Congratulations on your election victory.  Your team did a heck of a job, but then to be honest, it was a little like shooting fish in a barrel, wasn't it.  Speaking of shooting, I'm really stressed about some things and thought what better way to get some answers than to write you directly.  Now let me say, I don't like it at all when innocent folks get shots regardless of their age.  But, I don't understand why the actions of the bad guys has to point us toward taking away rights/conveniences of the good guys.  "Bad guy shoots innocents, and our reaction is to take away the guns of the innocents"?  Where is the logic in that.  Why don't we just shoot the bad guy?  Or at least amend the legal system so that the bad guy gets his trial, appeals the results, etc... but in a manner that doesn't take 15 years.  Why couldn't we fix the legal system, punish the bad guy, and leave the innocents alone?

Think about the hundreds of millions dollars and all the hundreds of millions of innocents that have to now expose their stinky feet and let strangers take photos of their naked bodies just because some bad guy made a bomb in his shoe.  Now I'm not really in favor of Sharia Law, but every once in a while they do seem to have the right idea.  I mean why not cut off the bad guy's foot?  And while we're at it, why can't we cut off the rapists privates?  Why must we "always" punish the innocents when a bad guy does something?

Mr. President, did you know that the chemicals used by the First Lady in her garden could be used to make a bomb?  It's true.  If you want the formula, I can give it to you.  So imagine if your wife had to get a permit before she could buy her garden chemicals to make her veggies grow.  Or imagine that you needed a background check to purchase a tire iron because some bad guy used one for a weapon.  And oh my god, what if a bad guy uses his feces to poison someone.  Would we need a permit to do a number two?

Mr. President, I'm sure you are a reasonable person.  Surely you can look at this twisted logic and agree that the real problem is that we have bad guys.  We know who they are most of the time well in advance.  I mean that guy who shot up all those children was already considered extremely dangerous by his own mother but yet she never took him to a doctor or even told anyone.  Truth be told, it would make more sense to lock up mothers rather than take guns away from innocents.  I mean afterall, at least we have evidence that silent mothers could have actually prevented the murders if only they did their motherly job.

I hope you will reconsider your positions on this and focus on solutions that actually target the bad guys.   Thanks.

Text of the 2nd Amendment

"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."

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."....that's the part of right to own guns..."well regulated militia" is the army, national guard, etc.

I'm not pro guns either, just posting what it says....& I agree w/the Presidents proposals....they are pretty basic & common sense....

Well, we all know this is one of the hot topics of the moment.  And I know how emotional people are about this - so here's my hope that my OPINION will not result in people calling each other names and other derogatory things.  Let's see if we can all have a rational, adult level discussion.  No name calling, no insults, no "slippery slope" arguments.
First, I own four guns.  Two hand guns and two hunting rifles.  All legally purchased and registered.  My whole family hunts.  We love it.  We hunt deer.  Three of the guns are kept locked at home.  One is locked at the office.  I am okay with further controls on assault style weapons and large clips.  Yes, you heard right.
Before he passed, my dad and I used to laugh together at the guys bringing assault rifles to hunt deer.  Seriously, if you need THAT to kill a deer, you're not a very good hunter.  The people who say they use the assault style weapons for hunting are just trying to justify something you really can't justify.  These "tough guy" hunters are essentially cowards who just want the thrill of a big gun.  I've seen these guys run from fist fights in parking lots.  They're not brave.  So to repeat my point - no real hunter needs an AR-15 or whatever assault weapons they are using.  There is no sport in that.
Next point - people kill people with hammers, and people die in DUI accidents - are we going to ban hammers and cars too?  I've always hated this ignorant argument. Hammers are designed to hammer nails, cars are designed to provide transportation.  Assault weapons are designed to kill; and kill in bunches.  Once again, you don't need 60 rounds a second to kill a deer or elk.  Also, people are required to have auto insurance that pays out liability.  I keep thinking someday this will happen to guns.  Then all of a sudden the argument becomes - "that will keep the poor from having guns!".  No, it won't.  It may discourage some people from having guns, but as with cars, if you want it bad enough, you will find something that works for you (I can see the Geico gun insurance commercials now).  
"They're coming for our guns! Then they'll take our liberty!".  No they're not.  The government is not going door to door to collect your guns and ammo.  Get real.  They want to keep assault style weapons off the street by restricting new sales.  They want to limit the size of clips the public can buy and how many they can buy.  Do you really need 1,000 clips?
"We need our guns to protect ourselves!"  Fine - but once again - no one is taking away your guns.  They want to limit assault style weapons and large clips.  "But I need those!"  Ok - why?  Are you planning for a zombie apocalypse?  Are you afraid the Commies will invade?  I laugh my ass off when some guy in Kansas, Stockton Ca or Alabama says he needs his assault guns for protection.  This isn't some bad 1980s movie.  For another country to even GET TO YOU, they'd have to cross an ocean, then get past all the states in front of you.  If they do THAT (which means they got past our military), are you and your neighbors going to stop them?  Really?  You will?  because you know your neighborhood?  right.
"The Second Amendment gives us the right!"  Yes, yes it does.  It gives us the right to bear arms.  So yes, we can have our guns.  It mentions no right for us to have assault rifles.  Just as the public isn't allowed to have tanks, jet fighters or missile launchers, we don't need to have access to assault rifles and large clips.  You want to play with big guns?  Go to a range or JOIN THE MILITARY.  They're always recruiting.  Remember, no one is taking away your guns.  they want to restrict the flow of assault rifles and large clips.  And to the parents out there, have you ever given your child rights and then taken them away when they've proven they can't handle them?  Same philosophy here.  We've proven we can't responsibly handle assault weapons.  Great Britain and Australia both banned assault weapons and have seen their gun related incidents almost disappear.  That would be hard for us because we still have other guns, but I think it's a start.
The big thing to remember here is that NO ONE is coming to your house to take your guns.  They want to restrict assault weapons from being on the street.  They want to restrict large clips.  They want to close the loophole for sales at gun shows.  they want better integration of social services and the ATF.  I can live with all these things - because none of them are taking guns out of the innocent's hands.  I'm an American.  I like guns.  I vote republican.  But I don't need an assault weapon.

though you won't hear the NRA leadership admit to it.

How many gun owners belong to "A well regulated militia"? And if they don't why do they possess firearms?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." from  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's the people who have a right to bear arms that were to form the Militias, which the various states national guards were considered to be until the 1950's I believe.

-- Modified on 1/28/2013 12:57:54 PM

I find it very disappointing that no where in your discussion did you once suggest anything that doesn't impinge on the innocent.  Sure, there are those who can argue that normal folks don't need this or that type of weapon, clip, etc...  But that's not the point, if our goal is to solve a specific problem.  Legal owners of guns rarely have been involved in any killings of the kind we aim to eradicate.  It's always the felon, the thief who stole a gun, the insane who needed to be put away or treated, the terrorists, etc.... I've lost the link to an article written by DOD/FBI that showed us that the number of killings perpetrated by legal upholding citizens was something around 3 percent of all killings on file over past ten years.

So, why offer a solution that doesn't address the problem unless of course you aim to simply take advantage of the rhetoric to push an agenda and not really a solution to the crime?  The opposition to the assault weapon ban, clip size ban, is that it impinges on innocents without solving any of the alleged problems.  And just for grins, remember that the punk who shot all those kids stole the weapons.  He also had semi-automatic hand guns.  I don't know if he ever actually used the hand guns, but I'm sure he could have killed just as many people with a glock 40 as he did with an assault rifle... so what have we solved by banning an assault rifle.  And oh, by the way, it takes about three seconds or less to release an empty clip, insert a full one, and continue firing... so are we really solving anything with clip size?

Let's be real here.... what has your discussion suggested that actually addresses the real issue.  And how is it any better than existing law?

Actually, that's not true at all.  The NRA favors background checks.  The NRA favors identification and medical treatment of crazies.  The NRA favors stiff penalties for those who use a weapon in the commission of a crime.  The NRA does not favor a ban on particular types of weapons (assault weapons and clip size).

And, the NRA has documented the mass murder crimes of late and demonstrated that a ban on assault weapons and clip size would not have prevented any of those crimes or the number of victims.

Don't lose sight of the fact that we already have laws on the books that made those crimes illegal.  The perps choice of weapon was simply coincidental.  If he went to steal a weapon and no assault weapon was there, I'm sure he/she would have done just as much damage with a handgun.

Here is a suggestion for you and others who appear to not know the background and thinking of the founding fathers as it relates to the Second Amendment.  Take the time to go read the Federalist Papers.  These encapsulate the written notes, discussion minutes, etc... of the reasoning for having a Second Amendment.

In short, there was a very strong belief on the part of the founding fathers that despite their efforts to insure checks and balances in government, they feared that one day there could be a break down that would turn the government against the people.  They envisioned that the people would be helpless to prevent this.  Their solution was to insure that the people had the ability to take up arms to reverse a breakdown in government that was no longer adhering to the Constitution.  Thus they wrote a very pointed amendment with no room for ambiguity.

Now sure there are many who will say, "na, that's not possible, it could never happen here".  Well, I personally don't know, but I would hate to see that day come and the general population was disarmed.  If you are willing to shove politics aside, and just simply begin to itemize all of the freedoms that we once had which have been taken away by politicians, you can't help but begin to understand the concern of our founding fathers, and the unmistakeable fact that there fears are beginning to manifest themselves.  And no, I'm not advocating any kind of violence etc.. I'm just pointing out the reality which clearly any unbiased person could see for themselves.

-- Modified on 1/28/2013 9:07:53 AM

It's true I didn't purpose any sweeping changes or anything different than what is going on.  The reason for that is simple - I don't have all the answers.  I think there are a lot of things we as a society can do better, and I'm not ignorant enough to think that a few laws will change everything.  But I do believe we need to do something in regards to assault style weapons.  I just don't understand the need for an average Joe or Jill to have them.  I think ammunition should be regulated - I read somewhere the Colorado theater guy had some 4000 rounds on him that he bought over the internet.  Those things can't be allowed to happen.
Personally, I think the real problem will take generations to address.  What do I think it is?  I think we've become a chicken-shit (sorry about cursing) society.  Follow me here.  When i was a kid, if you had a problem with someone, you took care of it after school.  You'd rumble and that was that.  If you couldn't, your cousin, big bro, or buddy took care of it for you.  When kids played sports, some won and some lost.  You learned early that loss isn't the end of the world.  But nowadays, EVERYONE wins - kids don't learn how to hate losing or that it's not the end all.  They learn that violence is cool (through our culture as a whole) and that guns are the great equalizer.  Someone bullies you?  Kill 'em.  Someone disrespects you?  Shoot 'em.  It's those things plus the easy access to weapons designed to kill in huge numbers that has made so many lives feel the pain of gun violence as of late.  We have a generation of people that think it's ok to kill people when you've had a bad day - and we need to fix that.  A gun control law or two won't totally correct that - but I think it's a start.

Laffy I agree with you about the regulations part.  Gun wackos are like hardcore right wing people - they will never be convinced otherwise.  As far as the militia part, eh.  Like I've said, I'm okay with people having guns.The Amendment was originally written so people could form militias to defend themselves against tyranny and all that good jazz.  In my post I mentioned how unrealistic this is in today's day and age - and I stand by that.  No one is invading Tuscaloosa anytime soon.  And if they do, they got past an ocean, the United States Navy, Air Force and Army to get to you.  You and your neighbors with assault guns have no chance against any invading force that can pull that off.

Except that was a little dramatic, and you come off as a self proclaimed tough guy, while bashing tough guys...

I have just one question. When has a publicly supported ban on anything been successful in America?

James Holmes had 4000 rounds on him. How many rounds did he get off? How many people did he kill? How many people were at the movie theater?

You still ducked the question you responded to.

Even Abraham Lincoln knew you could not control people with legislation, as he said,

"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason,
in that, it attempts to control a man's appetite
by legislation
and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes".  

-- Modified on 1/28/2013 10:41:09 AM

If it came to "that" as you say I'd be betting that the 1st Marine Division would lay any armed insurrection to waste quick enough whether or not the populace was armed with fully automatic AR-15's or not. Maybe back in the Federalist days when the armaments where more or less on an equal footing between the people and the government this might have made sense but today the government has superior firepower, discipline and numbers to make any attempt at armed insurrection a sure way to commit suicide.

Oh and if the folks who are so upset about having their guns taken away would also be just as angry with about searches and seizures I may be more sympathetic to, but they aren't and so I'm not.

All this talk about guns reminded me of this Monty Python skit...

Colonel: (Graham Chapman) Come in, what do you want?

(Private Watkins enters and salutes.)

Watkins: (Eric Idle) I'd like to leave the army please, sir.

Colonel: Good heavens man, why?

Watkins: It's dangerous.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got 'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.

Colonel: Watkins, they are on our side.

Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.

Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.

Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead sir, no barely cross fingers sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you have to go and fight.

Colonel: That's true.

Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.

Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?

Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.

Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?

Watkins: No sir, I'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.

Colonel: That's a very silly line. Sit down.

Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)

Colonel: Awfully bad.

If we feel we must put armed guards in all our schools to protect our children then we no longer can claim to be a just, decent and moral society and no longer can claim to be "civilized".

Assault weapons are not a threat to the citizens of the United States.

Not attempting to protect children from lunatics would be uncivilized .
A just, decent and moral family will always try to  protect their children .

http://www.whattoexpect.com/wom/family-life/0125/mom-pays-for-armed-guard-at-daughter-s-elementary-school.aspx  

Society as a whole has not earned the right ,  to claim to be civilized .
 

Why do we let "lunatics" run loose? Why do we allow them access to weapons? These are a few questions that don't get answered and our failure to have just and humane answers to them (among others) is what strips us of our claim to be "civilized".

I remember him asking what I said that addresses the real issue and how it was different from the current laws.  I stated I had no cure all solution for the problem at hand, but I believed that some new controls could only help.  I also stated that I believe the problem is bigger than just one law.  We as a society have become accustomed to quick fixes - and this is not a quick fix problem.  The further restrictions of assault style weapons and large clips will help us move in the right direction, I believe.  
The current laws are flawed - and I think we've seen that.  You can buy a gun at a gun store after you pass your background check, but you can buy one at a gun show the same day?  We need to address that.  There are also no checks on ammunition purchases.  You can order ammo online and buy to your heart's consent.  There should probably be a check/balance on that. And the ATF needs to be restructured.  After Sept 11, some genius Congressman (Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, if memory serves correct - who is also an NRA award winner) wrote into the Patriot Act that the Senate must confirm the ATF Director - despite it not being a cabinet level position.  This, in effect, helps keep the ATF weak and powerless to address the current gun laws. Another thing that keeps the ATF weak is the Tiahrt Amendment.  A Congressman named Tiahrt amended a non-related spending bill with an clause that basically takes the claws out of the ATF and makes them unable to do their job and the job the NRA says it wants them to do - you know, enforce the current gun laws so we don't pass new ones.  This amendment made it possible for gun dealers to deny police requests for information; it denies Congress up to date gun information, ended the oversight of used gun sales, required the destruction of background checks after 24 hours (why would you do that?!) and made it impossible for the ATF to create a federal registry of gun owners.  All these things combined have made our current gun laws almost toothless.  
If we really want to see change, this amendment has to be repealed and our laws enforced - but the NRA will fight its tail off on that one.  They don't want the amendment retracted so they can keep saying "we have xx,xxx gun laws we need to enforce".  That was a stroke of genius, btw. I realize I may have gone off tangent - but to recap - adding another law may not help all that much, but it definitely won't hurt IMHO (especially if it's for assault style weapons and large clips) and the real issue is our society and how we view guns.  Guns are now seen as the great equalizers instead of a weapon of last resort.  That will take time to fix.  But in the short term, limiting access to assault style weapons and large clips will help; as well as putting the teeth back into the ATF.  Of course, that means taking on the NRA - the question is - is anyone up to it?

Gun legislation now is to late and that warm fuzzy feeling an assult weapons ban will give you will disappear as soon as another shooting occurs. I am not against clip size limits, closing gun show loopholes and even an assult weapons ban but the truth is there are 7 millions plus assult weapons and 70 millions 20+ round clips for these weapons in the US now. Do you think that even a door to door search for these guns and magazines will work?
   A determined individual willing to die for his goals is almost impossible to stop (thousands of american soldiers have died trying)... if it wasn't a gun it would be something else. What sort of damage do you think molotov cocktails tossed into classrooms would do? The OKC bomb can be recreated very easily, the death toll from that is surprising low for the devistation it caused and if McVey would have been willing to die when he detonated it it would have been higher. If he would have driven into the building instead of parking on the street for example.
   
   The truth is there is something fundamentaly wrong with the people guilty of these crimes. Blame the item used to impliment them and you'll never begin to stop or prevent them.

I don't know what all this "We" nonsense is? I'm not jumping up and down, saying we should ban AW and HC clips.

Well it's nice to see more Americans, realize that the NRA dictates what the ATF does.


Now if you are concerned about what happens at gun shows. You need to address your state and local governments, as to why they allow exhibition halls to host the gun shows in the first place? (Many are state owned halls) http://www.gunshows-usa.com/



-- Modified on 1/28/2013 9:37:31 PM

The fact is Americans are highly unlikley to be killed by an Assault weapon.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death
•Heart disease: 597,689
•Cancer: 574,743
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
•Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
•Diabetes: 69,071
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

am i the only one surprised there was actually a post on THIS board that was pulled off without name calling?!  Nice work fellas!  Ok, carry on!

exactly!  The conservative right is adamant we don't raise any more taxes - but they listen to a group of bought and paid for lobbyists who think it's a good idea to have armed guards in schools.  Who is paying for that?  How are we paying for it?  Wait - let me guess.  Let's cut programs we (GOP) don't like to put an armed guard at every school.  Yes!  that'll work!  'cause you know, Columbine HAD armed guards.

George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.

The Framers say different and they used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms. Also, well regulated referred to maintaining allegiance not how it was equipped.







-- Modified on 1/29/2013 8:28:30 AM

Maybe allowing teachers who are comfortable with conceal and carry to do so, if the school thinks more training is required then have them attend extra classes. One roaming armed gaurd isn't going to work.
   The thought that an assult weapons ban will work and prevent this in the future is plain wrong in my opinion. There are too many to round up in the country now, ammo and multiround clips as well. What do you think will work? And at what cost? The truth is many more children have died on playground equipment and palying sports at schools since 1991 as have been shot and killed at school.
    There are very few truly safe places in this world and they are extremely expensive to create and maintain. Besides giving up many of your freedoms along the way.
       

There are tons of programs to help the poor. Our government not should be responsible to feed, clothe and provide shelter for people. They should assist in education and keeping the playing field level in the workforce but not give everyone thing s simply because they were born american. The sense of entitlement is half of what is wrong with this country. 70 yrs ago our grandparents didn't ask for anything other then a fair shake from their government and would turn over in their graves to see some of the entitlement programs being funded right now.