honorable discharge.

      • David Nihsen

        I never said I was retired. But as there’s no such thing as an “ex-Marine” you use the term “former”. But you knew that, right?

        As to rights, the right to own weapons is a Constitutional right. But, the right to REGULATE the weaponry is also involved in the same Amendment. This is what this is attempting to do.

        Note that my views are just that – my views – and it is my belief that the assault weapons ban as well as the limiting of magazine sizes will prevent mass slayings such as we’ve seen. This will do nothing for handgun violence, but it would severely limit the probable body count in those times when an individual is going for a “high score” as it were.

        • Bluejay2fly

          Virginia Tech

        • peterlake

          First, “the right to REGULATE the weaponry” is NOT involved in the “same Amendment” as you say.

          “Regulate” in the 2A refers to the training of the militia, not enforcement of controls on the arms.

          Second, as a former rifleman please tell me how long it took you to change a magazine on an M-16 or M-4.

          It takes me about a second and a half.

          So firing thirty rounds takes and extra 3 seconds. Is someone going to stop the trained shooter in 1.5 seconds x 2?

          Puleeze.

          • nj_v2

            [[ "Regulate" in the 2A refers to the training of the militia, not enforcement of controls on the arms. ]]

            What militia do you belong to?

          • peterlake

            I don’t need to belong to a militia.
            I suggest you read Heller and get back to me.

    • twenty_niner

      I’m former Navy, so I probably kicked your ass in a bar somewhere. Just kidding.

      You should know these aren’t assault weapons; they’re semi automatics. One pull of the trigger = one round. No one is going to war armed with AR-15s.

      • David Nihsen

        Ha! In 1985 I did get my ass kicked in a bar by a couple of Navy guys! I started the fight thinking I was the big bad Marine, they finished it proving me wrong! If you were in Oceanside in 1985 I apologize for being a dick.

  • peterlake

    The ten-round magazine limit as an aid to limit shootings is a joke.

    I keep hearing from Joe Biden about the ten-round magazine giving someone “time to intervene”.

    I can reload a ten-round magazine with another one in one second.

    No reason not to leave a round in the chamber while I reload.
    Anyone “intervening” would be shot, were I a killer.

    And can you imagine anyone wanting to rush up and intervene if I’d already fired off nine killing rounds?

    So what’s the point of this attempted legislation except as a pointless, incremental infringement on my right to bear arms?

     

    • Bluejay2fly

      Right on. It’s idiotic, like a person could not alter a ten round magazine. 

      • peterlake

        Plus 3-D printing will let anyone make their own 30 round magazine at home.

      • ThirdWayForward

        This is such a specious argument. Some violent, mentally-ill mass murderer wannabe might not have the wherewithal to alter a magazine. It’s much more involved than driving over to Walmart or ordering one from Cabela’s by mail.

        • Bluejay2fly

          I served in the US Army Reserves we had Hundreds of them laying around for the taking. Also, I have seen them in the Local Classifieds. I also saw one at a swap meet. Do you really think it’s that hard? Can crazy mass murders not serve in the military? Tim McVeigh

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

          or just print one out on your 3d printer

    • twenty_niner

      Exactly,

      This is feel-good legislation that won’t even budge the statistics on gun violence.

      Many on the left are aware of this but want the legislation as an incremental step to a full ban of all firearms.

  • WHW111

    I am facinated by guns, especially of the 1940s period. We need limits. I would be willing to be parted from the most dangerous part of my own collection to comply with necessary limits. Congress should act to protect the USA now.    

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

      has there been a lot of tommy gun violence lately?

      • WHW111

        Sandy Hook was close enough.

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

          did he use a tommy gun?

  • John Weathers

    suggesting you can’t make gun legislation without owning a gun is akin to saying you can’t outlaw crack unless your a crackhead

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

      how is outlawing crack working out? if you cant even use the right terms how can you make sensable policies?

  • Cabanator

    These impassioned debates over gun control are so frustrating. It’s obvious that the American public is more interested in owning guns than in curbing gun violence. Forget Sandy Hook and the mass killings. Every year, 11,000 people are killed by guns, and we do nothing. Teenagers are killed in gang violence, children and wives are killed by fathers and husbands, and we do nothing. Now something like Sandy Hook happens, and we can’t even agree to minor regulations that would do little to limit access to guns, and in reality, would also do little to bring down the number of murdered Americans. 72% of those killed by guns in this country are killed by handguns, and no one would even consider limiting access to those. Universal background checks might help a little bit, but the only way to bring about significant change is through dramatic steps that we seemingly aren’t willing to take, like a ban on handguns and major step-ups in policing in high-crime neighborhoods. Sadly, it is more important to us to have the freedom to go shooting for recreation and the false sense of security that a gun in our homes will make us “safe,” than it is to stop the murders. So the next time a Sandy Hook-like incident happens, we should look ourselves in the mirror and admit the reality; we are willing to accept the gunning down of our children to protect our right to own guns. 

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

      actually those 11,000 are killed by people, not guns, and in general we try to hold the people who kill responsible in a court of law. how are the handgun bans in DC and chicago working out? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1196966755 Sam Brown

    Tom, gangsters call them “clips”.  Responsible gun owners call them magazines.  You are just adding to the stereotype.  I love your show, but please refer to them properly to have a more respectable conversation about this very important issue.

    • StilllHere

      It’s tough when he’s taking a position without knowing what he is talking about.

  • maryrita

    If the public had seen photos of the murdered children, would we have risen up in such numbers that Congress would support the assault weapons ban? Michael Moore makes the case that it was Emmet Till’s beaten body in its casket that was a turning point in the civil rights movement, and it was photos from My Lai that turned public opinion about Vietnam. Should some photos be seen?

    • peterlake

      Yes, the dead bodies of children should be used to inflame the populace so public policy can be based on the criminal behavior of lunatics.

      Any more good ideas?

      • maryrita

        When Emmett Till’s mother chose to have an open casket at his funeral, it opened the eyes of the public to the murderous brutality of racism, and eventually public policy changed. My post was a question that I think is worth pondering. What if the Newtown parents asked for the release of the photos of their murdered children? These photos would be horrible to see, as are the photos of My Lai. I don’t want to see them. But do we need to see them to really understand what has happened? I was hoping for some reflection on that question, rather than a sarcastic response.

        • peterlake

          If you think it’s such a good idea why not ask the parents of the murdered children to support your campaign?

          • maryrita

             It’s obviously futile to hope that you might respond respectfully and thoughtfully. I’m done here.

          • peterlake

            Happy to help clear out the deadwood.

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

      they were parading the images of the murdered kids around for weeks. i wonder if we saw images of the thousands of children we have killed in iraq and afganastan over the last decade if we would still have all these wars

  • jim_thompson

    Tom:  I am a gun owner, hold a Concealed Weapons Permit and DO support background checks for ALL gun sales, limiting high cpacity clips and restricting assault weapons.  None of these items restricts the 2nd amendment in any way shape or form nor harm any law abiding citizen or gun owner.  I also support gun registration.  There should also be very strict sentences and long terms for those commiting crimes with a gun or for those violating gun laws.  The NRA has not represented its’ members for years, it is a schill for gun manufacturers.

    • peterlake

      You’ve lost alll credibility as some kind of gun expert when you refer to a magazine as a “clip”.

      You may own guns but you are ignorant of what’s being discussed.

      • d clark

        And you are an obscurantist ass. (Gun owner, former Army officer, U.S. Army Marksman qualified in rifle and pistol)

        • peterlake

          So if you’re so qualified why would you call a magazine a “clip”?

          My guess: you were qualified with a clip-fed M-1, not a modern sporting rifle, and you were in the Army in the 50′s. Sir!

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

      you must have already bought yours

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

    The last time the assault weapons ban was instituted it basically was moved along to protect the police. Perhaps that’s the approach we need to take again.

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

      it had no effect then whats different now?

  • LianeSperoni

    8 year-old Christopher Bizilj of Ashford, Conn. was killed in 2008 at a “shooting expo” in western Massachusetts when his father (who was an M.D.) allowed him to shoot an Uzi. He shot off his head.

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

      yup and the gun he used was a police chief’s under his direct supervision. and you think the police should be the only ones with these guns?

      • LianeSperoni

        When’s the last time you saw a policeman carrying an Uzi? I don’t believe this supervising police chief was acting on behalf of the police department.

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

          the last time i saw one carrying one was when reagan was shot the SS guys all pulled them out. the machine gun shoot was sponsored by the department and the police chief was supervising the child in question. I shot a full auto uzi at a range a few months back it was a great time. a full auto uzi costs over $20.000 so thats why you dont see them that often. the point is that police should have no more access to guns than other citizens because they tend to be less safe with them than citizens

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    Any representative that votes with the NRA in mind is a wuss.
    The NRA is NOTHING as a percentage of the total number of eligible voters in the country.

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      it’s not the NRA, it’s the gun owning and voting community is many critical states… 

      it does not matter what the 91% of people in Massachusetts wants. It matter what 51% of the people want in AK, MT, NV etc.

  • Scott B

    In 1776 an assault weapon involved a powder horn and a ram rod, not a rifle capable of shooting a 100 rounds in seconds.

    • peterlake

      Modern sporting rifles are not capable of “shooting 100 rounds in seconds.”

      Thanks for your uninformed opinion, though.
      It merely strengthens the belief of gun owners that only the ignorant are behind these gun control measures.

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      a Revolver shooting (12 shots in 3 seconds)

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

      an M4 machine gun (banned since 1986) vs. an AR-15 (Feinsten wants to ban it) vs a Remington 742 (Feinstein exempts it and it will never be banned unless you ban everything semi auto)

      http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/on_air/links_on_tv/special-report-firearm-facts#.US5dv6WQmR0The

      the exempted rifle shoots as fast as the AR-15, but both shoot 10 times slower than the military M4 machine gun (the real assault weapon….).

      machine gun: 30 rounds in 1.5 seconds
      AR-15: 3 rounds in 1.5 seconds
      hunting rifle Remington 742: 3 rounds in 1.5 seconds

      got it?

      before you speak, get informed.

      • peterlake

        Thanks, Mr.Henry.
        You’re correct and detailed  info is a breath of fresh air on this forum.

        I’m just worn out from reading the ignorant opinions that drive this issue.

      • Scott B

        Last time I looked, all measured time included seconds.  Nowhere was I implying that anyone loosed 100 round in a few seconds, but even 3 round bursts take, as you say, 1.5 seconds. Dothe math and 100 rounds would take 66.66 seconds, add a few seconds to release the trigger and reset the mechanism, and that’s still going to be under 90 seconds. SECONDS. Call it “a minute-and-a-half” or “under 2 minutes”, but that’s still something more to be counted in seconds.

        I am informed. I can also do math. I also know and talk with former SEALS and snipers, and well as a gunsmith or two.

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

          they tried different sized magazines and shooters with different levels of experience and it only affected the time to fire slightly

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      plus, to follow up your analogy, your right to free speech is not limited to typeset print and paper scrolls, it extends to your blog and iPhone….

      • Scott B

         Pick a Constitutional right and there are laws and exceptions to it.  We can make and drink alcoholic beverages, but we limit who, what, where, how much…  Voting: age, residency, sanity…    Our right to free speech might include hate speech, such as, Nazis wanting to have a parade, but it doesn’t include threats or death or harm, harassment,  libel, and slander.

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          yours is a truism that I acknowledged as my first comment below. the issue here is where to draw the limit.
          the limit is drawn using law history contextualized to the present time by way of analogy (among other standards). where that line is drawn for “assault weapons” has not been determined, but given they are firearms “in common use for lawful purpose” (Heller SCOTUS language), as millions are owned and police use them daily for self defense in our cities, the AR-15, the Beretta 92FS and the alike are likely constitutionally protected, exactly for the same reason your blog is.

          by using you examples, the USE of the AR 15 for causing damage, injury or its brandishing is not protected. The ownership in one’s home for lawful purposes is. especially when one can show that it is not more dangerous that many other firearms exempted even under the Feinstein ban.

          I do say that superlarge capacity mags (>15 for pistols, >30 for rifles) are NOT protected, because NOT in common use for lawful purposes

  • commonsense196

    I am appalled.  These senators will face a backlash, not from the NRA but from the 91% of whom they are who are ignoring.  I will not vote for any politician who will not vote for banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  

    We know that these weapons have killed thousands of Americans and now we
    have to cope with the ghost of children being struck down
    in their school room at age 6 or 7 years. 
    There is NO excuse for not supporting this ban on weapons that are of no
    use to hunters or those who want to protect their homes.

    These weapons have become a TOY for men who have been
    allowed to remain in a state of arrested development, perpetual 11 or 12 year-olds playing target shooting; OR, men who seek to enhance their manhood by
    having a BIG gun; OR criminals who want to outgun the police; OR the mentally
    ill who think they have an ax to grind. 
    There is NO other reason to have these weapons.  Our children should not be subjected to a
    future where they are not safe to go to school, to a mall, to a church, to a
    movie theatre because of these horrendous weapons in the hands of maniacs.   Is the ability to play target-shooting games
    more important than protecting  children
    and all law-abiding citizens? NO!

    Politicians need to stand up NOW for the safety of the American people or every future violent act by these weapons will be blood on their hands as accomplices to these murders.  Sorry, their re-election is NOT more important than the lives of innocent people.

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

      so are you a big hunter then that you feel qualified to say what hunters dont “need”. also clearly AR15s are good for self defense since the DHS has said they are “suitable for personal defense” and bought thousands

  • winecooker

    I am a gun owner and ex-military.  Universal backround checks are an obvious and right thing to do.  Limiting the maximum capacity of magazines is correct too.  Banning assault weapons is not very useful since however you define them the manufacturers will be able to produce a weapon with similar specifications that will be legal.

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

      so how are you going to get a gangbanger to do a background check before he buys a stolen gun?

  • EvanRossK

    Assault weapons are instruments of killing, but what about handguns?  Aren’t they involved in many times more US deaths than these high capacity rifles?  If our interest is in saving lives, shouldn’t we be focused on discussing the availability of handguns?

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

      thats not their interest, gun control is not about guns its about control

  • ericd725

    It’s because the industry makes MONEY is why we’re talking about this in the first place.

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    Whoever that was at the end (male guest or caller with the British accent) would say that nuclear weapons in citizen’s hands would be OK, because there can still be hand gun murder. He doesn’t want to reduce deaths. He is sickening.

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

      i missed that call. are you really worried about people buying nuclear weapons?

  • Georgeny

    Tom, gun control advocates are wasting this opportunity to achieve some advance in the laws by over-hyping the true danger of “assault weapon” – style rifles, while ignoring the unpleasent fact that the vast majority of firearm injuries and deaths are caused by hand guns, primarily in the terrible urban envioronments that we have allowed to evolve. Modern 9mm pistols, of which there are millions in circulation, can carry almost as many rounds as the “high capacity magazines” that are constantly mentioned, and a shooter cane easily carry and fire two at once, along with many extended magazines. Why do we ignore the killings happening every day in our cities – because it is primarily a black or brown problem? It is all our problem. Truly eliminate “assault weapons” and these tragic mass shootings will simply take place with pistols and compact (legal) shotguns.

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

      well if we started looking too close at the violence in the inner city we would see its all fueled by prohibition policies then we would have to examine those and that would be bad for prohibition

  • LianeSperoni

    When a nation goes to war, do they use handguns? No, they use the most lethal weapon they have, because they want to overwhelm the enemy with bullets. The kill indiscrimately because they dehumanize the people they are fighting.

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

      actually they do use handguns

      • LianeSperoni

        The primary weapon that a soldier uses is an automatic weapon.

        When is the last time you saw a soldier go into a battle with a handgun in his hand?

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

          we dont see much footage of soldiers in battle. i could be wrong but i thought all soldiers were issued beretta 9mms these days. i was watching “the ultimate soldier challenge” the other day and was surprised to see one of the special forces guys pull his pistol in a mock battle. they explained that in some close quarters situations operators will perfer a pistol as its more manueverable and leaves a hand free

          • LianeSperoni

            We do see soldiers in battle- we had an “embedded media” in Iraq, lest you forget, and it was an ingenuous way for the Bush adminstration to ward off any critics because then “journalists” were seeing the war through the perspective of the US.  600,000 Iraqis were killed, and those who were not killed by bombs,  were most certainly killed by assault weapons, capable of shooting 30+ rounds without reloading, the kind of gun American citizens seem to have a rather bizarre appetite for, just like they have a bizarre appetite for war.

            You do not need these weapons to hunt or protect yourself from an intruder. They are weapons of war and SHAME on Congress for not banning them. I guess they want war in the US- where our children can be both warriors and the enemy. Yeah, I am sure that is what the founding fathers intended. Bull.

          • LianeSperoni

            and BTW, everyone knows soldiers have handguns, and they probably carry knives  too. But the point  is we are trying  to ban weapons of war like assault rifles from getting into the hands of civilians. Why is that so controversial? We don’t allow the military personell to patrol our streets- that’s a violation of the Constitution, so why would we allow weapons of war on American soil? What’s a soldier without a weapon? (a civilian)

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

            its controversial because we do allow the police to patrol with AR15s already and because “civilians” which i call citizens already have millions and millions of these guns and they are almost never used in crimes.  a decent AR15 costs at least $2000 and thats before you put any scopes or flashlights on it. whats a citizen without a right to bear  arms? (a chinese citizen AKA a subject)

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

            do you hunt much? here in new england we dont have much need for rifles due to the dense woods. in other places they have open spaces and rifles are used to hunt and for pest control. for some types of “varmint hunting” a 30 round magazine is ideal. also essential for many types of shooting competitions. there is a video on you tube of a young lady taking a few shots at a target on the range with both a 12 gauge shotgun and a AR15, i went through the trouble of finding it for you i hope you give it a watch.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH9OOdl9JEI
            as far as being a weapon of war i seem to see that every police cruiser has one. who are they going to war with? why would they have them if they are not good for self defense? why would the DHS say they are “suitable for personal defense”?

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          not sure what was your point, but, exactly. an automatic/select fire  weapon like an M4 or an M16. Machine guns, that is.

          Those have nothing to do AR-15s and the other firearms the gun banner talk about…

          the ban bans firearms in common use for lawful purpose in our cities. weapons of war have already been banned in 1986.

          • LianeSperoni

            Any automatic rifle capable of firing multiple bullets without reloading is a weapon of war and you know it. You want to split hairs about whih model of gun we are talking about? An 8 year old kid in Massachusetts shot his head off with an Uzi- is that not a machine gun? That was in 2008.

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

            it was a machine gun owned by the police chief who was supervising the boy.  they are no longer available new and have not been since reagan got shot. a machine gun liscense is very hard to get unless you are a hick police chief . if you were able to obtain such a liscense a 30 year old uzi would set you back over $20,000. so you have no need to support the “assault weapons ban” because assault weapons are already essentially banned.

  • Scott B

    The last caller clearly isn’t experienced with changing clips on a weapon. A trained person can swap them out in under a second, but they’re still limited to what is withing easy reach, and that’s very limited.  The average person takes closer to 5 seconds, and even if the extra clips are in reach, it’s a matter of reaching the place it’s carried, opening  the closure holding the clip in place, pulling it out, and then going through the rest of the clip swapping process. That’s even more seconds. 

    There’s a former principal (now with a gun control group) that stopped a shooting because the shooter had to stop to change clips. He says that had the shooter had an extended clip the carnage would have been must worse in the less than 10 seconds that it took for the shooter to empty his clip, and gave him the time to tackle the shooter.

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      first of all the would be killer will have a MOLLE vest with plenty of spare magazines, and a speed load can be performed below one second with the appropriate magazine belt strapped to the chest. grab second magazine while still shooting, push release, the new mag is in before the first one drops to the ground.

       any visit to a local IDPA competition will show you that.Plus, even a revolver can be reloaded just as fast, let alone a pistol magazine:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPwfinally: do you think a class of kids with one teacher will have the capacity or the mind spirit of stopping an armed assailant? The teacher was likely shot first in CT, being the only one capable of reacting.Magazine size is a red herring for the most part (but as I said before, pistol mag above 15-17 rounds or rifle  mags above 30 are not in common use and can be banned at any time).What is crazy is that the only bill having the clearest immediate effect (grants for school protection) they are considered trivial or secondary, while they are the only ones addressing the issue of mass shooting in schools.

      • Scott B

         That’s provided he had one, which he didn’t. It still takes lots of practice (and maintaining that skill) to be able to swap clips that fast. Also, most people wouldn’t be able to do the training that would let them have that kind of control. The recoil of the that kind of rifle is a bear to overcome enough to be firing and grabbing for a new clip to swap out. 

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          a mag belt rig costs 20 bucks on amazon. and like anything manual, velocity is a matter of practice and muscle memory:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

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

          tell me more about managing the recoil of an AR15

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

      if he had an “extended clip” then it probably would have malfunctioned and less people would have been shot. testing shows that inexperienced shooters can put lead downrange about the same rate with different sized magazines

  • ThirdWayForward

    This is crazy, absolutely crazy. 3-D printers cost thousands of dollars.

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      And soon won’t.

    • peterlake

      My first computer-driven printer, a thimble NEC, cost me $3000 in 1979, about $7700 now.

      It weighed 30 pounds and was very slow compared to the 3 pound $100 printer you can buy today at Staples.

      Gun parts are already being made by 3-D printers and the chief proponent of parts-printing just got his Federal Firearms License.

      Coming soon to a basement near you.

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

      nope you just need to download the plans from their open source site. in reality you can make an AR or an AK with a drill press

  • Jamison

    Why cant we restrict were these guns are kept?  So they can have a Assault rifle but can only keep it at a gun rang or show they own enough land to use this gun safely. This would work for large clips as well, normal size ok at home large only at gun rang …

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      no, of course. the 2A speaks of right to “keep”, not to have a rifle functionally confiscated in a hypothetical gun range (no gun range is organized to safely store thousands of firearms anyway). plus the core right is about self-defense.

      the federal government has just bought thousands of AR-15-like rifles for homeland security civilian officers with the rationale that they are exceptionally well suited for “self defense in close quarters”. why wouldn’t the same logic apply to my AR15?

      • Jamison

         I can own a car and a race car but I can only use the race car at a close cores / track.  Look at the restrictions on KEEPING a gun in almost any city. You can not shot an Assault rifle in your back yard (for the most part). If you think your gone to be effective with it ageist an arm and you need it by your side at all times…thats a start up joke!

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          your analogy is a fallacy. first of all, car ownership is not constitutionally protected. 
          plus,  I can drive my race car in my own backyard without any permit or regulation or registration or license or insurance. sure, I cannot discharge a firearms within city limits in most cities except for the defense of heart and home (SCOTUS language) when jeopardy, ability and oppourtunty for deadly harm subsist. In Massachausetts I don’t even have a duty to retreat in my own home. so yes, I can keep my AR-15 in my home.

          Linsky proposal to eliminate LTCs and store all large cap in gun clubs (your obvious reference) is unconstitutional. I only wish they try it for the joy of see any federal court to strike it down in flames.

          • Jamison

            You are articulate and I am dyslexic.
            I am try to suggest a possible solution that dous not band, a middle ground, while you make excuses.
            If you spent the same energy help us fix the, clearly, broken system as you do defending it we would not be having this discussion.

          • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

            you don’t want to hear about the fixes. You want to ban guns in an arbitrary and capricious way. and that is where you lose me. and yes, you force me spending time defending my rights, because you certainly won’t.

            as i said, mine is a reasonable position: if police owns a certain firearm for the lawful purpose of self-defense in our city streets, then it belongs to society, legitimately. period. 

            so, you can ban 40, 50, 100 round magazine, you can ban machine guns. you cannot ban standard capacity magazines (15-17 for pistols or 30 for a rifle), you cannot ban an AR-15 or a Glock 17.

            be consistent. that’s all I am asking.

          • Jamison

            I am a gun owner.
            At no point have I said I want to ban any thing in my suggestive solution. I do however want tighter restrictions and requirements for these weapons.
            I will always have a open mind an continued to evolve wile you will stay stuck in the past, were you belong.

          • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

            I have no “past” in this country. I have no positions I got married to when I was a kid growing up here. I am a recent immigrant in this country for 15 years, and a gun owner. 

            don’t project on me your stereotypes.

            you are a gun owner? tell me what’s the difference between and AR-15 (banned under Feinstein) and a Remington 742(not banned). don’t you see that these are the same functional firearm? don’t you see that the whole discussion about “regulating these firearms” is bogus, by focusing on certain firearms just because of the way they look??

            my mind is open to a logical argument. I see none in the Feinstein 2013 AWB. none.

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

          and are you required to store your racecar at the track?

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          Plus, the Feinstein AWB bans my Beretta 92FS pistol as well.  How is that different from a Ruger SR9 or a M1911A1, that are not banned? 

          It calls “assault weapons” things that are not and never will.

          It is a deeply flawed, illogical, overreaching and for those reasons alone, unconstitutional bill.I wish people would take the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the bills that so simple-mindedly support.

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          also, after DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) restrictions on “keeping” firearms are all deemed unconstitutional in all those cities having bans (DC, Chicago etc.).

          again, you are the typical case of the uninformed antigunner speaking by mean of old information, false analogies and logical fallacies, while thinking of making “common sense”.

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

      do you think gun ranges are set up to do that? what is an assault rifle?

  • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

    The whole discussion on this AWB is irrational. There are two issues here: the so called assault weapons, its definition and the list of exempted firearms and the “large capacity magazines”. 

    In both cases Sen. Feinstein has not shown the least desire of compromise and she came up with an overreaching, irrational and unconstitutional bill.

    Firearms ownership can be regulated, as other enumerated rights are. the issue here is where to draw the line and based on what criteria.

    The firearms targeted by the ban are semiautomatic firearms in common use for lawful purposes (not only in this country but in nations like Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Norway, by the way). They are not machine guns, despite the looks.  They are targeted because of their looks, not lethality: chief proof of this is the fact that rifles like the Ruger Mini 14 ranch semiautomatic rifle is in the list of exempted firearms because it has a wood stock and no pistol grip! Note, this is the same rifle used in the Norway massacre 2 years ago. So you would ban my AR-15 because it is black and scary but not a rifle that has been used in a massacre of 77 people…It targets all calibers and type of ammunitions, centerfire and not, even a .17 or a rimfire .22LR caliber. It bans pistols like the Beretta 92FS or a Glock 17, but no particular logical reason, discriminating in favor of After -if- the Feinstein ban is passed, will you be “safer”? no. not at all. “Regular rifles” are just as lethal: they shoot the same or larger calibers than an AR-15, they can be fitted with large capacity magazine, they shoot at the same rate (take a hunting rifle like the Ruger mini 14 ranch rifle or the Remington 742: same magazine as the AR-15, same rate of fire).Visual proof here:http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/on_air/links_on_tv/special-report-firearm-facts#.US5dv6WQmR0The fact is that the ban language uses superficial, cosmetic criteria unlinked from lethality, undermining its constitutionality (functionally identical firearms are exempted, making it irrational, and it discriminates against a weapon, the AR-15 and the alike, that are in common use for lawful purposes; it exempts retired law enforcement officers, as if they are some sort of privileged protected category holier than the common citizen).

    As for the large capacity magazine: pistol magazines with 15-17 rounds are “standard capacity”, as rifle magazine with 20 to 30 round are standard capacity. that is what the police use. The police works in our streets, not Afghanistan or war theaters. if they are good for the police for self-defense they are good for private individuals as well.

    Do you want to ban 40, 50, 100 round magazines or machine guns (already banned since 1986)? go ahead, I do think those are not constitutionally protected, they don’t affect self-defemnse, they are not “in common use for lawful purposes”, as police never use them and even the military do not issue them as standard side arms. those limits that respect the second amendment. in the end, SCOTUS will decide.

    • JobExperience

       I agree that Feinstein’s ideas are half-assed and voiced only to please a gun-fearing constituency. The truth is that  all guns became antiques as soon as cellphone cameras became prevalent. Only by restricting the use of cellphone cameras can gun thugs be protected. That is the perverse reasoning of our totalitarian state.

    • peterlake

      Thanks for putting the whole issue out there in this fine message.

      But real information doesn’t matter to the gun-grabbers.
      They’re only looking for all the possible ways to limit our rights.

  • MurielV

    Yes we have to deal with the major problems of poverty and mental illness and the lack of access to health care for many and the growing disparity between those who have (and have a lot) and those who have very little (under the poverty level when you have a full time job paid at minimum wage)  but it does not mean we should not deal with immediate problems that could help deal with long term problems as well.  So let’s have universal background checks, let’s ban assault weapons, they are military weapons, let’s limit magazines.  Simple things it seems to me that most American people agree with as per frequent polling.

    • JobExperience

      The fascist wing in Congress may recommend gun stamps for the poor.

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

        they are calling it gun insurance

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

      most people in california are against gay marraige should they prevail?

  • Bluejay2fly

    Tom, if you were in that room and ten children were horrifically shot dead in front of you I seriously doubt you could move quickly enough to intervene in a magazine exchange, ridiculous! High cap bans are a good idea but do not think it will make a difference. It’s too easily circumvented or you can change them too quickly. Remember these shootings are sudden, unexpected, and loud and bloody so almost always people’s first reactions are to freeze, run, scream, or hide. 

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      Wrong. You’re denial convinces no one. If it saves one life it is worth it, yet it will save many more lives.

      • Bluejay2fly

        In Newtown it was children and women. I doubt any intervention by them would have been possible! Also, I am a vet, and have been shot at so I know what that feels like! I have seen grown men behave the same way I just mentioned and guess what they had guns too!

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          You are a coward. Other people aren’t. Enjoy your denial.

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

            so you think a six year old would be able to jump a shooter while they reloaded?

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Do you think a frog could? Duh!!!!

          • Bluejay2fly

            I am such a coward I served in two wars and retired with 22 yrs of military service. I also work in NYS’s worst Maximum security prison as a guard.  At a whopping 5’5 I think that’s pretty damn brave, there internet Troll.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            You want assault weapons in my society. I guess with your war service and your prison service, you haven’t seen enough human violence, yet. Some of us have. Stop standing in our way as we make this society safer. Stand down, soldier.

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

            no one wants assault weapons. automatic weapons are not even being discussed

          • hennorama

            Thank you for your past service in the military and your present service in your community.

            Be safe.

          • hennorama

            Name calling rarely leads to agreement or even further rational discussion.   It’s unnecessary and unproductive.

            Let’s take it down a notch, please.

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

        oh the old “one life” standard. that one is great you could justify banning anything using that argument. by that argument we should ban boats and swimming pools and coffee

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          Volunteer your life.

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

            in fact thousands have sacraficed their lives willingly so we can enjoy the rights we have today have you forgotten them?

    • hennorama

      Bluejay2fly – 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.”

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

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

        thats funny i thought that adam lanza stopped his shooting spree because he shot himself so he must have reloaded or cleared the jam before anyone could disarm him. the gabby giffords guy was using a pistol that a jammed only because he had a oversized magazine does that change your mind about so called “assault weapons”

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – TY for your response. I appreciate and respect your views.

          First, a word of advice: use of the phrase “thats funny” in reference to the Newtown Massace is inadvisable.

          Second, I have stated no position on ” so called ‘assault weapons’ ” and therefore have no position to “change [my] mind about.

          Third, one suspects you did not read the article that I linked to, so I’ll include extensive excerpts here (a bit out of sequence):

          “Based on initial statements from surviving children and the fact that unfired bullets from Lanza’s rifle were found on the ground, detectives suspect that some students were able to run to safety when Lanza stopped firing, probably for a short period of time, the officials said.

          “It is possible that Lanza, who reloaded the rifle frequently, mishandled or dropped a magazine and unfired bullets fell to the floor, they said.

          “But it also is possible, they said, that the mechanism that fed bullets into the rifle jammed, causing Lanza to remove the magazine and clear the weapon. Unfired bullets could have fallen to the classroom floor during that process as well, law enforcement officials said.

          “The six children who escaped Lanza’s rampage ran to a home a short distance from the school. Upon reaching the home, one of the boys told the owner that “we obeyed the rules, we stayed on the sidewalk,” one of the officials said.

          “The authorities have learned generally from the children who ran away that something may have happened to Lanza’s rifle that caused him to stop firing. The substance of the statements, which are not entirely consistent, is that a piece of the weapon, probably a magazine holding live bullets, was dropped or fell to the classroom floor.”

          “The children escaped from the first-grade classroom of teacher Victoria Soto, one of the six educators Lanza killed in Newtown after shooting his way through a glass door with the .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle on the morning of Dec. 14.

          “The arriving officers encountered a shocking scene in Soto’s classroom. Lanza had shot her, as well as special education teacher Anne Marie Murphy and six of Soto’s 6- and 7-year old students. Seven of Soto’s students were found huddled and unharmed in a classroom closet, apparently hidden by Soto when she heard shooting. The other students fled the classroom.

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

          TY again for your response.

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

            if someone cant appreciate the difference between funny- ha ha and funny- bizarre then they are bound to misunderstand any nuanced ideas and not get it anyways. 
            as i had said he shot himself and it had nothing to do with being stopped while he reloaded. you left out the part where it said he also had two pistols. i had not heard that. this is the best description of what happened sketchy as it is so far. that shows the error in the magazine limiting idea the guy had two other guns so he did not need to stop firing if one jams or the magazine needs to be changed. even with limited magazines 10 rounds in each gun is 30 rounds. thank god he was too much of a weakling to carry his oversized shotgun. thank god that he fumbled with his firearm allowing those children to escape if thats what happened because the article made it clear that what really happened is not known at this time. i notice the article did not say he used 30 round magazines. even if he did this is not a reason to ban 30 rnd magazines. if you wanted to ensure peoples guns would jam you would require all rifles be equipped with 30+ round magazines as they are much more unreliable than smaller magazines. the smaller the magazine the more reliable it is as a general rule.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY again for your response. I understand and respect your views.

            Indeed, not every reader will understand every word that a writer expresses, at least not necessarily in the way the writer intends every word to be understood. But if one’s goal IS to be understood, one needs to appreciate one’s audience. My comment was not meant to limit you in any way, but merely to indicate that the topic of the mass murder of 20 children and 7 adults is a sensitive one for many.

            It is surprising that you “had not heard that” the Newtown murderer had multiple weapons. This was widely reported and discussed, including in this forum. There are an enormous number of sources on the topic of the Newtown Massacre – all one need do is look for them.

            Saying “you left out the part where it said [such and such]” implies that you have no responsibility to inform yourself, regardless of the topic. One cannot reasonably hold the writer to any such standard,

            There are arguments on both sides of these topics, as you point out. My goal is not to argue – it is to find the areas of agreement, and to then look for solutions. My personal views, and the personal views of all others, are important, but individuals and we as a society do not act selfishly in all things. We see that cooperation is required if we want to live in harmony rather than in anarchy.

            To me, everything can be reduced to one very clear goal (apologies in advance for the emphasis):

            PREVENT AND REDUCE FIREARMS- RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES.

            As you know, I’ve posted 6 things I think most or all of us can agree on about firearms. Putting it mildly, the response was underwhelming. Arguing is far more fun that working toward agreement and solutions, but I’ll keep working toward the goal I stated above.

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

            if someone is predisposed they can be offended or misunderstand whatever you type. thats on them. i have heard that the mother owned many weapons but i have not really gone through every account of what happened nor do i care to.  when i read th NRA proposal i thought you might like it it goes a long way to addressing the issues with mental health background info you were concerned about. i dont know all the details and what civil liberty issues such an expansion might raise.
             so far i have not heard any proposals that would accomplish your main goal. i disagree with your main goal too. i think its a fools errand. why not set a goal to reduce and prevent deaths and injuries? why the special focus on firearms in particular? also i have already told you exactly how to achieve reductions in intentional and accidental deaths

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for your thoughtful response. I respect and appreciate your views.

            I do not disagree with you about the predispositions of others. My advice was merely “friendly advice”.

            In the past, our society has responded to various practices and products that have been shown to be threats to public safety or to result in multiple deaths when they fail or are misused:

            Airplanes

            Trains

            Buses

            Automobiles

            Nuclear power plants

            to name just a few.

            In virtually all cases, one or more spectacular and well-publicized incidents have galvanized the public’s desire for change.

            Firearms are no different. The Newtown Massacre is just the most recent and spectacular example of the misuse of firearms culminating in mass deaths.

            I appreciate you expressing your ideas about prevention, regardless of whether I personally agree or disagree with any or all of them.. Few others in this forum will do so, even when their ideas are specifically solicited. Well done.

            Thank you again for your thoughtful response.

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

            i actually like a healthy back and forth so i appreciate the effort. that list could be a whole lot longer and i note that we have not banned any of those things. if we had no regulation on firearms that would be one thing but they are already one of the most highly regulated if not the most regulated consumer good.  try to become a gun owner in MA and you will be shocked at how many regulations there are and how much of a pain in the ass it is. the summery of MA laws on the subject is over 500 pages long. In fact if nancy lanza had followed the current laws on the books in her state that massacre would have been prevented. if she was alive i would say that she should be held accountable but i guess she has been. policys and laws made as knee jerk emotional reactions to a crisis have a history of being awful. i am thinking of the patriot act and the Iraq and afgan wars which all fall into the kneejerk emotional reaction based policies. if the public was really so galvinized then bloomberg would not have to spend 12 million dollars to try to get some support for the proposals he wants to impose on the public in addition to the media’s best efforts to upset people

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Carlo-Danese/100002305865604 Carlo Danese

    One fact is constantly overlooked:  The NRA is a dual purpose organization.  It has various programs for gun owners which help them learn how to use guns.  This is their ‘outreach’.  More important, it is the major lobby for the gun industry.  The function if lobbyists is to promote sales and profits.  Even minor regulations which would cut into 3, 5 , 8 % of sales is by definition, fought by any lobby.  We have seen lobbyists for the auto, tobacco, pharmaceutical, soft drink and many other industries fight legislation which might regulate their products.  The NRA is an uber version of this.  My solution … If any friend, family member, or loved one of mine is killed by a person using an extended clip magazine, a weapon bought without background check, or bought at a gun show or from any illegal sale:  I will hold the NRA, and Wayne LaPierrre specifically responsible and act accordingly.  I will have justice.  Anyone want to join me ?

    • JobExperience

       Are you  saying they need Glass-Steagall?

    • peterlake

      What’s your plan when you say ” I will hold the NRA, and Wayne LaPierrre specifically responsible and act accordingly.  I will have justice”?

      Planning for assassination?
      What kind of gun will you use?

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

        he will write very offended tweets!

        • peterlake

          HA!
          Good one.

          And not far off.
          We hear a lot of talk from gun-grabbers,but how many of them  will spend some money for their cause, how many will do more than sign their name on Facebook, if that?

          How many pro-gun people will join the NRA?
          Well, one million just did, and hundreds of thousands spent $1000 or more to buy modern sporting rifles. The shelves are cleaned out.

          The gun-grabbers mostly have no convictions that prompt real action, just talk protected by their First Amendment rights, which are protected by their Second Amendment rights.

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

            if someone breaks down their door at 3am they have a prewritten strongly worded letter already stamped so look out!

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

      and if they are strangled because they did not have a gun to defend themselves who will you hold responsible?

  • tintingirl

    Why do we give the NRA so much power??…if you look at the results from the last elections…the mounds of money the NRA poured into getting their candidates elected didn’t yield much. This is about courage and backbone. 

    • JobExperience

      We always let moneyed interests have excessive power: that’s Capitalism.

  • LianeSperoni

    To Charles Cooke: you did not make a logical argument about Virginia Tech and you did not address Tom’s point. Isn’t it possible that if Seung Hui Cho had had a military style weapon capable of shooting 30 rounds that he would have killed MORE people.

    • hennorama

      Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 at the Virginia Tech campus using two legally purchased handguns.  Subsequent investigations found Cho had a well-documented history of mental health issues, and he should have been prevented from purchasing firearms.  However, due to a loophole in Virginia law, his mental health records were not in the FBI database.

      At the time the Virginia Tech shooting was the largest such incident in U.S. history, but was surpassed in 2012 by the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo.

      As it stands now, putting it as neutrally as possible, the record of state mental health information reporting is spotty. Fourteen states list fewer than five people flagged for mental-health issues. 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. Witness the changes in Virginia law and reporting after the Virginia Tech shooting.  Virginia did not report that info to the Federal database because of a legal loophole, but the law there has been changed, and Virginia now leads the US in per capita mental health reporting.

      There are some interesting interactive maps in this source article, showing per capita mental health reporting, and guns laws by state

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595704578244153323837058.html

      • peterlake

        Thank you for some relevant, useful facts.

        They’re almost non-existent here.

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

        if people wanted common sense gun control everyone would support we would make states like MA report their records intot he database. seems pretty illogical to expand a system that the states dont provide records to

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – TY for your response. I respect your views (believe it or not).

          As I said, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 (in Printz v. United States) that state reporting of mental health records is optional. That is still the case.

          I think there is a way around this, which you can read about in my post above. That post begins “Everyone agrees that those who are mentally ill or who have been shown to be otherwise deficient should not be allowed to purchase firearms ..”

          You can jump to it by clicking this link:

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/03/21/gun-reform#comment-837399938

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

            i did not know that about the printz decision it does seem hipocritical that a state like MA does not provide the records for the database maybe the govt could pressure them like they did with the speed limits. i think your idea of mental health screenings is terrible, distopic, and unworkable but i like that you are being creative and contributing ideas into the mix.

  • hennorama

    Members of Congress do take contact from the public into account when acting on controversial issues, at least to some extent.  It’s very easy to voice own’s opinions to them.

    Here’s an easy way to find out who your Representative is, and who your Senators are, and how to contact them:

    http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

    Just enter your Zip Code or your full address.

    Alternatively, you can go to

    http://www.senate.gov/

    There’s a [Find Your Senators] dropdown menu in the upper righthand corner.

    http://www.house.gov/

    There’s a [Find Your Representative] search box (by Zip Code) in the upper righthand corner.

    • JobExperience

      Only Horton could hear the Who’s.
      Our representatives seem pretty deaf.
      They can only hear those who can afford a billion dollar Bullhorn.
      Liberals cannot critique Capitalism. If they got campaign finance reform, socialized medicine, affordable education for all and a $25/hr minimum wage they could still not allow democracy because they work for the Owners. John Dewey said it,”American politics will never be made democratic by the attenuation of the shadow of big business. That shadow must be totally eliminated.”

      Without a scary popular uprising these toadies in Congress will never act. They will act only on orders from the Oligarchy when the Oligarchy is sufficiently threatened. That’s what happened when FDR was President. These elected toadies tolerated a ban on studying guns’ health impact for decades. Guns are an important means of social control and not a means of liberation. Guns keep the populace too scared to complain.

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

        thats true i have avioded being involved in political speech because of fear that it would be used to limit my gun rights

      • hennorama

        JobExperience – Thank you for your response. I respect and appreciate your views.

        I’m not quite as cynical as you seem to be. I agree that “Our representatives seem pretty deaf.” I also agree that getting their attention is no easy task, especially in light of the presence of, as you describe, “.. those who can afford a billion dollar Bullhorn.”

        However, I see no reason to simply throw up my hands in surrender. I refuse to be silent in the face of “.. those who can afford a billion dollar Bullhorn.”

        As Tom Ashbrook and Douglas Rushkoff were discussing in the 2nd hour of On Point (Douglas Rushkoff on ‘Present Shock’) , we have “a zero dollar bullhorn” in the digital world, as this forum itself shows.

        “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

        - Barack Obama

  • JobExperience

    Woe to the reprobate who would sacrifice friendship, human rights, family safety and security just to own an automatic weapon. Such people have an addiction, a fetish and a personality deficit. (They are susceptible to “male enhancement” ads, or have already exhausted those possibilities.) My 63 years of interaction has confirmed these assertions. It is a crippled mind that requires a deadly equalizer.

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      nobody wants to own an automatic firearm….machine guns are strictly regulated/functionally banned since 1934/1986.

       we claim that semiautomatic firearms in common use for lawful purposes are constitutionally protected. 

      as for your stereotyping, I am a father, I have a PhD, I spend way more time with my kid and my family than with my firearms. My mind is just fine, thank you very much.I just don’t want a government that treats his people as helpless children, but rather trust them, even with lethal firearms. and I consider my firearms just another mean of self-protecting.Car crashes are way less frequent than violent crime, yet we all wear seat belts and we don’t make fun of people wearing them just because car accidents are rare. My gun is just another piece of equipment for the remote possibility of life crashing on me. they are there ready.It’s you and your antigun friends that make it more than it is, and transform them into the source of all society evils.You want to change the world and disarm the finger that pulls that trigger? be kind to your fellow man, spend more time with your kids, reduce the chances that the next door kid become an antisocial individual…but lay off my constitutional rights.

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

        he reference to automatic weapons confused me. if i knew he was referring to semiautomatic weapons i would wonder how my wife and grandmother fell into those male enhancement ads

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

      who owns automatic weapons? are automatic weapons being debated in any forum?

  • ThirdWayForward

    The Republican party is almost pure evil, but the Democratic party is lame.

    The Democrats need to have a vote on this issue, even if they lose, so that the country can see who is for and who is against gun control. It will become an issue in the next election. We will make it an issue.

    The Senate needs either to deal head-on with this idiocy of the anonymous, automatic filibuster or close up shop until the present obstructionist crop of Republicans are ousted from office.

    And why is it that a majority of Republicans in the House have a veto on all legislation? It is Boehner’s policy of obstructionism not allowing votes on anything that is not supported by a majority of Republicans that causes gridlock there. He will not allow for any compromises. We cannot remember any time when the Democrats did this when they were in the majority in the House.

    The Republicans’ House majority, it also should be remembered, is due to post-2010 election gerrymandering in states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures. In the last election more votes were cast for Democratic candidates for US House than for Republican candidates.

    Do we live in a real democracy? 
    Any democracy worth its salt would have some way to have a national referendum on gun control and other issues. We would then have a national debate in which the electorate would gradually become educated on the issues at hand. 

    We need participatory democracy more than ever.

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

      oh yes lets scrap our republic and implement the tyranny of the masses!

  • Robert Thompson

    Does a background check on gun purchases also apply to bullets? Plenty of guns already out there but you always need more bullets eventually.

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      It should. All bullets should have ID #s attached to a person responsible for them.

      • peterlake

         A billion bullets?
        Who’s going to keep track?
        Who’s going to pay for it?
        You?

        The government can’t even keep track of 12 million illegal aliens.

        Besides, I can make my own bullets.

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          Bullets can have an ID#s, and simple computer programs already keep track of billions of things in an instant. Guns, for sure, should have ID#.

          Making your own bullets should then be made illegal.

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

            you show that you really have no idea what you are talking about. all commercially produced firearms already have numbers and have for a while. do ou really think criminals are into reloading? get a clue.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Criminals don’t reload, only good people do. Brilliant.

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

            i challenge you to find any case of a gangbanger using reloading equipment

          • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

            He means criminals don’t make their own ammo.  In any case, a ban on making your own ammo is unlikely.  Shotgun owners (hunters) refill cartridges at less expense then buying new ones- it’s a reasonable practice, and those guys aren’t the ones shooting up schools. 

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

            if they ban making your own ammo only criminals will make their own ammo

          • peterlake

            And how would bullet ID’s have stopped mass shootings?

        • Robert Thompson

          I have a friend who makes his own bullets but I’m pretty sure he still has to buy the components, at least some of them. Of course there will always be a black market for anything we try to regulate but we should still try. It’s irresponsible not to at least attempt to keep guns and ammunition from falling in the wrong hands. To say we can’t do it effectively is a cop out.  We can’t effectively enforce the speed limit but we still have one. 

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

            why try something thats bound to fail and create many new and worse problems?have you heard of the war on drugs? its the cause of the gang inspired “gun violence” affecting our inner cities. a war on guns sounds inherently more violent.  i dont know why we dont do something stupid just to do something, why don’t i try to fix my ipod with a sledgehammer?
             don’t get me started on speed limits

          • peterlake

            How’s that black market for pot working out?
            And the black market for other drugs?
            All those cute schemes for tracking this and registering that are doomed to fail.

            Don’t believe me?

            Read this report of how poorly California’s administering it’s in-place programs.

            http://www.calgunlaws.com/institutionalized-ignorance-how-california-encourages-gun-crimes/

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

      in MA you need a permit to purchase ammuntion which you had to have an extensive background check to get

  • TomK_in_Boston

    I don’t understand why we accept as obvious common sense limits on rights mentioned in other amendments – everyone agrees free speech does not protect shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater – and get into such a tizzy over doing the same for guns. What’s the difference between limiting ‘fire’ and limiting military style weapons?

    Furthermore, the 1′st amendment gives an unconditional right of free speech, while the 2′nd gives a right to bear arms contingent on the need of the government for a militia. It seems to me that the 2′nd is far weaker than the first, and thus even more subject to limits.

    • jefe68

      It would seem that Justice Scalia is agrement with you.

      “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

      • Gregg Smith

        Thanks.

    • Gregg Smith

      Sure there are limits, see Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller.

    • twenty_niner

      What is a military-style weapon? It has to look scary? These are semi-automatics, same as my hunting rifle, which is every bit as lethal as an AR-15 and fires at the same rate – one pull of the trigger = one round.

      Anders Breivik killed 69 with a Ruger Mini-14, which is something ranchers use to shoot varmints. He purchased the firearm legally in Norway, not exactly gun central, with a clean criminal background and a hunting license.

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

        the important characteristic is that the gun is black. they hate black guns for some reason.

    • peterlake

       Military-style weapons were limited in 1938.
      Where have you been?

      That’s why you can buy an AR-15 and not an M-16.

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

      nope it limits to goverments power not the individuals

      • jefe68

        Wrong.
        “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia, explained. Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

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

          you left out the part where scalia also said in the same decision that we do in fact have a right to bear arms distinct from any connection to  military service dispelling the myth that the preamble is a limitation of the right to militia service only. nice cherry picking and way to be misleading jefe. the entire point of the bill of rights is to protect individuals from government infringment of their rights. the 2nd is one of them. another says that the rights of a citizen are not limited to those specifically enumerated.

  • Gregg Smith

    Does it bother anyone that when you hit refresh if you have text entered somewhere you are given the choice to cancel or “reload”?

  • hshubin

    Thoughts about what “A well regulated militia” really means.

    The Second Amendment is written in such a way that its meaning isn’t terribly clear: “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.”

    But that’s not the only place in the Constitution mentions a militia. It gives both the legislative and executive branches control over the militia. It seems to me that this should be part of the discussion.

    ARTICLE 1, SECTION 9: “The Congress shall have the power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and
    disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
    employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
    respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of
    training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the
    Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
    States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

    • peterlake

      Except for those who know nothing of the legislation surrounding 2A, there’s no confusion at all about what “well-regulated” means — “well-trained.”

      The phrase refers to the people owning the guns, not the guns.

    • nj_v2

      It was totally clear when it was written. In the absence of a standing, national army, which the majority of the founders did not abide, state militias were designed at the agency of national defense. Armed citizens were the staff of those militias, and the right to bear arms was predicated on participation in the agency of the militia.

      In the modern era, this is all irrelevant, yet the gun nuts rights advocates continue to misappropriate the Second Amendment in service to their delusions.

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

        why was it that the founders were opposed to standing armies?

        • nj_v2

          Many reasons…

          Based on European history, they distrusted the centralized power that tended to accrue to national armies. Many worried that concentration so much power in a nationalized army could threaten the government.  They also worried about the financial burden that maintaining a standing army would have on the young nation.

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

            well thank god none of those things have happened. yup liberty is sooo 2 centuries ago

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      why do you want to rediscover the wheel? a SCOTUS decision on the meaning of the 2A already exists. read it. DC. v. Heller.
      http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

      they discuss it in 144 pages of history and law.

  • JobExperience

    How long does it take an assault weapon to fire more ammunition than a person could carry? How much do bullets cost? How much would an amount too heavy to carry cost. We need a one dollar per bullet tax. Taxation has lessened smoking and it can lessen gunning. The levy can go to shooting victims.

    So you’re gonna say,”Only the rich could then shoot.” But honey, you have to realize, the rich own our military now.

    • hennorama

      A few years ago comedian Chris Rock included commentary on “bullet control” in his act, saying:

      “You don’t need no gun control.  You know what you need – We need some bullet control!  We need to … man… We need to control the bullets!  That’s right.  I think all bullets should cost five thousand  dollars.  Five thousand  dollars for a bullet.  You know why?  Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there’d be no more innocent bystanders.”

      This YouTube video contains expletives, so be warned:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

      Chris Rock’s idea was a bit extreme, but if we reduce his idea to a lower level, we could kill two birds with one stone:

      Firearms-Firing Patriots – Do Your Part!   Be Fiscally Responsible And Balance The Federal Budget!

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

      • Bluejay2fly

        They did that with cigarettes. A carton now cost $100 and where the hell can you smoke? Airports, no, Restaurants no, work places, usually no. OK as a nonsmoker I can live with that ,but there is more. Bars, no your home–it depends some judges will ban you from smoking indoors with a child. So we have a legal activity that because some people feel is “Unhealthy” we can impose these limits. Now because of the fear of children smoking flavored cigarettes are outwardly banned in all of the USA. So next will be guns with an ammunition tax, maybe mandatory insurance on your guns, registration the works. After smokers,  drivers, parents, home owners, and gun owners who is next? Is this what we want. The LAW taking place of ethical choice and individual decision making? It seems there is no debate in USA. At this point Safety always truncates Rights/Privileges no matter how feeble the case. We have destroyed freedom this has become an issue because on a visceral level people know this. Can you now understand how some people want military guns because the want to feel as though they can defend their homes against the government which is becoming a tyrant worse than George III. 

        • hennorama

          Bluejay2fly – TY for your response. I appreciate, understand, and respect your views.

          To begin with, my idea was only half-serious, perhaps even only one tenth-serious. I have no problem with firearms ownership in general. But there is no “right to bear ammunition” and Chris Rock’s idea struck me as having an underlying reasonability.

          As to cigarettes, the risks involved are mostly to the individuals involved in the activity. The same cannot be said about firearms, which pose risks to anyone “on the business end” of them.

          It is reasonable to make some modest restrictions in the name of public safety. There are NO unlimited rights, and with rights come responsibilities to oneself and others.

          If you feel that this has in some way “destroyed freedom” and “the government which is becoming a tyrant worse than George III” you certainly have a right to those views.

          However, the US Supreme Court has held, in Heller

          “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 castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

          See:

          http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

          To read a Harvard Law Review commentary on Heller, see:

          http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/case_comment_intro122.pdf

          • Bluejay2fly

            Ironically, not only am not a drinker or smoker I sold my AR 15 because I had it for 9 years and never fired it. I am also in Law Enforcement and very law-abiding. I live in NY which is probably the worst nanny state. I have no problem with behaving within boundaries,but when it becomes law I feel oppressed. Ask a black man living in a poor neighborhood if the constant police patrols make him feel better. I know some paint the picture as though this is the tipping point but truth be told at least in NY we reached that threshold long ago. You should read some Jacob Neddleman. My favorite quote from him is “consumerism is a disease of the mind starved for ideas” When you look at the problems in America we choose to ignore against those we are choosing to address you will see we are trading people’s liberty for nothing that is going to really make any difference in our society. I believe that, not gun control, is the tyranny of a mad incompetent ruler like King George III.

        • hennorama

          Bluejay2fly – TY for your response. I appreciate, understand, and respect your views.

          To begin with, my idea was only half-serious, perhaps even only one tenth-serious. I have no problem with firearms ownership in general. But there is no “right to bear ammunition” and Chris Rock’s idea struck me as having an underlying reasonability.

          As to cigarettes, the risks involved are mostly to the individuals involved in the activity. The same cannot be said about firearms, which pose risks to anyone “on the business end” of them.

          It is reasonable to make some modest restrictions in the name of public safety. There are NO unlimited rights, and with rights come responsibilities to oneself and others.

          If you feel that this has in some way “destroyed freedom” and “the government which is becoming a tyrant worse than George III” you certainly have a right to those views.

          However, the US Supreme Court has held, in Heller

          “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 castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

          See:

          http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

          To read a Harvard Law Review commentary on Heller, see:

          http://hlr.rubystudio.com/media/pdf/case_comment_intro122.pdf

      • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

        so you want 130 million gun owners, armed to the teeth as they are now….but untrained to the use of the same firearms? you are a genius….

        excessive taxation on the exercise of a constitutional right well above the amount required to manage an institutional requirement has been tried…read “Poll Tax”. a tax of ammunition and firearms already exist, but is modest and has a specific budget purpose.

        now, you have people running and screaming that the mere requirement to show an ID to vote -a common requirement all over Europe- is unconstitutional because it costs too much to get one (yes, like 20 dollars, maybe), and you want to overtax to impede the exercise of a constitutional right?

        that’s stuff good only for late night comedy, the fact that you even consider it as a policy tells a lot.

        • hennorama

          Patrick Henry – Thanks for your response. I respect your views.

          To begin with, my idea was only half-serious, perhaps even only one tenth-serious. I have no problem with firearms ownership in general. But there is no “right to bear ammunition” and Chris Rock’s idea struck me as having an underlying reasonability.

          Essentially, his idea is “Own as many firearms as you wish, but let’s make it really expensive to kill people with them.”

          I don’t understand how you get to “so you want 130 million gun owners, armed to the teeth as they are now….but untrained to the use of the same firearms?” from my post. I further have no idea how you get to anything related to voting from my post.

          Given such lack of understanding, I find it impossible to respond cogently to the balance of your post.

          Thanks again for your response.

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

        i like later when he says “metal detectors are fine when you are inside the club but them them n*****s outside know you aint got one” 

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

      so the rich should have absolute power? i cant see any obvious results of absolute power can you?

      • JobExperience

        No matter how much gunners relish violence the possibility of connecting violence and bullying to freedom and liberation has passed. Cavemen no longer slug potential mates with  clubs, and the rich no longer need FUTO’s gun to protect their ill-gotten gains. Your guns are as useless as hydrogen warheads. They can’t help anyone except perverts, and the perverts are not truly being  helped.

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

          i guess you missed the Lord Acton reference. i guess you missed the story of the kid in the rich town who strangled his girlfriend. i guess you missed the civil wars in america long ago and in syria today. i guess you think we still dont have nuclear weapons( or are you only saying H bombs?). i have no idea what perverts have to do with anything maybe you could elaborate

  • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

    Make kids safer?  Absolutely, by focusing *directly* on the most effective ways to do that:
    1) provide adequate funding to schools.  
    2) renovate them to protect against external breach.  
    3) staff them with trained security professionals.  

    Aurora and Newtown were security failures.  In a post-911 era, sad schmucks with guns should never get close to their targets.  Soft targets should be capable of repelling armed, determined and trained attackers- the kind that take down aircraft or park car bombs in public places.

    As an advocate for both gun rights and gun safety, here’s where we can make some headway:

    1) Close the gun show loophole?  Absolutely.
    2) Background checks on private sales?  Maybe.  No between family members, yes between non-family if a licensed dealer handles the paperwork.
    3) Limited capacity mags?  OK, but gun rights advocates point out that it only takes seconds to swap out mags.  That’s true, but then Yes, sometimes it makes enough of a difference if the public is *willing* and *able* to rush the shooter.
    4) Assault weapons ban?  No.  If you look logically and dispassionately at the issue, it makes little sense, and most of the arguments put forth by gun control folks are misguided, especially on the technical merits.

    Let’s be frank.  An assault weapon is for defense.  Please stop saying that they’re not necessary for hunting- that’s irrelevant to their central purpose.  By saying things like that, you sound whiny and fail to engage at the core of the issue.

    Senator Graham got it right: in a disaster situation (Katrina or Sandy), when civil disorder disintegrates and law enforcement can’t respond to your 911 call because they desert their posts or are busy protecting critical infrastructure (like gas stations), you are on your own, and have the right to arm for your own defense and for the defense of others.

    VP Biden was pretty close to the mark (to paraphrase: “get a shotgun, I have one”), but that brings us to an issue of fundamental mechanics.  An autoloading shotgun is a semi-automatic weapon.  It has more destructive power than an AR-15.  We have semi-auto hunting rifles (sans pistol grip).  So, what difference does the pistol grip make?  Some say it makes the rifle more accurate.  Good!  As a gun owner, I am responsible for every round I put down range, so of course I want to be better at hitting my target.  Others might say the opposite, that one can “Spray and pray”.  Well, I can do that by dual-wielding Glock 19s, or with my Remington Autoloader, or with my semi-auto hunting rifle, so what’s the point?  It’s a weak argument.

    Along those lines, gun manufacturers simply retool their products to disqualify them from the ban.  Instead of a pistol grip, they cut a hole in the shoulder stock, and *viola*, now I have a comfy place to put my thumb.  It doesn’t have a pistol grip, but it’s just as lethal.  So, on simple mechanics, the ban is misguided.

    “It’s a military-grade weapon.”  Precisely.  The Constitution protects an individual’s right to bear arms, and the right for the People to organize into well-regulated militias.  And militias use… you guessed it: military-grade rifles.  That’s the default for personal armament in a militia configuration.  We’re not talking about grenade launchers or SAWs or burp guns, we’re talking about the basic firearm issued to an individual who participates in a well-regulated militia.  As long as the Constitution protects that, we don’t need to discuss it.

    So let’s focus on the practical solutions.  Or, if gun-control advocates think they have the votes, be honest with yourselves and your intentions, and just go for an all-out repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

    Be free, be safe, and be well.

    pragnosticator.blogspot.com

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

      i like what you said but the “gun show loophole” is a myth so there is not need to worry about it

      • JobExperience

        Gunshows are mythmaking exercises for degenerates.

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

          i would like these guys to go to a gun show sometime and see that after they wait a hour or two to get in that every purchase has a background check

      • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

        Hmm, lemme understand:
        Commercial gun vendors have to do background checks, period.  Thus, “gun show loophole” is really the same thing as “background checks for private sales”?

        Sneaky legislators, leading the masses to believe they’re accomplishing more than they actually are.

  • SK

    The NRA and GUN advocates in the USA say that guns don’t kill,its human who does the killing.Right,that is a fine arguement
    the only problem is that the smart guys at the NRA have to agree, that if the guy at Sandy Hook had a knife instead of an assult automatic rifle with hundreds of rounds bought so easily from a conor store or walmart type of mall could have snuffed out the lives of 20 children and 6 adults.I and millions of sane people don’t think so. I am glad I am living in a country where I don’t have to constantly look over my shoulder to see who is wielding a gun to KILL for the fun of it from cinemas to supermarkets and on.

    • JobExperience

       I don’t like seeing pirates wearing holsters out the corner of my eye either. I don’t like living in Deadwood. Maybe we need deadwood zones for bullies who relish violence. We need not provide medical care there.

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

        i like it then after a few years we can see what is safer a “deadwood zone” where everyone must open carry or a “gun free zone” where everyone must be a sitting duck. so far the gun free zones have quite  a deathtoll attached

      • Bluejay2fly

        I agree its tragic that it comes to this ,but at this point the gun laws would have to be very carefully constructed to disarm the bad guys. The anti gun people are not knowledgable enough about the subject to craft such laws. As evidence look at the celebrated Federal Assault Weapons Ban of the past.

        • anamaria23

          Then maybe the “anti-gun” people should go to other countries to learn how to craft such laws that would enable a regulated militia. 

    • Bluejay2fly

      Adam Lanza DID NOT OWN those weapons he took them from his parent as did the shooters at Columbine. She should have been a better parent. Her not seeing his propensity for violence and keeping better control over her weapons was a tragedy she created. Our mental health system is part of the problem as much as liberal access to weapons, societal violence, and poverty. NYS went from 90K mental patients in the 50′s to 3,600 today. Do you think we cured that many people? I also do not want to be shot or stabbed in the supermarket or cinema by a paranoid schizophrenic.

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

        not to mention she violated CT law by not storing her firearms properly

        • Bluejay2fly

          I believe she was a Survivalist. I also heard he had Autism. Imagine someone with emotional problems being home schooled and filled with paranoid rantings from a survivalist 24/7. BAD COMBINATION. Where was dad in all this as well? He was written off fairly quickly. I believe the media is pretty quite about these facts because it wants to keep the focus on dead children in order to promote a Gun Debate. 

          • jefe68

            She was not a survivalist.
            The kid was in all kinds of programs for his learning disabilities. He was diagnosed with Asbergers syndrome, which is a on the low end of autism.

          • Bluejay2fly

             I do know she had: 30 cal Henry Rifle, AR-15, Saiga 12 Assault shotgun, a 10mm Glock, 9 mm Sig, and a 22 Marlin which is probably why I heard she was a survivalist. I am a retired Navy Gunner and do not have that many weapons ,but if people want to have that many weapons that is fine. I would suggest having them locked up and separated around young men in the home.

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

            and there is no discussion of what kind of pharmaceuticals the kid was on or that the mother in fact was not following Ct storage laws

          • anamaria23

            Too many dead children whether on the streets or in a classroom is what it is all about.

      • SK

        Why on earth would anybody espeacially parents have in their homes  automatic assault rifles with deadly bullets used only in  war theaters is beyound me.

        • VinceD2

           Really? Try semi-auto. And a rifle only becomes an assault weapon when used in an assault. Bullets are only deadly when used in a deadly fashion. Less emotion, more logic please!

    • VinceD2

       OK, and Mohammed Atta’s crew hijacked planes with box cutters. Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel. Wanna outlaw those too?

  • hennorama

    Everyone agrees that those who are mentally ill or who have been shown to be otherwise deficient should not be allowed to purchase firearms, but there are two obvious issues with mental health background checks, namely:

    1.  Spotty reporting from states, due to a variety of reasons
    2.  Privacy concerns, especially of having mental health records in searchable databases

    Repeating an idea about mental health and firearms purchases that I’ve expressed before:

    Rather than the current system or the proposed idea of universal mental health background checks, instead require a pre-purchase mental health certification of potential firearms buyers via an exam by a mental health professional.

    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.

    Since purchasing a firearm is optional, any mental health status disclosure would be completely voluntary. Further, the actual exam would remain 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 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.

    • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

      The mental health issue is important, but before we have a medical records check, we need to establish two things:
      1) the degree of intrusion that will be permitted
      2) the objective standards for disqualification

      On issue #1, states tend to limit their intrusion to areas over which they have direct control:  adjudication (court findings) and state-provided services.  They can’t go much beyond that, and we certainly don’t want them riffling through our private health records.

      New York got it wrong: they are driving mental health care back into the dark ages.  The net is too wide (it affects everyone, not just gun owners), and knowing that, New Yorkers will choose to not seek care.  The law does more damage than it does good.  Case in point:  members of our Armed Forces who don’t seek care, for fear of stigma and career-ending reprisals.

      Getting “cleared” to purchase a gun by one’s doctor, while an interesting and creative idea, seems a bit onerous, both on the patient and the doctor.  Physicians want to provide care.  They don’t want to referee political problems better left to the state.

      On issue #2, what constitutes disqualification?  Schizophrenia?  Bipolar disorder?  Depression?  Anxiety Disorder?  Seasonal Affective Disorder?  Attention Deficit?  

      What about the victim of an attack that comes down with PTSD and depression?  Should that person be permitted to arm herself?

      Before any Legislator attempts to bring a bill to the floor, he or she had better go through DSM 5 page by page and enumerate exactly which diagnoses will result in disqualification.

      Which brings us back to the Constitutional issue.  The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say “You can have a gun unless you have an anxiety disorder”.  The Founders understand pretty clearly that we are imperfect beings, thus the right for an individual to act in his or her own defense.

      • hennorama

        Mark Schwartz – TY for your thoughtful response. I respect your views.

        You may have slightly misunderstood my idea. There would be no “medical records check”. To the contrary, as part of the application to purchase a firearm, one would simply add a YES/NO certification, that the applicant was “free of mental defect.” Being not “mentally defective” is the current standard, so there’s no change in standard.

        Only the certification would be part of the purchase application, similar to a driver’s license eye exam. The actual exam

        would remain private between the applicant and the care provider, and still subject to HIPAA.

        The idea is to avoid the entire bureaucracy required for the mental health background checks under the current NICS system, which clearly are not working, for a variety of reasons. I agree that the recent NYS law, while well-intended, is fraught with potential problems, particularly privacy issues.

        As I said, the idea is not problem-free. You have pointed out the obvious issues, mostly relating to “what is the standard?” Rather than trying to create a new standard, we could simply use whatever tests the US military use, both during recruitment and pre-deployment.

        Thanks again for your thoughtful response.

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

          an eye exam and a mental exam are orders of magnatude different.

          • hennorama

            Futo Buddy – TY for your response.

            Indeed these are different exams. The aim of my idea about the potential firearms purchaser voluntarily submitting to an exam is that the current system regading mental health has flaws that may be uncorrectable.

            If we agree that mentally ill people should not be able to purchase, own or access firearms, then we need a way to try to prevent them from doing so. I submit that the current system is not working, and trying to correct it will lead us down an undesirable path toward the new provisions 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.

            If you have another idea on how to do this, I’m all eyes.

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

            there were clear flaws in the healthcare of these individuals who have done these shootings we should try to address where those systems were not followed or if they were flawed

      • anamaria23

        I bet we could figure it out.  Other countries have mentally ill, violent videos,  violent movies, but restrictions on  gun sales.   The US has 8x to 10x the gun deaths of other civilized nations.
        That seems to be okay with you as long as NONE of your rights are threatened. 

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

          i have heard that they are less into the violent movies and more into the sexy ones

    • VinceD2

      How about we simply invoke a mandatory death penalty for anyone who uses or threatens the use of deadly force in the commission of a crime?

      Sandy Hook was a fluke, Chicago had 500 murders last year, do those kids matter? Gangs, drugs, our lousy economy, fix the problems!

  • http://twitter.com/marknoble Mark Noble ⚡

    The host asked how it can be that support for reform was so widespread after the Sandy Hook tragedy – and yet there is no support for the solutions put forward by Democrats.

    The answer is that Democrats put forward does not address the problem of sociopaths attacking vulnerable people.

    Shooters in the past have either obtained their firearms illegally (either with the cooperation of buyers who could pass the checks, or by stealing them), or they have gone through the background check process without raising any red flags.  Expanding the burden of performing background checks and maintaining logs to all people does nothing to address these issues.

    The Sandy Hook shooter fired at a rate of 7 shots per *minute*. This is a rate that can be attained with any firearm since the advent of the ammunition cartridge.

    The lethality was not a result of the rate of fire or amount of rounds the shooter had available – it was a result of the delay between the sociopath beginning his murderous rampage and his first encounter with a responsibly armed adult who was prepared to protect the lives of innocents. This is a common feature of all mass shootings – and another issue that proposed reform legislation does not address.

    Finally, the “Assault Weapons Ban” does not prohibit firearms based on any kind of scientific measure of lethality. It bans firearms based on what they are named, and how they look. We have repeatedly tried and failed with this approach – yet none of the changes put forward by Democrats adjust it’s shortcomings.

    Sandy Hook was a tragedy – but instead of responding to the issues at hand (as the public overwhelmingly supported) the Democrats dusted off the same old failed, ineffective, and arbitrary solutions. In doing so, they have ensured that the Sandy Hook tragedy will not be the last.

    • peterlake

      Mark, like Peter Boyle above, you’re the voice of reason and sensibility on this issue.

      Too bad your arguments will fall on deaf Democrat ears.

    • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

      Nicely done.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Nicely job of dressing up the standard talking points.

    • VinceD2

       Yep, the Democrats are simply exploiting these tragedies to push their pre-determined agenda. And the other party does the same thing. (WMD’s, 9/11)

    • anamaria23

      Do you bring your AR-15 or your revolver  to the beach?  The carnival?  At the ready at all times?

      • peterlake

         Semper paratus

    • Fredlinskip

      You’re right. Dems never seemed to come up with consistent focused message. Nor did they go out of way attempt to garner much support from gun- owners- most of whom are decent people. And many of whom would have likely been willing to sacrifice a bit if convinced that by doing so it would help alleviate the violence.

    • sickofthechit

       What’s wrong with Teachers with Tasers?

  • http://www.facebook.com/peterboyle.4848 Peter Boyle

    It is rather obvious where Tom comes down on this issue, using FOX tactics (“20 Little Babies” etc).  Be that as it may, a majority of the people, dispite confusing rhetoric, are not in favor of ever more restrictions on what they believe is a Constitutional right.  You don’t use a 30 round mag to hunt, true, but there are other reasons for having a gun than hunting; collectors or all types, self protection, tinfoil hat fears, etc.   Almost all the ‘shooters’ were on psychoactive medications, but we are not going after Pharma or Psychiatrists.  THis seems to highlight what the Right has been saying for 60 years:  The Democrats want to take your guns away.  It’s a slippery slope to confiscation. 

    Want more safety?  Enforce the laws and rules we currently have!  Take the “blood and guts” out of the news reporting, the whipping up of hysteria to get a point across.  Didn’t we learn from “WMD”  “Mushroom Cloud.” “9/11-9/11-9/11-9/11″.  Let’s fight the good fights and leave this, frankly radical Left, alone while we concentrate our power on important (and winnable, and non scary) fights for the future of this country.  This is the Democratic Party equiivent to the Republican Abortion and anti Gay stands.  Are we to be diminished, as a people, by this fringe radicle driven issue?  This ‘Hot Button’ issue?

    • peterlake

      You’re right on target, “Peter Boyle”, so to speak.
      If anti-gub people (thanks, Woody) were wise they’d print your note here and pin it up in front of them.

      Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about them taking the productive course of action. Instead, Democrat cultists will just mindlessly embrace their ideology and I’ll still be able to buy 30 round magazines.

      Tom Ashbrook (whom I admire) was over the top today, although he may have just been voicing the gun-grabbers’ lament when he resorted to “20 Little Babies.”

      But his shows on this issue are 90% gub-grabbers and 10% pro-gubs and that may be the fault of his young and eager-beaver producers.

      In any case, the gub-grabbers have done what the NRA could not: sold out tens of thousands of modern sporting rifles and boosted NRA membership by about one-third.

      And so, with deep thanks to Obama and Diane, I say on behalf of gub-owners everywhere, “Thanks for helping the industry and the cause, dimwits.”

      • nj_v2

        ^ Thinks putting thousands of more guns in the hands of delusional bubbas is a good idea. And manages to sound condescending about it. Nice job!

    • anamaria23

      That “radical left”.  I guess that  includes all those first responders, those ER docs and nurses, the cops and EMT’s, the mayors, the victim’s families, the survivors-
      -in the many, many  thousands–

      those who actually do the work in the bloody  gutters, hospitals and morgues of this nation, this is a “hot button issue”

      Your comment reeks of “me  first ” narcissism ,false equivalancies and   failure to acknowledge  what other resolute nations have done.  Gun deaths in USA are at least 8x  more than other civilized  nations-2000 since Sandy Hook. You and yours are also the first to resist universal health care that would increase access to  mental health screening.

      Sorry if you are so offended by those who grieve and are moved and  outraged by the slaughter of 20 six year olds enough to demand some meager  changes in gun availablilty. 

      Regarding the laws we already have–over and  over it is stated that there are not sufficient resources allocated to gun legislation enforcement.   No head of ATF for years after the NRA  lobbied to make it a part time position, along with lobbying to defund research into the sociology of gun crimes.

  • Matthew McGrath

    Why is there absolutely no discussion on the topic of mental health reform? It’s absolutely shameful and downright disingenuous that gun control advocates are trying to pass legislation that would have zero impact on overall crime at the expense of completely ignoring meaningful mental health reforms. Shame on Feinstein for using dead children to push her personal agenda!

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

      and no one had answered the question of what mind altering drugs were prescribed to these shooters

      • jefe68

        You first.

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

          for some reason there has been no information about that in the mass media hmm. prescription drugs kill vastly more poeple than guns yet here we are arguing about guns and no one discusses the drugs which have to have labels like “may cause suicidal thoughts or actions”. pay no attention to the man behind the curtian and take your “medicine”

  • IronMichael

    As a Progressive, I’m disturbed that most of the 300 million guns loose in the US are in the hands of conservatives and far-right-wingers. I oppose any attempt to limit sale of military style assault weapons until Progressives have a chance to reach parity.   

    • twenty_niner

      I don’t know… Leftists with guns? 

      Has usually meant pretty good business for the body-bag industry.

      • jefe68

        Yeah those right wingers with guns did a lot for the world. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Tojo to name a few. 

        You see when we start use hyperbolic ideas the argument becomes so skewed and absurd.

        ” An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind ” 
        - Gandhi

        • twenty_niner

          Yea, but those guys were fascist dictators and fascism is just another form of statism. Our right wingers (except for the neocons – it does get confusing) are more libertarian and a damn sight from being statist. Most of them are a happy with a pickup, a few guns, and tickets to watch taxi cabs drive 200 mph in a circle.

          • jefe68

            Sounds like a real intelligent bunch.

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

            i like motersports where you turn both ways!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

      I’m impressed. 

      “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who kept their sword.”

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

      after seeing all the thugs on cops and the crazy loons on doomsday preppers it made me think, these cannot be the only people armed and if they are armed i should be also

    • peterlake

       Back in the day the NRA was divided equally between right, left and center.

      I was on the left side then, but not since the left has become today’s left.

      We like liberals with guns. At least they still have at least half a brain left.

  • IronMichael

    As A Progressive in favor of gun control I concerned that most guns in the country are owned by conservatives and far-right-wingers. I oppose any attempt to ban assault weapons until Progressives reach parity.

    • harverdphd

       …which they never will because progressives are weenies.

      • anamaria23

        Yes.  All those EMt’s and ER docs  and surgeons and  nurses and cops and mayors  and janitors and coroners and morgue workers who care for and clean and bury the fallen and who are now at the forefront   demanding some meager gun legislation.  Real weenies.

      • nj_v2

        ^ Continues unbroken string of useless posts. 

    • VinceD2

       If progressives bothered to learn to shoot, they might like it and take up the sport! What I am hearing from the anti-gunners demonstrates little but emotion and ignorance.

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

        if that happens we will never end this ammo shortage!

      • StilllHere

        Not a good combo.

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    You can pole the public and find 85% want deficit reduction, financial reform,
    drug enforcement, educational reform, background checks for gun purchases, and
    lessening of drunk drivers. There’s no question these are good objectives. But
    there’s no consensus on how these programs will actually work. Most gun
    advocates will support background checks, as soon as someone explains exactly
    how they will be implemented. That’s the rub. How does it work? Can anyone
    explain this? I thought not because no-one knows. And until you can don’t expect support from me or other gun owners.

    • hennorama

      Steve_in_Vermont – If you’re talking about “universal background checks” it seems pretty simple.  Prior to the sales transaction, the seller and potential purchaser go to any Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) or any law enforcement agency to get an NICS check, and complete From 4473.

      Does that seem too restrictive?  Form 4473 seems pretty simple and straightforward.  You can see the form and instructions here:

      http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

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

        and if they don’t? how will anyone know?

        • hennorama

          Futo Buddy – “and if they don’t?” – Both seller and buyer will know, so it would require both to break the law. But indeed your point about enforcement is well taken.

          However, private sales that are conducted in public, at gun shows and other venues, would be more likely to be in compliance. In addition, those sales via online means are more likely to be in compliance.

          One of the problems with addressing various firearms issues is a lack of data. The NRA and firearms manufacturers have actively suppressed and discouraged research into firearms safety and firearms deaths. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was effectively barred from such research since 1996, when the following sentence was inserted into the law that funded the CDC:

          “Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

          The CDC is not the only Federal agency impacted by NRA and firearms manufacturers’ efforts to restrict the availability of info about firearms. Believe it or not, the ATF is also restricted in its ability to release trace data on firearms due to the Tiahrt Amendment (TA)

          Under TA, the ATF is restricted from publicly disclosing both firearms trace data (on firearms used in crimes), and analysis of patterns of sales of firearms used in crimes. For instance, due to TA, it is nearly impossible to know how many Bushmaster .223s are used in crimes. This is like prohibiting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from disclosing the makes and models of vehicles with safety defects.

          TA also requires that the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) destroy certain criminal background check records after only 24 hours. The Justice Department Inspector General found that the 24-hour destruction policy makes it easier for corrupt dealers “to falsify the NICS check to hide a knowing transfer of a gun to a prohibited person” (Department of Justice, 2004).”

          TA prohibits the ATF from requiring annual gun dealer inventories. If a gun dealer is corrupt, they can claim that firearms are stolen or lost, then sell them “off the books,” making these firearms practically untraceable.

          For example, former gun dealer and National Rifle Association (NRA) Board Member Sandy Abrams, who eventually lost his license after being cited for more than 900 violations of federal gun laws, had 422 guns missing in one inspection, more than one-quarter of his inventory, and his shop had over 483 firearms traced to crimes (Brady Center, 2006).

          Perhaps the NRA should do background checks on their board members.

          http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/Tiahrt

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

            the people who do illegal deals now and under a universal background check system already both know what they are doing is illegal.
            i don’t want my tax dollars spent advocating for gun control. i spend money advocating against it!  the 24 hour record destruction is very important. if your background check is sketchy in any way they have several days to hold your purchase while a human fbi agent investigates who can reject your sale if they can find a reason. after the sale there is no reason for the federal government to have  a record of your firearms  purchase. the actions of these corrupt gun dealers are already  illegal with serious jail time for criminals who break the laws. crooks will always find a way to beat the system no law or set of laws will change that.

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

      well we know the AWB does not work yet they want that again.  i too cannot understand how “universal” background checks could ever be enforced

      • VinceD2

         The proposed AWB is an emotional reaction with no basis in logic. <3% of gun murders involve AW's. But they're big, Black and look menacing so they MUST be the problem right?

        By the waym, the AWB didn't reduce deaths before, expecting a different result now is insanity.

        • anamaria23

          It was a flawed policy.  AWB works very well in other countries, done right.

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

            do they have a right to bear arms in those countries?

  • hennorama

    Reasonable people will disagree on various aspects of these issues.I’d like to try to turn the discussion around by trying to find common ground.  I fully realize this may be a fool’s errand, but without finding common ground, we can’t possibly tackle solutions to any problems.

    One suspects that nearly all will agree about a few things:

    1.  Too many Americans die from wounds associated with firearms, whether these deaths are suicides, homicides, or accidents.

    2.  There is legal right to own firearms, and this right is not unlimited.

    3.  Ownership of a firearm comes with significant responsibilities, namely safe usage, storage and transportation.

    4.  Firearms are not inherently evil and owning firearms does not make one an evil person.

    5.  Mentally ill people should not be able to purchase, own or access firearms.

    6.  Criminals should not be able to purchase, own or access firearms.

    If you care to respond, please indicate which of the above you agree with before adding further comments.  As I said, I’m trying to find common ground.

    Perhaps something along the lines of “I agree with 1, 3, 5 & 6.  As to # 2 – that’s crap!  And 4 is obviously nonsense!”  You get the idea.  Thanks!

    • TheDailyBuzzherd

      As for #2: Right, Henno, and that’s where people don’t understand plain English. The 2nd Amendment: “… a well regulated militia”, this is where the pro-gun lobby falls on its face.

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

        you know thats only part of it right?

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

      1. seems to imply that there is a correct number of people that should die from firearms.
      i think most reasonable people could agree on these things where it gets tricky is what to do about them. i applaud your effort i was thinking today about how we could find common ground and engauge in a getting to yes style discussion.

      • hennorama

        Futo Buddy – obviously there is no “correct number of people that should die from firearms” use. The point is, really, if we agree the number is too high, what can we do to reduce the number, whether it’s to reduce suicides, homicides. accidental deaths, or all three.

        Thank you for you kind words in support of my fool’s errand and windmill tilting.

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

          there are lots of things to reduce all those problems. in order to do so its important to understand that the guns are not the cause of them. suicides are a worldwide epidemic america is actually not high on the list compared to nations where guns are banned but maybe we should look at nations that have very low suicide rates like jamaca and the bahamas and other island nations and study why their rates are low yet its so high in japan. homicides are generally either domestic violence or gang/prohibition/crime/prison industrial complex related.  mass shootings are pretty rare overall but do occur when mentally deranged individuals fall through the cracks. allowing women access to concealed carry  is a good way to reduce crimes against women in general and domestic violence. the prohibition related crime problems can be ended by ending prohibition.
          we no longer call gun incidents accidents. improper handling of a firearm is always a result of a lack of education and we should educate children about firearms starting with “stop, dont touch, leave the area, tell an adult” as soon as they can toddle. in this state we already require all gun owners to take a safety class and exam.
          i am not too proud to play sancho panza for a good cause

      • Gregg Smith

        The other thing is there are plenty of people who have righteously been killed by firearms. Guns have saved countless lives.

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

          yes that should be on the list of things we should all agree to

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m sure it never occurred to her.

        • Fredlinskip

          Astute of you to comprehend shoot-em-all’s comment.

      • nj_v2

        You could work toward common ground by calling out the gun crowd’s miscasting of the Second Amendment as being implemented to empower people to fight off some imagined tyrannical government. This is a bogus argument often made by, uh, the gun advocates. 

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

          the 2nd amendment empowers us to never have to fight a tyrannical government. ask the residents of north korea if tyranny is imaginary.

      • Fredlinskip

        “Shoot-em-all” Futo back in town. 
        I guess what’s the use of having firearms if you don’t use ‘em whenever you get the chance. Aye?

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

          i am not sure what what you said has to do with what i said.

    • VinceD2

       Agree with ALL points. But:

      1)  Making guns illegal for everyone will not prevent criminals from getting them.

      2) A mentally sick person doesn’t need a gun to do harm. Witness Tim McVeigh and Mohammed Atta. We need to work on mental health.

      Thanks for your level headed comment!

      • hennorama

        VinceD2 – TY for your response and your kind words in support of my fool’s errand and windmill tilting.

        As to your points:

        1. I am not making any proposal “Making guns illegal for” anyone who is not already prohibited from firearms ownership, let alone everyone.

        Clearly the fact that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million firearms in the US means they are not difficult to find or acquire by virtually anyone.

        2. We are discussing firearms, and I’ve limited myself to that topic. There are more than enough things to disagree about on this one topic, let alone other means of harming oneself or others.

        Thanks again for your kind words.

  • Sy2502

    The whole gun control push was a rather shameful exploitation of a tragedy by a political group to put its ideology into law. Unfortunately, America falls easily prey of knee jerk reactions. But the “tragedy vultures” lost their window of opportunity. Now that emotions are quieting down and reason is returning, their proposals don’t stick any more. 
    Even a below average intelligence individual knows that most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns, not by assault weapons. Assault weapons are a red herring. But banning them is a first step in the gun controlled society certain people are trying to push. It’s the proverbial foot in the door. 

    • jefe68

      Reason? You call what the NRA advocates for reason?
      Reason? Your comment is anything but.

      • Sy2502

        If you really and truly think that everyone against stupid and useless gun control laws has something to do with the NRA your head is well and far buried under the sand.

        • jefe68

          Well that sums it up. 
          Talk about people who have guns who maybe should not.

          • Sy2502

            You are right, you sound like you shouldn’t.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

        Gun in the hands of the people are liberties Teeth.

        • jefe68

          The man with bumper sticker mentality.

          • VinceD2

             At lease he HAS a mentality. Perhaps you should try some logic and reason instead of fear and emotional non-logic.

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

            yeah washington was such a sap

        • nj_v2

          ^ It’s the delusion speaking.

    • hennorama

      Sy2502 – please provide some evidence to back up your statement “… most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns …”

      I’m asking for evidence in an effort to keep the discussion  as evidence- and fact-based as possible.

      To make it easier for you, I’ll point you to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2011 (the last full year for which data is available) titled CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES 2011.  Keep in mind that even the FBI data is incomplete, because not every jurisdiction reports crime to the FBI.

      This is the Table Guide to the various available data tables.

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/table-guide

      • Sy2502

        http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27
        See figures 40 and 41 for gang related homicide statistics.See figure 42 for type of weapon used.

        Next time read the link before you post it, as nothing in it was related to the post in question. And since you were already online, you could have looked it up yourself.

        • hennorama

          Sy2502 – TY for your response. I respect your views.

          Three points:

          1. Your initial post said “… most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns …” yet when asked for evidence, you point only to homicides.

          In the real world, “gun violence” is not limited to homicide.

          2. Using the source you cited as evidence (the text next to Figure 40), “Gang violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all homicides in 2008.” Is 1% or 6% of homicides somehow equivalent to “… most gun violence is committed by gangsters” in your world?

          3. Quoting you: “Next time read the link before you post it …”

          Thank you again for your response.

          • Sy2502

            Meh do I really have to spoon feed you? Do I really have to do ALL the work for you?

            Homicides by firearm in 2011: 8,583
            Of these by handgun: 6,220 
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

            “Gang-related crime and violence continues to rise. NGIC analysis indicates that gang members are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and much higher in others. Some jurisdictions in Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Texas report that gangs are responsible for at least 90 percent of crime. A comparison of FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) 2009 violent crime data and 2010 NGIC gang data illustrates that regions experiencing the most violent crime—including southern California, Texas, and Florida—also have a substantial gang presence (see Figure 1 and Map 1). Street gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking. NDIC reporting indicates that gang control over drug distribution and disputes over drug territory has increased, which may be responsible for the increase in violence in many areas. Conflict between gangs, gang migration into rival gang territory, and the release of incarcerated gang members back into the community has also resulted in an increase in gang-related crime and violence in many jurisdictions, according to NGIC reporting.”
            http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#CurrentGang

            Which is exactly what the tables I pointed you to said. It’s not my fault you don’t know how to read them.

          • hennorama

            Sy2502 – TY for your response. I respect your views.

            Three points:

            1. Repeating – Your initial post said “… most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns …” yet when asked for evidence, you AGAIN point to homicides.

            In the real world, “gun violence” is not limited to homicide. Here’s a wikiquote:

            “Gun violence encompasses intentional crime characterized as homicide (although not all homicide is automatically a crime) and assault with a deadly weapon, as well as unintentional injury and death resulting from the misuse of firearms, sometimes by children and adolescents. Gun violence statistics also may include self-inflicted gunshot wounds (both suicide, attempted suicide and suicide/homicide combinations sometimes seen within families).”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

            2. Talk about a need “to spoon feed you …”

            You cite “NGIC analysis indicates that gang members are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and much higher in others.”

            Again, repeating – Your initial post said “… most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns …” yet when asked for evidence, you point to “violent crime” and NOT “gun violence”.

            In the real world, “gun violence” and “violent crime” are not the same thing. When the topic is gangs, your own quotation points this out:

            “… gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking.”

            3. Paraphrasing you: “Next time read [you own words and those you quote] before you post …”

            Thanks again for your response.

          • Sy2502

            I am tired of doing your homework for you. You have shown you can get to the FBI web site all by yourself, you should be able to do some elementary query to find all data to your heart content. I have posted the sources as asked, now you are welcome to go through them at your leisure and mull over the data. 

          • hennorama

            Sy2502 – TY for your response. I respect your views.

            You are continuously unable to support your own statement with evidence. Next time you might try to find the facts and evidence first, prior to posting unsupportable statements.

            This is somewhat ironic in that your original statement was so dismissive of others –

            “Even a below average intelligence individual knows that most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns, not by assault weapons.”

            In the future, please demonstrate that you have at least average intelligence by posting only after you know what you’re talking about.

            Thank you again for your response.

          • Sy2502

            I have provided all the numbers needed. If they aren’t clear to you or have further questions, please contact the FBI web site that publishes them and ask for clarifications.

          • Sy2502

            I am sorry you don’t like the cold facts, but when the FBI site says “Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others, according to NGIC analysis” and you still dispute it, it shows your intellectual dishonesty.
            I also posted the number of handgun homicides vs the overall number of gun homicides, and you still cover your ears and yell “lalalalalla”.
            I am sure the thought of abandoning your fossilized positions is scary, but some of us like to let the facts speak. Maybe one day you’ll try it too.

          • hennorama

            Sy2502 – Perhaps English is not your first language. Perhaps your own words are misunderstood by your own brain. One can only speculate based on your posts.

            YOU said “… most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns …”

            You appear to equate “gun violence … committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns” , with (depending on your whim, it seems):

            “gang related homicide” and/or

            “Gang-related crime and violence”

            You never showed the totality of what YOU described as “gun violence”.

            You never showed the totality of what YOU described as “gun violence … committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns…”.

            Instead of the wide category YOU set, i.e. “gun violence”, you instead focused first on the narrow category of “gang related homicide” and then on “Gang-related crime and violence”. NEITHER of those are the same as the wide category YOU set.

            Rather comically, YOUR OWN CITATIONS disprove your statement:

            When asked for evidence to support your claim about “most gun violence”:

            You first discussed “gang related homicide” and YOUR CITED SOURCE said “Gang violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all homicides in 2008.” Quite a bit short of “most” by any definition, even for those for whom English is a second language.

            Then you wanted to talk about “Gang-related crime and violence” without any specific info about “gun violence”. Here again is what YOU quoted – “Street gangs are involved in a host of violent criminal activities, including assault, drug trafficking, extortion, firearms offenses, home invasion robberies, homicide, intimidation, shootings, and weapons trafficking.”

            Of these listed categories, only THREE of nine are explicitly firearms-related – “firearms offenses, shootings, and weapons trafficking.” Again, even without supplying ANY data, this fails the “most gun violence” test.

            Perhaps you need to use a dictionary to define your terms before you post. “Maybe one day you’ll try it ..”

            Perhaps instead you need a better understanding of arithmetic. One can only speculate, based on your posts.

          • Sy2502

            When I need to explain to you why the fact that out of 8,583 firearm homicides 6,220 were committed with a handgun, means handguns are responsible for the majority of homicides, I know you are in fact a troll and a waste of my time.

          • hennorama

            Sy2502 – you need to explain to YOURSELF how ANYTHING you’ve cited as evidence somehow proves your statement:

            “Even a below average intelligence individual knows that most gun violence is committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns, not by assault weapons.”

            Without comment on your intelligence, you’ve completely failed to prove anything about “most gun violence” somehow being “committed by gangsters with easily concealed, easily carried, cheap, regular guns”.

            And BTW – you’ve committed a standard talking point sin by saying “handguns are responsible for the majority of homicides” because, as is constantly parroted by many, “handguns aren’t responsible for homicides, people are responsible for homicides.”

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

            lets get rid of the prohibition of some drugs so the gangs have nothing left to do or fight over and no way to afford guns

    • Fredlinskip

      No one is coming to take anyone’s guns away. They never were. Proposed ban was about future sales of weapons that many would argue belong nowhere but perhaps in military situations. The less of these weapons in circulation, the less chance SOME OF THEM will end up in the wrong hands. Also- weapons will be continued to be developed with capability of killing even more folks quicker.
      You may not agree with above paragragh, but certainly if you have a sliver of an open mind left you can understand why someone would be of the opinion that restricting sales of these weapons would be good thing. 
      More guns do not equate with greater safety. All you need do is examine how U.S. Gun Related Death Rates compare with other developed nations to verify this.

      • Sy2502

        The difference is that some of us actually want a good reason to outlaw or restrict ANYTHING, we don’t just roll over to every governmental whim. The assault weapon ban was already tried during the Clinton era, and it made NO DIFFERENCE in gun violence. No, we don’t want to hand over more of our freedom just to appease a political ideology. It’s not a matter of “they are coming after my guns”, it’s a matter of principle, where the principles are the ones on which this country is based. It’s pretty dismal to see how little some folks appreciate them.

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    National Gun Control Law, DOA, just like every victim that’s fallen to gun crime.

    • hennorama

      Ouch.

    • notafeminista

      Manipulative and predictable.  One expects no less.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

      It was not a total waste of time. All the talk of a gun ban helped sell over 8 million guns in the last 3 months. It sold about 100 million magazines. It helped us educate non-shooters about their gun rights.
      The talk of a gun ban also wasted the political capital of gun-grabbers, who might have had a chance of passing more moderate restrictions like Universal Background checks…. not likely to happen now either.
      Gun Control is toxic to politicians. More then 50% of America is rural and Gun Control equals having our strings pulled by city people.

      • jefe68

        I’m not sure where you are getting your stats from but 84 percent of the United States’ inhabitants live in suburban and urban areas. The population living in rural areas is shrinking. 

        • VinceD2

           Please remember where your food comes from!

          • jefe68

            That has nothing to do with gun control. 

          • VinceD2

             Yes it does. City folks need to have a little respect for the folks in rural areas, we do grow your food. Stop trying to solve your problems in the city at our expense.

          • Mattyster

             So because we eat, everyone should own weapons of war?  That makes sense…

          • VinceD2

             No moron, stop imposing your problems of everyone else. Have some respect for rural folks. We aren’t the ones with the gun problem, your inner city crackheads are the problem.

          • Mattyster

             Well, that was respectful…  I don’t buy that idea that all rural folks believe everyone should own weapons of war, or that anyone who thinks differently is disrespecting them.

          • VinceD2

             You get the respect you EARN.

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

          so the majority should trample the rights of the minority?

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

      except this one is not sad

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this. The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear  that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens. Liberty is worth the risk of death!

    • jefe68

      And who defines future tyranny? 
      Do your get to decide what is tyrannical? Is it by your litmus test?

      When I read this kind of statement to me it smacks of 
      someone who might be a tad paranoid.

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

        maybe there is a certian number of domestic extra judicial drone strikes that could define it objectivly.

    • hennorama

      Pocono Shooting Range – was Christopher Dorner an example of how to “arm people in order to prevent future tyranny” on the part of the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies?Did Christopher Dorner just “need the tools to do this?”Please elaborate on Mr Dorner’s use of firearms, his exercising his Second Amendment rights, and his prevention of the oppressive power exerted by the LAPD.These are not mere rhetorical questions.  I look forward to your reply.

    • nj_v2

      [[ The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. ]]

      Compete and utter nonsense. Worshippers in the House of the Gun Cult have to resort to lies and distortion to practice their idolatry.

      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.…

      …However, people like Andrew Napolitano on the Right – as well as some dreamy revolutionaries on the Left – still suggest that the Framers enacted the Second Amendment so the firepower of people trying to overthrow the U.S. government and kill its agents would be equal to whatever weapons the government possessed.

      This crazy notion would be laughable if its consequences were not so horrible. The human price for this phony concept of “liberty” – and this bogus history – is the horrendous death toll that gun violence inflicts on American society, including the recent slaughter of those children in Newtown.

      Yet, instead of recognizing the actual history and accepting that the Constitution was an attempt by the Framers to create a democratic process for peaceful change, today’s advocates of a violent revolution – whether from the Right or the Left – feed the paranoia and the ignorance of their followers.

      (excerpts)

    • Fredlinskip

      “The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny”. With all due respect, you are deluded my friend. Nowhere in constitution or B of R is such a claim made. That claim is made nowhere but in your head.By the way- please don’t breed any terrorist groups to attack our country up at your shooting range.

    • Mattyster

      Isn’t there something in the Constitution about attacking our own government being treason?  Oh yeah – Article 3 Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them…

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

        the idea is that by being armed there will never be a need to overthrow the govt because the govt would never be crazy enough to get that out of pocket. prior to the beginning of the revolution the british wanted to open a court in worcester that the americans did not want open. when the crown sent 60 men to open the courthouse they arrived in worcester to find 2500 armed men and the courthouse was not opened without a shot being fired. an armed citizenry is just another check and balance our founders wisely included in our constitution. i have been thinking about two quotes a lot lately
        “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly”
        and
        “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

        • Mattyster

           Did you forget that we live in a Democracy?  There is no “the government”, we are the government.  Although I have to admit Dick Cheney did his best to gain absolute power and got away with way too much, but I don’t think your guns could have stopped that, so I’m not sure how you think that would work.  In the end we voted those guys out of office.

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

            do you think either quote i quoted is wrong? just the fact that the guns exist in the hands of the citizens precludes tyranny from developing. they need never be used to achieve this effect. the only difference beteen the rights of an american and a chinese citizen is the right to bear arms

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

            we did not vote cheney out his term expired. also i thank god we do not live in a democracy perish the thought!

  • Wotan

    Well, it’s hardly optimal because we need better restrictions and standards at the federal level, but on the other hand, the expectations were just too high if we seriously thought a lobby to go head to toe with the NRA could be roused and mobilized in three months. Thus, we’ll leave it up to states to better set standards. CO was won and other states are in the midst of passing legislations to boot. As it is with the death penalty, the lower states will eventually follow the more progressive and the Feds will be forced to follow in the upcoming years.

    Let’s be realistic here. We’re in it for the long run and NO ONE expected sweeping legislation to be won in an instant.

    • Fredlinskip

      Well put. Thanks.

          Conservatives throughout history seem to be dragged along kicking and screaming into future.
        Nowadays, I hear many of them have become convinced that Women should have right to vote for example- just one example of countless policies that they fought tooth and nail against in times past.
      Apparently that’s what conservatism is all about.

      • Wotan

        There was a story featured by NPR today about women in the US military and the failure of the military judicial system to adjudicate and bring to justice perps who rape our women serving in the military. A truly maddening story that had me fuming. What’s worse, as if something could be made worse than a story about a female marine who’s raped then driven out of the military when she finally pursues pressing charges, were the comments posted on the NPR website by the resident conservatives.

        Even in the 1950s, people had more common decency and compassion for women who were wronged.

  • VinceD2

    Tom, your bias is oozing out of my radio. Your rudeness towards those who disagree is unacceptable. Your insistence on emphasizing the AWB and clip size limitations just shows your ignorance. <3% of murders involve AWB's.

    Please hang up your mike until you can conduct an unbiased show. As a tax payer and a supporter of my local station, you are an embarrassment.

    • StilllHere

      Tom’s got an opinion, no matter how ill-informed, on everything.

      • VinceD2

         I don’t fault him for having an opinion, just pushing it on everyone else. It’s wrong when Fox does it and it’s wrong here on taxpayer funded NPR.

    • Mattyster

      You’re just upset that you can’t get him with the “you don’t know anything about guns” line that you gun absolutists always throw around.  You think any gun regulation whatsoever is unacceptable and any other point of view is biased.

  • http://www.facebook.com/neal.lacey.7 Neal Lacey

    Saying that only gun experts are qualified to comment on this issue means that those of us who lack business degrees are unqualified to criticize wall street.

  • tiredAmerican1122

    And I’m paying for this anti-gun spewing liberal nonsense with my hard earned TAX DOLLARS.
    This my friends, is a crime.

    • Wotan

      Compared to the anti-humanity spewing neocon invasion nonsense I’m forced to pay with my hard earned TAX DOLLARS, the budget for On Point (and let’s include the total budgets for PBS and NPR to boot) pales in comparison.

      Indeed, the international court in Rome also thinks it’s a crime against humanity also.

      • VinceD2

        If Rome wants to work on crimes against humanity, they should look closer to home.

        • Wotan

          Italy hasn’t invades anyone since Mussolini.

          • VinceD2

             What about pedophile priests?

          • Wotan

            They’re a part of the Vatican which is a seperate state from Rome. That aside, it’s still a strawman.

          • Fredlinskip

            Shoot ‘em.

          • tiredAmerican1122

            when my elected officials spend my TAX $$$ the way I elected them too.

          • Wotan

            So you’re fine with your elected official using your “hard earned TAX $$$” to blow up 200,000 Iraqis but you’re totally opposed to your  “hard earned TAX $$$” being used by On Point because you disagree with something that Tom Ashbrook said on air?

            I’m profoundly bewildered, disappointed and disgusted that America has come to this actually.

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

            they paid for it they have to listen

          • Wotan

            The Home Shopping Network is also a part of my cable subscription. I too pay for that. I just don’t choose to watch it or whine about its programming. I also pay for NPR and PBS with my tax dollars. You on the right do not have a monopoly on tax paying. Lastly, I also pay for Fox News given that the enjoy tax subsidies. I also don’t bother watching it let alone whining incessantly about my “hard earned TAX $$$” funding shoddy programming.

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

            oh you like whining about others whining

          • Wotan

            Typically stupid reply when someone has nothing to add.

          • VinceD2

             Your cable subscription is voluntary, taxes are not.

          • Guest

            Home Shopping Network, as someone like you would know, is on free TV also. And Iraq War funding, something the conservatives got us into, involved far more funding and tax payer expenditure than even 10 years of NPR and PBS combines. Way to leave that small part out there, sport.

            Keep trying.

        • tiredAmerican1122

          I’m not sure how Rome got into this but………..

          • Fredlinskip

            Rome wasn’t built in day and neither is an effective weapons ban going to be. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/neal.lacey.7 Neal Lacey

    An important question woud be: What percent of stranger-initiated gun deaths are caused by assault rifles?  Is there a lower threshold of deaths we must prevent in order to effect any change.

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

      i assume the answer you are looking for is almost none?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/Z6HP3WX7OBEIIRUN6Q2FDXCH2A DirtBag

    Any legistation on any firearm related item will create a instant black market for said item.  Large capacity clips, semi-automatic wepons, and even drones are not rocket science!  As we move into the future, technology, like 3d printers, will make all these things available to us in our own homes. Gun violence is a social problem we all share.  The solutions start with social justice not gun control.

  • GrueneJim

    The vast majority of American citizens support the Bill of Rights because we know, at an existential level, that our individual right to liberty, security, and private property are fundamental to our Nation’s heritage.

    • Fredlinskip

      Even your buddy Scalia admits that restricting certain weapons, would not be unconstitutional.

  • Myra Estelle

    Michael Moore suggested that the tragic photos of the murdered children at Newtown would shock people into doing something more intelligent about gun control. Have the senate and the congress seen these images? Maybe this would at least make them see the treacherous damage that is done with assault rifles and make them more readily ban them.

    • VinceD2

       Less that 3% of murders involve so-called “Assault weapons. But facts don’t really matter to this discussion do they…

      • Mattyster

         So are you saying that if we cannot prevent ALL murders we should just give up?  That taking weapons designed for war off the street is too much to ask?

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

          he is saying those 3% will just use the same weapon as the other 97 % of people do now

        • VinceD2

           I’m saying this proposed AWB is an emotional knee jerk reaction, that made no difference before and won’t make any difference now.

          And these are not “weapons designed for war”. War weapons are full auto and already require a special firearms license to own.

          Please LEARN something about guns before you go off spewing falsehoods.

    • Enuf IsTooMuch

       As an EMT/EMS/Fire-Rescue worker I saw more than my share of such horrors. For me it pushes me to focus not on partisan politics or to think from my emotional trauma (yes, PTSD, best to admit it) I turn to REASON and practicality.

      The issue is not more or less guns. The NRA is wrong in talking about Good Guys With Guns. The anti-Gun side is wrong in thinking gun laws will stop any of this.

      This is the dangerously mentally ill being ignored by a broken, dismantled, dysfunctional and toothless mental health system.

      Focus on that issue, the true issue, or accept that you have decided to fail.

      • Fredlinskip

        I agree that because of  sheer #’s of guns out there, weapons bans would have negligible effects  in short run. Longer term, and especially as weapons of even greater “capacity” are created, it could have a positive effect.

  • rjpittman

    I find it interesting that the same people who opposed voter ID laws because “It creates an undue burden on law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right” for “minimal results of voter fraud” are now saying it is okay to create an undue burden on law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right for, arguably, minimal results.

    • Wotan

      That’s because voter fraud is virtually nil, and a thorough background check would have flagged Cho from purchasing his cache of weapons after being deemed a threat to himself and society by a VA judge.

      • VinceD2

         1 case. Columbine and Sandy Hook would not have been prevented.

        • Wotan

          But so many more in the inner cities or those with current restraining orders, criminal convictions and so forth would be prevented. IOW, to try to equate background checks with voter ID is utter folly in implication and explication.

          • VinceD2

             So you think a criminal would submit to a background check? HA! He’ll just get the guns from his friendly neighborhood drug supplier. If you think a background check would help, you are delusional. Prohibition didn’t work, the “war on drugs” isn’t going so well either.

            You illustrate the problem, mandate a “solution” on everyone because a relatively few people cause problems. Legislation to the lowest common denominator.

            Punish those who cause the problems. Fix our mental health system. Investigate those drugs with cautions about suicidal thoughts and depression.

            THINK!

          • Wotan

            Says you who lives in some rural area by your own admission. Here in Boston, we do submit to background checks when we want to buy guns. And gun traffickers have also been targeted by the police as part of the widespread campaign to curb gun violence in inner cities.

            Your series of reaction here, however, is consistent with those of your gun loving legion. “Nothing will work except more and more guns.”

          • VinceD2

             We have checks in PA also, and as long as they’re not keeping a list,I don’t object to this. But does ot keep guns off of the streets in the city? No.

            If the anti-gunners have a viable way to keep guns away from crooks, I’m all ears, but so far no such proposal has been made. The antis have made it clear that they want to confiscate, that;s their goal.

            And no, i do not belong to the NRA, I don’t like their politics.

          • Wotan

            So, you’re packing 20 guns because you’re afraid of crooks?

            And we do have systems where gun are kept off the streets. They’re not absolute because no crime fighting measure is absolute. Still, they’e been effective drastically cutting down on gun violence in the city.

          • VinceD2

             I don’t “pack”, but yes there are guns in my house. Not 20. But if I lived on the Southern border, I would be armed to the teeth. What righ do city slickers like you have to determine the needs or wants of others? Your arrogance is astounding!

          • Wotan

            Why do you need guns in the souther borders more than someone living in the inner cities. Are you suggesting that “self-deportation” didn’t work? What about that wall we all insisted we build whereby we wasted hundreds of millions on their construction that could have gone to revamping old schools or building new ones.

            And you’ve forfeited you right to whine about arrogance when you have no idea what is my position on public safety. You’ve assumed what my position is and have propped up and are arguing against a strawman. All of the pro-gun people have done exactly that in all of your replies to not only me to others who thinking on the issue is similar.

            Stop being a total hypocrite and practice what you preach. You likewise have no right to enforce your twisted distopic social agenda on me when my locale is one of the safest states against gun violence while having some of the strictest gun laws. My town of 90K likewise just 7 miles west of Boston has had 4 murders total in 12 years. We don’t need your guns or your agenda.

          • VinceD2

             

            No room to reply below. Not up to me to determine how much
            protection anyone but myself needs or desires.

             

            Self-deportation is the ONLY solution to that little
            problem! And no, I do not favor the wall. Never did. You are an ass to even
            imagine my positions, you can barely handle your own.

             

            You have no right to enforce your unrealistic dystopia on
            me, I cannot remember a murder in my zip code.

             

            Take your blue nose Baaaston arrogance and give it a shove. You
            do not rule Western PA. Kiss off, you arrogant fool.

            The last word is yours, I know your narcissistic self can’t
            resist.

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

            so there should be no crimes involving guns or gangbangers with them in boston right?

          • Wotan

            Only according to people like you who’s not interested in an honest debate.

      • Gregg Smith

        How can it be said voter fraud is virtually nil? By the very definition we don’t know. There was a poll worker who voted 6 times for Obama but she went on TV and bragged about it. How do we know?

        • Wotan

          “A new nationwide analysis of more than 2,000 cases of alleged election fraud over the past dozen years shows that in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which has prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tougher voter ID laws, was virtually nonexistent.”

          http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-11/politics/35494053_1_voter-id-laws-registration-fraud-voter-impersonation

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

          ill tell you why i dont give a darn about alleged voter fraud. it upsets me a lot less that a few illegal aliens may or may not vote or that a few people vote twice than the fact that most americans dont bother to vote in the first place. we could stamp out illegal voting pretty quick if everyone who was supposed to vote did. if i got to the poll and the little old lady there had already checked my name off the list we could catch the perpetrator and end voter fraud. i dont need to show an Id to fly or do anything else besides drive and its a driving liscense so that seems appropriet but i do not want to start being “id”ed just to cast my vote. voting is about freedom and that seems antithetical. and dont get me started on the voting machines the source of the real pernicous voting fraud

      • Enuf IsTooMuch

         I agree that voter fraud is incredibly rare. A non-problem being chased by an outlandish solution.

        However, nothing stops a criminal from getting what they want short of an arrest. I have no objection at all to mandating inclusion of mental health findings into the NICS database, I say go right ahead and do it. But don’t imagine for one moment that will prevent someone of criminal intent, either sane or insane, from obtaining a firearm.

        That would be a false sense of security.

        Only dealing with the issue of dangerous mental illness offers any true chance of success here. Either we stop changing the topic, getting back to the mental health issue, or we fail miserably.

        I say the same thing to people wanting armed guards in schools. Go right ahead, I’d even vote for it if that’s what’s needed. But it will not work. It is a feel good answer. In the rare case of a school attack the odds of a good guy with a gun being in the right place at the right time are laughably bad.

        Deal with mental illness, or fail. That is the choice here, there is no other.

        • Wotan

          “Deal with mental illness, or fail. That is the choice here, there is no other.”

          Totally disagree.

          It’s because I’ve known adults who are full blown schizophrenic and bipolar or manic as well as kids who suffer from Aspergers or are autistic that I know what’s actually involved with the care of people who are afflicted with these diseases. No matter what sort of funding and social services are provided en mass by states, municipalities or even via federal support funding (and I’m not all that optimistic that the conservative right is at all genuine in finding such additional funding when health care costs have been such a sore issues for them as well as the downsizing of gov.), funds available to middle class to lower middle class families will pale in comparison to the private funds that my friends have used to address these disabilities for their kids. They’re lucky that they’re well off because the kids go through so many special services, tutors, counseling, therapy in addition to being enrolled in prep day schools. And even at that, the kids have social issues which will affect them for life even though I’m confident that neither will ever go on shooting sprees. They haven’t a mean bone in their bodies and it’s truly unfortunate that kids with Aspergers or autistic are now grouped in the same category as psychotic mass killers because of Lanza and NRA talking points.

          The schizophrenics are even harder to treat.

          So I’m actually baffled as to what people are thinking when they insist that we deal with this and this issue only. 

          Let’s also understand also that Cho’s parents knew of his unstable and psychotic downturn in behavior, sought help via treatment and therapies and even broke the embarrassment of social taboo by soliciting the help of their church minister. 

          While I agree that better mental health care needs to be expanded, I will vehemently disagree that there’s a single magic bullet here in this complex societal problem. Mental health is just one component. But we cannot take guns off the table here.

          Five or six year old girls getting shot in the head by a stray bullet while sitting in their front porch really has nothing to do with mental health. 13-year-old packing guns to schools in order to protect themselves from rival gangs really have nothing to do with mental health care.

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

            the children in your last paragraph are not in danger from legal guns they are in danger from gangs and gangs are a direct result of prohibition. so the fix there has nothing to do with gun control

          • Wotan

            Gangs are a direct result of prohibition? What the hell does this mean?

            And no, in Boston, we’ve enjoyed great reduction in gun crimes from 20 years ago BECAUSE many guns were taken off the streets, gang leaders put into prisons for extended periods of time, illegal trafficking of guns curtailed, social services greatly extended and so forth.

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

            i dont mind answering your questions. the reason we have gangs is because prohibition creates a black market which creates gangs. gangs are financed by drug money.

          • Wotan

            Well, nice try but you haven’t answer the most critical part. Prohibition of what?

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

            really? read where it says “drug money” above. are you from america? have you heard of the war on drugs?

          • Wotan

            Actually I am an American and I’ve received far better schooling and professional training than you. This isn’t hubris so lose the BS. And I asked because you’ve a habit of being very cryptic if not incomprehensible, and I wanted to know exactly if by prohibition you mean drugs or guns.

            Either way, you’re opinion is either dated and thus incomplete in its obsolescence – gang are no longer what you think they are and they often are not in the drug peddling enterprises – and guns are the heart of curbing inner city violence. I referred you in our last attempt at an exchange to the Kennedy Braga study. Clearly, you’ve not looked this up and haven’t a clue as to what it’s about nor how effective their measures have been in Dorchester, NYC (where I also lived in the East Village during the heart infamous crack epidemic of the early 90s) and to some extent, LA.

            At this point, I’m pretty sure you’ll not pursue this so I’ll not bother to refer you to Second Amendment readings.

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

            the first thing you need to work on if you actually want a honest debate is not saying things like” I’ve received far better schooling and professional training than you. ” and whatever you said about knowing more about asians than anyone else. do you see how that sort of attitude is counterproductive and hard to even comprehend?

          • Wotan

            So lacking anything worthwhile in a debate about guns – and all of your points you’ve labored to make have been blown out of the water as purely ignorant, self-serving and dishonest – you’ve now again resorted to a veiled whine about my having retorted to your ad hominem with an attack on your dishonest antics?

            Like I told you Futo maki, try getting refund from whatever penny outfit you learned to debate. I would also urge you to seek a refund for whoever taught you about character and the shoddy history that had you thinking “charles 3″ was the guy our forefathers had fought.

            I’ve noticed a pattern with you in this short while. No one takes you seriously other than your gun nut buddies. And even they don’t take you all that seriously.

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

            i’ve noticed you are a narcissist. i am sure its obvious to anyone who has had to deal with one before

          • Wotan

            I’m actually not, but I know this for myself. What you would think of me is none of my affairs. Try again.

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

            do you think you would have a better shot of engauging in a honest debate if you did not say thing like “I’ve received far better schooling and professional training than you. ”

          • Wotan

            With you, no and at this point, it should be clear that I’ve stopped trying. Let this be a lesson to you, people can recognize bad faith engagement. That would apply to you and your antics. It took me and any thinking person about two to three of your comments to recognize this.

            Don’t turn the tables and presume to whine again about how no one is engaging you in an honest debate when it was clear you were not interested in one.

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

            if you were really not trying you might not post at all

          • Wotan

            The frightening thing is, that attempt at a reply probably made sense to you. Try Rosetta Stone, sport.

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

            why are narcissists so condescending?

          • Wotan

            I’ve already told you that I’m not narcissistic but don’t let that stop you from exposing yourself as a lying, half-witten and whining gun nutter. You and your one of two buddies here are a dime a dozen.

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

            ohh so this is where you project

          • Wotan

            Now, you’re just parroting. Grow a pair and get some new lines. A brain would help but you really can’t do anything about that, now can you, Futo Maki.

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

            What is a personality disorder?

            [from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th
            edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American
            Psychiatric Association. European countries use the diagnostic
            criteria of the World Health Organization.]
            An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates
            markedly from the expectation of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and
            inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time,
            and leads to distress or impairment.
            A personality disorder is a pattern of deviant or abnormal behavior that the
            person doesn’t change even though it causes emotional upsets and trouble with
            other people at work and in personal relationships. It is not limited to
            episodes of mental illness, and it is not caused by drug or alcohol use, head
            injury, or illness. There are about a dozen different behavior patterns
            classified as personality disorders by DSM-IV. All
            the personality disorders show up as deviations from normal in one or more of
            the following:(1) cognition — i.e., perception, thinking, and
            interpretation of oneself, other people, and events;(2) affectivity — i.e.,
            emotional responses (range, intensity, lability,
            appropriateness);(3) interpersonal functions;(4) impulsivity.

            Narcissistic Personality Disorder

            While grandiosity is the diagnostic hallmark of pathological narcissism,
            there is research evidence that pathological narcissism occurs in two
            forms, (a) a grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by
            life experiences, and (b) the stable disorder described in DSM-IV, which is
            defined less by grandiosity than by severely disturbed interpersonal
            relations. The preferred theory seems to be that narcissism is caused by
            very early affective deprivation, yet the clinical material tends to describe
            narcissists as unwilling rather than unable, thus treating narcissistic behaviors as
            volitional — that is, narcissism is termed a personality disorder, but it tends
            to be discussed as a character disorder. This
            distinction is important to prognosis and
            treatment possibilities. If NPD is caused by infantile damage and consequent
            developmental short-circuits, it probably represents an irremediable condition.
            On the other hand, if narcissism is a behavior pattern that’s learned, then
            there is some hope, however tenuous, that it’s a behavior pattern that can be
            unlearned. The clinical literature on NPD is highly theoretical, abstract, and
            general, with sparse case material, suggesting that clinical writers have little
            experience with narcissism in the flesh. There are several reasons for this to
            be so:– The incidence of NPD is estimated at 1% in the general population,
            though I haven’t been able to discover the basis of this estimate.–
            Narcissists rarely enter treatment and, once in treatment, progress very slowly.
            We’re talking about two or more years of frequent sessions before the narcissist
            can acknowledge even that the therapist is sometimes helpful. It’s difficult to
            keep narcissists in treatment long enough for improvement to be made — and few
            people, narcissists or not, have the motivation or the money to pursue treatment
            that produces so little so late.– Because of the influence of third-party
            payers (insurance companies), there has been a strong trend towards short-term
            therapy that concentrates on ameliorating acute troubles, such as depression,
            rather than delving into underlying chronic problems. Narcissists are very
            reluctant to open up and trust, so it’s possible that their NPD is not even
            recognized by therapists in short-term treatment. Purely anecdotal evidence from
            correspondents and from observations of people I know indicates that selective
            serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, such as Prozac, aggravate narcissists’
            grandiosity and lack of social inhibition. It has also been suggested that
            self-help literature about bolstering self-esteem and getting what you want out
            of life or that encourages the feeling of victimization has aggravating effects
            on NPD thinking and behavior.– Most clinical writers seem unaware that
            narcissists’ self-reports are unreliable. This is troubling, considering that
            lying is the most common complaint about narcissists and that, in many
            instances, defects of empathy lead narcissists to wildly inaccurate
            misinterpretations of other people’s speech and actions, so that they may
            believe that they are liked and respected despite a history of callous and
            exploitative personal interactions.

            [from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th
            edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American
            Psychiatric Association. European countries use the diagnostic
            criteria of the World Health Organization.]
            A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
            admiration, and lack of empathy.[jma: NPD first appeared in DSM-III in 1980;
            before that time there had been no formal diagnostic description. Additionally,
            there is considerable overlap between personality disorders and clinicians tend
            to diagnose mixes of two or more. Grandiosity is a special case, but lack of
            empathy and exploitative interpersonal relations are not unique to NPD, nor is
            the need to be seen as special or unique. The differential diagnosis of NPD is
            made on the absence of specific gross behaviors. Borderline Personality Disorder
            has several conspicuous similarities to NPD, but BPD is characterized by
            self-injury and threatened or attempted suicide, whereas narcissists are rarely
            self-harming in this way. BPD may include psychotic breaks, and these are
            uncharacteristic of NPD but not unknown. The need for constant attention is also
            found in Histrionic Personality Disorder, but HPD and BPD are both strongly
            oriented towards relationships, whereas NPD is characterized by aloofness and
            avoidance of intimacy. Grandiosity is unique to NPD among personality
            disorders, but it is found in other psychiatric illnesses. Psychopaths
            display pathological narcissism, including grandiosity, but psychopathy is
            differentiated from NPD by psychopaths' willingness to use physical violence to
            get what they want, whereas narcissists rarely commit crimes; the narcissists
            I've known personally are, in fact, averse to physical contact with others,
            though they will occasionally strike out in an impulse of rage. It has been
            found that court-ordered psychotherapy for psychopaths actually increases their recidivism rate;
            apparently treatment teaches psychopaths new ways to exploit other people.
            Bipolar illness also contains strong elements of grandiosity. See more on grandiosity and empathy and its lack
            below.]The disorder begins by early adulthood and is indicated by at least
            five of the following:
            Translation: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of
            self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in
            a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won’t (or can’t)
            change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people
            complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of
            emotional distress to others (or themselves? none of my narcissists ever admit
            to being distressed by their own behavior — they always blame other people for
            any problems). This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not
            caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or
            any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or
            early adulthood. NPD interferes with people’s functioning in their
            occupations and in their relationships:Mild impairment when
            self-centered or egotistical behavior results in occasional minor problems, but
            the person is generally doing pretty well.Moderate impairment when
            self-centered or egotistical behavior results in: (a) missing days from work,
            household duties, or school, (b) significant performance problems as a
            wage-earner, homemaker, or student, (c) frequently avoiding or alienating
            friends, (d) significant risk of harming self or others (frequent suicidal
            preoccupation; often neglecting family, or frequently abusing others or
            committing criminal acts).Severe impairment when self-centered or
            egotistical behavior results in: (a) staying in bed all day, (b) totally
            alienating all friends and family, (c) severe risk of harming self or others
            (failing to maintain personal hygiene; persistent danger of suicide, abuse, or
            crime).

            1. An
            exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and
            talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

            Translation: Grandiosity is the hallmark of
            narcissism. So what is grandiose?

            The simplest everyday way that narcissists show their exaggerated sense of
            self-importance is by talking about family, work, life in general as if there
            is nobody else in the picture. Whatever they may be doing, in their own
            view, they are the star, and they give the impression that they are bearing
            heroic responsibility for their family or department or company, that they have
            to take care of everything because their spouses or co-workers are undependable,
            uncooperative, or otherwise unfit. They ignore or denigrate the abilities and
            contributions of others and complain that they receive no help at all; they may
            inspire your sympathy or admiration for their stoicism in the face of hardship
            or unstinting self-sacrifice for the good of (undeserving) others. But this
            everyday grandiosity is an aspect of narcissism that you may never catch on to
            unless you visit the narcissist’s home or workplace and see for yourself that
            others are involved and are pulling their share of the load and, more often than
            not, are also pulling the narcissist’s share as well. An example is the older
            woman who told me with a sigh that she knew she hadn’t been a perfect mother but
            she just never had any help at all — and she said this despite knowing that I
            knew that she had worn out and discarded two devoted husbands and had lived in
            her parents’ pocket (and pocketbook) as long as they lived, quickly blowing her
            substantial inheritance on flaky business schemes. Another example is claiming
            unusual benefits or spectacular results from ordinary effort and investment,
            giving the impression that somehow the narcissist’s time and money are worth
            more than other people’s. [Here is an article about recognizing and coping with
            narcissism in the workplace; it is rather heavy on management jargon and
            psychobabble, but worth reading. "The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability" by
            Bruce Gregory, Ph.D. "When the narcissistic defense is operating in an
            interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in
            public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident
            reasonableness."]

            In popular usage, the terms narcissism, narcissist, and
            narcissistic denote absurd vanity and are applied to people whose
            ambitions and aspirations are much grander than their evident talents. Sometimes
            these terms are applied to people who are simply full of themselves — even when
            their real achievements are spectacular. Outstanding performers are not always
            modest, but they aren’t grandiose if their self-assessments are realistic; e.g.,
            Muhammad Ali, then Cassius Clay, was notorious for boasting “I am the greatest!”
            and also pointing out that he was the prettiest, but he was the greatest and the
            prettiest for a number of years, so his self-assessments weren’t grandiose. Some
            narcissists are flamboyantly boastful and self-aggrandizing, but many are
            inconspicuous in public, saving their conceit and autocratic opinions for their
            nearest and dearest. Common conspicuous grandiose behaviors include expecting
            special treatment or admiration on the basis of claiming (a) to know important,
            powerful or famous people or (b) to be extraordinarily intelligent or talented.
            As a real-life example, I used to have a neighbor who told his wife that he was
            the youngest person since Sir Isaac Newton to take a doctorate at Oxford. The
            neighbor gave no evidence of a world-class education, so I looked up Newton and
            found out that Newton had completed his baccalaureate at the age of twenty-two
            (like most people) and spent his entire academic career at Cambridge. The
            grandiose claims of narcissists are superficially plausible fabrications,
            readily punctured by a little critical consideration. The test is performance:
            do they deliver the goods? (There’s also the special situation of a genius who’s
            also strongly narcissistic, as perhaps Frank Lloyd Wright. Just remind yourself
            that the odds are that you’ll meet at least 1000 narcissists for every
            genius you come across.) [More on grandiosity.]

            2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited
            success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal
            love
            Translation: Narcissists cultivate solipsistic or “autistic”
            fantasies, which is to say that they live in their own little worlds (and react
            with affront when reality dares to intrude).

            3. Believes he is “special” and can only be
            understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or
            institutions)
            Translation: Narcissists think that everyone who is not special and
            superior is worthless. By definition, normal, ordinary, and average aren’t
            special and superior, and so, to narcissists, they are worthless.

            4. Requires excessive
            admiration
            Translation: Excessive in two ways: they want praise, compliments,
            deference, and expressions of envy all the time, and they want to be told that
            everything they do is better than what others can do. Sincerity is not an issue
            here; all that matter are frequency and volume.

            5. Has a
            sense of entitlement
            Translation: They expect automatic compliance with their wishes or
            especially favorable treatment, such as thinking that they should always be able
            to go first and that other people should stop whatever they’re doing to do what
            the narcissists want, and may react with hurt or rage when these expectations
            are frustrated.

            6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve
            his own ends

            Translation: Narcissists use other people to get what they want
            without caring about the cost to the other people.

            7. Lacks
            empathy
            Translation: They are unwilling to recognize or
            sympathize with other people’s feelings and needs. They “tune out” when other
            people want to talk about their own problems. In clinical terms, empathy
            is the ability to recognize and interpret other people’s emotions. Lack of
            empathy may take two different directions: (a) accurate interpretation of
            others’ emotions with no concern for others’ distress, which is characteristic
            of psychopaths; and (b) the inability to recognize and accurately interpret
            other people’s emotions, which is the NPD style. This second form of defective
            empathy may (rarely) go so far as alexithymia, or no words for emotions, and is
            found with psychosomatic illnesses, i.e., medical conditions in which emotion is
            experienced somatically rather than psychically. People with personality
            disorders don’t have the normal body-ego identification and regard their bodies
            only instrumentally, i.e., as tools to use to get what they want, or, in bad
            states, as torture chambers that inflict on them meaningless suffering.
            Self-described narcissists who’ve written to me say that they are aware that
            their feelings are different from other people’s, mostly that they feel less,
            both in strength and variety (and which the narcissists interpret as evidence of
            their own superiority); some narcissists report “numbness” and the inability to
            perceive meaning in other people’s emotions.

            8. Is
            often envious of others or believes that others are envious of
            him
            Translation: No translation needed.

            9. Shows
            arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes

            Translation: They treat other people like dirt.

            [Some descriptions and explanations on this page are based on material
            from What is a personality disorder? by Paul J. Hannig, Ph.D., The Online
            Journal of Psychiatry, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and (defunct) Internet
            Mental Health questionnaire for diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
            For a firsthand account of what it's like to have NPD, see "Malignant Self-Love - Narcissism Re-visited" by Shmuel (Sam)
            Vaknin, Ph.D.]

          • Wotan

            Yawn, you lose again.

          • VinceD2

             Yes, prohibition leads to gangs. Ever hear of Al Capone? Same with the drug prohibition.

            In Boston, you have a welfare state. Chicago has strict gun laws, and is horribly violent.

             Please look up the words “Correlation” and “Causation” and try to understand the difference.

          • Wotan

            This isn’t the prohibition era, now is it? So your point would be what? And Boston is hardly a welfare state. Don’t speak of something of which you know so little. This is the problem with right wingers regurgitating ridiculous, clueless nonsense than wasting other people’s time having to tell them how wrong you all are with your predictable argumentative retort that you’re in fact right.

            And when sprouting stupid BS, lose the condescension. Only right winger still think propping up causation is at all remotely clever. Most of us outgrew this mode of thinking as seniors in high school.

          • VinceD2

             The drug prohibition, don’t pretend there isn’t one.

            As for condescension, OK, I will admit you are the master.

            Welfare? Yes! Obama’s aunt is exhibit 1!

            Don’t know what schooling you claim to have had in your arrogant post below, but it sure didn’t do you much good.

            And yes, gangs are expected results of our drug prohibition and poverty. If we ended our “free trade” deals and brought jobs back, much of the poverty problem would be solved. (And you thought I was a right winger!)

            Violence is a symptom  of societal problems, guns are not the cause, but it’s easier to blame inanimate objects than THINK about the REAL problems.

          • Wotan

            Get proven to be wrong and called up for acting like a jack-ass online and this above is the expected lowlife replies from the gun nutters. No wonder you all need guns.

            And gangs are no longer just about drugs. Don’t act like you know anything about them. You’ve already stated you were from a rural area. Now you’re trying to pass yourself off as someone knowledgable about gangs? You a member of the KKK or something?

            Keep whining about the condescension after it’s been shoved right back into your face. Pussies.

            As for my education, I got my BA from what’s often ranked as THE top institution in the country. They only give out BAs which is why I earned my masters elsewhere. Anything else stupid you want to say after putting your foot in your mouth then trying desperately to flail away with defensive posturing?

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

            wotan feels he is “clever enough to pull off” the condescension

          • Wotan

            Actually, I don’t “feel” I’m “clever enough.” I know. Keep trying, Futo Maki.

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

            ROFL if anyone is wondering what a narcissist would say wonder no more

          • Wotan

            How old are you, 15? Keep trying, Futo Maki. You brought nothing to the table here other than your empty opinions and now series of insults. And get one of your gun nut buddies to like your comment. 

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

            oh i am sorry is that your job?

          • Wotan

            Is what my job? Making you look stupid and keep replying for the sake of replying. You cant even come up with your own lines and have to take what I wrote and copy and pasted it twice. What a tool.

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

            Keep berating people with your feeble condescension, then whining incessantly when it’s shoved right back into your face, then proceed to wage a cowardly campaign of name-calling.

          • VinceD2

             Prohibition and poverty. Face it, we’ve shipped jobs and hope to China, India, Mexico and elsewhere. Now we deal with the blowback. It should surprise no one that when we make the USA a 3′rd world nation we get 3′rd world violence.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         We don’t have a system to prevent or verify voter fraud so how do you say it is non-existent.  The UN monitored our elections in 2012 and were incredulous that we are one of the few civilized countries that don’t check IDs while voting.  We are now laughing stocks of the clowns at the UN.  Congratulations.

        • Wotan

          Well, on the issue of the so-called voter fraud, see my citation of a WPost article a couple of posts down from this. Not sure why you missed that.

          And indeed the UN did monitor our 2012 election cycle. They were on the look out for voter suppression perpetrated by conservative groups. And we’re the laughing stock of the world NOT because the so-called “illegals” or the blacks or the minorities are rigging the system. Rather, we’re the laughingstock of the world because in addition to voter suppression, we also make 89-year-old citizens wait in life for eight hours to exercise their inalienable right to cast a vote.

          http://nation.foxnews.com/un-affiliated-monitors-us-polling-stations/2012/10/20/united-nations-affiliated-election-monitors-be-placed-polling-stations-around-us

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

            so you recognise that we have inalienable rights

          • rjpittman

            He recognizes it as long as it supports his opinions…but if it doesn’t then they don’t matter. 

          • Wotan

            Not at all. But good to see that another gun nutter insists on putting words in my mouth that were never said or implied.

            Why don’t people like you and Futo just argue with yourselves in the mirror with…

            “You tawkin to me?”

          • rjpittman

             Wotan- your words “we also make 89-year-old citizens wait in life for eight hours to exercise their inalienable right to cast a vote.” So YOU put those exact words in your mouth, not me. 

          • Wotan

            I remember well what I wrote and I always do. But your point being what with that attempt at a reply?

          • Wotan

            Why do you insist on wasting my time as well as yours with stupid rhetorical questions like the above. 

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

            it was not any sort of a question it was a declarative statement

          • Wotan

            Rhetorical question or a declarative statement, what does it matter? Be as pedantic as you wish. It’s doesn’t obscure you love for chasing your own tail.

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

        so he did pass a background check?

        • Wotan

          Look it up yourself instead of posting stupid replies for the sake of replying. It’s not that hard to find if you’re indeed interested in debating this “rationally” as so many of your gun nutters claim.

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

            so how did you comment add to the debate and demonstrate your desire to engauge in an honest debate of the issues? i dont even know where to begin to find such a detail about an old case. if he did pass a background check thats pretty good evidence against background checks being expanded without actually having a menaingful database to check against. BTW its not really a great way to initiate rational debate by by tossing out an innacurate insult

          • Wotan

            Actually, I’m being honest in my facts, post citations rather then make stuff up, I don’t argue strawmen, I don’t revert to red herrings, I don’t pull teeth trying to get a simple answer and so forth then begin to whine incessantly about the other side being dishonest, insulting and so forth. I also don’t retort with the stupid “so you like to whine about others whining”….

            The list goes on and on.

            I don’t know where you learned to debate or engage people, but I would suggest you try to get a refund.

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

            you have not really done any of those things mostly you make personal comments and accuse people of wasting your time

          • Guest

            Actually, I’ve done all of that. You on the other hand….

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

            ok guest

          • Wotan

            O,you’re amusedbythat Muto Maki? It happens oftenbecause the pencil iconfor edit is right next to the delete icon. I’ve hitthe delete iconbyaccident.

            Keeptrying, little Maki.

  • rjpittman

    The second amendment is not specific to hunting and sporting- it also has to do with allowing the people the right to defend themselves from “bad guys” AND an out of control government.  So the comments about “30 rounds to kill a deer” and the like are mostly off base. 

    • Enuf IsTooMuch

       I agree with your conclusion but must point out the 2nd amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting or shooting sports. It is entirely about defense, about the owning of small arms of common military utility.

      Nevertheless, discussing guns is off the topic. See my post above.

      • Mattyster

         Right – when we’re talking about gun violence how dare we talk about guns and ammunition.  Completely off topic.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

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

      and people hunt things besides deer like varmints

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.settle.75 Andrew Settle

    The second amendment is not just about gun ownership. I would encourage those who hate guns to excersise their rights, and take responsibility for the safety of their communities by bearing alternative armaments. Pepper sprays, tasers and other non lethal weapons are effective. Don’t waste your time complaining about all of the guns. They are not going away. Show that you are serious about preventing gun violence by being prepared to deal with it. 

    • Fredlinskip

      And work on improving your reflexes so you can better dodge bullets when necessary.

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

      tazers are illegal in MA and you need a firearms permit for pepper spray

      • VinceD2

         What a stoopid state! Of course, they support Obama’s aunt so no surprise….

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

          along with slingshots, pea shooters, and strike anywhere matches

  • darien osman

    Look, I am not sure of what “Gun Show Loop-Hole”  you are speaking about?  I have personally purchased several guns from a Gun Show and went through the exact same backround check as when I purchased the gun from a Brick and Mortar business,

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

      you noticed that too?

    • rjpittman

      If the person selling at the gun show is an FFL then they have to do the background check, but the private citizen selling a gun at the show doesn’t have to do a background check on the buyer.  That’s the loophole they speak of.

  • Enuf IsTooMuch

    I’m just disgusted. Once again the problem of the dangerously mentally ill has been hijacked by the gun debate. Terribly disturbed persons commit horrifying acts and nothing is done because we cannot talk about the human issue before us. All the air gets sucked out of the room by political partisans and emotionally traumatized people who do not want to talk about the problem, they want to talk about guns.

    The Sandy Hook killer’s mother was desperately trying to get mental health help for her son. She was blocked at every turn. The Aurora Colorado killer, the killer in Tucson, the killer at Virginia Tech. All dangerously mentally ill and all ignored by the dysfunctional or non-existent  mental health infrastructure in this country.

    But we cannot talk about that. We have to have the more or less guns debate instead. We have to debate if armed guards in schools or more background checks will stop the next one.

    My answer is all sides are wrong in this. This is not a more or less gun laws issue. It is not a more or less Good Guys issue. Even bringing up those topics is a change of topic, and abandoning of the issue at hand.

    Unless and until we deal with the mental health infrastructure in America, we will continue to fail to stop these rare but horrible incidents.

    Indeed, the consistent hijacking of the issue, the consistent changing of the topic is paramount to a decision to fail.

    The vast, useless, heart breaking waste of PARTISAN POLITICS!

    • Gregg Smith

      Your comment is a great reality check. I agree 100% so don’t get me wrong when I say you have put your finger on but a fraction of the problems that face us.

      IMHO the most daunting hurdle to solving our problems is the inability to have an honest debate. That’s really the issue you raise. We can’t talk frankly about so many things including race, radical Islam, reforming entitlements, taxation, welfare, guns and mental health. My view is, tackle all of them head on with brutal honesty. I’m beginning to think it’s out of reach. 

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

        fixing those problems would cost someone some money and there is the rub

    • Fredlinskip

      The country is awash with Guns. This nation has many times the Gun related Death Rates as vast majority of developed nations. More guns does NOT equate with more safety. If it did, we’d be safest country on planet.
        You don’t need capability of killing dozens of people in less than a minute “in self-defense” .
      These statements aren’t political- they are simply facts.

      • VinceD2

         We also have much poverty, many hopelessly unemployed, and no system to take care of the mentally ill. But the problem HAS TO BE guns right?  Er,,, no.

        The vast majority of guns never do harm.

        Our society needs some fixes, please stop using Sandy Hook to further your ideological agenda.

        • Fredlinskip

          The stat I like to use illustrate the point that guns ARE an issue is Gun Related Death rate. That is all the folks that die in this country by guns each year. We have MUCH HIHGHER RATE (multiples of 2,3,6,7,9, 100+ times that of the other developed nations). We also have more guns than these nations. 
          If guns are NOT a problem,
           PLEASE EXPLAIN this phenomona.
           (these other countries likely do not have higher % of “mentally compromised” individuals as us). 

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             You can use statistics to show the danger of cars too.  Far more people die in auto accidents.

          • Fredlinskip

            Worried, Do car accidents happen 5, 10, 100X more frequently in America than other developed nations?
            If they did, wouldn’t you have to admit that in America there seems to be a problem?

            Less worrying- more action to fix problem.

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

            what are the relative car death rates?

          • VinceD2

             Ah but you are confusing correlation with causation. A common logical fallacy.

            I would wager that most other nations have better methods to take care of the mentally ill. I had a niece (Note the word “had”) who was quickly going over the edge into drugs and gangs. The family tried to get her help, but it was not available. They were told to be careful not to violate the 17 year old minor’s “rights” by doing an “intervention” themselves. So she’s 6 feet under, and left behind a child damaged by pre-natal drugs and violence.

            Face it, we have no safety net in this country. The recent mass shooters ALL had issues that were identified.

            As for guns, .01% of guns are used to cause problems, 99.9% are not an issue. The people causing the problems with guns have other means to acquire them without a background check. I’m all for keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but to date I have not heard a viable proposal to that end.

            We really need to get the emotionalism out of this conversation and THINK LOGICALLY about how to improve things.

          • Fredlinskip

            Sorry about your niece.
            You make some good points. There is no ‘silver bullet’ – (pardon the metaphor).A gun ban in short run would not likely improve anything.
            In long run I think it would.
            There are other actions we can take as well.
            I don’t think the whole issue of gun violence in America, so much higher than other countries- can be explained away simply by poor mental health care. 
               I would agree that our health care system is critically flawed. 

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

            i am sure many nations have 100 times the machete death rate as us. the flaw with that thinking is thinking people would not just kill each other another way. we need to figure out why so many americans want to kill each other not worry about what they use to do so

          • Fredlinskip

            Perhaps the sheer quantity of guns out there, the ease of getting them, and the efficiency of these weapons to kill are contributing factors?

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

            its all relative

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

        are they directed at the police departments who are buying up AR15s?

      • peterlake

        We are one of the safest countries on the planet.
        Thanks for mentioning it.

        And we’d be a lot safer if black and Latino gangs didn’t commit 75% of the murders in the country.

        • Fredlinskip

          U.S has twice ownership rate & about twice gun- related death rate as Switzerland
          US nearly 3 times O.R. & 3 times GRDR  as Sweden
          We have:
          3X  O.R.  &  >5 times      GRDR as Canada
          nearly 3X O.R. & 7X GRDR  as France 
          3X  O.R     &           >9X GRDR as Germany
          nearly 6X  O. R.&   >10X GRDR as Australia Over 100X O.R.      >100 X GRDR as Japan
          (Source: wiki)
          It certainly appears we are many multiples LESS SAFE than vast majority of developed nations.
          More guns seem to correlate directly with higher Gun Related Death Rate.
          Wonder why?

          • peterlake

            Simplistic question, but…..
            It’s not a hard question to answer.

            Does Canada or France or Germany have as many armed gangs of black and brown youths as the USA?

            Most of the murders are gang-related. Most of the deaths are suicides. Please report back on suicide rates.

            Second, I question your statistics about ownership rates.

            We may have as many as 300,000,000 guns. Are you sure about the ownership in those other countries, not that it matters given my first response.

            How’s Israel doing? They have a lot of guns, don’t they?

            And please cite your sources.
            Thanks.

          • Fredlinskip
          • peterlake

            Wow, not so bad after all, especially if you remove the suicides.

          • Fredlinskip

            I am of opinion that suicides are relevant to discussion.
             The ease at which “disturbed” individuals can get a hold of these weapons in our society to inflict harm to themselves and/or others makes it easier  for them to fulfill these whims.
              Either way it occurs, folks end up being just as dead.

          • peterlake

            That’s the great thing about America: everyone’s free to hold any opinion they want, no matter how irrelevant or lame.

            My opinion is I don’t intend to compromise my right to own firearms because someone else wants to kill himself.

            People get depressed reading Dostoevsky and kill themselves. Should we take it off the shelves?

            Want to kill yourself cheaply? Consume a whole bottle of Tylenol and in a few days your liver will fall out.

            Want to take acetominophen off the shelves?

            Hanging will work just fine. Want to take rope off the shelves? Jumping (want to take buildings off the shelves?), exsangination (want to take blood off the shelves?), CO poisoning (want to take carbon monoxide off the shelves?)…..lots of ways to die and the people who die at a higher rate in the 33 countries ABOVE the USA rate in suicides seem to find adequate ways to do it.

            “But with other methods there’s time to intervene” is as stupid as saying there’s time to jump in disable a shooter while he reloads his 10 round magazine.

            Please enjoy your opinion but keep it to yourself.
            It’s got no place in a debate about gun murders.

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

            the chinese have to put suicide nets on the tall factory buildings. is that the real solution to their problem?

          • Fredlinskip
          • Mattyster

             “Does Canada or France or Germany have as many armed gangs of black and brown youths as the USA?”  Wow!  Are you REALLY saying our gun violence is because we have more minorities??  How do you suppose they got armed?

          • peterlake

            I guess you think the 500 murders per year in Chicago are done by who?
            Stock brokers and soccer moms?

          • hennorama

            Another ABSOLUTE LIE, sir.

            Please prove, in any way you choose, your statement that “Most of the murders are gang-related..”

            When you cannot, please issue a retraction of your statement.

          • Gregg Smith

            Everybody in Switzerland has a gun, they are required to.

          • Fredlinskip

            I’m simply going by Wiki.

        • hennorama

          That is an ABSOLUTE LIE, sir.

          I challenge you to prove, in any way you choose, your suppostion that “… black and Latino gangs … commit 75% of the murders in the country.”

          When you cannot, please issue a retraction of your statement.

          • peterlake

            You’re quite right.
            In Los Angeles and Chicago only HALF of all homicides are committed by black and Latino gangs.

            http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

            So I guess it’s not so much of a problem as I thought.

            Just 50% isn’t so bad, is it?

          • Gregg Smith

            Combined, blacks and latinos represent about 29% of the population. Have you run the per capita numbers?

          • hennorama

            peterlake – TY for your response. Please delete or amend your original comments to reflect reality.

            Presumably you were referencing the following:

            “In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2006 to 2010.”

            Please note the phrase used above is “around half of all homicides are gang-RELATED” (EMPHASIS added).

            This is NOT the same as what you describe as “homicides … COMMITTED BY black and Latino gangs”.

            There is a HUGE difference. It really helps if you understand the terms of what you read and post.

            The site you linked to says the following (from the Highlights of the 2010 National Youth Gang Survey):

            “2. Law enforcement agencies use varying methods for classifying a homicide as “gang related.” The most commonly used is the “member-based” approach in which a homicide is classified as gang-related if the victim was and/or the perpetrator is a gang member. Some agencies report using a more restricted classification method called the “motive-based” approach, which involves also proving that the crime furthers the interests of the entire gang. The survey results were derived from the more encompassing member-based approach.”

            See: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/237542.pdf (page 3, Endnote 2.)

            “Gang-related homicide” means, quoting from the above, “a homicide is classified as gang-related if the victim was and/or the perpetrator is a gang member.”

            That means that the person who COMMITTED the homicide was not necessarily a gang member. In fact, a law enforcement officer justifiably killing a gang member would fall under this definition of “gang-related homicide.”

            In other words, any of the following shooter/victim scenarios would fall into “gang-related homicides”

            Shooter is not a gang member + victim is a gang member

            Shooter is a gang member + victim is not a gang member

            Shooter is a gang member + victim is a gang member

            You instead have mistakenly assumed the figures you cited ONLY involve the two of three scenarios above where the Shooter is a gang member.

            Please be more careful to read and fully understand things before you cite them as evidence.

          • peterlake

            Here’s all the data you need to know:

            52.5% of homicides IN THE COUNTRY 1980-2008 were committed by blacks, who comprise 12.6% of the population.

            And homicides have declined annually from 1990 to now from 25,000 to 15,000, and that’s coincidental with the rise in the number of guns and concealed carry permits.

            In 2008, the offending rate for blacks (24.7 offenders per 100,000) was 7 times higher than the rate for whites (3.4 offenders per 100,000).

            From the Bureau of Justice:
            http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

            If you want to reduce homicides, I think there’s a better way than going after assault weapons in the hands of white people or people legally able to carry concealed weapons.

            What do YOU think?

          • hennorama

            peterlake – once again you fail to support your original statements in any way. Please delete or amend them to reflect reality.

            No, sir. “all the data [YOU, peterlake] need to know” are the data that support your claims.

            If you can:

            Please show the ACTUAL percentage of what you previously described as “homicides … committed by black and Latino gangs” compared to the actual total number of US homicides.

            If you can:

            Please show the ACTUAL percentage of all US homicides that were committed in the two cities you listed – Los Angeles and Chicago. Then show the ACTUAL percentage of all US homicides that were COMMITED BY those you describe as “black and Latino gangs” in those two cities.

            If you can:

            Please show any instance in the site you previously linked to, which is NOT an official law enforcement site by the way, of any reference to “gangs” being limited to “black and Latino gangs.”

            To me, everything can be reduced to one very clear goal (apologies in advance for the emphasis):

            PREVENT AND REDUCE FIREARMS- RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES.

            To answer your question I will repeat an earlier post:

            “Reasonable people will disagree on various aspects of these issues. I’d like to try to turn the discussion around by trying to find common ground. I fully realize this may be a fool’s errand, but without finding common ground, we can’t possibly tackle solutions to any problems.

            One suspects that nearly all will agree about a few things:

            1. Too many Americans die from wounds associated with firearms, whether these deaths are suicides, homicides, or accidents.

            2. There is legal right to own firearms, and this right is not unlimited.

            3. Ownership of a firearm comes with significant responsibilities, namely safe usage, storage and transportation.

            4. Firearms are not inherently evil and owning firearms does not make one an evil person.

            5. Mentally ill people should not be able to purchase, own or access firearms.

            6. Criminals should not be able to purchase, own or access firearms.

            If you care to respond, please indicate which of the above you agree with before adding further comments. As I said, I’m trying to find common ground.”

            Jump to this post by clicking here: http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/03/21/gun-reform#comment-837532977

            Why you feel the need to use racial terms about any of this is beyond me.

          • peterlake

            Sorry, but I’m done.
            Nothing’s going to happen that you like, anyway.

            Pass a law to prevent murder and make people obey it.
            It’s that simple.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – thank you for taking the time to again not support your original statements in any way.

            Well done, sir. You should be proud.

          • peterlake

            I am proud, thanks.
            I’ve worked hard on gun issues in ways you don’t even know about and I’ve been doing my research and work for 30+ years.

            I’ve represented the Unites States on the field and in print and I’m not your personal research assistant cum punching bag, so do your own research.

            I suggest you start with Joyce Malcolm’s book, “The Origins of the Second Amendment” and John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” and then you report back to ME.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – if what you have posted passes for “research” in your world, you have no discernible standards for research. You posted ABSOLUTE LIES and are still apparently blind to your own inabilty to understand information you have cited or to perform basic arithmetic.

            Until you can show any evidence to support your original statements, your words are mere opinion, and as such have very little value.

            At best, your posts are racially-tinged fact-free grand exaggerations.

            At worst, your posts are racially-biased fact-free screeds.

            Regardless, you have zero facts to support your origianl claims.

            “I suggest you start with” finding facts and understanding the information you cite before you post another word on either gangs or firearms.

          • peterlake

            Rest assured, I will give all your suggestions every bit of the attention they deserve.

          • peterlake

            Did I miss something?
            Did someone die and make you the moderator here?

            But I promise I will give your every word all the attention it deserves.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – no, I am not taking on any role of moderation. I am merely continually challenging your inaccurate posts and your continued inability to support your own statements.

            These are YOUR words, sir, not mine. YOU made the ABSOLUTELY FALSE statements, by your own admission, not I.

          • peterlake

            In the end, my side will win because we are pure and holy and you are not, sir.

          • hennorama

            Hahahahaha what a foolish remark! Thank you for the hearty laugh!

          • peterlake

            In the end, sir, my side will win and yours will lose and that is because we are pure and holy and you are not.

            You may take your righteous indignation to bed with you and cuddle up to it, but it shall not inform my dreams, thanks.

          • hennorama

            HAHAHAHA “pure and holy” … hilarious! One can only conclude you are yet another religious fundamentalist. Thank you again for the hearty laughs!

          • peterlake

            Any assumptions you make about me are wrong, I assure you, as uninformed assumptions almost always are about anything or anyone.

            But one assumption you can make with confidence is that for all the hue and cry about “assault rifle” bans and magazine bans and background checks, the gun owners of America will not be bullied by this or any other administration into surrendering their arms or their right to bear them.

            So make all the ad hominen remarks you care to about me, such is the wont of the desperate who are devoid of hope for their cause, then stand back and watch all your schemes and dreams for firearms confiscation go up in smoke.

            It’s a long-standing ritual but one that never bores me.

          • hennorama

            You really are hilarious, TY again for the laughs. Have you been able to support any of your original statements yet? Let me know if you ever do, OK?

          • peterlake

            Congradulations.
            I had no idea you’d become the monarchal moderator of this forum.

            I promise to give all of your suggestions every bit of my attention that they deserve.

    • Mattyster

      Gun violence is not about mental illness, it’s about GUNS!  Let’s get real and stop trying to divert the attention away from the real problem.

      • VinceD2

         The vast majority of guns,and gun owners, never cause anyone harm. So you want to end gun rights because a very few people misuse the guns.

        Do you also want to outlaw cars, box cutters, diesel fuel and fertilizer?

        Please turn down the non-thinking emotions and start using some logic.

        • Mattyster

           Speaking of non-thinking emotion, no one is talking about outlawing guns, but there is so much emotion on the pro-gun side that discussing ANY kind of gun regulation is immediately conflated with ‘taking away our guns’.  The gun industry & NRA fan those flames because it’s good for business.  Why exactly do you think it is so important for civilians to own weapons designed for war?

          • VinceD2

             Feinstein made her wished perfectly clear.

            Weapons designed for war? Your ignorance is showing. No self respecting army would carry semi-auto rifles, no matter how “cool” they look. No one on the pro-gun side is talking about mortars or RPGs either. Your verbal hyperbole is amusing.

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

        anyone who uses the made up term “gun violence” is trying to hide the truth that people are violent and guns are just not violent at all. it makes a false claim that being killed with a gun is somehow different than being pushed out a window or smothered with a pillow. no one in their right mind would be concerned with pillow violence or window violence yet people who claim to be sane bandy the term gun violence around as if it that make sense.

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

      great point

    • jefe68

      Great, so you add more partisan rhetoric to the vast useless wasteland of political discourse. 

    • WHW111

      The mental health system is seriously flawed. My oldest son fell through the cracks in Tennessee & California (I don’t know where he is now).
      As much as I worry about my son, I feel the assault rifle should be held by the military only. He lives a risky lifestyle and could acquire or be the victim of a high capacity assault rifle.  

  • nj_v2

    Disqus fail.

  • Mattyster

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SENATE!!! Who in the world thinks it makes sense for private citizens to own weapons designed for war??? Weapons designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible!  It makes NO sense!  This is NOT about the 2nd amendment. It’s ridiculous.  I’m ashamed that the legislature of the United States of America can’t do something as no-brainer as making assault weapons illegal.  I don’t even believe how this is being discussed – as though those who think assault weapons don’t belong in the hands of anyone who wants one are the crazy ones.  As though invading the privacy of anyone who has had mental issues is the answer to our gun violence problem.  Legislators need to get some perspective, use some common sense.  I thought only the Republicans in Congress were crazy but I’m losing faith in the Democrats too.

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

      pat leahey advocates purchasing a 1911 model pistol like his. that was the standard military sidearm for many years and is still in use by some special forces. it comes in .45 caliber one of the largest semi-automatic rounds available. assault weapons have been functionally illegal since 1938  so nothing to worry about

    • rjpittman

      I guess you forgot that they were already illegal for many years and there was no measureable differences in crime rates.  So how is doing the same thing again going to change that fact?

      • Wotan

        This is why I can’t take you people seriously. In one corner of the mouth, you all are quick to claim that violent crimes have steadily declined in the last 20 years and are at their lowest level. This you all attribute to the high rate of current gun ownership. Yet when addressing the AWB, you also claim that a ban had no effect on violent crime rates?

        Well, which is it. Make up your minds and stop talking dishonestly from all corners of your mouthes.

        • rjpittman

           You assume I said something I did not…who is putting words in who’s mouth again?  Yes clown, I am the same person you accused of putting words in your mouth , words that you used might I add.  MY opinion, which is the same as the justice dept., is that the assault weapons ban had no measurable difference in crime or murder.  Those are my words and I post under my real name.

          • Wotan

            Clown? LOL. OK, dirtball, when you wrote:

            “I guess you forgot that they were already illegal for many years and there was no measureable differences in crime rates.”

            I actually read to mean just that and no matter how much a douchbag like you would put his or her foot in his or her mouth, you cannot spin your way out of this? Understand or should I type it our for you in bigger fonts?

            So AWB had no effect on violent crime rates but the gun nutters have also been arguing that violent crime rates have plummeted and are at their lowest levels. Again, which is it, you real named gun-loving, anti-clown, tough guy you.

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

          “you people”

          • Wotan

            Exactly! “You people” meaning gun nutters and that’s clear from the context. I’ll type it out slower for you if you’d like Futo Maki.

      • nj_v2

        People keep repeating this nonsense. 

        The ban was not in place long enough, nor were supporting measures put in place. Properly conceived, supported, and implemented, bans on certain classes of weapons and ammunition can be part of reasonable gun regulation.

        But people who point to the “ban failure” don’t really care about that.

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

          yeah it was only a decade. someday we will see the benefits from the war on drugs too right?

          • rjpittman

             I’d love this comment if it was possible.  Couldn’t agree with you more.

        • rjpittman

           How long is long enough for a failed policy?  Ten years should have shown some measurable difference in something…. 

  • Fredlinskip

    Disqus

  • Gregg Smith

    “The hand that pulls the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to the memory, F*** all of you.”

    This is the mentality of murderers. He used a .22 caliber pistol. Making new laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals will do nothing to stop squat. 

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/tj-lane-sentenced-to-life-chardon_n_2907540.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

  • Fredlinskip

    The most astounding thing for me in whole gun debate is that it has brought to light how many people out there believe that somehow Constitution and Bill of Rights grants them the right to “overthrow their government” if they deem it has become too “TYRANNICAL”. 
    Constitution makes NO SUCH CLAIM.
    As such, Gabby’s blood and others IS ON THEIR HANDS.
         I don’t know if they simply lack the mental acuity to understand this or simply enjoy encouraging the belief that shooting innocent people who do not maintain their warped belief system is somehow..
     A GOOD THING.

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      don’t be so overdramatic…. you are misconstruing the issue. Nobody claims the right to overthrow a constitutional government…

      What is claimed is the historical factual rationale behind the second amendment, as discussed by the same Supreme Court, not some violent fringe group:
      e.g. from DC. v. Heller (2008)”There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be necessary to the security of a free state…… (3) when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” 

      ” Tennessee Supreme Court’s 1840 decision inAymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154. …The court then adopted a sort of middle position, whereby citizens were permitted to carry arms openly, unconnected with any service in a formal militia, but were given the right to use them only for the military purpose of banding together to oppose tyranny.””After extolling the virtues of the militia as a bulwark against tyranny, Story went on to decry the “growing indifference to any system of militia discipline.”

      etc.
      etc.

      read it all.
      just to stop at the most relevant supreme court decision. if then you study the history of the second amendment you find continuous reference to the role of a citizen militia (this is not the army or the national guard, but all able body citizen age 18-45, that is) as bulkward against a tyrannical ruler.how likely is for that to happen in America? very unlikely, yet a constitutional principle is there as a guarantee against a tyranny of the majority.you don’t like it?work to amend the constitution with a supermajority: 3/4 of congress, 3/4 of the states.

      • Fredlinskip

        Appreciate your somewhat reasoned response.
         I take issue with Scalia and Tennessee and You.
        I think you have been duped. The issue is not that complicated.
        FF’s wrote in the “need for militia” in part because at the time of the writing this was best mechanism available to DEFEND the country from foreign invaders and INSURRECTIONS (as in those who rise up to prevent alleged “tyranny”).
        Again constitution, “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: .. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”

        In your zeal to promote “freedoms”, you are actually doing more to promote shootings.

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

          no one is promoting shootings except those who promote gun free zones

          • Fredlinskip

            If you wish to not promote shootings then please stop talking of tyrannical government.

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

            i wasent but i dont think talk of tyranny has been shown to cause any shootings

          • Fredlinskip

            The idea that government may be “tyrannical” and thats why we all need a bunch of guns can put the wrong ideas in wrong folks heads.

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

            well i guess we need to educate people about how our republic works when they are kids. besides mcveigh , who did not use any assault weapons to kill many times more people than have been killed in a shooting incident, i have not heard of too many attempts to overthrow the govt and if someone did then they would get shut right down as they should be

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

      so people who want to prevent tyranny should be held responsible for the acts of a clearly insane person?

      • Fredlinskip

        Words have consequences. There is a thin line between “need get a bunch of guns in case of tyrannical government” and “need get a bunch of guns to avenge yourself against tyrannical government.”
        Someone of lesser integrity might misinterpret former quote (which seems to be a common belief) as permission to believe the latter.

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

          nuance is tricky but i would phrase it as “all citizens should get some arms so that we never descend into tyranny in the first place”

          • Fredlinskip

            I know I’m a broken record but.. more weapons does not equate with more safety. If it did we’d be safest nation in the world.
            More weapons makes it that much easier for people to act out their “bad hair days” by taking peoples lives.

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

            “bad hair days” i dont know what to say to that. i am more safe with guns than without them

    • VinceD2

       Gabby’s shooter was a mental case, not someone trying to overthrow the gubmint. Less emotion and more logic please!

      • Fredlinskip

        Those that promote the idea that when gov becomes too “tyrannical” people should “rise up with their guns” & take action, are promoting an atmosphere where a less stable person might feel justified pulling off such an attack.

        • VinceD2

           Nonsense.

          • Fredlinskip

            You’ve a right to your opinion.

    • Fredlinskip

      After further study of the debate in congress over the 2nd amendment; although nowhere enshrined in constitution or B of R. it seems that delegates were VERY much obsessed about tyranny. 
      As such this shoots at least PART  of my argument in the foot. and means I probably ought to tone down my rhetoric a bit. 
      Lucky for me not many will ever see this admission, because this “thread” is about done. 

    • VinceD2

       You might want to look at the Declaration of Independence….

      • Fredlinskip

        The Declaration of Independence is a fantastic unprecedented document, but isn’t legal document and can’t be cited as precedent or as being binding in court.    Purpose of Declaration, was to  provide the moral grounds for dissolving legal ties between us and England; mostly as it related to existing English law.

        • VinceD2

           The Declaration affirms the right of a people to overthrow a tyrannical ruler. It shows the intent of the FFs that people have rights.

          Binding in court? Yeah, right. That court would be the tyrannical leader’s court right. LOL! ( As for our court, you decide if Citizens United is a corporate tyranny or not. I have my opinion!)

          • Fredlinskip

            As I admit in post directly below, I have not up until now given as much credit to FF’s concerns about tyranny in my arguments on this page. That said, Constitution is what would hold up in American Courts.
               If you were to act out inclination “to rise up against tyranny”, and claim that you had a right to  because of D of I, court would not be sympathetic.
                Corporate “tyranny” is a MAJOR problem in today’s society, agreed.

          • VinceD2

             Oh, and I agree about the “legal worth” of the Declaration, but it does show the intent of the FFs.  The Declaration would not have been helpful in English courts of the day either!

            Now, I am not promoting this, but just how far do you think this nation is from a severe reaction to corporate tyranny? Wall St’s goons have been cannibalizing this nation and a lot of people are angry to the point of “doing something” about it. And while small arms would not be of much use against the military, they would be quite effective against the corporate elite.

            Perhaps this is part of the reason that the corporate owned congress is even talking about gun control. Bloomberg is protecting his own.

    • ExcellentNews

      I have hard time seeing the people rising from their couches and turning off Fox News to overthrow a tyrannical government. We had the oligarchy govern us and loot us since 2000. The legal criminals on Wall St and in the executive boardrooms are 500 times wealthier than before. The offshore accounts in the Cayman islands are bursting at the seams. Our oligarchs are hugging slave-labor communist dictators and terrorist-sponsoring oil sheiks, and are telling us “I got mine, too bad for you”… Where are the supposedly justice-loving Americans with their guns? We should be laughing and crying when someone says that tired line of “overthrowing the government”…

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/AZDSNALIDTYKQKRQBQKNUH4DQQ Greg

    America is the land of the individual. It seems that in every topic, from tax reform to gun control, etc., the rights of the individual are paramount, even at the cost of the greater population. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many, basically. So MY “RIGHT” to own any weapon I want has repeatedly been found to trump any concern that I might use that weapon to do harm (or, in the case of assault weapons, to use it for its designed and intended purpose). I personally oppose this philosophy, but that’s the way it seems to be. Therefore, I think the legislative response to the gun violence epidemic needs to focus on individual liability. 

    I like two ideas: 

    1 – Individual liability for dealers and individuals who sell guns without conducting required background checks, up to and including damages to victims of crimes subsequently committed with those weapons. You can be sure I will conduct that check if I might otherwise be liable for accessory to murder. 

    2 – Gun owner insurance. Lots of gun rights advocates make the analogy to car ownership (see “would you take away our cars, too?”). This is a perfect argument. Cars ARE regulated. In most states you are required to have liability insurance. You are required to wear a safety belt. You are NOT allowed to drive a formula one (assault weapon) car on the streets. I don’t think there is anything unconstitutional or inappropriate about requiring liability insurance for gun ownership. 

    • rjpittman

      1. There are already some tort law that covers some of this. (Negligence and Gross negligence)
      2. Cars are not a good analogy for a couple reasons- a. they are not a guaranteed right b. there are many cars allowed to drive the streets that are faster than an F1 car. c. insurance could be seen as a barrier to a citizen exercising their right, just like requiring ID to vote.

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

        i think that one way that cars and guns are the same is that they are liscensed by the states and not the feds

        • rjpittman

           True, the state regulates drivers license and concealed carry permits….but they don’t regulate ownership of the car or the gun.  You can buy either one without a license. 

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

            thats a matter of state law you need a liscense here although i dont know if you are saying thats unconstitutional

    • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

      Auto insurance covers the *operator*, not the car.

      If you get hit by a stolen car, *your* insurance pays, not mine.

      If a burglar steals a gun from my home and then shoots someone, it is also not my liability.  I wasn’t the shooter.

      Blaming violence on guns is like blaming shoplifting on clothes.

      As for in-the home accidents,  I already have homeowner’s insurance, and I am liable for damages.   Thus, additional insurance is redundant.  I’m already covered, and my insurance company can raise my rates if they want to.

      That leaves the case where I go out into the world and shoot someone, presumably in a manner not allowed by law.  Already covered: I can go to jail, and I can get sued (like OJ, who allegedly used a knife).

      So the insurance angle is just another end-run around the central issue:  if people want guns to go away, repeal the 2nd Amendment.  

      Otherwise, it’s a coffee-klatch, and we’re all free to vent with no material outcome.  Biscotti, anyone?

      • peterlake

        Thanks, Mark.

        Yes, insurance is but one of the looney schemes put forth by the ignorant and ill-informed gun-grabbers, almost all of whom secretly wish for the Giant Magnet to pass over the USA and snatch up all our guns.

        I’ve been involved with gun politics for 30 years and the only difference is that the present AWB is being driven by mass murders by the mentally broken.

        The last one was the product of a racial bias against blacks that resulted from gang warfare over drugs.

        This one is “to protect the innocent children” while the previous one was because “the police were outgunned.”

        The common thread is that in both cases the misuses of modern sporting rifles were by irresponsible gun owners but new rules would be applied against lawful owners.

        Otherwise, it’s the same old panaceas being proposed, none of which would solve the problems at the root cause.

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

          damm now the giant magnet idea is out of the bag

          • peterlake

            Don’t worry.

            They’re so thick they’d probably hook it up backwards and give us our machine guns again.

  • Dan Perry

    The concluding statement of Thursdays segment stopped me in my track.  It was something to the effect “We are a country of chasms”.

    I don’t see it that way at all.  We are a country of GREAT diversity.  I for one think that diversity makes us better and is an asset if we but recognize that everyone does not think like we do.  Everyone does have a right to think the way they do.  We need not try to “convert” others to our own point of view. 

    We need to recognize that some things are important to us that are not important to others. There is a compromise that will allow law abiding people to own guns if that is their choice. 

    There will never be a law that prevents someone from going insane.  An insane person can do great damage regardless of the tools available.  I don’t own a gun and never have but I am also not threatened by those that do.

    Let’s work on mental health!   

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

      well said

    • Fredlinskip

      Too many innocent people are dying by gun violence in our nation- at a much higher rate than majority of other developed countries. Personally, I don’t think it’s simply because we have higher % of wackos.

  • http://www.facebook.com/shaun.t.weaver Shaun Ted Weaver

    I keep hearing comments about common sense and protecting children and drying up the “assault gun supply over time…” Optimistic intent or wishful thinking? Let’s set aside noble intentions and emotional response and take a hard look at reality with just one example; Australia’s semi-automatic weapons ban. 1996 the ban went into effect and now there are MORE semi-automatic weapons in Australia than before the ban and who posses these weapons? Southeast Asian drug gangs. You will never “dry up” availability of semi-automatic weapons with legislation unless you can figure out a way to dry up the knowledge of how to make them as well and then find a way to perfectly seal your borders against illegal importation. If you truly want to protect children then you will have to consider following Israel’s lead. Legislation will never stop criminals intent on committing crime. It only facilitates prosecution. And that isn’t even the most relevant argument against banning ownership of weapons of any kind by law abiding citizens.

    • Wotan

      ” If you truly want to protect children then you will have to consider following Israel’s lead. ”

      My first reaction to the above was to write up a wize-ass crack in full agreement and support of the above. But I see that two more of the self-described know-it-all on the issue of public safety who’ve either lectured people throughout the course of these comments to “think” or have berated the general comments as “same old rhetoric” liked your misinformation. As such, I’ll choose to inform you all rather than mock you.

      Israel, despite the NRA and LaPierre’s talking point, has very strict gun control laws. They’re far more restrictive than federal gun laws in the USA. Do you seriously want to adopt their standards? If I recall, Israelis also have military conscription which means that a bit over 50% of their able bodied young adults are trained and serve in their military. Personally, I’m actually all in favor of the US adopting their gun control laws with their being a compulsory military commitment for all Americans. We’ll see what happens to our hysteric gun culture and warmongering in ten to twenty years after adopting these measures. I’m pretty sure you and your gun loving buddies would be drastically opposed to this actually.

      Also, as far as the armed security in Israeli public schools are concerned, the Israeli Foreign Ministry office has already publicly called out the NRA’s and LaPierre’s talking about. They did this two days before Christmas.

      “But Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, said the situation in Israel was “fundamentally different” from that in the United States.

      “We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” said Palmor.

      “What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years,” he said. “It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion,” he added.”

      Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israelis-shoot-nra-claim-article-1.1226401#ixzz2OJZ0yAzP

      Your blurb about OZ and the South Asian gangs being armed with assault weapons is also objectionable if for nothing else then due to its outdatedness. But I don’t have time to correct everything here so I’ll leave it at that.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    In reply to the caller concerned about needing a defense technology to respond during that “five second window” after a gunman enters a room… that technology is called alarm systems, and they typically provide more than 5 seconds of warning.

    There are many different forms of electronic systems, and then their are dogs (or geese). I’ll take my dogs any day over an alarm system.

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

      i expect you are deploying your tactical geese in your local school tout de suite’

      • peterlake

        Not to mention the hounds which will be running through the halls, like Baskerville’s beasts.

  • peterlake

    Six hundred and seventy-two comments to now, and it’s the same old rhetoric I’ve heard for thirty years of being involved in gun politics.

    The only difference is that the present AWB is being driven by mass murders committed by the mentally broken.

    The last AWB was the product of a racial bias against blacks that resulted from gang warfare over drugs because “the police were outgunned.”

    In fact, most gun control since the Civil War has been driven by racial or ethnic bias, but this time it’s “to protect the innocent children”, presumably a more inclusive motive.

    The common thread is that in both cases the misuses of modern sporting rifles were by irresponsible gun owners but in both cases the rules were to be applied against lawful owners while proving ineffective against the miscreants.

    Otherwise, it’s the same old panaceas being proposed, none of which would solve the problems at the root cause.

    If gun-grabbers want to do more than talk they should donate to their favorite anti-gun organization, write their legislators and start at home by placing a sign on their lawns reading, “We support gun-free zones. Like our house.”

    See how that works out at the personal level.

    • jefe68

      Nice. You use threats. 
      Gun-grabbers indeed.
      Bottom line when I read a comment like yours I’m thinking this is the last guy who should own a gun.

      • peterlake

        Threats?
        I made no threats.
        Perhaps you think my telling the truth is a threat.

        Why are lying about my making threats?

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

        good thing its not up to you to decide

      • VinceD2

        Why the personal assault against Peter? He merely speaks the truth.

        Threats? Hardly! If a robber sees your gun free zone sign, you become the obvious choice for a visit. No threat there at all.

    • hennorama

      I’m posting “up here” to avoid DISQUS issues.

      peterlake – You wrote all of the following.  Are these what you meant by “… racial bias against blacks that resulted from gang warfare over drugs …” and “…most gun control since the Civil War has been driven by racial or ethnic bias …”?

      1. [peterlake] “And we’d be a lot safer if black and Latino gangs didn’t commit 75% of the murders in the country.”

      See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/03/21/gun-reform#comment-838800947

      This is an ABSOLUTE LIE, which you confirmed by saying to me (also inaccurately, BTW):

      [peterlake] “You’re quite right.
      “In Los Angeles and Chicago only HALF of all homicides are committed by black and Latino gangs.”
      Even this response is completely inaccurate.  What you were referring to said the following:
      “In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2006 to 2010. ”

      Note the use of “gang-related” which is not the same as “committed by gangs or gang members.”  In this context, “gang-related homicide” means, quoting YOUR OWN SOURCE, “a homicide is classified as gang-related if the victim was and/or the perpetrator is a gang member.”

      In other words, the shooter need not be from a gang for a homicide to qualify as “gang-related”.  In fact, a law enforcement officer justifiably killing a gang member would fall under this definition of “gang-related homicide.”

      2. [peterlake]  “Does Canada or France or Germany have as many armed gangs of black and brown youths as the USA?
      Most of the murders are gang-related.”

      See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/03/21/gun-reform#comment-839799416

      Again, this is an ABSOLUTE LIE.  In fact, it’s not even a close call. 

      3. [peterlake]  “If you want to reduce homicides, I think there’s a better way than going after assault weapons in the hands of white people or people legally able to carry concealed weapons.”

      See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/03/21/gun-reform#comment-841073410

      Why you felt the need to refer to “white people” escapes me.  Perhaps you could explain.

      You, sir, post ABSOLUTE LIES, and when challenged, you are completely unable to support your statements.  In fact, a couple of months ago you even resorted to the use of a CARTOON as evidence.  That was hilarious.

      One would think, given what you describe above as ” …thirty years of being involved in gun politics,” that you would have gained knowledge of some actual facts; that you would not feel the need to lie; and that you would have the gained the ability to support your own statements.

      You fail on all counts.

      • peterlake

        You may declare success now and retire from the field, smug and happy.
        Wrong, but smug and happy.
        Congratulations on your Pyrric victory.

        • hennorama

          peterlake – perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term “Pyrrhic victory” in the same way you seem to be unfamiliar with the term “research”.

          “I suggest” that perhaps you should consult a dictionary before you use words and terms that you are unfamiliar with, especially those words are terms you are unable to spell.

          • peterlake

            Since I studied Greek and Latin before you were born, I assure you that I am well instructed in every word I use, in this or any of the other languages with which I am familiar.

            As I have said, you’re on the losing side of the gun control debate, which is the subject here, and not me or my vocabulary.

          • hennorama

            peterlake – OK maybe you just need to learn to use this new-fangled thing called “spellcheck”.

            Maybe you just need some coffee or other stimulant, because you have now written about both “your Pyrric [sic] victory” AND “you’re on the losing side…” You seem unable to distinguish between your arguments. Am I winning or losing or both or neither?

            Hilarious.

            BTW, what other assumptions have you made about me, since you now seem to think you know both my sex/gender, and my age?

            Given your remark “… I studied Greek and Latin before you were born …” perhaps you’re familiar with the old saying about what happens “when you assume …”.

            FYI, the saying has been updated, substituting the word “not” for “and” in the punchline. It’s apt in your case, sir.

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s “sex”, gender is a grammatical term.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – congratulations on reading the first definition of “gender” in the dictionary. Well done, sir.

            Recognition of the interchangeability of words is not an error. Perhaps your opinion differs. Let’s consult the authorities on the matter:

            “gen·der noun ˈjen-dər

            Definition of GENDER

            1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass c : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass

            2a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex ”

            See:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

            Oh dear. “Gender” means “sex”. What a non-surprise.

            Perhaps you prefer the Oxford English Dictionary online:

            “Definition of gender

            noun

            1 [mass noun] the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):

            traditional concepts of gender

            •[count noun] the members of one or other sex:

            differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age

            2 Grammar (in languages such as Latin, French, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections which they have and which they require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.

            •[mass noun] the property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to a grammatical gender:

            determiners and adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number

            See:http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender?q=gender

            Oh dear. “Gender” means “the state of being male or female”. What a non-surprise.

            Care to play again?

          • Gregg Smith

            I don’t know what the dictionary says. I just know the proper term. I learned it from Barry Farber 100 years ago.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – “I don’t know what the dictionary says.”

            Speaks volumes. Willful ignorance in the face of information and knowledge. How sad.

          • Gregg Smith

            You are welcome, glad to have enlightened you.

          • Gregg Smith

            I also get the impression she is young, at least I hope so. There seems to be little context and lots of google. I’m guessing.

          • Gregg Smith

            “…especially those words are terms you are unable to spell.”

            ????

            Playing grammar cop ALWAYS bites you in the butt, I don’t recommend it. I do recommend Strunk and White.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Oh the irony of the perfectly spelled wrongly autofilled word missed by spellcheck and proofreading. words are terms = words OR terms.

            An edit will be made ASAP. TY for your post.

  • peterlake

    For a fine example of how gun control fails in its intended mission, here’s a long article:

     http://www.calgunlaws.com/institutionalized-ignorance-how-california-encourages-gun-crimes/

  • Jeff_in_Connecticut

    I’d be interested hear opinions on whether any kind of weapon should be banned, and, if so, why?

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

      i say pillows because we need to end pillow violence so no more children can be smothered lets ban pillows

    • peterlake

      I would go along with banning…..murderers.

      They’ve caused more death and destruction than anything else I could think of.
      And this is a bi-partisan ban, by the way.
      I play no favorites.

      Thanks for asking.

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

        how bout banning men under 25 who are unmarried and dont own homes? that will take care of these mass shootings and the gang problem

        • peterlake

          HA!
          Good idea.
          And notes from their mothers don’t count, either.
          And add profiling: if they’re white they can’t be attending high school or college.

    • Brent Larimer

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. -Plato.
      If you ban it from the people, ban it from the world. These kind of laws are only benevolent towards one party.
      I am not opposed to background checks for different classes of weapons. I am a Class III owner, (suppressors, FULLY automatics, and short barreled shotguns). I AM against the government keeping records of this. Once I pass your check, you no longer need that information… Unless you seek to add me to the drone strike list in a government take over.

      Oh, and by the way, my guns have not killed anybody. 

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

        sadly i can’t “like” this twice. i am only mildly annoyed at the current system because i have been delayed for no reason twice but i don’t care that much. i dont understand how we will ever we get the gangbangers to submit to a check on a private sale though. as a gun owner i think what would be done if theyr were smart is make it possible for people to voluntarily do a background check. that way if you don’t really know the person well or if you sell it online you can get em checked out. it would empower gun owners instead of annoying them and probably result in many more sketchy sales stopped than a forced system

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

    thats a false choice

  • VinceD2

     Sorry, but you fail Logic 101. You really need to control your emotions, they get in the way of dealing with reality.

  • Brent Larimer

    Tom,

    I know you’re all in favor of a Police-state, and are probably engaged in the Communist Manifesto at this moment, just all those that fit the mold to speak on your show…but I have a question for you. Do you believe in freedom of speech, or should it too be limited? You see, regardless of your emotional feebleness, you cannot start picking and choosing which laws you like, and which ones to amend; eventually all will fall apart. 

    Do I like that someone can kill innocent children with an AR? No. I also don’t like that RESPONSIBLE adults can get behind a wheel drunk and kill innocents. People die. Unfortunately, many   times needlessly and preventably. But no amount of laws will ever prevent that. Perpetuating such a flawed ideology only deepens the real issues, morality and education.

    As a last point, the second amendment provides 
    “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.”
    How can a free nation defend itself in the face of tyranny without weapons? Perhaps we could borrow your microphone, or you could talk to them. Secondly the last word, and most important, “INFRINGED”. It shall not be violated, oppressed or trespassed on. As you one frantic call suggested tanks and rockets. Well, he’s wrong. I can own a tank. I can own machine guns. And with the right permits, I too could own explosives. 

    Now, if you have the intestinal fortitude, and more over humility to read this, I urge you to respond. No need to try and appear unbiased. You show  silently speaks volumes to that. 

    Thanks.

    -A concerned listener of NPR.

    • Fredlinskip

      I love the “defend itself in the face of tyranny” bit you may have that personal belief but please don’t believe that there is any intent in Constitution or B of R for such a notion. Do you really think that FF’s would sew the seeds of nations own destruction in constitution? Who gets to decide when gov is too tyrannical?
        “communist manifesto?” Really? Get a grip and enter reality for giggles once in a while. 
      Hey, do you like that Gun Related Death Rate is many multiples higher in U.S. than vast majority of developed countries? Not a problem apparently to you?

      • Brent Larimer

        Fred, I understand, you have many different thoughts than I. I respect that. 

        My issue is this, one, If somebody thinks the FEDERAL government can do ANYTHING efficiently and/or effectively, they are completely obtuse. Second, consequently from the first, many decisions such as this should be left up to the states; since obviously radical differences of opinions exist, mostly by state/region. 

        I propose this, get off of you high horse and have some respect for others that have greater regard for various liberties, which you may not agree with. If you envy the nations with more gun control, by all means, go there. Why do you feel it necessary to trample on states rights when you only exist in one? Gun trafficking? I’m pretty sure laws already exists to prevent this, yet do not. 

        What determines tyranny? Trampling on the individual–individual person, individual liberty, individual states.

        • Fredlinskip

          Federal Gov can do a lot of good. Fed Gov is what was established by FF’s and elected by “we the people”.
              I was reacting in part for fact that you seem to show little of respect for Tom’s “opinions”. I have respect for your “states and individual rights opinions.” I hope you were just as adamant at role W played in trampling individual rights.
          Me on high horse? You may be right there- I tend to let my passions get a hold of me on occasions. 
          But then if your comment critical of Tom and OP is indication, you seem capable of  doing the same.
                I hope this reflects fact we both care deeply about our country.

          • peterlake

             I’m curious about what part of
            “Federal Gov can do a lot of good” you especially like.

            What do you think the Federal Government is ESPECIALLY good at?

            Managing its finances?
            Educating children?
            Reducing poverty?
            Delivering the mail?
            Fighting wars?

            What’s your favorite function that you think the Federal Government does well?

            And be prepared for a rebuttal, please, whatever your choice.

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

            the govt is great at redsitributing wealth upwards

          • sickofthechit

            It’s absolutely great at delivering the mail at an incredibly economical price.  Take this challenge.  Go to the post office, pick up a small flat rate box, a medium flat rate box and a large flat rate box.  While you are there get the price and number of days for delivery from the clerk for each anywhere in the US.  Then fill these same boxes up with the maximum weight allowed (4 pounds, 20 pounds and 40 pounds I believe).  Then take those same packages to UPS or Fed Ex and ask for the same delivery date promised by the Post Office and get their price$$$$.  You are in for a severe reality check!  The USPS (thats United States Postal Service) wins hands down.  If you really want to get your eyes opened ask UPS or Fed Ex how much to deliver a letter across the country.  Try offering them 46 cents.  They will laugh at you.

            The only reason the Postal Service is “losing” money is because when the Repugnicans (Republican members of Congress) were last in control they passed a law that said the postal service had to pre-fund its retiree benefits on an accelerated schedule.  Their unspoken purpose was to cripple the Post Office in hopes it would help their push to Privatize it so that once again as in the case with KBR and Halliburton and the Defense Department their supporters could “Profitize”  a function that the government is better equipped to do.
            Charles A. Bowsher

          • Gregg Smith

            I’m don’t usually stick up for government but I recently had to send a parcel and insure it for at least $5K even though it was worth much more. The UPS price was right at $90 so I went to my local post office and it was $60. Then my postmaster scratched her head and realized I could send it overnight and insurance would be automatically included for about $45.   Then she scrunched her nose and wondered if it would fit in a flat rate envelope, it did. I paid $34 and it was delivered from NC to FL the next day.

  • 228929292AABBB

    Nothing is going to happen with gun control.  What’s the lesson?  The lesson is that this is what it looks like when President Obama puts “everything I’ve got” into something.  Congratulations, voters; four more years of moving speeches and failure.

  • Mattyster

    Sheesh – the only conclusion I can draw from the comments on Tom’s shows is that the right wing has way too much time to troll the internet, or maybe they’re being paid to do it.

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

      it could not be possible that average americans are annoyed by the potential theft of our liberty

      • Wotan

        Getting you ass educated is also a party of your pursuit of happiness also. Failing that, as you’ve often demonstrated, people like you rely on collecting guns and shooting vegetable and fruit.

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

          i dont really want anything done to my ass.

          • Wotan

            Again, that’s really none of my business. Keep it to yourself.

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

            i am pretty uncomfortable with you talking about doing things to my ass

          • Wotan

            Now you’re just making up vulgar stuff. Do it in your own private time, Futo maki and stop projecting publicly.

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

            Keep berating people with your feeble condescension, then whining incessantly when it’s shoved right back into your face, then proceed to wage a cowardly campaign of name-calling.

          • Wotan

            Wow, you’re still here trying to reply by cutting and pasting exactly what I had written. And this Vince D character even liked it again. Good job you two.

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

            Keep berating people with your feeble condescension, then whining incessantly when it’s shoved right back into your face, then proceed to wage a cowardly campaign of name-calling.

          • Wotan

            That’s $260. I’ll set up a Paypal account os you can pay me. And no, I don’t accept food stamps.

    • peterlake

      Yes, the NRA pays me $50 for every gun-grabbing cretin I reply to online.

      By the way, since 1987, when I began using BBS’s in the Writers Guild strike, that was one of the first ad hominen attacks I confronted, “These guys must have too much time on their hands.” I wish my opponents would find something new to slur me with.

      Well, my Second Amendment needs me, thanks, and I’m happy to respond. Go find an amendment you like and wait till it’s under attack. I bet you like that freedom of speech one.

      “Hey, Wayne. You owe me another fifty dollars.’

      • Gregg Smith

        I wish I had a nickel for every time I’ve been accused of being paid to blog. I could quit blogging for money.

        Wayne was great on MTP regarding gangs, the media and Chicago.

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

        where do i send my time card?

        • peterlake

          I used to collect a check a long time ago from a pro-gun operation in California, but not for blogging.

          This is a generous donation of my time.

          This is all fact-gathering to see if the gun-grabbers have evolved from those days and if we have to adopt some new strategy.

          Nope.

          Still living in their gun-free caves, hoping the saber-tooth tigers don’t eat them.

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

            are they hireing?

          • Wotan

            It’s spelled “hiring.” It’s a fifth grad word and should have been caught by spell check unless you happen to have a computer that’s 10 years old.

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

            oh a fifth “grad” word?
            Keep berating people with your feeble condescension, then whining incessantly when it’s shoved right back into your face, then proceed to wage a cowardly campaign of name-calling.

          • Wotan

            Don’t misquote me. I had corrected you on your misspelling of the fifth grade word “hiring.” I had also wondered how your computer spell check had missed it unless your computer is over 10 years old.

            But glad you felt that my reply was too embarrassing to you and had flagged it when there was nothing offensive about it other than your poor command of the English language.

            And Futo Maki, I’m going to begin charging you for using my following lines which you feel the need to copy and paste in the absence of something original: 

            “Keep berating people with your feeble condescension, then whining incessantly when it’s shoved right back into your face, then proceed to wage a cowardly campaign of name-calling.”

            We’re up to $250 now. 

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

      we have to something while we are waiting for our federally mandated background checks to clear. not that i am a right winger but as a liberty advocate on this issue i feel you have lumped me with them

    • Guest

      Well, not only that but when they run out of feeble and insulting lines, a common ploy is to begin accusing others of trolling because they have nothing else. 

      • Gregg Smith

        Beautiful!

        • Wotan

          Thanks.

  • peterlake

    I just downloaded a new app that identifies gun-free zones so I can avoid them, since that’s where most of the shootings seems to occur.
    Others may flock to them, however, if they feel safer there.

    Pro or anti gun people may use the app as they wish……it’s a win-win.

    In either case, the app works for Androids and Apples, so enjoy:
    https://play.google.com/store/search?q=gun+free+zone

     

  • Gregg Smith

    Chicago ranks dead last in enforcing existing federal gun laws (90th out of 90 jurist-dictions). Kids in the inner city rarely get to high school without seeing murder or being affected by it personally. There is no hope and gangs recruit the vulnerable which are most. Why doesn’t law enforcement act? Why doesn’t DOJ send in the FBI or Obama send in the National guard? Clean out the gangs. What we have now is surrender.

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

      because if they ended the war on drugs there would not be lots of “clients” from chicago to keep the prison industrial complex humming along

    • Wotan

      Yes, existing gun laws need to be more enforced but as far as Chicago is concerned, the gang situation which you’ve described is totally outdated. A great deal of the big gang leaders have been put away which in turn resulted in an unintended consequence of their gangs morphing into smaller, fractionalized street or block gangs. As such, one no longer joins a gang there. One’s born into a gang depending on which street one lives on.

      12 to 13-year-olds all packing guns hasn’t made their situation any safer in the least.

      • Gregg Smith

        I am not suggesting taking guns away. I am suggesting enforcing the existing laws. It is a good illustration of why yet more federal gun laws are useless. Too many kids are dying and you raise a good point about being born into a gang. The legal system is flawed and recidivism is rampant. IMO much of the problem is how we approach race. 80% of the homicides in Chicago are gang related and 80% of the victims are black. Pounding the message that blacks are inferior (affirmative action) or oppressed by whites takes a toll on the collective psyche. The 70+% rate of single parent homes creates generational disillusionment. But we can’t talk about it because we’re afraid of being labeled racist. We don’t expect excellence from young blacks. We make excuses for them based on the color of their skin.  

        I’ve always thought when you are young you don’t understand the reason why morality, integrity and ethics are a better way to live your life. Until then  the fear of getting caught and punished is the next best thing. But that’s not happening. The thugs run Chicago. 

        • Wotan

          Actually, I’m suggesting we take away illegal guns from the inner cities, crack down on the illegal trafficking and getting a better grip on state laws that don’t defeat the purpose of Chicago’s municipal gun laws. Then there’s the issue I raised of people driving 30 minutes to another violent city, Gary, IN, which often outranks Chicago in annual gun murder rates. Rather than arguing vagaries of social ills, we have models where cutting down gun violence in inner cities have been effective.

          As far as the race card is concerned and as it applies to education achievement levels, I actually don’t understand why whites are so fixated on this issue. And I say this as a member of a group that outranks and outperforms all the other races including whites. But a huge problem with inner city black or latino youths is that kids growing up in such gun violent cities suffer from PTSD which then impairs their learning capacity. Take away the gun violence and kids in inner city school begin to perform better. It’s happened in Boston’s inner cities. Thus, it’s backwarded to me that so many people advocate we do nothing about gun violence which in turn affects social mobility, then presume to blame those most affected by gun violence for not being socially mobile.

          • Gregg Smith

            My comment as it relates to Chicago is about the federal gun laws where they rank last in enforcement. The debate seems to be about making new federal laws but you don’t seem to be suggesting that, at least to me. State laws and Chicago’s municipal laws, as I understand it, are stricter than most. Yet the murders continue big time. So if your point is we should enforce existing laws then I agree. Until then making new laws and bans is useless.

            Gun violence and social ills cannot be separated. My problem is the inability to have an honest debate about it. The problems are all dramatically worse in black communities and I blame do good whites making excuses for blacks who are victims of social manipulation. I don’t argue the sorry state of affairs for young blacks. I think the best way to end the gun violence is to clean house on the gangs, address the social issues and love the children. What are you advocating to get rid of gun violence?

      • VinceD2

         Wotan, you are truly a troll, putting down everyone who does not agree with your ideas. And now you edit a previous comment to personally attack me. Grow up Wotan.

        As for gangs, I did address that, but you were too busy writing nonsense to read. Poverty and the war on drugs are causes. The trade deficit, outsourcing jobs and hope, is what is impoverishing inner cities. Fix those problems and the violence will fade fast.

        As for Chicago gang’s gun procurement, sure they can go to Gary. But through their drug networks, that can go globally. Guns are easily smuggled and fabricated. There is no ban that you can legislate that will be effective in removing guns from the streets. The bad guys have the means, and there is nothing you can do to stop them if they are determined. But if we can bring back jobs and hope, the motivations towards violence will diminish.

        Undermine the causes of the violence, and you undermine the violence. THINK!

        • Wotan

          Ah, the guy on the losing ends of the argument again revert to whining, liking each others’ posts and falsely accusing me of being a troll despite my having posted citations and fact-based comments.

          I’ve been here long enough Vince D2 for many regulars here to know how desperate is your accusation. I also comment on the NPR forums regularly and no one would presume to label me a troll other than other trolls.

          Congratulations. You’re in good company.

          You and your buddies lost before it ever began. But you’re all used to it which is why you all need guns and are acting out in little feeble gangs.

          Keep clicking the “like” button and keep exposing yourselves as total pussies who have nothing other than guns.

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

            Keep berating people with your feeble condescension, then whining incessantly when it’s shoved right back into your face, then proceed to wage a cowardly campaign of name-calling.

          • Wotan

            Wow, you’re still here trying to reply by cutting and pasting exactly what I had written for the second time. And this Vince D character even liked it again for the second time. Good job you two.

          • Wotan

            Actually, Futo Maki, I know you’re not too bright, but I’ve been berating only you and Vince D2 because you two have a clear history of being trolls.

            Now, cut and paste what I had used to insult you because you simply cannot muster anything original on your own and keep flagging away.

        • Wotan

          Well, Vince D, I’ve been here for quite a while and many know me as not being a troll. I’ve also been commenting on the NPR forums and nobody there, other than trolls have accused me of being a troll. A blog on NPR actually wrote a public thank you to one of my comments. So try again and know that you’re in good company when you accuse me of being a troll. Again, that company is other notorious trolls who are despised.

          But you actually brought little to this discussion other than spewing disinformation with condescension, then whining incessantly about condescension when you’ve been confronted with the same, liking wrong information posted by one of your gun nut legion, and playing tag-team with your buddies like Futo Maki. People with the emotional maturity of twelve-year-olds should not be hoarding guns.

          And when you presume to talk about “Boston being welfare state” or other such nonsense about inner city gang which you know absolutely nothing about, be more humble and whine less when you’re corrected.

          You clearly need much learning and education so be more humble and people would be more accommodating of your needs if they have time or the desire to guide you.

          That’s all Vince D. And if you the same Vince D on the NPR forums, then you let me know.

          • VinceD2

             Wotan,

            Obviously the only purpose of your latest posts is to personally attack Futo and I. You are adding nothing to this board other than hostility. You even had a nasty comment removed. Take the hint please.

            We will disagree, but there is no need to be so disagreeable and descend into personal attacks and vitriol.

            As for your accusations of “multiple liking”, I tried it as an experiment. Attempting to “like” an already “liked” post removes the “like”. Disqus software prohibits multiple “liking”. Nice try though.

            So wotan, please be civil or stuff a sock in it. You will not bully me into silence. You are not “The Decider”. Get over yourself.

            NPR moderators, feel free to remove these, but also please do something about these very personal attacks and veiled threats (see Wotan’s last sentence above.) There is no place for internet bullies. Thanks.

          • Wotan

            Hey Vince D2, I made no veiled threats against you. But this is exactly your dishonest antics you’ve employed throughout the course of this thread. Begin by being insulting to not only me but in replying to others whose opinions you’ve disagreed with. You’re track record can clearly be read so playing the whiney, wuss of a victim in a fight that you started isn’t going to win you any more points.

            Let this be a lesson to you. There are and always will be people here or elsewhere who’ll get fed up with the antics of people like you and choose to retort and fight back. It has nothing to do with “bullying.” I don’t bully people but I also will not tolerate people like you mouthing off on line.

            Clearly, you cannot handle it so don’t presume to dish it out. We’re done, gun nutter.

          • VinceD2

             Whatever Wotan. You’re just not tolerant of the opinions of others and don’t allow the facts to alter your ideology. Then you nip like a chihuahua when called on your actions.

            So I choose to retort to you, and you exhibit the human equivalent of fear biting. Snarl away, you have become quite entertaining.

            Me a “gun nutter? Hardly! I don’t own a big black scary gun and feel no need to. But I see no point in preventing honest citizens from owning such things just because a minute percentage abuse them.

            You are he extremist in this relationship, insisting that yours is the only way. The Religious kooks aren’t much different.

            I’m done wasting time on you, the last word is yours, as it must be in your universe. Good day.

          • Wotan

            It has nothing to do you not being tolerant of your opinion. 

            So far, in addition to your lack of offering anything of substance, something you think can be compensated by being condescending to people, then presuming to whine incessantly and name-call when confronted with the same antics, you’ve stooped even lower and accused me of being a troll – which the staff of NPR obviously disagree with on – and have even accused me of having threatened you. 

            So, when you get your butt kicked in a fight you begin, it’s clear you revert to the lowly antics and lie if nothing else works.

            And I didn’t actually bother reading past you first sentence. 

            Way to fail again. 

          • Wotan

            Well, you wasted enough more time since you wrote the above trying to damage control while sitting there behind your computer in the middle of nowhere significant USA hitting the flag button over and over so that my replies to you were deleted. 

            Your quality of life really is terrible and I’m not surprised you’ve tried to fill that emptiness by collecting guns. Vince D2 sitting alone on his sofa and fantasizing about how he’ll save the day and civilization by shooting away invading Martians. 

          • Wotan

            Actually Vince D2, I’ve made nothing remotely resembling threats against you. And as I told you before, if you cannot handle getting insults showed right back in your face and are equally insulted when condescension is retorted in kind, don’t lie, point fingers, fabricate things that were never said or implied and to cover yourself up, repeatedly flag comments to have them deleted. Here’s what you yourself had written to Mattyster (3/22/13, 7:09 a.m.)
            “No moron, stop imposing your problems of everyone else. Have some respect for rural folks. We aren’t the ones with the gun problem, your inner city crackheads are the problem.”Now, flag away and keep trying to lie your way out of this, Vince. I had asked you if you were the same person commenting on NPR’s forums as Vince D. This you took as the “veiled threat” I made against you. Absent a reply, I’ll assume that you’re the same guy. I had doubts about your comments on NPR because your so-called experiences seem fabricated on more than one occasion. I now see that what you’re about here and to what level you’d stoop. I’ll address you there accordingly also, Vince D2.

  • Fredlinskip

    Peter Lake wrote below (no room to respond):”That’s the great thing about America: everyone’s free to hold any opinion they want, no matter how irrelevant or lame. My opinion is I don’t intend to compromise my right to own firearms because someone else wants to kill himself. People get depressed reading Dostoevsky and kill themselves. Should we take it off the shelves?Want to kill yourself cheaply? Consume a whole bottle of Tylenol and in a few days your liver will fall out.Want to take acetominophen off the shelves?Hanging will work just fine. Want to take rope off the shelves? Jumping (want to take buildings off the shelves?), exsanguination (want to take blood off the shelves?), CO poisoning (want to take carbon monoxide off the shelves?)…..lots of ways to die and the people who die at a higher rate in the 33 countries ABOVE the USA rate in suicides seem to find adequate ways to do it.”But with other methods there’s time to intervene” is as stupid as saying there’s time to jump in disable a shooter while he reloads his 10 round magazine.Please enjoy your opinion in the quiet of your own home. It’s got no place in a debate about murders with firearms, which is what the current debate is all about.”

    Dang- don’t hold back. Tell me what you really think -I never made claim I was referring simply to murder rate. I made proposition that guns were a problem in America and that more guns do not appear to make us safer. To support this I pointed to Gun Related Death Rate, which is many times greater than vast majority of other developed countries. It can’t be simply that we have 10X higher % of wackos in this country. Glad you are so offended by this fact that you go AWOL in your response. Perhaps if guns were not so easily available people contemplating suicide or committing a crime wouldn’t be so quick to act out on their impulses? 
    To me it seems pretty commonsensical that the more a society is “awash” with guns, the more likely some will fall into wrong hands. 
    But hey you’ve got a right to your opinion- even though you seem so unable “to handle the truth” when facts don’t fit you’re world view, that you seek to deny others theirs.

    • peterlake

       The number of homicides in 1990 in the USA was 25,000.
      For the last year available it’s now 15,000 and we have millions more guns now than then, and many more states are granting permits to carry.

      But you said, “I made proposition that guns were a problem in America and that more guns do not appear to make us safer.”

      So there’s at least correlation between reduced homicides and increased guns.

      Please tell me how that fits with your thesis.

      • Fredlinskip

        Not very well. 
        Maybe that’s why I prefer pointing to GRDR stats-
         they illustrate my thesis better.
        Glad to see a rational response from you for a change of pace..

    • Brent Larimer

      Okay, but once again, we are getting side tracked from the 2nd Amend. … How many people die from gun violence is minute in consideration to what what history has proven a government can do when the people can not defend itself. My personal experience, I’ve seen the damage inflicted on the Kurds of Iraq. Perhaps you may have heard of the Nazi Party, who was democratically elected. Perhaps Uganda, Ottoman Turkey, or the Soviet Union? 

      Do I think the founding father intended for the 2nd amend. to be used so excessively against neighbors? No. But I also don’t believe they could have fathomed the extent of moral degradation that this nation has accepted. But because the morality of others, as a purple heart recipient, I must now relinquish my liberties? I think not.

      Perhaps Fred, I should point you to the cdc website with alcohol related driving statistics are held. 10x the kids in Newton were killed by drunk drivers… My point is again, people will die needlessly, regardless of laws. Take away guns, you take away the only protection from the snowball effect of an unstoppable force–a government. Even Socrates, 2300 years ago new that governments inherently take over.

      “Oh, but that would never happen in America.” … We can keep telling ourselves, “we’re not that bad” “we’re not that bad”. Eventually, we will be. Look up? What’s that? A drone? Looks like I’ve just been added to the strike list. *offline*

      • Fredlinskip

        Appreciate your service.
        Nazis? Sorry, I just don’t see vast majority of Americans falling for something like that. Germany was surrounded by lots of somewhat hostile neighbors which promoted nationalist fervor. I doubt Canada and Mexico will ever provide such a threat.
        I think the defense from tyranny thing is overblown. FF’s had good reason to worry about tyranny, because constitutional government was a new thing and they were afraid we’d slip back into monarchy- European style. I think our constitution has proven strong enough to prevent such monarchy from occurring.
        “Snowball effect of government?” I think you’ve been watching too many Chuck Norris movies or something- I’m not sure what. 
          Nobody was “taking away” anybody’s guns . They were proposing banning future sale of some of the more devastating weapons.
            Closest thing  I hope to see in my lifetime to monarchy and totalitarianism  in America, would be W admin- they managed to expand the powers of executive branch significantly with the “winds of” 9/11 at their back.

  • ExcellentNews

    The #1 threat to our freedoms is not governments, it is corporate tyrany and greed. We do not need guns to overthrow it, we need to just stop buying their cr-p made by foreign slave labor.

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

      for the most part guns are made in america.

      • peterlake

        I think “ExcellentNews” was referring to the T-shirt and tennis shoes which he is wearing, made in countries other than the USA.

        Actually, he was merely using those symbolically as an attack on capitalism.

        Part of the Occupy Walmart movement, I believe.

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

          i thought maybe the computer or smartphone he was posting this was what he was referring to

      • Wotan

        In 2011, 3.25 million guns were imported into the USA. That’s a increase from the 2.83 millions gun imports from 2010. That does not and can not ever mean that “for the most part guns are made in america.”

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

          and how many were made here? kind of irrelevent unless you have a number of domestically produced arms. way to not prove your point

          • Wotan

            So Futo Maki, you basically copied and pasted the same insult to me four times and that copy and pasted quote is actually what I had written to you? LOL.

            You’re so weak it’s not even funny.

            Like I told your little friend Vince D, if you can’t take it, don’t presume to dish it out and begin fights the two of you combined cannot wage with any brio.

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

            ROFL i gave you a chance to actually discuss the issue and thats what you did with it. you are a joke. i only bother replying to you  because i know you cannot resist replying because of your disorder. i just love that quote from you because it so accuratly describes your behavior

          • Wotan

            Futo, get it through your head. You’re the same guy who can’t spell “hireing” and who thinks “charles 3″ was the despotic ruler from whom Americans won their independence. You gave me a chance? Oh, OK.

            NO matter how many times you cut and post something I wrote as a comeback because you simply cannot muster one yourself, and no matter how much you revert to “ROFL” or tag-teaming with the likes of Vince D in your 5th grade series of insults, you will always remain on the losing end even here on the internet.

            Good job there, sport, of exposing your limitation.

            If you can’t handle it, don’t start it. It’s a simple enough axiom.

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

            nice job removing your post were you ashamed by what you said?

          • Wotan

            Not at all, but keep trying, Futo Maki.

            More than a week since the story aired and you’re still here whining to me. NO wonder you need guns.

          • VinceD2

             Hey Futo,

            As predicted, the last word has been had. No different from previous posts. No value added. just more personal attacks.

            C’Ya on the boards Futo, I’m out of this one. Good meeting you.

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

            yeah this article has been played out for a while

          • Wotan

            You’re series of personal attacks are readily seen here. So were your troll antics. 

            Now, keep hitting the flag icon and getting comments that expose you for being a wuss deleted.

            You gun nuts are all the same, and as I’ve said all along, it’s clear why you all need guns. 

            Compensate away, Vince D2 and Futo Maki.

          • VinceD2

             Futo, Are we friends? Awwwww…

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

            ROFL is someone jealous?

          • Wotan

            Of the Beavis and Buttheads of this forum? I think not.

          • Wotan

            That the US imported 3.25 million guns is NOT “irrelevant” at all. In the very least, it counters your lie that “for the most part guns are made in america.”

            And try looking up the figures for yourself before stating someone in public to make yourself look more stupid than you already appear. Short of that, keep flagging my posts for no reason other than that you and Vince D were on the losing end and you could bear the public pillory.

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

            http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_have_been_made_this_year
            The USA is the worlds largest provider of guns, at 70.15% worth around 30 Billion dollars per year,

          • Wotan

            None of what you posted in the above supports your initial claim that “for the most part guns are made in america.”

            And to think, it took you three weeks to pull this meaningless wiki answers blurb out only illustrated how desperate and pathological are your trolling attempts.

            It’s why no one takes you seriously despite you posting so many comments on ‘BUR.

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

            so you have narcissism and you can’t read? i only reply to you because its so funny to see what your bent mind comes up with

          • Wotan

            Actually, Futo Maki, I can read well. Your desperation aside and to repeat since it’s clear you ned repetition, the wiki answer reply you posted a month after the fact still doesn’t support your claim that “for the most part guns are made in america.” Take a long as you need.

            And most maladjusted, societal cast-offs like you would mistake masochism for personal entertainment.

            Now, keep trying boy. At least you’ve moved beyond cutting and pasting my retorts when replying back to me. How stupid can a person get.

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

            How stupid and psychotic can a person get.? i bet you will demonstrate

          • Wotan

            Actually Futo, I’m not the who felt a psycho need to come back and reply to a comment that was left a month ago with some stupid wiki answers snippet that failed miserably in supporting your false claim.

            But keep trying, psycho.

          • Wotan

            That was a question directed at you. You’re the psycho who felt the need to reply after three weeks. As far as your stupidity, well, you’ve demonstrated that already too. Recall, you managed to misspell “hireing,” thought the US had liberated itself from “charles 3″ and made the point that “most guns are made in the USA.” The last point is what you had set out to defend after three weeks of no reply on the matter.

            Lastly, psycho, a period is not needed in front of a question mark. I urge you to seek a refund for you ESL. You were clearly shortchanged.

  • eric perrine

    When will people realize that magazines and clips are not interchangeable terms? Magazine does not equal clip. 

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

      well i don’t care if average people choose to be ignorant but its disturbing to hear the president constantly call them “magazine clips” because thats even stupider than saying clip and he is the commander and chief of the worlds most powerful military force

  • Wotan

    Vince D, you wrote the following reply to Mattyster (3/22/13, 7:09 a.m.)

    ” No moron, stop imposing your problems of everyone else. Have some respect for rural folks. We aren’t the ones with the gun problem, your inner city crackheads are the problem.”

    Futo Buddy, Peter Lake and Gregg Smith liked the above comment. Equally offensive comments made by you and other series of comments that are nothing but base, defensive condescension can also be read through the series of these comments here. The above offensive comment was made before you ever presumed to engage me here. 

    After a few failed attempts to try to engage me in a rational debate – you cannot rationally debate because neither you nor Futo are equipped with facts and cannot support your claims intelligently – you reverted to your usual condescension. I in turn had no problem giving it right back to you. Then you, with the aid for Futo, began to whine and name-call. You labeled me a troll, made up lies that I had threatened you and basically tried to lie your way out of a situation you got yourself into.

    I had replied that I’ve been here commenting on On Point for years and have enough comments to support that I am not  troll. I also told you about my history as a commenter on NPR and told you that a subject of a NPR blog (Two-Way) was to publicly thank one of my comments. 

    These replies to your baseless and childish accusations, you saw fit to flag over and over with Futo to have them deleted so that only your accusations appear unanswered. I said nothing offensive in them nor did I name-call, so I’m sure the only way they were deleted is if someone kept flagging them. That would be you and Futo.

    It would be much easier if people like you two were to read up and actually knew something about what you presume to address before name-calling in defense and reverting to the lowly antics that were highlighted and clearly demonstrated in these comments. 

    Don’t presume people are as stupid as you two and will fall for your 12-year-old antics.

    I will see both of you around, and I will not forget the lowliness to which you two would stoop. You will never win these fights you two presume to begin because you two are just too lacking.

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

      is there an emotocon where the finger goes around the ear in a circular motion?

      • Wotan

        Stick your fingers into your ears and you would not longer be able to reply. Glad you didn’t merely cut and paste and glad to see you and Vince D seem joined at the hips.

        Again, don’t start it if you can’t take it. This applies to both of you.

        Flag away though, Beavis and Butthead. It just makes you seem that much more desperate and stupid.

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

            Aw, now Futo’s reverted to pictograms with Vince D having liked the lame attempt within minutes of Futo Maki having posted in a thread more than a week old.

            Well done you two trolls. And Vince D, lie and squirm all you want. You two still look like total socially rejected wuss who got their lunch money taken too often.

            What tools.

          • VinceD2

             Obviously someone understood your last communications. Congrats for breaking through the massive encrusted cranial calcium deposits.

            I see OBummer is propagandizing in Colorado today, desperation on the tax payer’s expense account. and I thought Bush was awful…

            Meanwhile there was a big gun show here 2 weeks ago, heard it broke all the records. Obama’s gun control proposal has been a huge stimulus for the gun industry. The master of unintended consequences has done it again.

          • Wotan

            O, look, it’s Vince D2 again who said he’d not reply here and was all done with me yet who still feels the need to reply to me via Futo.

            Hey you two belligerent and whining trolls, here’s a clue. Bullies always have sidemen. That would be the two of you as well as most of the gun nutters who weighed in here in legions.

            And bullies also whine the most when others fight back. Keep crying, cowards.

          • VinceD2

             So Futo,

            Just heard that a few Republicans are planning a filibuster. (Paul and Cruz I believe…) Feinstein must be ready to explode!

            Do you think it will hold? Or will they sell out?

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

            i hope they do what they say. dont get me started on feinstien

          • VinceD2

             Yeah, she’s made her intentions perfectly clear. Register, then confiscate. That would start a civil war where I live.

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

            i thought the TSA molesting women and children would get people fired up but instead they line up so i don’t know what people will put up with

      • VinceD2

        Hey Futo, Just saw our buddy responded from the digest email.  You should invent that emoticon! LOL!

        Thanks NPR for cleaning up the shrapnel here. Sorry for my part but I don’t take abuse sitting down.

        Sounds like the wind is out of the gun grabber’s sails for now, hope so. Harry Reid’s voters must have got to him.

        C’Ya round Futo.

        • Wotan

          You’ve been exposed as a troll and a liar. Run little man.

  • DeJay79
    • VinceD2

       I like that, as long as it’s not strictly enforced. I would not not want to force gun ownership on someone who objects.

  • Wotan

    Vince D, you wrote the following reply to Mattyster (3/22/13, 7:09 a.m.)

    ” No moron, stop imposing your problems of everyone else. Have some respect for rural folks. We aren’t the ones with the gun problem, your inner city crackheads are the problem.”

    Futo Buddy, Peter Lake and Gregg Smith liked the above comment. Equally offensive comments made by you and other series of comments that are nothing but base, defensive condescension can also be read through the series of these comments here. The above offensive comment was made before you ever presumed to engage me here. 

    After a few failed attempts to try to engage me in a rational debate – you cannot rationally debate because neither you nor Futo are equipped with facts and cannot support your claims intelligently – you reverted to your usual condescension. I in turn had no problem giving it right back to you. Then you, with the aid for Futo, began to whine and name-call. You labeled me a troll, made up lies that I had threatened you and basically tried to lie your way out of a situation you got yourself into.

    I had replied that I’ve been here commenting on On Point for years and have enough comments to support that I am not  troll. I also told you about my history as a commenter on NPR and told you that a subject of a NPR blog (Two-Way) was to publicly thank one of my comments. 

    These replies to your baseless and childish accusations, you saw fit to flag over and over with Futo to have them deleted so that only your accusations appear unanswered. I said nothing offensive in them nor did I name-call, so I’m sure the only way they were deleted is if someone kept flagging them. That would be you and Futo.

    It would be much easier if people like you two were to read up and actually knew something about what you presume to address before name-calling in defense and reverting to the lowly antics that were highlighted and clearly demonstrated in these comments. 

    Don’t presume people are as stupid as you two and will fall for your 12-year-old antics.

    I will see both of you around, and I will not forget the lowliness to which you two would stoop. You will never win these fights you two presume to begin because you two are just too lacking.

  • Wotan

    Vince D and Futo, you two can keep coming back here weeks after this story aired in desperate attempts to delete and cover-up your own offensive, lying and troll antics but it’s not going away.

    Keep acting like you’re not embarrassed by this pillorying. You two brought it unto yourselves. 

    Stop tag-team bullying people you disagree with here, calling names then whining incessantly when you’re confronted for your childish, lying and psychopathic antics.

    Bullies and their would-be sidemen are always proven wusses. Well done you two to reaffirm this. In the meantime, keep flagging away and keep playing with your guns.

    You two are an embarrassment to even the gun nutters.

  • Wotan

    Vince D, you wrote the following reply to Mattyster (3/22/13, 7:09 a.m.)

    ” No moron, stop imposing your problems of everyone else. Have some respect for rural folks. We aren’t the ones with the gun problem, your inner city crackheads are the problem.”

    Futo Buddy, Peter Lake and Gregg Smith liked the above comment. Equally offensive comments made by you and other series of comments that are nothing but base, defensive condescension can also be read through the series of these comments here. The above offensive comment was made before you ever presumed to engage me here. 

    After a few failed attempts to try to engage me in a rational debate – you cannot rationally debate because neither you nor Futo are equipped with facts and cannot support your claims intelligently – you reverted to your usual condescension. I in turn had no problem giving it right back to you. Then you, with the aid for Futo, began to whine and name-call. You labeled me a troll, made up lies that I had threatened you and basically tried to lie your way out of a situation you got yourself into.

    I had replied that I’ve been here commenting on On Point for years and have enough comments to support that I am not  troll. I also told you about my history as a commenter on NPR and told you that a subject of a NPR blog (Two-Way) was to publicly thank one of my comments. 

    These replies to your baseless and childish accusations, you saw fit to flag over and over with Futo to have them deleted so that only your accusations appear unanswered. I said nothing offensive in them nor did I name-call, so I’m sure the only way they were deleted is if someone kept flagging them. That would be you and Futo.

    It would be much easier if people like you two were to read up and actually knew something about what you presume to address before name-calling in defense and reverting to the lowly antics that were highlighted and clearly demonstrated in these comments. 

    Don’t presume people are as stupid as you two and will fall for your 12-year-old antics.

    I will see both of you around, and I will not forget the lowliness to which you two would stoop. You will never win these fights you two presume to begin because you two are just too lacking.

  • John Cedar

    Why are attacks on gun rights called “reform”?

    Why are attempts at reforming abortion laws called
    “attacks”?

    Why are attempts by Walker to reform public unions called
    “attacks” on union rights?

    How does the media determine if a law is “landmark” or if it
    is “controversial”, when it is both?

    When did the term” access to” come to mean, “free with no
    co-pay”

    Why is the word “rights” not used in the story?

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 2, 2014
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., talks with Mark Wilson, event political speaker chairperson, with his wife Elain Chao, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Fancy Farm, Ky., Saturday, August 4, 2012. (AP)

Nine weeks counting now to the midterm elections. We’ll look at the key races and the stakes.

Sep 2, 2014
Confederate spymaster Rose O'Neal Greenhow, pictured with her daughter "Little" Rose in Washington, D.C.'s Old Capitol Prison in 1862. (Wikimedia / Creative Commons)

True stories of daring women during the Civil War. Best-selling author Karen Abbott shares their exploits in a new book: “Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy.”

RECENT
SHOWS
Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

 
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Five Midterm 2014 Races To Watch
Tuesday, Sep 2, 2014

The five most interesting races of the 2014 midterm election cycle, per our panel of expert national political correspondents.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment