I read some article or opinion piece about how talking about the mental state of the Sandyhook shooter was off point. That gun laws were the real problem. Once again, too simplistic of a view. It's both! The shooter could not feel the same degree of pain as you or I, and that is a major red flag for sociopathy. Being serious about the most effective ways of preventing serious mental health, treating effectively those who have it, and preventing them from getting their hands on weapons that can shoot massive rounds in a short period of time, should be our priorities.

States are cutting funding.  And everyone should remember most mentally ill people are if anything non-violent and victim candidates for violence rather than perpetrators of it.

Guns that fire as rapidly as the Bushmaster need to be taken off the streets, and banned, and a ban would reduce their number even if they were sold black market.

So would closing the gun show gun check loophole that accounts for as many as 40% of guns sold.

a oxymoron, but using an ASSAULT rifle for SELF-DEFENSE, may qualify.

Are you going to make 1/2 or 2/3(or more) of the populace expost facto Criminals?

I got no gripe that since the "Prohibition" fully automatic "Machine" guns have been prohibited except to proper FFL recipients.

I also got no gripe that "silencers" also require similar FFL authority.

And I don't protest a cursory back ground check or moderate waiting "cool off" period when I buy a hand gun.

 But this inane, repetitious proselytizing about militaristic or "assault" type weapons is like prescribing a band-aid to heal a cancer.

Why wouldn't one who wants, appreciates or collects guns desire leading edge fire arm technology for his money? Why only bolt action rifles, double barrel shot guns and revolvers for Elmer Fud; but HK MP5's Benelli Semi Auto 12 guages, and polymer framed Glocks for the badge’d and proven pathological authoritarians (who sometimes go amok themselves).

BTW; When does a Winchester bolt action hunting rifle become a “SNIPER” rifle ?
When does a Winchester 86 carbine become an urban “assault” rifle?

I agree as everyone else; something needs to be done. But bans, prohibitions, cosmetic prejudices and the like ARE NOT the answer.

Where families are only allowed to keep one child.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/china-one-child-policy-think-tank-phase-out_n_2050149.html

and people commit suicide, because they are forced to make apple products.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/ff_joelinchina/

Do you want that to happen here?

Of course, China's a dictatorship.  So are you suggesting that's the only reason they can effectively ban guns?  Bullshit.  After a madman killed 16 children in a primary school in Scotland, Great Britain banned all cartridge ammunition by private gun owners.  Since then there has not been another mass shooting.  Now I guess you'll say the Brits are Socialists.
It's true the problem is complex -- and I don't even advocate a complete ban on guns at all -- but what possible legitimate use is a 100-shot magazine to a private gun owner?

Large, 15+ round capacity magazines are perfectly legal for personal "home protection" "plinking" and target shooting. If however they are used in a mass murder/random shooting of innocents; every bullet used or "UNused" will be counted as a pre-meditated murder charge against the offending perpetrator.    

 The above would still prove effete is preventing what happened at Sandyhook, or in Colorado, or Arizona, or Virginia Tech, or Columbine; but what you legislate into illegal "contraband" today simply turns into a hot, high profit commodity tomorrow.

  This "Going Postal!" shit needs to be addressed at its source, not its choice of manifestation.

That's one of the things I believe we must do.  It's a long list, but I fail to see how the Second Amendment can be read to permit a private citizen to have magazines like the ones used in Newtown.

I can not think of too many practical every day reason a private gun owner needs 100 round magazine. What if some one else has 100 rounds? and you only have 20 rounds? Statistcally speaking you would lose.

I'm not a gun advocate or even a gun owner. Though I do believe guns serve a purpose. Let's say we ban 100-shot magazines, wont manufactueres start making 99-shot magazines?

Why would I call the British Socialists?

I don't think any law will stop an irrational individual. Premeditated murder is already a crime.

The premise of the citizenry protecting themselves from government gone "oppressive" was/is valid. Our forefathers had no idea the flint-lock or Musket would evolve into the 600+ round per minute M16 rifle. They too couldn't imagine bullet proof vests, night vision goggles, smoke/flash grenades, helicopter surveillance/back-up, and the incredible recent increases of "police powers".  

 It is ludicrous to think that arming yourself with an AK47 and several 40 round clips is going to stave off a modern militarized police force; but is relegating the populace to a bolt action rifle, or a "six Shooter" in the spirit of what our forefathers sought?

 Again I say the problem is not with available hardware; but the quiet, clandestine desperation beneath our bullying, flag waiving ethos.  

Already NRA is gearing up to fight closing gun show loopholes and banning the megashot magazine guns yet it's supporters here say no matter what laws are passed, it won't stop the contraband market.  Maybe a few people will learn the ambiance of the BOP when they're caught, but what the fuck right? Dumbfuck Amerikuh must have assault type weapons to hunt deer.  

If only the deer or a moose were armed and could shoot first, mowing down the stupid moron Palin when she choppers to kill a moose.

Sure, but what's the answer then?  Do nothing?  I hope that's not what you mean.

Of course it's ludicrous.  A bunch of gun-nuts with random guns they can hardly use, overthrowing an oppressive government or warding off invading Chinese.  Not what The Framers had in mind.

Individuals need to realize when they are doing the wrong things.

How do you convince people to make the right decisions in life?

"The above would still prove effete is preventing what happened at Sandyhook, or in Colorado, or Arizona, or Virginia Tech, or Columbine; but what you legislate into illegal "contraband" today simply turns into a hot, high profit commodity tomorrow.  

This "Going Postal!" shit needs to be addressed at its source, not its choice of manifestation."

I was in agreeance with you, I also believe that this is not a gun issue. This is a lack of selfcontrol issue, combined with the inability to reason.

Your'e logic is FUCKED!!!

Yes, let's limit the rights of over 100 million people because one guy is crazy and does a horrible thing.
Liberals make NO SENSE at all...

You must not have heard, the bambi’s and ducks are forming militia’s for illegal all , and has declared war against all gun owners in the US. How can defend themselves against the Bambi/Duck militias attacking them everywhere?

I say, we not going to let the Bambi/Duck militia to take over our country. It was on Faux news!!

You righties believe that you are defending the country against some mythical invaders. Unless deer and ducks have declared war against righties (not such a bad idea) and threatening to occupy your homes and you need to fight them, no private citizens need semi-automatic weapons.

There has to be control just like drivers license, There has to be a registry, and gun transaction must take place as Automobiles. There must be annual Gun registration and a tax just like automobiles. Sales taxes on guns should be very high since it is threat to rest of the society.

Own all the gun you want, rest of the society have right to make you responsible and accountable for the lethal; weapons you own.

I would say embed a fucking tracking devices on the damn things. Go hunt all you want, no one wants to stop you, do you need semi-automatic weapon for shooting bambi?

My God, you don't even know what the 2nd Amendment is really about !?!?!?!

It's not so much invaders from abroad, it is to protect against tyranny within!!

Now get a few things straight, while I am not an Obama fan, I do not believe we are near that point yet and that is not what I am saying. The fact is we still have free elections and the system is fair. And you re right, moving is always an option. What cracks me up is you say that like people will not actually do it. Read the news some time. See what is happening in France and England. The wealthy leaving in droves. Who will support all of your liberal programs then?

But I digress.

While I see your point about automatic weapons, government has proven itself to be so untrustworthy, I do not easily cede any rights to them.

And explain to me this, why in cities where gun bans are in place do so many people dies by violence whereas crime goes down when concealed carry is permitted? Oh, I forgot, liberals do not like cold, hard facts.

Framers didn't envision the large number of people who are psychotic and executed innocent people as has been done the past 3 years during gun massacres.

More than one NRA endorsed Senator has tweeted that "this changes everything."

Framers didn't envision megashot magazines and large reserves of ammo or the stockpile of weapons that Lanza had ready to use nor did Mommy Lanza who knew her son was severely psychotic, yet didn't get effective help if she chose to seek it.

Framers didn't envision whackjob Repuboputzes who now have following fucking crazy shit laws on the books:

1) Concealed carry at 16 — with no permit VERMONT
2)  Property rights end where gun rights begin: According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 17 states, including Oklahoma and Florida, bar employers from preventing their employees from bringing guns to work and keeping them locked in their vehicles, even if those vehicles are on the property of the employer. Indiana and North Dakota allow employees to sue their employers for damages if asked about gun possession.
3) License to kill, even in public: A class of laws, called “castle doctrine” statutes by supporters, in most states clarify that homeowners who feel threatened in their domicile have no duty to retreat from threats or to refrain from the use of deadly force. But most states also have such laws that apply to conflagrations in public places, far removed from the shooter’s “castle.” That is, these 34 states allow people to use deadly force when they feel threatened in public.
Some researchers have found that castle doctrine laws of this scope, frequently dubbed “stand your ground” laws, have caused a statistically significant increase in homicide rates.
4) . Open carry without a permit: Most legal disputes around carrying guns in public involved concealed carry. But open carry, which is arguably more threatening to surrounding community members, is largely unregulated. Thirty-five states allow open carry of handguns without a permit, while only three (plus the District of Columbia) ban it outright. Forty-seven states plus the District allow open carry of long guns (that is, rifles or shotguns) in public, while only three ban it.
5) 5. 8-year-olds with shotguns: Federal law mandates that licensed gun dealers only sell long guns to individuals 18 and older, and handguns to individuals 21 and older. But not all legal gun sellers are federally licensed. For instance, many gun show participants sell guns legally without a federal license. That means that many under 18 and 21 are capable of buying guns legally. As mentioned above, Vermont allows children as young as 16 to buy handguns without parental consent.

What’s more, federal law allows all individuals 18 and older to possess handguns, and has no minimum age for long gun possession. Only 20 states and the District of Columbia have a minimum age for long gun possession. The age is usually set at 18, but in New York it’s only 16, and in Montana it’s 14. So in Helena, one can legally own a shotgun before graduating from 8th grade. And in the 30 states with no such minimum age, you could own one when you’re in elementary school.

Further, only 28 states and the District set a minimum age for sales from unlicensed gun dealers. Twenty-two states, then, have no such minimum age. And in three states, the minimum age for sales only applies to long guns. So in 22 states it is perfectly legal for an 8-year-old to pick up a handgun at a gun show, though he cannot legally possess it. In 20 states that 8 year old can both legally buy a shotgun and possess it.
6. Guns at schools: In 2010, Kansas passed a law allowing the concealed carry of guns in K-12 schools, in violation of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, which criminalizing the carrying of firearms in specified school zones. That act was ruled unconstitutional in U.S. v. Lopez as exceeding the federal government’s powers under the Commerce Clause, and a revised statute was passed that limits the ban to guns “involved in interstate commerce,” so it is possible that the Kansas statute does not run afoul of federal law in all cases.

This past week, Michigan followed suit, with state legislators passing a law allowing concealed carry in schools, bars, daycare centers and churches. Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has not signed the bill into law, and its ultimate passage is now in doubt due to the Newtown incident.










-- Modified on 12/17/2012 9:52:11 AM

Kids 12 years old use to hunt with their parents to get food. Young people handling firearms was common place and in many cases necessary.

Funny how you NEVER ANSWERED MY QUESTION...

Why do cities with the strictest gun laws have the worse violence while right to carry areas see their crime rates drop.

Cut and paste all you want from the internet, unless you can answer that BASIC QUESTION, your credibility is crap...

What an amazing statement.  Of course it's a gun issue.  What's really true is, this is not SIMPLY a gun issue.  It's about how we treat the mentally ill, the pervasive violent images in our society and a lot of other things, too.  But to say it's simply "not a gun issue" and leave it at that, is completely wrong.  We need legislation to make it harder for unfit people to own guns, to ban huge magazines, etc.  Naturally, without other societal measures, such laws by themselves won't solve the problem.  But if we refuse to change the guns laws, all the other efforts we can make will fail.

I will ask how higher taxes, registration, and tracking devices for guns would turn irresponsible gun owners in to responsible  gun owners?

Regulations and laws do not change a persons mindset. I believe most gun owners take full responsibility for the guns they own, if they didn't we would be running over guns. The same as we run over discarded fast food wrappers in the street.

Why do cities with the strictest gun laws have the worst violence?

That is how they maintain. Their states ever growing prison industrial complex. No state is gowing to shy away from federal dollars, and cheap labor.

they used muskets, not Gatling Guns. Whys is that the right wing nuts so fond of the 1700’s and beyond? Are you guys unfit to live in the modern world? Stupid question, you are. I am all for muskets!

The answer to your question is simple, for it work, there should be uniform gun laws or everyone entering the city should be searched for concealed weapons.

Is Freakasoids like you are trying to protect yourselves from tyranny? By whom?

-- Modified on 12/17/2012 3:04:19 AM

I don't what to do with the mentally ill. What do you think we should do with them, medicate, incarcerate, or permenately incapacitate?

That other stuff about exposing children to violent imagery, falls under the category of parenting, and being honest to your children. That means quit filling children heads full of lies about, religion/holidays American exeptionalism, and rewarding negative behavior

and by making them accountable. If we can register cars, issue drivers license, passports, etc. why not have the same accountability on the most legal thing on the planet?

I think most people want a fire arm, to protect themself from street criminals. What will you do when some one pulls a gun on you, call the police? They will be to busy frisking people at the city line.

Your post is reasonable. But your subject line is spurious.  Are you suggesting that simply because we can't "regulate suicide bombers" we should do nothing about guns? The statment is intellectually bankrupt.
What we should do about the mentally ill is a good question and I  don't have the answer to that either.  But clearly they need better treatment and intervention than they're getting.  I agree with the rest of your post.

Who would you hold accountable in this CT case, the dead gun owner?

Do you live in a fantasy world, where people have regard for the law?

are in inner cities that "control" (what a joke) guns, just like they do drugs BTW.

Rural areas with guntoting rednecks safe, innercity hellholes RUN BY LIBTARDS, free fire zones and bars on windows

look in the mirror, you'll see the problem

Mass killers certainly do not. Let's say we got rid of all guns. How do we stop some one from fire bombing people? Should we put regulations on gasoline?

Uniform laws!!!

In which of the 50 state is cocaine legal??? And you say the problem is uniformity of laws???

Your logic is laughable!!!

no minorities EVER commit crimes.

100% douchebag.