Democrats vow to push for gun control measures in Congress

Comments (260)
reality-again wrote:

Good!
This is long overdue.

Dec 16, 2012 4:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TOTL wrote:

Tell you what, I’ll give up my ability to defend myself from the thugs in this country when everybody, and I mean everybody including the police don’t have a gun. Oh wait you say, the police will need guns! Why I ask, noone will have a gun? But, you say, bad guys will still have guns. Exactly I say, and I will still need to protect myself from them. It has been illegal to own an automatic weapon for a long time. “Assault style” weapons aren’t needed to go on a rampage. I have a better idea, how about we listen to the parents that tell us their kids have problems. How about we demand discipline and respect from kids, stop coddling them and telling them that no matter what they do, they’re still good people? Gun laws preventing good people from owning them do not work. Just ask the folks in DC and Chicago (your home town Mr Pres). It’s just a feel good step that accomplishes nothing. Crack down on those that break the law, don’t punish the law abiding citizens. Yesterday, over 30 million gun owners DIDN’T shoot anyone. Stop trying to stoke your own egos by saying you did something when in reality you accomplish nothing.

Dec 16, 2012 6:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dannysgil wrote:

I will give my security, my gun, when every politician, including Obama, give up their security.

Dec 16, 2012 7:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse

How come the media doesn’t report that an armed civilian stopped the Mall shooter in Oregon?

If banning guns was the answer then Chicago and DC would be the safest places on earth.

Dec 16, 2012 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RonRoberts wrote:

Since by the same reasoning cars kill people (and far more people), I propose a ban on cars too. Oh, and bathtubs, stairs, kitchen knives, and swimming pools…

Dec 16, 2012 8:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
grumpymarine wrote:

It was illegal to bring a gun into the school. Did that law work?? What new law will work any better??

Dec 16, 2012 8:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ss31704 wrote:

Here we go again…I hear all the rhetoric engines starting on gun control. Plain and simple fact…if guns were not legal, people would still have them. Evil people will still do evil things. Maybe we should ban cars, then we won’t have any more traffic accidents.

Dec 16, 2012 8:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ss31704 wrote:

Here we go again…I hear all the rhetoric engines starting on gun control. Plain and simple fact…if guns were not legal, people would still have them. Evil people will still do evil things. Maybe we should ban cars, then we won’t have any more traffic accidents.

Dec 16, 2012 8:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Onefever wrote:

“These are assault weapons. You don’t hunt deer with these things. And I think that’s the question that a lot of people are going to have to resolve their own minds: Where should this line get drawn?” Malloy added.

He is right, we don’t buy those kind of guns to hunt with. We buy them for the same reason the Founders owned firearms. In the event a tyrannous government tries to invade the US or the US becomes the tyrannous government. You try to match the firepower of your enemy and the disparity between the government and the people in terms of firepower has steadily grown. This is just one more step towards taking our freedom.

Dec 16, 2012 8:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vegascelt wrote:

@Reality Again – Reality? You obviously don’t know what it is. The reality is that coddled, entitled, psychotic youth will find a way to inflict damage, be it forearms or not.

Dec 16, 2012 8:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
EDLTA41LO98A3 wrote:

I do not understand why the Authorities do not put secure entrance doors on schools. Have a buzzer and a motion camera to identify anyone whom comes after classes start. In an emergency you can still leave by simply pushing the doors open. However once class starts the doors are locked and you need to be identified and buzzed in. You can shoot a secure entrance door 100 times and it will not yield.

Dec 16, 2012 8:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
passpass55 wrote:

These people are more stupid than I could imagine. If even one teacher had been armed, as they are in Israel, this would have been mitigated. Completely helpless and disarmed, liberals bear their blood on their hands. Denying people the right to defend themselves causes such people to be complicit in their deaths.

Dec 16, 2012 8:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sliide wrote:

Ok so ther Republicans now understand that the Second Amendment is actually regarding Magna Carta Article 41, which is not old law according to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

It is a good thing that Feinstein’s own 9th Cir. Court has determined in the Proposition 8 case, when citing the U.S. Supreme Court, that Right in the Bill of Rights are not subject to ANY Vote, or any Office, and are just like the rights asserted that the CA Marriage Amendment was to effect, they are not even subject to a Constitutional Amendment (I am typing this blind as the conputer is messed up).

It is clear then that the Congress cannot legislate as the Proposition 8 case nullifies their votes against anything in the Bill of Rights.

Dec 16, 2012 8:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USC wrote:

Actually, it is still legal to own automatic weapons (and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and suppressors i.e., silencers, and some grenade launchers, which would fall under the Any Other Weapons destructive devices category) in 27 of the 50 United States; these devices fall under the classification of Title II weapons. It does require a lengthy Federal background check and (I believe) a $600 processing fee, and once approved to purchase such weapons through a licensed Class II or Class III dealer, a $200 Federal Tax Stamp for the purchase of each weapon or device (i.e., suppressor); if the Title II weapon has a threaded muzzle and a detachable suppressor in place, you would pay separate tax stamps for the weapon and the suppressor. No new Title II weapons can be imported for legal sale to civilians, so you are limited to selling/buying/trading in existing weapons, or in the limited number of new dealer samples (and perhaps sold used law enforcement weapon?) If you do not live in one of the 27 states, you can always visit a rental range in states like Nevada, Texas, Maryland, Georgia, etc. (or countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.) and still experience firing such weapons; it can be quite costly ammo-wise!

Dec 16, 2012 8:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AHam813 wrote:

I am trying to think of a tragedy in my adult life, Oklahoma City, Columbine, 911, and many others where the rush for an easy answer did not result in the continued erosion of our civil rights. I am a free citizen of the United States of America, laws can be passed that violate our Constitution but the federal government cannot take away my rights because they are mine and not granted by the government. So the Democrats want our guns and they will use the children as the reason. Earlier this year they stripped us of our rights to a trial of our peers in the Defense Authorization Act, granted the President the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without trial at home and abroad and have recently finished a data collection center in Utah that will intercept and store all of our online and telephone communications so of course the next step for tyrants is disarmament of the law abiding populace. I know this sounds conspiratorial but take a second to look any of this up and you will see it is true. I am by no means a perfect father, but I try, I will protect my children and I will not sit by and give up their birthright as free people. Any politician who seeks to profit from this recent tragedy in not only the most vile sort of person but a traitor to this country who deserves the punishment due a traitor.

Dec 16, 2012 8:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Misterbumbles wrote:

It’s about time the government takes away peoples guns, I mean how else am I going to continue to get something for nothing when the government eventually crashes due to its terrible fiscal policy, and my EBT, FoodStamps, Section 8 Housing, Obamaphone and Obamacare are all gone it will make it easier for me to go take it from those richer than me because the rich should be forced to share what they have with those of us that don’t have enough and since I don’t have a gun if they take the gun away from the rich than I can share what the rich have much easier that way.

Dec 16, 2012 8:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ss31704 wrote:

Knee-jerk reactions, usually by liberals to ban guns, might make some people feel good. But in almost every area in the us where guns are illegal, the crime rate is higher than in areas where guns are owned. Same for Britain. Australia has severe gun control laws and they still have a “competitive” murder rate. So there needs to e a lot of thought before taking any kind of action. What kind of guns? I thought fully automatic weapons already were illegal. And again, coming down to the basic question….as an American citizen, do you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force?

Dec 16, 2012 8:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnMIII wrote:

500+ dead in one of the most stringent gun-control cities in America, Chicago.

When are you liberals going to learn that your gun control gets people killed? You push an agenda on the backs of murdered children. You truly are the lowest of the low.

Dec 16, 2012 8:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CleanFun wrote:

Freedom isn’t free. But living without freedom costs even more.

20 children were sacrificed on the alter of firearm freedom this year.

1,200,000 babies were sacrificed on the liberal’s alter of “choice” this year.

If abortion stopped right now, it would take 2,500,000 years for gun homicides involving children to catch up with the blood-thirsty liberal women over the past 40 years.

Yet, it’s your guns they want to take away. You should be scared.

Dec 16, 2012 9:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

This shooting happened because the school let it happen! What sort of security allows someone to break a window and let himself in to wander the halls!? A simple piece of lexan would have made it impossible to break that window. Bullets only make small holes in it. About $50 in material would have prevented the shooting. And vandalism and theft as well. There is no excuse for such total disregard for the safety of our children.

Dec 16, 2012 9:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
libclubber wrote:

“Don’t let a good crisis go to waste”. BEWARE of the politician who reacts quick on peoples emotions. Especially the socialists.

Dec 16, 2012 9:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
libclubber wrote:

How many kids died on the nations roads last year?

Dec 16, 2012 9:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sunhawg wrote:

There is no way any new gun control legislation is going to pass the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Those Democrats who want to seize our guns should go clean up their own cities before they come to take away my rights. The cities and states with the worst gun violence are the states with the strictest gun control laws.

Dec 16, 2012 9:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
libclubber wrote:

Has this ever happened in a home school situation?

Dec 16, 2012 9:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

EDLTA has the right idea. All companies I’ve worked at had a lobby. Visitors wait in the lobby, the door to rest of building is locked. A secretary can electrically open the door if the person needs to go inside, usually with an escort. That school’s security was pure negligence. Anyone with a machete or knife could have killed the same number. It happened in China recent, a person with a knife.

Dec 16, 2012 9:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

Why do liberals hate women? They use this sad example of negligence on the part of the school to push to ban guns. Yet women are the ones least able to fight off the stronger male attackers. That is why women are raped far more than men. And because the rapist can kill them easily most rapes go unreported. An armed woman is a strong woman, able to protect herself. Even if a gun can’t stop the rape a gun makes it possible for her to go to the police. So why do liberals hate women?

Dec 16, 2012 9:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LC_CPA wrote:

“Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association. Most Republicans and many Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are firm allies of the group.
Opinion polls have found Americans to be divided on the issue even after other high-profile shooting incidents.”

Divided???? By a large majority Americans support the Second Amendment and the right to possess firearms…. There are many thousands of ‘gun laws’ already in existence…The shooter in this case VIOLATED many existing gun laws as well as laws against murder, assault with a deadly weapon, trespass and many, many more… In addition, the “gun banners” insist on describing semi-automatic weapons as “AUTOMATIC” WEAPONS! Since I am a pretty fair skeet shooter using a ‘pump’ shotgun, I would match my ability to “mow down” unarmed children using my “Pump shotgun” utilizing double 0 buckshot!… Nothing like a shotgun in close quarters! So, where does this leave us… The shooter was denied purchase of a rifle as I understand it.. The mother registered and legally owned the weapons her son stole from her and shot her with..Were there any “gun laws” violated because she didn’t “secure” those weapons from her son? But all this is just ancillary to the REAL problem… Our culture (the popular one) has become very violent and our mental health system is non-existent… We insist on mainlining those with drug/alcohol/other mental disorders into society. Treatment/intervention/evaluation of those suffering from mental illness needs to be rethought with an eye for institutionalizing those that present a danger to themselves or others.
Lastly, in this grand “debate”, we should consider the effects of “arming” citizens/teachers/school administrators AND training them in the tactical use of concealed weapons… I know the left and the ‘touchy/feely’ types cannot even conceive that this might help prevent these ‘mass shootings’ in “No Gun Zones”, there are examples of where just such a policy is effective in preventing mass killings like just occurred. Israel, Switzerland come to mind…Examples of “Free Fire Zones” that come to mind would be the “Norway massacre” and mass shooting in the U.S, Finland, Australia etc. Hmmm No amount of “gun control” seems to be able to stop crazy/terrorist killers… Maybe an armed citizen who just happens to be at the scene and properly trained might just be able to kill these “lone, crazy killers” before so many are killed? Just a possibility that should be considered along with all the “standard” ineffectual proposals that are pouring forth from the “gun controllers” before the bodies are even cold… Perhaps if the school psychologist and/or the school principle had training and concealed weapons they might have been able to do more than just present a “larger” target for the madman!…And, maybe some of these precious children might have been saved…

Dec 16, 2012 9:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Eaglesblow wrote:

A Mad man drove a Van full of Diesel fuel and Fertilizer up to a Building in Oklahoma City and killed many, Including Children. Some Arabs over took 4 Airplanes with Box Cutters flew them into Buildings and killed many. Obama’s Attorney General let Mexican gangs have access to assault weapons killing many. It’s kind of FUNNY the only one that has gotten away with MURDER is the one working for Obama.

Dec 16, 2012 9:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

We know that the Aurora theater shooting was allowed to happen. His psychiatrist warned police weeks before the shooting. In this case it is believed that he posted online what he was going to do. He was obviously a mental case as his failed attempt buy a rifle. Anyone failing the instant background check during attempted purchase is supposed to be reported to police. Were the police warned about this guy? If so why was nothing done?

Dec 16, 2012 9:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse

How about putting an end to government provided Kill Zones? When the government guarantees a whole building full of unarmed people who are sitting ducks this can happen. Do you think for a minute the NitWit Politicians sit in congress without having armed security to prevent this happening to them? When they tell their own security to leave and have no weapons around their whiney bleatings would at least not highlight them as lying hypocrites.

Dec 16, 2012 9:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
FreddyM1 wrote:

What does a deer have to do with the second amendment?

Dec 16, 2012 9:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
milestocode wrote:

Feinstein never met a crisis she didn’t try to manipulate. As TOTL said, I’ll gladly give up my guns when there are no more at all. Then we can all arm ourselves with bows, knives, swords, bats, etc… unless those are going to be outlawed as well.

Dec 16, 2012 9:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GlobalRoamer wrote:

Leave it to a liberal to distort the truth. This was not the worst school murder in history no matter how much liberals want to take your guns.

As terrible as this is, there was a previous incident even worse. What the liberals won’t tell you is that it was done without guns.

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator died of suicide in one of the explosions as well. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

Dec 16, 2012 9:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
drmp1505 wrote:

Someone in Florida just used a hammer to kill a person – outlaw all hammers.

Dec 16, 2012 9:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Interesting. I have a rifle. I have had if for 35 years. In all of that time, I have never known my rifle to go out and kill someone. Hmmm………maybe it isn’t guns that kill people after all.

TD

Dec 16, 2012 9:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sbob850 wrote:

The last time the Democrat Gun Grabbers rammed through a Gun Ban they were thrown out of office for 15 years. Let them do it, they need to be gone.

Dec 16, 2012 9:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

To see how effective gun bans are rent the movie Hotel Rwanda. Guns were illegal so millions died from machetes. Recently in China children were attacked at a school by a man with a knife. Don’t forget the much more common kidnapping and sexual assaults against children. The only way to protect our children is common sense security. Use lexan to prevent windows from being broken to gain entry. All visitors must wait in a lobby with access to rest of school by locked door. These children died not because of guns, they died because the school neglected basic safety.

Dec 16, 2012 9:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mudflap wrote:

While we’re at it, let’s register hardrive for monthly searches by whoever. Dems should be cool with that huh? Nothing to hide eh? Then we can start on banning the 1st Amendment by passing a STFU law for Dems.

Dec 16, 2012 9:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
yzdeaner wrote:

I predict that the President will attempt gun control by subverting the constitution. My best guess is that he will use his Director of Homeland Security to proclaim certain guns banned in the USA. This will not be the first time that he has danced around the Constitution. Remember his cabinet appointment that was made while Congress was away, but officially in recess? Obama ignored a long standing agreement between the Congress and the Legislative branches of government and made the appointment anyway as if Congree was in recess.

The fact of the matter is if Obama can have security that has semi automatic weapons protecting him, then I should be afforded the same right. After all, according to Obama we are all equal and therefore my life has the same value as his. But I’m sure he is a hypocrit and probably doesn’t agree with my logic.

Dec 16, 2012 9:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
BryanF wrote:

We have gun laws alot of gun laws, it seems that the gun laws only effect the Legal Owners of Guns. Earlier last week the Sandy Hook Shooter tried to buy a gun but could not or would not stand for the Background Check. He stole them from his mother. How about if we have this discussion I hear the left talking about lets focus on Movies, Video Games, TV Show’s and Mental Health lets get those things on the table then we can add Gun’s to the discussion.

Dec 16, 2012 9:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
marty1 wrote:

morality and spiritual decay plus mentality ill individuals are the problem.
normal, moral and spiritual people do not shoot people.
“the mind controls the trigger finger.” -joseph p.martino

Dec 16, 2012 9:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse

You liberals can’t have it both ways. For most of my adult life you have made inroads in removing any tradition and goodness from establishments in this country.

I don’t doubt you are sincere in your feelings over this great loss, but you all need to wake up. You can’t have policy to kill unborn children daily and then expect the other side to do anything other than say “Really?” when you feint all this shock at the loss of innocent life in this situation.

How about this, love your self enough to take responsibility for the spreading of your legs. Then leave our established traditions like Christmas and prayer alone, then take some responsibility for the culture you created.

Trying to take guns is not the answer. How about a mirror for the political parties in this country. Start there with those sanctimonious SOB’s.

Dec 16, 2012 9:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wowbagger wrote:

The most potentially dangerous and the easiest to use weapon Adam Lanza touched that day was his mother’s Honda!

Dec 16, 2012 9:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
johninpc wrote:

A armed man is called a Citizen a disarmed man is called a “subject.

Dec 16, 2012 9:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
IraqVet wrote:

I propose a ban government sales of military equipment to the middle east, mexican drug cartels and indiscriminate bombing of women and children non-combatants in Pakistan…and stupid Prog comments.

Dec 16, 2012 9:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wowbagger wrote:

Fully automatic (Class III) assault weapons are perfectly legal in the US. There is a $200.00 tax, fingerprinting and a waiting period as a limited staff is available for the background check. They are really not too hard for a person with a clean record to obtain, just expensive.

Oh… Since this law passed in the 1930s only one person has died of a wound inflicted by privately owned Class III weapon.

Dec 16, 2012 9:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
longrifle1760 wrote:

The liberals want our rifles,and say what do you need a semi auto for? I have a question for them, who on earth needs a partial birth abortion? Damn brutal procedure! If it is so great, let someone in the media show us what happens to the fetus, blob of tissue, or the BABY. Show us on network T.V. what happens when this procedure is preformed? Why hide it? More people [oops blob of tissue] will die in an abortion clinic than what any one AR 15 owner can do. I may need to defend myself from people with the partial birth abortion mind set. They may try to kill me one day. A government that will allow this damable practice, how can they be trusted? The right to keep and bear arms is in the 2nd ammendment. where is the right to an abortion any where in the constitution?

Dec 16, 2012 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse

How the article reads:
“Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to the widespread popularity of guns in America and the clout of the pro-gun National Rifle Association.”

How the article should read:
“Gun control has been a low priority for most U.S. politicians due to THE US CONSTITUTION.”

Dec 16, 2012 9:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse

@- EDLTA41LO98A3- on 60 mins tonight, a survivor said the school that was attacked had the type of security you write about. Secured, locked doors that a visitor had to be buzzed in by. They also had cameras. It didn’t help.

Dec 16, 2012 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
noseitall wrote:

I find it ironic that liberals who break laws against drug use think that criminals would obey laws against gun possession.

.

Dec 16, 2012 9:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foobeca wrote:

Actually a .223/5.56 NATO makes for a fine Deer round. It’s good for all North American game except for moose and bears.

Dec 16, 2012 9:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
amwiser wrote:

Too many people on the left are minimizing the effect of drugs and alcohol in each and every case that has occurred with a gun for a murder weapon. People do not kill every day and the thing that goes wrong always has to do with the mental state of the killer. For instance, NARCOTIC PAINKILLERS are a CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOR A REASON. Jovan Belcher was addicted. They make an addict’s perception VERY skewed and much more likely to become irritated or have a short wick if they are addicted….not to mention for people who can’t escape them except to commit suicide and want to take someone with them. The problem is NOT GUNS…it is DRUGS.

Dec 16, 2012 9:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse

28 people die so these animals can have a political platform. Some gun control bill is not going to eliminate evil in this world. I drive by an FBI building 2 times a week and see 8 foot fences 5 foot blast barriers armed guards an check points, yet all I need is a bouquet of flowers to get into any school.

Dec 16, 2012 9:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
wrote:

Weapons are power. Where do you choose to have the power? With the government or the people?

Dec 16, 2012 9:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
metro123 wrote:

How many children have died this year because of drugs in schools?
Drugs run rampant in our schools and one big reason is because the Federal Government can’t control the borders. Drugs flow in from all over the world by the boat load.
You can set up shop and make guns all day long with very little investment. Tougher to make drugs but they still can’t even put a dent in the drug sales.
Others have it right here, the school and the classroom were totally unarmed. Bare hands or a knife, pipe bomb or dozens of other ways this murderer could have killed first grade kids with. Obama said it in his speech tonight, something like this could not be stopped with laws, but then goes on to say we plan to pass new laws anyway even though we know that doesn’t work.

By the way, Obama is the one making sure all the kids that do survive will have a bankrupt nation. More laws, more debt, and more spending, only answers they have.

Armed teachers, at least some of them, could have mitigated some of the loss here.

Dec 16, 2012 9:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jabusse wrote:

If only one of the murdered teachers had a 45 and was trained to use it many lives would have been spared. The police were useless. They have spent days and millions taking a report. Even though they got there fast the damage had been done. With the demo’s it is not about safety it is about control of a sheep like population with no way to defend themselves.

Dec 16, 2012 9:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sussexpete wrote:

I want a ban on gasoline containers and matches. This combination is what caused the worse mass murder in US history, the “Happyland social club murder” 120+ souls died.

Dec 16, 2012 9:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
phillock wrote:

If we restricted gun ownership the way we restrict access to fully automatic weapons, this shooter and his mother wouldn’t have had a house full of guns and heaps of ammunition. But then we wouldn’t have that “well-regulated militia” that hundreds of millions of stray weapons have given us.

Dec 16, 2012 9:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
darryl-l wrote:

How is it that most democrates want to ban guns but seem to love abortion doctors and their weapons.I am sure that there are doctors that kill more than 20 unwanted babies a week yet they shed no tears.I would not give up my ability to defend myself and I will never bow down to any government control freaks

Dec 16, 2012 9:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jabusse wrote:

To libclubber who asked if this ever happened in a home schooled situation? Well Adam L was home schooled. Does that count?

Dec 16, 2012 9:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Outlawing guns will get rid of guns just like outlawing drugs got rid of drugs.

Bloomberg’s guards still get to have their guns though, right?

And of course the Secret Service get to keep their guns, right?

Do the peasants get armed guards?

Or is that just for the 1%?

According to DOJ crime statistics, guns are used 2.5-million times per year to prevent violent crimes like rape, robbery, carjackings and home-invasions, 99% of the time without a shot being fired.

GUNFACTS DOT INFO

But screw those 2.5 million people. Having them robbed or raped or carjacked is a small price to pay to ensure that robbers and rapists and home-invaders and carjackers and mass-murderers are safe.

Dec 16, 2012 9:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tmbttd1 wrote:

MEMO TO LIBERAL DEMOCRATS:
1) Why don’t you crooks enforce the laws you’ve already crammed down our throats and demand judges enforce laws and FAST.
2) You come after law-abiding gun owners and you might want to update your resume for we will be coming after you. Represent all legal citizens in YOUR area of responsibility and stay the hell out of my back yard.

Dec 16, 2012 9:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

“Secured, locked doors that a visitor had to be buzzed in by.” Well 60 minutes calls it secure but a broken window is all that he needed to get in. I wouldn’t call that secure! But oh wait, they had to play down the neglect of basic security so they can blame guns. What a crock! These children died because someone didn’t bother to secure a window with lexan. You can’t break it with a hammer, bullets just leave small holes. If he had blown enough holes to reach in and unlock the door the police would have arrived. Anything that slows down an attack gives time for police to stop the attack.

Dec 16, 2012 9:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

Tell the people in Rwanda how well gun bans work. If you don’t remember then rent the movie Hotel Rwanda. Millions died from machetes as guns were illegal. Same could have happened at the school had he had a machete instead of guns. But then saving lives isn’t what gun bans are about now are they?

Dec 16, 2012 10:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

The shooter failed an attempt to purchase a rifle earlier. Police are supposed to be called when that happens. Was this reported to them? If so why was nothing done? Just like the Aurora theater shooting… police were warned by psychiatrist weeks before the shooting. Again, nothing was done. A cynic would say these attacks were allowed to happen for political reasons.

Dec 16, 2012 10:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CmdrBuzz wrote:

OneFever – the rifle used in the school shooting was NOT an assault weapon. So just how would an assault weapon ban have prevented this shooting?

Dec 16, 2012 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Lone_Gunman45 wrote:

Interesting to note that over 830,000 children die each year world wide from automobile accidents, usually cause by someone that broke a law.

Here in the USA over 8,000 children die annually from auto accidents with almost all of those being caused by a law breaker also.

So this begs the question of why is there no public outcry and screams for banning cars or shooting drivers that break the law and cause these tragedies?

Guns don’t cause people to die any more than spoons make Rosie O’donnell fat! It’s what an individual does that determines the outcome of the use of either!

Dec 16, 2012 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
baldernyu wrote:

“These are assault weapons. You don’t hunt deer with these things. And I think that’s the question that a lot of people are going to have to resolve their own minds: Where should this line get drawn?” Malloy added. In fact many do hunt deer with AR-15 style rifles. I don’t but many do. They are lightweight, compact and function well. Most states limit the magazine you can use while hunting to 5 rounds.

Dec 16, 2012 10:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Eh… we already tried this back in the 90s, folks. I know not many in the nanny state media have a memory that goes back that far, but it had exactly ZERO effect on violent crime.

The reason there’s opposition to “gun control” is simple: IT’S NOT CRIME CONTROL. How about we try THAT approach this time, eh? Perhaps get back to institutionalizing people who are a potential danger to themselves and others while we’re at it, instead of leaving prison as the only alternative.

Dec 16, 2012 10:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CmdrBuzz wrote:

Eagelsblow – I bet if those pilots on 9/11 and been armed there would have been some dead terrorists and those planes would not have crashed saving over 3000 lives.
If a conservative does not approve of gun ownership he doesn’t purchase one.
If a liberal does not approve of gun ownership he wants to ban guns from everyone.

Dec 16, 2012 10:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Thunderbob wrote:

Wow! what a surprise, the Dems going for gun control! The liberal motto: Guns bad, people are innocent! When are people going to start looking at the people who are the gun actuators, as the problem? Most of the people were loners, had some sort of medical issue, or caught up in some sort of movie character had been drinking and wanted revenge. Instantly people scream for gun control, and once again the law bidding individual gets punished for the criminal’s action. Sort of like blaming the car for a drunk driver. How about enacting some laws telling TV and radio station they can only broadcast the story once! The continued replay and speculation, give the publicity they want!

Dec 16, 2012 10:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blastertyr wrote:

You can hunt deer with an AR-15. Governor Dannel Malloy is obviously not very well informed.

This rifle can kill people…swine, (Pigs), deer….and anything else you point it at.

The only difference from a M-16 is that it is not full automatic.

The weapon most certainly can be used for hunting just about anything… unless you want to use a higher caliber weapon for larger game such as bear…lion…or elephant.

You can take the 30 round magazine away……but getting a 30 round magazine isn’t all that hard for many weapons.

How is it that gun deaths are at the bottom of the statistics…but we hammer the gun owner every day of the week.

1.2 million abortions for unwanted children a year…
500 thousand smokers deaths…200 thousand screw ups in hospitals accidentally killing the patient…150 thousand household accidents…36,000 automobile accidents…30,000 suicides
50,000 drug overdoses.

But banning guns is the main thing that Democrats want to concentrate on???

How about abortions which are 100 to 1 against gun deaths as a start.

How is it that abortion clinics kill many more children…1.2 million…while the entire Democratic party walks past the clinics in denial as the smoke rises from the crematorium.

Dec 16, 2012 10:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse

I thought this is what Jamie Foxx, one of Ubama’s “close friends,” wanted?

So whats the problem?

Dec 16, 2012 10:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
blastertyr wrote:

This guy had Aspergers. He was autistic with a weapon. A disabled person with a rifle. Who knows what mentality the guy had when doing this.

Dec 16, 2012 10:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CmdrBuzz wrote:

longrifle 1760 – Liberals have no qualms about killing thousands of unborn babies, but ask the death penalty for some slug who rapes and kills a child and listen to them scream and stomp their little liberal feet about how that is “cruel and unusual” punishment. Try to figure that one out.

Dec 16, 2012 10:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abilene3 wrote:

When liberalism fails, and the nuts and kooks who are condoned by the liberals control the streets and run amok, the left will always blame the inanimate object.

Dec 16, 2012 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CitizenKaneA wrote:

What is being ignored in this travesty is the giant elephant in the room, which is the lack of society to adress people with mental illness. The common denominator is every one of the heartless, cold blooded killers is that they where mentally ill. They were people generally with high IQ’s and left to their own devices to pursue their twisted fantasies on the internet often fuelled by violent video games, movies and television. When I was a child growing up, these individuals were institutionalized for their own safety and the safety of the public. Today society puts them on anti-psychotic medications and push them aside. They often become a problem to the police, homeless or in this case Psycopathic murders.
We can pass laws that eliminate guns, knives, sticks and stones, but these sick individuals will ALWAYS find a way to carry out their sick evil fantasies.
In countries like Mexico, private owenership of guns by the common citizens is illegal, however the gangs and drug cartells hold the people and the law enforcement at bay with the guns they own illegaly. The citizens are defenseless and the police can not protect them. I have worked in this country and can personally attest that this is the truth. The citizens would fight back but they are law abiding and defenseless. The Mexican gun laws have rendered the law abiding citizen defenseless. The law enforcement agencies are unable to protect themselves let alone its citizens from the criminals.
If the United States Government wants to stop deranged citizens from having guns they will come to the conclusion that ALL GUNS MUST BE TAKEN OUT OF CIRCULATION ALONG WITH THE AMMUNITION. This is the end game to gun control.
But this will not stop the carnage from the deranged, they will find other ways. So the next logical response is for the Government to monitor the behavior and movement of each and every citizen electronically to ensure they are not a threat to the society. If they are a percieved threat they will be dealt with swiftly.Imagine being woken up in the middle of the night and taken away for some post or comment you made on the internet. Folks, this is where we are headed. It exist in many countries and it is comming to you…
You must encourage your representatives to go after the mental health system and not pass more gun laws that are intended to go after the average law abiding citizen. Contact your representative to adress the mental health system before it is to late.
THERE IS A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY NOT A GUN CRISIS!!

Dec 16, 2012 10:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ldwalaska wrote:

Brits would never understand the importance that Americans place on the Second Amendment. It is more than a right to own firearms, it is a right to be safe through the use of firearms.
The school was only safe for the criminal, as the school was prohibited to legal carry by law abiding citizens.
Has any ban worked? The war on drugs is an abject failure. DUIs are still too frequent. How about our criminal statutes? The only time there is a reduction in violent crime, it is because there has been a firearms concealed carry law passed in that state. Criminals don’t like the thought of encountering an armed citizen who knows how to use a firearm, and more importantly, they are scared spitless of a woman who carries a firearms for protection legally. Kind of takes away the idea of the defenseless victim, doesn’t it?
In this country, firearms are used legally by law abiding citizens to prevent crime and to save the lives of innocents 1.5 million to 2.5 million times per year. You don’t read about that, as the liberals don’t want that fact known.
Let Feinstein try her best to repeat the ‘assault weapons’ ban. There is a Republican Congress that has to agree. That will not happen.
I doubt that the staff, had one or two of them been armed, could have stopped all of the carnage that day, but, they would have certainly reduced the toll.
Liberals believe that owning a firearm is aberrant, that a law abiding citizen carrying a firearm is untrustworthy and unsafe, and that there would be more shootings as a result. None of which is true, nor has been demonstrated in any study to have any basis in fact. The reality is that law abiding citizens carrying a firearm legally reduce crime and make our streets and public places safer, because the criminals have no idea who carries a weapon, and the victims are no longer defenseless.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is the perfect example of the liberal hypocrite. He has a concealed weapons permit, he has armed body guards, but he believes that only he and his liberal ilk should have the right to be so protected. The rest of us common folk are supposed to be ‘victims’ and suffer.
No.
I carry a firearm every day, as do thousands of Alaskans. Millions carry all over America and you do not hear about them. They are responsible, law abiding citizens doing their duty under the Second Amendment.

Dec 16, 2012 10:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Vepr1972 wrote:

One more thing an AR15 with a 30 round mag is already illegal in CT???? The law didnt work. You cant stop insane people with new laws, you can only protect our children and all Americans with armed Americans willing to shoot back, simple as that.

Dec 16, 2012 10:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
LtScrounge wrote:

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. How many pointless and worthless gun laws does it take for the liberals to understand that guns are not the problem, leaving school children and employees defenseless against an armed attacker is? Israel had a problem with Palestinian terrorists armed with REAL (aka fully automatic) assault rifles attacking schools. Their response was to train teachers who volunteered in the tactical use of handguns and allowed them to carry them concealed at work. It didn’t take long for the attacks on schools to end. Why? Because when facing an armed victim, the terrorists decided to go elsewhere. Why doesn’t the media ever cover that these mass murders are almost always committed in “gun free” zones? Since when will a person intent on committing mass murder be deterred by a “No guns allowed” sign? For those who truly believe that guns are the problem, put your money where your mouth is and put a sign in your front yard saying “We don’t allow guns in our home”.

As for the comment about ARs not being used for deer hunting, that’s the comment of someone who has NO concept of why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution. According to one of the founding fathers, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure that the people retain the means by which to protect themselves against those who would impose tyranny upon them, including their own government. Notice there is no mention of hunting or target shooting in there. The founders fought an 8 year war against the strongest army on the planet to insure freedom and prosperity for their descendents. They didn’t do that with torches and pitchforks, they did that with their rifles. For those who aren’t aware of it, the British actually tried to declare the rifled flintlocks of the Continentals illegal because they had greater range than the smooth bore Brown Bess that the British Army carried. Medieval kings forbade the bearing of edged weapons above a certain length for all but their forces. Edward Longshanks even banned the training with weapons in Scotland during his reign. An act that lead to the modern Celtic Games. The idea of declaring a weapon unfit for civilian ownership is well documented in the history of tyrants attempting to suppress their subjects.

Dec 16, 2012 10:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Stargater wrote:

FACT: Adam Lanza used his mother’s legally owned weapons.
FACT: She was not corrupted because she owned an “assault weapon.”
FACT: Lanza could have used a non-assault weapon with the same effect, even if it had a 10-shot magazine, since it takes less than two seconds to reload and,
FACT: No gun control except absolute abolition would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre, as Adam’s choice of weaponry was opportunistic.

Speaking of opportunistic, the liberal politicians in Washington never let a good crisis go to waste. No one wants this type of horrible act to occur; however, these things will continue to happen and with a greater regularity. When I was in Kindergarten, guns could be bought at many hardware stores with no waiting period. But we didn’t have these types of things happen.

What has changed in our society that it has turned sick? It sure isn’t guns (my dad took his .22LR rifle to school with him). So when you point fingers, don’t blame guns. Some years ago a man in Communist China killed 11 people with a machete. And in this country, one man drove his car through the window of a daycare center.

We live in a malignant society, a society that breeds monsters. And taking away their guns will not stop them. It’s like the silly British people who banned sharp knives because there were so many knife attacks. It didn’t work. As for guns, the U.K. has a higher gun violence rate than it ever had when guns were available to civilians.

The founders wrote what they meant by the writing of the Second Amendment, and it wasn’t that guns should be limited to the military and National Guard. They did it because citizens are the last line of defense, anywhere. When hurricanes and earthquakes hit, if the power grid goes down, the police would tend to go home to protect their families, which happened in Katrina. Only the law abiding were subsequently disarmed. And if firearms are of no consequence to the common defense, why did the Brits take out full page ads asking Americans to donate guns in World War II?

Dec 16, 2012 10:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
puffnstuff wrote:

Where will all these anti-gun people be when people are murdered in their own homes without any way to defend themselves. I’ll tell you where, hiding away, being very quiet, talking about how there’s nothing that can be done about it.

Dec 16, 2012 10:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

Semi auto guns are first NOT suited for military use. No one uses a semi-auto gun for assault. ALL have select fire, that is have auto fire, aka machine gun. Semi-auto guns just reload and reset the hammer. You have to release the trigger, take aim, and carefully squeeze the trigger again. BATF and states ban almost all mechanisms to speed up firing, like a hand crank.

Dec 16, 2012 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

Semi-auto firearms are very important for safety. When you are protecting yourself you may choose to fire the first shot into the ground as a warning. A semi-auto allows you to quickly fire another shot if that doesn’t work. Without semi-auto you don’t get time for a second shot, so you don’t dare fire a warning shot. You have aim to kill from the start. If you miss with your first shot you are also dead if you don’t have a semi-auto gun.

Dec 16, 2012 10:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hrundi wrote:

Obama should take action on this tragedy… and he should do it FAST! …oh yeah, and FURIOUS, too!

Dec 16, 2012 10:27pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jsc221 wrote:

The second amendment is pretty clear on this one. If these politicians want to change this law in an emotional knee jerk reaction, then repeal that amendment. Until then, the people retain the right to access to the same arms that can be used to oppress them. Period.

Dec 16, 2012 10:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hrundi wrote:

If ONE ASSULT WEAPON can cause this much HORROR, HEARTACHE and SUFFERING, how many innocent men, women, children, their families, and their friends would suffer if a goverment release 2000 assault rifles to the most brutal drug dealers and criminals in anotuer counntry?

Without a truly honest media… we’ll never know. Mexican children are angels, too!

Dec 16, 2012 10:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
GreaseMonkey wrote:

These dems make me sick; how dare they even suggest gun control when they helped Obama walk combat firearms over the Mexican border by the thousands!!! These weapons have already killed more people than have been killed in this country in a decade. The only thing preventing outright tyranny in this country is that our Founding Fathers saw this coming and gave us the right to defend ourselves from our own government. It’s not gun control they want, they want liberty and freedom control!

Dec 16, 2012 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JackWhite wrote:

Liberals act as if guns just magically fire themselves. There is always a PERSON who shoots the gun. And guess what, if you ban guns, these people will find other ways. On 9/11 3000 people were killed with box cutters. The Oklahoma City bombing killed 165 people with fertilizer and a rental truck. If someone is determined to kill a lot of people, he will do it, gun ban or no gun ban.

Dec 16, 2012 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
evilhead wrote:

This isn’t about guns it’s about ignoring mental rejects’ needs, letting them fall through the cracks for years until they snap!

Dec 16, 2012 10:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kmrod wrote:

it might have been a little more respectful if they at least let the bodies start to cool down before the democrats stood on the graves to sh!t on the constitution.

Dec 16, 2012 10:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
robstamp wrote:

In 1927 Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people, 35 of which were elementry school students, in less than an hour, without using a gun.

Dec 16, 2012 10:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hrundi wrote:

I do not own a gun… never loved ‘em, but I do love this Country and the Constitution. So to all my Patriots out there, I suggest that when the time comes that,despite your best efforts, you’ll have no choice but to surrender your guns, make sure you surrender them “used”.

Dec 16, 2012 10:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oneofthe53 wrote:

BREAKING…… 80 million law abiding U.S. gun owners shot absolutely nobody today.

Hey Reuters: How about letting it through this time?

Dec 16, 2012 10:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jdalton1955 wrote:

Most guns are outlawed in Chicago, yet they have the highest murder rate in the country. 436 as of Oct 29th, 2012. Gun laws don’t work, because criminals don’t obey the law. Recent study showed that as the number of privately owned guns in Virginia has gone up, homicides have gone down. It’s NOT the guns…..it’s the shooters. Only an idiot wouldn’t realize that there hasn’t been a gun made that fires all by itself. They are just a pile of metal until someone picks it up, aims it at someone and pulls the trigger. Blaming the gun for these deaths is like blaming your pencil for your spelling errors.

Dec 16, 2012 10:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveK586 wrote:

This individual murdered his mother and stole her guns; how exactly would more laws have prevented what he did? If it had been illegal for his mother to own the guns? Wouldn’t he have made pipe bombs, like the theater, VA Tech, and Columbine shooters? Wouldn’t he have just found someone else that owned a gun, and killed them for it? Or do we illegalize ALL firearms, so he HAS to make a bomb, or carry knives?

Mental health and school security are the answers here, not more laws for the lawless to ignore.

Dec 16, 2012 10:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TnMan wrote:

This story proves the Connecticut tragedy is not about guns. It is about mental illness. What does this tragedy have in common with the Tucson, Colorado, Norway, and Virginia Tech tragedies? All were perpetrated by mentally ill people who all should have been locked up in secure facilities and not allowed to run loose in society. The real blame for this is the ACLU and its liberal brethren who, in the 60s and 70s, sued to put the mentally ill back on the streets saying they have the right to run loose in society. You would think after all these tragedies, as well as the killings of Lennon, shooting of Reagan, etc, we would have learned that the liberals were very wrong and that the mental institutions should be reopened. Some people should not be allowed to roam free. If we do not change this policy, we will see more and more of these violently ill people committing atrocities.

Dec 16, 2012 10:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse

If Dems are worried about kids being murdered, why don’t they want to stop over a million abortions a year? We lose more kids each day through parents and doctors willing to kill kids than we do through losers with guns. The fact is, the American people voted for a pagan oriented society last November. They are getting exactly what they asked for. You can’t ask losers like this shooter to care for kids when your whole society is oriented around killing them before they are even born and now talking about having taxpayers fund the killings through ObamaCare. I didn’t vote for or want this pagan society. Yeah, it’s easier to blame the desire for murder on a piece of steel that expels a bullet but you’re wasting your time.

Dec 16, 2012 10:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Obama mumbled something about ‘meaningful action’. Of course we know what that means to him: disarming every American. OTOH…

Meaningful action: arm teachers, administrators and custodians who are willing to train, and to protect the children for whom they bear responsibility. Parents of school children should DEMAND this.

Meaningful action: ELIMINATE “gun-free” zones – aka “nut-job shooting galleries” – where there’s an implicit guarantee that NO ONE will be capable of stopping an attacker.

Meaningful action: STOP BLAMING GUNS and start examining how the mental health care system in this nation is completely and utterly broken. Here in CT we have **NURSES** prescribing STRINGS of PSYCH MEDS for people Lanza’s age and younger – not based on the result of brain scans or extensive testing, but based on what they look up in a book. THIS HAS GOT TO CHANGE.

Dec 16, 2012 10:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tonyrains wrote:

I notice none of the Democrats were saying much about the X Rated gratuitous violence produced by their friends in Hollywood. Why is that?

Dec 16, 2012 10:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CharlesHoward wrote:

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Our society, and therefore our government, has become extremely reactionary. The bottom line is that

1. Mass shootings take place in areas where the perpetrator knows they have fire superiority
2. Guns in the United States (including assault rifles) are prevalent (by the millions) and will still be readily available if Congress ‘banned’ them
3. High capacity magazines are already made of polymers and no longer wear with use (meaning the ones in existence will continue to function for many years) and are also prevalent by the millions
4. People will kill other people by any means they can find or create, if they wish to do so.
5. Guns, in the hands of trained citizens, could prevent further catastrophe.

Please rally in support of the families who lost their loved ones, but do not champion ‘quick fix solutions’ that do not target the real problem.

V/R,
Charles R. Howard

Dec 16, 2012 10:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ounceoflogic wrote:

Every tragedy is an opportunity for Democrats to push a political agenda. Disgusting.

Dec 16, 2012 10:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Hipnosis wrote:

Take guns away from law abiding citizens and only the criminals will be armed.

Dec 16, 2012 11:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
10hawks wrote:

Sheriffs: Deputize and arm teachers, ignore the Federal impostors.

Dec 16, 2012 11:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse

Go ahead and push all you want, it wont end well for you this time. This isnt the 90s Klinton isnt president and many many many more people own guns now. You are going to fight a losing battle.

Dec 16, 2012 11:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

There is something new, liberals wanting to take away Constitutionally protected rights. Has the Supreme Court not been clear on this? Want to change gun rights, amend the Constitution.

Dec 16, 2012 11:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
John2525 wrote:

Since 1996, there has been 15 shootings in Canada where 5 or more people died. That is a country with gun controls, gun registries (that have proven ineffective) and with socialized medicine where the mentally ill are warehoused quite effectively compared to the US. This country is 1/10th the size of the US. Extrapolating to the population of the US that would be over 150 incidents. Unfortunately criminals don’t register guns, the mentally ill and others who are determined to kill, will kill. The culture in N. America is the problem. Look at Mexico. Its a mess right now. Now lets compare this to Switzerland where every home has a gun as part of the national militia. The gun crimes are off the hook in N. America compared to Switzerland. In all 3 countries. Those with or without gun control laws, gun registries, etc.

Its our CULTURE!!!!!

Dec 16, 2012 11:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Yirmin wrote:

How many thousand people die because of drunk drivers, how many daughters are victims of rape because of alcohol….what purpose does alcohol have beyond altering reality or giving someone a buzz… Be honest, a gun has more valid purposes than beer does but no one is out there pushing to ban beer when the drunk driver runs into the back of a school bus and kills a bunch of kids, no one is saying ban beer when the coed gets so drunk she passes out and gets gang raped….why is that?

Because a lot of people like to drink… So we just make laws against drunk driving knowing full well it won’t stop people from driving drunk… We pass laws against rape, it doesn’t stop it…. What we could very easily do is start locking up the mentally ill for live. That would save lives and be more effective than getting rid of guns, because guns are no more the problem than beer is a problem with drunk drivers…. The problem are the people.

Dec 16, 2012 11:20pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

You people are delusional if you think that passing laws banning any kind of gun will change anything other than eliminating law abiding citizens from owning those guns. Simply look at Mexico. Further, I’ll point out that the U.S. not only bans illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, meth, heroin) and has for decades and has the DEA, State and local law enforcement on the job of eradicating these substances..we spend $1B a year at the federal level alone. The majority of people in prison in the U.S. are for drug related charges, illicit drugs are the single largest problem in this country…in spite of ALL that effort…those drugs are still freely available to anyone who wants them.

Dec 16, 2012 11:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
JacobsBubble wrote:

We need mentally ill – control. Not more gun control. If we look back over the recent years, when horrendous gun attacks made national news? They all involved the mentally ill murdering others who were in mandated gun-free zones! Gun free zones guarantee sitting ducks for maniacs who have murder lust. We need to begin locking up the mentally ill like we used to. Not taking away gun rights from those who are not mentally ill.

Dec 16, 2012 11:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
freewill2 wrote:

Democrats created gun free zones prohibiting law abiding citizens their right to self defense. gun free zones are safe havens for criminals. these same Democrats that protect criminals are the same democrats that kill babies before their born and try to make us think they are heartbroken over the deaths of the ones who survived the womb.

Dec 16, 2012 11:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
mallrat wrote:

A lot of good that will do!!!! Look at mexico…citizens can not even own guns there and how many are killed??? Funny this never happened before you took God out of our schools and straited brain washing our kids with all your Lib trash. Besides Conn., NJ and NY do not allow that type of rifle. Didn’t work did it..Nor will it.How come this nut had access to the weapons?? How come Mom didn’t have them locked up? How come she didn’t get him help? A lot of ifs. Look at Chicago, How many are killed there in a day?? The problem is EVIL not guns.

Dec 16, 2012 11:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

JacobsBubble…we need to be “Profiling” big time in this country. Agree whole heartedly with your comment.

Dec 16, 2012 11:35pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Sbd0721 wrote:

Im for gun control when all of Congress resigns along with the Senate

Dec 16, 2012 11:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
jemusser wrote:

“These are assault weapons. You don’t hunt deer with these things. And I think that’s the question that a lot of people are going to have to resolve their own minds: Where should this line get drawn?” Malloy added.

The second amendment is NOT about hunting. It’s about self-defense and the prevention of tyranny. The fact that some individuals commit crimes with guns should never take away my 2nd amendment right it takes away theirs.

Dec 16, 2012 11:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Pyronaught2 wrote:

Gun control means holding your gun with both hands, and keeping them locked up when you are not using them so your psycho kid can not get at them.

Dec 16, 2012 11:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
HarryDingey wrote:

There was absolutely a problem at that school and it is the same problem we
may have in every school in the United States. Whenever we have a mass shooting no
one wants to solve the real problem how do we protect ourselves and our precious little children from this ever happening again, everyone wants to advance they own
agenda not protect our little ones.

You cannot ever take the guns away from the American people because that is
written into the American Constitution, if congress was to ever pass a law to take
everyone’s gun away they would generate a Civil War over night.

So, let’s get back to solving the real problem.

All of these outside school doors are always heavy metal doors. If I
remember correctly the shooter could not get inside because the outside door
was locked. So, he just broke the door windows and reached inside and opened
the door. But, what if all outside door windows was raised to eye level and was
no larger than 6 inches square. The shooter could have never gained
entrance to the school and would have been forced to use the front entrance.
Now, you can easily totally control and check everyone for any type of fire
arms as they enter all school building.

I recommend we do to every school house in the United States. Problem solved
and all of our precious little children will finally be safe to attend schools.

Harry Dingey

SO MOTE IT BE..

Dec 17, 2012 12:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
D.Driver wrote:

The French Revolution was a terrible event, but also one that made the world, and the common man a little (maybe a lot) better off, in spite of the many mis-steps and tragedies that occurred along the way. The …problem though is that in order for it to have occurred, it had to be gone though completely and not averted – it was an inevitability – the result of the abuses of Louis XIV’s excesses (similar but grossly more excessive that what the rich are accused of today) being wrought upon a weak grandson and his frivolous wife. The change came by violence, and there is no other way it could have happened as completely as it eventually did – change that grand never does – except by force.

But had the ability to exert that force, the ability to fight against the existing powers of a corrupt government been taken away from the citizens at that time, it would have faltered and the flames of equality, liberty and fraternity would have died out ere it ever began.

The abuse of government against citizens has a very long history in human affairs. It is commonly known in 3rd world countries today (in places like the former Iraq, Iran, Syria, China and some South American countries), yet it is little thought of or considered even possible here in the US. But it was not, nor do I beleive it will ever be so.

History does not have a single example of a country that has not fallen into the abuse of it’s citizens quickly, once it has secured the power to do so. And almost universally, it is done for the “good of the citizens”.

There are many who do not fear their government, no matter how much power they give to it. In truth, I think I fear them, more than government itself – for it is out of that group and their ranks, that came men like Robespierre, Carnot and ultimately Napoleon.See More

Dec 17, 2012 12:19am EST  --  Report as abuse
3494 wrote:

Why don’t these politicans be honest with the American public. AUTOMATIC weapons are ALREADY banned in this country to the extent that to possess one you must purchase a seperate license at a pricy amount of money and only a very few people have then. AUTOMATIC weapons are ASSAULT weapons used mainly by the military and anyone possessing one without the above mentioned license is ALREADY breaking the law! Feinstein and her ilk want to ban SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons and when they get their foot in the door with that ban they will not stop until they have any and all guns banned from this society. Look no further than the U K to see the effect of their banning any and all guns!!

They will NEVER be honest with the American public.

Dec 17, 2012 12:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
amwiser wrote:

According to the news, the Batman movie killer, James Holmes had taken the painkiller, “vicodin”…..this tells you all you need to know if you know anything about narcotics and addiction specialty. Narcotics are a CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOR A REASON. Jovan Belcher was ALSO addicted to them. Anyone who takes them regularly develops perception problems. They become irritated / agitated VERY easily, and for no reason due to the perception problem.

Too many people on the left are minimizing the effect of drugs and alcohol in each and every case that has occurred with a gun for a murder weapon. People do not kill every day and the thing that goes wrong always has to do with the mental state of the killer. For instance, NARCOTIC PAINKILLERS are a CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE FOR A REASON. Jovan Belcher was addicted. They make an addict’s perception VERY skewed and much more likely to become irritated or have a short wick if they are addicted….not to mention for people who can’t escape them except to commit suicide and want to take someone with them. The problem is NOT GUNS…it is DRUGS. NFL players who killed and committed suicide have BEEN ON DRUGS/ steroids….autistic kids who take psychotropic drugs have been killing left and right… Wake Up!!

Dec 17, 2012 12:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
1oldog wrote:

Murder is already illeagal
A background check would not have worked because the guns were not his
Law abiding citizens do not need new laws and criminals will not obey them
The worst crime of this sort was commited in May 18, 1927 when a crazy school board member dynamited a school in Bath Michigan kill 45 people, mostly children.
The gun control efforts by the Demoncrats is an effort to disarm the public at large so our facist government can continue to strip away our freedoms.
When I was a young man, mentally unstable people were secured in institutions for their protection and sometimes for ours.
Now they are on the streets where they are not safe and neither is the public.

Dec 17, 2012 12:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
DPW-comments wrote:

Why did Adam choose evil and not righteousness? Did his mother or father ever sow God’s love into his heart? If righteousness does not grow in the heart, Evil fills the void. Who sowed righteousness and faith into Adam’s heart? Which believers near Adam ever showed him God’s love? How many words of faith and love were left unsaid by Adam’s teachers? The State should not influence the church, but church must influence the State. Which believing neighbors ever spoke kindness to Adam? Love and righteousness is the answer to the massacres. The odd and separated are all around us, isolated by us, our love withheld. Evil acts have increased because the promotion of righteousness has decreased. Actions of faith by believers is the solution to this present darkness.

Dec 17, 2012 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeConnor wrote:

Sure, let’s all make ourselves completely defenseless unless we either A) get ourselves elected to a high office, or B) can afford to have our own security team. It’s supposed to a land where all are equal, so if we commoners should give them up, so should all of the privileged government types, every last one, including the people they’ve hired to carry them (you know that won’t happen).

Here’s a thought on controlling violence: clean up “entertainment”. The laughable irony of running a movie trailer of the latest carnage filled movie in during the school massacre news coverage. So, extreme violence is the norm for “entertainment” but we’re apalled and wonder when it happens in real life? Given the carnage filled entertainment today, you’d think people would love it when it leaps off the silver screen and into real life. Seriously, I cringe every time they come out with yet another movie filled with rude people demonstrating the lethal abilities of a firearm. You could speculate that the liberal controlled HollyWood has intentionally created this problem so that they can just turn around and go, “See! See!”. And oh by the way, check out our newest carnage filled flick.

In the 1960′s & 1970′s, movies were pretty tame on the violence compared to last twenty years. Gee, it’s pretty much the people of the last twenty years doing this stuff. It’s all they know. Combine the “entertainment” with the top video games which all seem to be quite violent with blood flying (literally), Is it any wonder that someone who is wrong in the head is capable of this kind of thing?

If you were to judge the USA by its movies and TV shows like you would when you’re trying to get familiar with another country, what conclusions would you come to. I’d come to the conclusion that it is a sick & twisted place and that the mass shooting should be expected. If you really think that the “entertainment” doesn’t have a strong effect, petition HollyWood to make movies using automobiles and common gasoline straight from the pump as the mass murder weapons. The entertainment value should be fantastic. (In fact, both things have been used to kill people on a mass scale in NYC, but it wasn’t publicized).

Dec 17, 2012 12:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
mitchie124 wrote:

U.N. gun grab and false flags events, that all it’s ever been about. It’s much easier to impose a global currency and economy on a disarmed populace. Sad but true.

Dec 17, 2012 12:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
rickbob wrote:

Gun control has FAILED every time it has been tried.

Dec 17, 2012 12:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
dperry316 wrote:

And when the guns are all confiscated (chuckle), the next mass murder in a school will be accomplished much more efficiently and instantaneously with a pipe bomb or other IED. It would be nothing new. Check out the Bath, Michigan school bombing that took the lives of 38 elementary school children in 1927.

Dec 17, 2012 12:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
SeanAlexander wrote:

I really honestly do not know who came up with the idea of gun free zones.
Seriously I have no idea.
However what is the current body count in these zones?
Because if words on paper had any real force behind them, then mass shootings would not happen.

Dec 17, 2012 12:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
wallylind wrote:

Banning weapons that fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger is fine with me. That is the definition of “Automatic Weapon”. Banning 30 round clips is fine too. going beyond that is too restrictive, and is just a democrat attempt to disarm conservatives, which this crazy was not. It would be far more effective to ban crazies. These people used to be in locked mental hospitals, just the same as 30 round clips used to be banned. Why aren’t they now? Nuts kill people. A nut just cut up 22 school children in China. Are you democrats going to ban knives too. Get it right!

Dec 17, 2012 12:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
wallace1303 wrote:

Those poor children were still where they fell in their school room when the liberals started screaming “more gun control.” They have no shame.

Dec 17, 2012 12:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
wallace1303 wrote:

Those poor children were still where they fell in their school room when the liberals started screaming “more gun control.” They have no shame.

Dec 17, 2012 12:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
evasionmedia wrote:

As I lose hope that the US has gone mad, it is good to see that people are defending the individual right to own firearms. Sandy Hook wasn’t a tragedy, it was a massacre. One or a few individuals are responsible. Thus, just like all rights, no American or individual in general should give up the right to self defense because of such an event. To hell with Rahm and his opportunistic approach to crises.

I didn’t harm anyone in 12/14/12 and I refuse to let my rights be infringed because of this. It is wrong.

What of the sick SOB that called in a threat to the memorial ceremony today? This is more evidence that our culture has been destroyed by progressive education and the absolute denial of the law of identity. The crime rate went through the roof in the US after the progressive counter cultural revolution of the 1960s. Ever since the left has been on a rampage to outlaw gun ownership. Own your ideology you altruistic monsters.

Dec 17, 2012 1:11am EST  --  Report as abuse

As horrific as this event was the killer tried to get a gun a few days before and was TURNED DOWN.
Point it simple. Whether it’s an axe, poison, a knife or a hammer….evil will do evil.
Our country began down this road in earnest in 1963 when we decided to remove God from school and allowed the slaughter of children pre-born.
Morals are gone. Nothing is absolute. Without hope in God and being taught that right is right and wrong is wrong you are witnessing the results.
For the record this is just the beginning. Obama the fraud’s pastor said one thing right but in the wrong context.
America’s chickens is a comin home to roost. We elected one that will see to that.

Dec 17, 2012 1:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
huntmyster wrote:

The liberal party that wants to take our 2nd Admendment rights away because of the unfortunate and sensless slaughter of 20 children by a madman, seem to have no problem with the 1 million murders of children they committed this year alone via their abortion factorys, including their darling Planned Parenthood. Does anyone believe that those aborted (murdered) children would not have grown up to be just as innocent and wonderful as the children we lost on Friday? This President has an opportunity to do something great…bolster police forces to cover all schools through additional taxation, etc. I as a conservative would go along with this. There are many alternatives to going after our 2nd Admendment. However, mark my word, their kneejerk reaction will be to go after the guns…that will fail!!! And, the slaughter will continue!

Dec 17, 2012 1:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
RichardFrede wrote:

So we have lunatics on the loose, and I’m expected to believe that I will be SAFER if my guns are taken away??

Dec 17, 2012 1:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
RealChange wrote:

Prior to September eleventh, pilots were allowed to carry firearms in the cockpit. In between there somewhere, that right was taken away. Now they can again. Coincidence…. Regardless, had they been allowed. It would have been a completely different story. Wouldn’t you agree? Lets relate this to the current incident. Can’t trust anyone whether it be a police officer or principal with a gun to protect you, but the option should at least be on the table for a competent teacher to carry. If we hadn’t given the federal government the right to control our education system, then it would be much easier. As there would at least be more private schools and more local decisions, which could be implemented easier. All it would take would be one teacher to stop a massacre and the tables would turn.

Oh and the argument that high powered rifles aren’t used for hunting deer is a shame. You get hungry enough and it comes down to starving, using an ax, or an AR to feed your family and see how fast you load the clip. Just saying…

Dec 17, 2012 1:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
sbob850 wrote:

The debate should be about “WHY THE COPS AND AUTHORITIES” WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE for protecting the school children aren’t on the spot. It’s their fault. There is no protection or real security at schools. I told all you “Brothers” who vote for Obama and the Democrats that they would come for your “Gun Rights” the first chance they get. You voted them in anyway. Well, get ready to fight to keep your constitutional right to self defense.

Dec 17, 2012 1:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
Bib_Bear wrote:

Well…I don’t vote Democrat. That exempts me!

The best thing these libs could do is form THEIR own country (New England and California come to mind). Then THEY could have all the gun control THEY want.

Keep legislating, I’m reloading.

Dec 17, 2012 1:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
Russd87 wrote:

I shot a deer with an “assault rifle” this year. I prefer the term, sporting rifle myself…

Dec 17, 2012 2:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Those poor children were still where they fell in their school room when the right-wing started screaming “It doesn’t matter. Do nothing. We don’t care if it happens again.” They have no shame.

Dec 17, 2012 2:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
MReed53 wrote:

The lefts’ attempt to use the Newtown shootings to pass new gun control laws was as predictable as it is misguided, useless and cynical.
There was nothing special about any of the weapons used by the CT shooter and the use of the term “assault rifle” is a complete misnomer. The M-16 is the military version of the AR-15 and it is an assault rifle; in the sense that it is fully automatic and is intended to be used by soldiers in battle. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16. It is a semiautomatic rifle no different in function from similar sporting rifles used regularly in this country since 1903. The .223 cartridge, which is the civilian version of the 5.56 military cartridge, is useful primarily as a target and varmint round for animals no larger than prairie dogs and other rodents, and is considered underpowered for such common game as white-tailed deer.
Gun control advocates are also being willfully dishonest when they call for a ban on guns that accept large capacity magazines (magazines being the proper term; not clips). If a rifle is built to accept a detachable magazine — and the first detachable clip magazine was invented in about 1885 — then it will accept any magazine regardless of capacity.
The guns used by the shooter are in common use all over this country as target and hunting rifles and no law can be written targeting these specific guns that will not also target other similar-functioning sporting guns. Gun control advocates are well aware of these facts.
CT and New Jersey, the states which figure into this latest shooting, already have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and they did exactly nothing to prevent this tragedy, any more than laws against possessing guns on school grounds or laws against murder slowed the shooter’s evil ambitions.
A few terrorists brought this country to its knees on 9-11 with nothing more than boxcutters. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people, including 19 children, using nothing more than a few bags of fertilizer. It is human nature to try to find easy solutions to complex problems and to bring order out of the chaos that is real life. The fact remains that evil and/or sick individuals sometimes commit evil and sick acts, and no law, no matter how well-intended, is going to dissuade them from action, because there is no perfect safety or security to be found.
Certainly, depriving law-abiding and responsible citizens of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to protect themselves does nothing but ensure more plentiful soft targets. We can beef up security in schools and we can staff more arm guards, and we can do a better job of addressing mental illness at an earlier stage. But singling out any inanimate object is nothing more than a fool’s errand and a purely ideological pursuit.

Dec 17, 2012 2:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
PatrickT wrote:

If politicians really want to make a difference they will do something about the psychiatric drugging of children. Virtually every one of these school shooters was either high on or going through withdrawal from antidepressants or other psychotropic drugs. And every one of those drugs has listed side effects of aggressive behavior and suicidal and homicidal ideation. Terrible incidents like the murders at Sandy Hook were unheard of before psychiatric drugs came on the scene. STOP DRUGGING OUR CHILDREN!

Dec 17, 2012 2:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
SouthOfJoe wrote:

How Naive, how simply naive to think new gun control will make a difference. How will the new proposed gun control stop criminals from buying black market weapons? Especially when the domestic market was fed a fresh supply of 2,000 weapons by ‘operation: fast and furious’, and the international market received a huge shipment from the U.S., when the weapons intended for the Free Syrian Army was given to a branch of Al Qaeda in Syria.
We need to control our administration’s gun dealings and policies before looking at the lowly homeowner.

Dec 17, 2012 2:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
cooperbry wrote:

The constitution is clear. People have the right to keep and bear arms. That’s it. It’s simple.

The constitution trumps any law. That’s the way it is. If the democrats want to amend the constitution, go for it. Two thirds of the house and senate or call a convention.

Laws don’t stop crazy people from doing crazy things, they just limit law abiding citizens or worse, turn law abiding citizens into criminals.

Dec 17, 2012 2:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
SgtSpanky wrote:

I wish the Democrats weren’t so eager to trample on our civil rights, and try to remove all need for personal responsibility in the country. No law would have prevented this sick individual from acting. And disarming the good guys is a big step backwards.

Dec 17, 2012 2:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
CA0646 wrote:

It would be natural for the President and others to use this tragedy to forward a cherished political agenda.

Police ALWAYS arrive too late to do anything substantive. But others may be first responders: teachers, administrators, parents, passersby, in short citizens – if they are empowered.
The concept of a “gun-free zone” is precisely why these horrific events happen in schools.

I am responsible for my safety and I will act to provide for the safety of others. As a Physician and as a Citizen, I will always be a first responder for emergencies, be they medical, environmental or pathological. For each emergency I will need the appropriate tool.

A comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such [gun control] laws.

Enforce the laws that exist today; that includes you Mr. Holder.

Dec 17, 2012 2:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
ruike wrote:

Proper Perspective: You care about the lives of children? Really? You don’t want to see kids murdered? Really? In Conneticut, 1 woman of every 4 who is carrying a baby chooses to hire a butcher and murder their own child. Is my language too strong? Should I use more loving words to describe the violent death of innocent children? Not children, you say? Which fairyland are you living in? Children grow in cabbage patches? Are delivered by storks? Is that what the evil liberals tell you? Honest women admit that they kill their children in order to make their own lives more comfortable. The kids killed by this madman lived long, healthy lives compared to those slaughtered by their own mothers. Let’s see Obama shed a tear for those kids.

Dec 17, 2012 3:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
bvdon wrote:

I always love when we legislate on emotion… trying to think what that got us… TARP… uh Patriot Act… yea those meshed well with our Constitution.

Dec 17, 2012 3:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
bvdon wrote:

The 2nd Amendment provides a way for the people to protect itself from a rogue government. I know there are great military weapons that exceed what we are allowed to own – but they have 1 million boots on the ground vs the people with guns (about 40%)… over 100 million.

Why did this kid do what he did? Guns have been around a long time… so what is new here? Why are we seeing a lot more of these shootings the past 20 years? Hmmm we feed kids medicine – feed them violence in video games – detach them from reality and social interactions with the internet and TV… and then our political and business leaders are corrupt and greedy… the world looks very ugly to these kids. Feed them enough poison and they will be poisoned. Simple.

Dec 17, 2012 3:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
phoenix8787 wrote:

2nd amendment, says that “…the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” banning guns = infringement, and those who seek to infringe our rights are guilty of treason as such. and if i have a gun with 100000000000 rounds of ammo, that is my right, as is your right to disagree. how bout this, i wont go after your right to disagree if you dont go after my rights to defend myself and my family, and to have some fun at the rifle range. savvy?

Dec 17, 2012 3:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
sawgnr69 wrote:

Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my guns have.

Dec 17, 2012 3:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

huntmyster wrote:
“There are many alternatives to going after our 2nd Admendment. However, mark my word, their kneejerk reaction will be to go after the guns…that will fail!!! And, the slaughter will continue!”

Yes. The slaughter will continue, because people like you ensure it will by refusing to admit there is a problem. People like you are, in fact, the problem.

As long as the right-wing keep putting their so-called right to play with guns ahead of the right to life, mass killings will continue. It is characteristic of the right the right that they don’t care about that. They only care about their obsolete, third-world, me-me-me ideology.

Dec 17, 2012 3:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
Right... wrote:

2010-2011: 22 children dead and 50 wounded in public schools across… China… by psychopaths with… knives.

The left is using this a political club, as usual.

The more you limit the ownership of guns the more vulnerable you become to them.

You cannot have both freedom and security, you have to choose one or the other.

Dec 17, 2012 3:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
DanInOregon wrote:

The Democrats have a short memory. The last time they pushed for gun control they lost Congress. Even Clinton said this. History repeats itself once again.

Dec 17, 2012 3:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

CA0646 wrote:
“It would be natural for the President and others to use this tragedy to forward a cherished political agenda.”

It would be natural to say “OMG! We mustn’t let anything like this happen again!”

As we can see in this thread, the gun-nuts first reaction is “OMG! We mustn’t let anybody control our use of guns! Never mind the dead kids… I want to play with guns…”

Dec 17, 2012 3:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
ruike wrote:

Right to life? If only America protected the right to life of every child.

Dec 17, 2012 3:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
Saristas wrote:

It’s 4chan fault. people there are mental, just look at the stuff posted, child pornography and other grotesque stuff is posted there freely “to scare off new users” but the community there is really messed up. Anyone who is trying to purchase a weapon and is a 4chan member should be flagged.

Dec 17, 2012 4:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
AlaGaryK wrote:

Lets eliminate the Automobile and stop drunk driving deaths and while we are at it ban spoons and forks to eliminate obesity. What’s the problem that Democrats have with the killing of children? Are the Democrats not in favor of Abortion on demand? What’s the difference in killing of the school children and the killing of unborn children other than their age? Well one difference is that the school children at least had a small chance to hide and run away where as those killed and murdered by abortion cannot run or hide and many are killed just because the pregnancy was a mistake or they weren’t wanted. It’s a method of birth control. So what is the difference as it’s a young innocent life taken when it shouldn’t have been.

And if the Democrats were so interested in prevention then they should look at the root causes rather than the instrument that is chosen for the act itself. Many of these shooters, it is revealed, were addicts of violent video games where they shoot anyone with no consequences and they get used to the blood and gore. What about the Hollywood movies that show such violence such as Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers that are seen and shown to many kids as young as those that were killed yet NOTHING IS SAID about the violent video games and the movies that are put out by many supporters of the Democratic party yet they quickly blame and go for the Second Amendment rights and want to disarm Americans.

There was a time back in the 60′s and before when guns were much easier to get and much less restrictions and laws governing guns yet with all this less regulation there wasn’t the violence that there is today … WHY? Could it be that in our schools we only teach evolution and do everything we can to eliminate God and morals or reading the Bible or Prayer because that’s something that is religious in nature and means that human life might be more than an accident that human life might be a special creation and a special thing. No we not teach that human life is nothing more than an accident of just the right combination of elements getting together and has no more significance than a roach bug on the floor so we act outraged when someone has no respect for human life and blame it on the guns. Truth is that we are seeing played out the merits of a changed society and the result of allowing such violent indoctrination of young minds by violent video games but it’s guns that are the fault according to the liberals. Are we also not telling people that human life and that of the Children isn’t of any significance either when we allow abortion on demand? At least the school children had a chance to run or try and hide but the youngest and most innocent of children are killed every day, many as a method of birth control, with abortion on demand. There are causes but most don’t care to find what they are.

Dec 17, 2012 4:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
ACRScout wrote:

On 9/11/01 3000 people were killed by men carrying box cutters riding on airliners, yet no one is calling for ban on box cutters or airliners. This call for gun control has nothing to do sith public safety, it is merely another Democrat, left wing, agenda item to disarm the general population based on political agendas and paranoia on the left.

Dec 17, 2012 4:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Right… wrote:
“2010-2011: 22 children dead and 50 wounded in public schools across… China… by psychopaths with… knives.”

Here come the right-wing lies…

From the BBC: “A man with a knife has wounded 22 children”
From the Daily Mail: “Twenty-two children were hurt by a knife-wielding man at a primary school in central China.”
From CBC: “A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China”

It took me about 30 seconds to do that fact check. How come I can do that and you can’t?

So, the reality – not the right-wing lies – is that a knife wielding maniac in China killed nobody, but a gun wielding maniac in the USA killed 28. Can you see the difference there, or not?

I am sure the parents of those dead kids would be a lot happier if their children had been wounded by a knife instead of killed by a gun.

Right… wrote:
“You cannot have both freedom and security, you have to choose one or the other.”

Right there is an encapsulation of why Republicans should never hold office again. They will take away your freedom and tell you it is for your own safety.

Have you ever heard of ‘Europe’. It has more freedom than the USA, and much lower crime. Reality proves that your Big Brother right-wing dream is wrong.

Dec 17, 2012 4:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
stenUSMC wrote:

Once again the politicians pander to the ignorant. People who don’t know anything about weapons are quick to jump on bans (which have absolutely no effect on tragedies like this) because of what they have been told or shown by the talking heads on the news or in movies or on TV. CT *already* had laws in place restricting types, magazine capacity, transporting, etc…Didn’t stop the atrocity from happening.

Think on it this way – if the murderer had plowed his car into the playground causing as much or more in the way of casualties, would we be having a discussion on car control, or would we be talking about the lack of funding or state of programs for helping those with mental issues?

Don’t blame an inanimate object. Let’s seek the source and attempt to fix it.

Dec 17, 2012 5:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ira_Zinman wrote:

“These are assault weapons. You don’t hunt deer with these things.”

Actually, people do. The .223 Remington cartridge is a popular round for game up to white tailed deer. And there is no such thing as an ‘assault rifle’–the AR-15 is a semi-auto rifle, with a black plastic pistol grip stock, rather than a traditional walnut one. Variants of this rifle are used for hunting, as well as predator control by ranchers and farmers–the ‘tactical’ stock and other features are mere cosmetic differences. This is NOT the full-auto rifles used by the military–which are already illegal in Connecticut–any more than an H3 Hummer is the same thing as an Army-spec Humvee. But politicians like Mr Malloy are not ones to let facts get in the way of politics.

Dec 17, 2012 5:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
florianr wrote:

Number of US abortions since Roe v Wade = 54,559,615. (our Auschwitz on
wheels), How many gun deaths?

Dec 17, 2012 5:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobfall wrote:

When the police and the military give up their arms, I will give up mine.

Dec 17, 2012 5:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
God4giveUS wrote:

The USA is a nation filled with immoral and Godless people. This will lead to more violence and tragedy in the future. A god-fearing people should:
1. Buy a gun.
2. Learn to shoot.
3. Carry it.

Since Jesus had no problem with Peter carrying a weapon, I will too.

Dec 17, 2012 6:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
acts2380 wrote:

Amazing how HOLLYWOOD and the VIDEO GAME industry got missed again by the Libs. If the LIBS were really serious about stopping death, why not focus on reducing ALCOHOL consumption? They want to stop FAT people from eating hamburgers and drinking soda, now they want law abiding citizens to ‘suck it up’ because of a horrible tragedy. The founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the constitution for a reason….the LIBS/DEMS are the reason.

Dec 17, 2012 6:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
Str8tTalkHawk wrote:

OBAMARXIST, the DemoMarxists, the Marxist mainlining media, and the Hollywood Hypocrite Marxists must now DEMAND A FEDERAL BAN ON GUN VIOLENCE IN HOLLYWOOD MOVIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dec 17, 2012 6:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
IAmDickNixon wrote:

Draw a line, Chuck Shumer? You’ve been drawing lines against the Second Amendment for 40 years. And every time you draw a line that doesn’t work, you push us back a little further and draw another line. You won’t be satisfied until we don’t have any more room to back up. Figures you and the rest of rhe libs would sieze on this terrible event to advance your crass, authoritarian agenda.

Dec 17, 2012 7:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
sgfan1212 wrote:

Automobiles kill thousands more people than guns do. First ban the automoobile for it obviously is much more deadly than guns. Guns protect us from a tyranical government that can, at will, take your home and everything you own. If politicians are serious about the killing of the innoscnet, ban all automobiles!

Dec 17, 2012 7:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

We can’t stop it. We must do what will REDUCE the killing.

Dec 17, 2012 7:10am EST  --  Report as abuse

The well worn comment by gun fanatics “Here we go again” now rings hollow. I own a hunting weapon and I am constitutionally conservative but there is no question that the availability of assault weapons and high volume magazines to even those with mental disabilities has got to end. There is no longer a good excuse for civilians to legally own weapons that can wreak havoc on innocent children within seconds. Obviously we cannot control who has or gets these weapons. Other weapons, handguns and hunting rifles with limited capacity should still be available but not high capacity assault weapons. Yes, here we go again, another unstable individual with easy access to an arsenal; are we nuts?

Dec 17, 2012 7:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
subdismantler wrote:

Qthers have said better, as to why Obama is not advocating the best course of action.

But I refer to the simplest qoute: “Innocent until proven guilty”.

Blaming me, or anyone or thing else, for this tragedy is a travesty.

Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

– Peter Venetoklis

When only cops have guns, it’s called a “police state”.

Love your country, but never trust its government.

– Robert A. Heinlein

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”

– Mahatma Gandhi

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

– John F. Kennedy

Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’

– Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.

Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. [...] the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

– Hubert H. Humphrey, 1960

No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.

– Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972

I don’t like the idea that the police department seems bent on keeping a pool of unarmed victims available for the predations of the criminal class.

– David Mohler, 1989, on being denied a carry permit in NYC

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.

– Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

Dec 17, 2012 7:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
TeaBagYou wrote:

More irrational and emotional policy making. That always ends well.

Dec 17, 2012 7:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAF_Vet wrote:

When it comes to gun control, as with most things in this country, you have two very adamant parties. The first, mostly progressives including most members of the media (Bob Shiefer, Soladad O’Brien, John Miller to name a few), say all guns should be taken from civilians and only the Government should have guns. On the other side you have conservatives who do not want anything changed. Until everyone acknowledges that the Second Amendment states clearly we have the right to bear arms, this conversation will go no where. If those who want to confiscate and remove weapons from civilians are serious, amend the Constitution. Until then, leave guns alone. Guns aren’t the problem, people using them are the problem.

Dec 17, 2012 7:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
subdismantler wrote:

The “do something” crowd is the worst kind of tyranny.

For it matters not, what the actual result is.
Just the fact that they did something is all that matters.

I will remind all those advocating for stricter gun laws.

Did additional restriction on Pseudoephedrine derease Meth Usage?
Decrease Meth Crime?
Decrease Meth deaths?

The answer to all three is no.

But the “do something” crowd prevailed and now law abiding citizens are tracked and monitored.

All for no real purpose, except control.

Dec 17, 2012 7:38am EST  --  Report as abuse
Al_Barrs wrote:

The only thing standing in the way of total enslavement of the American people right now is the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a large segment of the U.S. Military who are conservative soldiers and officers. If the people fall for the progressive’s propaganda that abolishing “assault weapons”, or any other personally owned firearms, they are falling for the loss of their personal independence, freedom and individual rights because the U.S. Constitution will have no means for the honest freedom loving people to remain free and independent. Within a few short years American will become a Democrat Communist nation under one party rule. The 2nd Amendment was NOT put in the Bill of Rights by our Founders for individuals to maintain the freedom to hunt or protect themselves and their property as progressive socialist continually claim…it was clearly put in as the second amendment to protect all the other amendments and the people against despotic tyrannical government which we are sinking rapidly into the quagmire of socialism and ultimately communist rule even as I write…

Dec 17, 2012 7:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
Yote777 wrote:

Anything to deflect away from balancing our budget and making hard decisions about entitlement cuts. Dems always go for low hanging fruit. They want to ban guns for us but will still occassionaly get busted at airports for carrying their own. Why don’t we talk about the drugs we start giving our young boys in elementary school to “help them focus”? Seems like there’s a correlation between the proliferation of ADHD drugging and terrible school shootings. Someone should do a study on that!

Dec 17, 2012 7:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
HeatherGirl wrote:

Isn’t it amazing that you actually do not need the media to know what will be in the news? A shooting occurs, did anyone need to read a newspaper to know democrats would be screaming for gun control before the bodies were even moved?

The shooter is identified as possibly autistic. So did anyone need to actually turn on the TV to know the autism people would be leaping into action?

The next few days are obvious also. Democrats are against guns, Democrats support the autism comminuty. So we will soon be told the shooter is now a “victim”. The only villian left, for a Democrat, will be “the gun”………

The shooter is a victim, the children are a victim, who else can they blame?

Maybe Bush. That is somthing else you will not have to pick up a newspaper or turn on a TV to know is coming. Some Democrat somewhere, will blame this on Bush.

I guarrantee it!

Dec 17, 2012 7:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
jncarlos007 wrote:

I still don’t understand why they are calling the weapons we are legally allowed to purchase in this country “assault” weapons?
Is it just because they look like something on a video game?
Cause it sure isn’t cause they WORK like an assault weapon.

And what are they expecting? Some body to jump up and yell, “He’s only got 8 shots in the magazine, let’s rush him.”

No. I didn’t think so. The arguments for gun control are ridiculous and don’t even address the real problem.

But don’t let the obama get on this band wagon or it will happen. no one in this country has been able to stop him from getting any and everything he has wanted so far.

Dec 17, 2012 7:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
jmoore wrote:

How many children children died in Chicago from ILLEGAL guns? A lot..we live on earth, there will always be tragedies. the Socialist Dems have long been trying to ban guns.. Well than, all bodyguards, no guns. Secret service, no guns..if Obama n Dems want to use this tragedy, than let them also live with no gun protection. And let us not forget the One Hundred Children killed by guns given to the drug cartel in Mexico by OBAMA… Were are thew tears for those children? Oh you didn’t hear about
that, hmmm, guess the MSM cares little for children, it is only the gun agenda they exploit

Dec 17, 2012 7:56am EST  --  Report as abuse
rolsch wrote:

Leave it to some sick, opportunistic politician to use yet another tragedy to get her name out there and attempt to water down the Constitution. The democrats will use the grief and agony of the families to get what they want. Then, the victims will be forgotten as the democrats march towards another cause.
We should ask why this young man was not getting the help he needed for his mental illness? Why was he not a patient at a facility that could keep an eye on him and assure that he was taking any prescribed medication for his condition?
It is time to re-examine the role that the ACLU has played in contributing to horrors such as this. The ACLU won several landmark court cases filed on behave of patients receiving treatment for mental illness “Against their wills” which resulted in the court ordered release from treatment of these patients.
Many of these patients wound up dying in the streets covered with filth. Others became violent once off their medications. Still, others that should have been placed into treatment were instead free to hallucinate and commit violent acts such as this massacre at Sandy Hook.
This could have been prevented if we as a society were permitted to seek treatment for the mentally ill. Since the ACLU forced patients out of treatment, and made it harder to get people into treatment, these events may continue to happen.

Dec 17, 2012 8:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
ScottGogo wrote:

Instead of hearing how we need to restrict the law abiding citizens access to protection all we hear from the left is how we need more gun control. More gun control = more govt. control and more gun control also = more criminals to run rampant unchecked. This tragedy in CT was not the result of guns… it was a mental health issue. Maybe we should instead look at the psychosomatic drugs we are pumping into our youth because parents don’t want to deal with their children they fail to raise correctly. Little Tommy has a lot of energy and wants to play and have fun and run and jump and Mommy has hangover and doesn’t want to deal with it so pump him full of Ritalin to “calm him down”. BS Personally I believe ADHD is a direct result of the lack of attention kids get from their parents these days.

Dec 17, 2012 8:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
2old2l8 wrote:

In all the reporting and hype about gun control being broadcast there is one word that I fail to hear, DETERRENCE! As long as there “gun free zones” like school, churches, malls, etc it is an open invitation to nutcases to have access to targets of opportunity with no fear of oppostion. Deterrence is what won the Cold War, Deterrence is what makes criminals stop and think before playing out their fantasy. It is not more gun control we need, its more arming of citizenry to protect themselves. One armed responsible adult could have prevented many of the deaths last Friday. More gun control is not the answer but will only increase the risk to innocent unprotected, unarmed public. We need oppositon to deter criminals, not to deter responsible law abiding citizens. An unarmed citizen is a victim. The left has the logic backwoods. The gun laws worked. He could not buy the gun he sought initially. Sociopaths will always find a way if there is no fear of retribution or opposition.

Dec 17, 2012 8:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
DetroitNative wrote:

These are the same naive power hungry idiots who thought that banning alcohol would work too.

Dec 17, 2012 8:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
marie86753 wrote:

I am sick and tired of being compared to Europeans, who live as slaves in socialistic ‘utopia’.

Dec 17, 2012 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
nkirv wrote:

The line is easy to draw: If it’s appropriate for self-defense or for sport, then it should be allowed. If it’s not appropriate for either of those purpose, it should be banned. These mass murderers are not using their assault weapons to rebel against government. They’re using them to slaughter kids in schools. Hello?

Dec 17, 2012 8:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
nkirv wrote:

Good people can have pistols and hunting rifles. Good people do not need or want assault weapons.

Dec 17, 2012 8:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
nkirv wrote:

ASSAULTS WEAPONS ARE NOT FOR SELF-DEFENSE. Get it?

Dec 17, 2012 8:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
nkirv wrote:

ASSAULTS WEAPONS ARE NOT FOR SELF-DEFENSE. Get it?

Dec 17, 2012 8:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
blancojoe wrote:

The lack of strong mental illness care and incarceration is what is long overdue in this country .. not more gun regulations. Crazy people are allowed to run amok in the populace without constraints until they blow people away.

Dec 17, 2012 8:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
jomondo44 wrote:

Can any of you stupid sheep even imagine the amount of blood that will spill if you ever try and take away our 2nd amendment rights? This tragedy will look pale in comparison..

The worst school massacre in the history of this nation was in 1926. 45 were killed my an ex school worker who use 3 bombs to perpetrate his evil..

Knee jerk mediocrity… I’m so sick of you all.

Dec 17, 2012 8:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
RangerDave wrote:

“You don’t hunt deer with these things.” Says Governor Malloy.

Yes, we do. I do, my brother and nephew do, my friends do.

Perhaps the Governor should not speak of things he knows nothing about.

Dec 17, 2012 8:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
JebS wrote:

The left wants the guns out of the hands of citizens because there is the wellspring of their ability to dominate the population. They chose not to protect the kids so they could get this result. Even one teacher with mace or a taser could have changed this.

Dec 17, 2012 9:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

ACRScout…actually box cutters and any other sharp object (knifes) ARE banned on all flights in the U.S.

Dec 17, 2012 9:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
WarriorClass wrote:

Democrats want to start civil war II.

Dec 17, 2012 9:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
JoeNobodyLa wrote:

Where was the change over Fast and Furious? Those were assault weapons that went into the hands of criminals “legally” through our current administration. How’d that work out?

Dec 17, 2012 9:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
RangerDave wrote:

Tell ya what, anti-gun libs: you give up your abortions, we’ll give up our guns. Fair enough?

That’s what I thought.

Dec 17, 2012 9:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
EWRossUS wrote:

There isn’t an American with a heart that isn’t sick over the Newton, Connecticut, shootings of all those innocent children and teachers; and there shouldn’t be a gun owner in America that’s afraid of a national conversation about mass shootings and how to prevent them. That conversation, however, must begin with everyone on the same page about guns. I scratch my head when I listen to people on television that call for more gun control because of their appalling lack of knowledge about guns. http://ewrossblog.com/2012/12/16/a-national-conversation-about-mass-shootings/

Dec 17, 2012 9:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@HeatherGirl

You are right. A shooting occurs, and did anyone need to read a newspaper to know that Republicans would be screaming that they don’t care, that they want to keep their silly guns no matter how many die, before the bodies were even moved?

Can you explain exactly why you prefer to do nothing, so that this will happen again? In what way, exactly, does your playing with guns become more important than children’s lives?

Dec 17, 2012 9:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
comradestalin wrote:

imagine if the pricipal had a firearm in her office for emergencies just like this,lots of innocent people are killed by alcohol and cars,lets ban those as well,then there is prescription painkillers,how about a ban there as well

Dec 17, 2012 9:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
stanger89 wrote:

I will give up my guns one bullet at a time.

Dec 17, 2012 9:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
Nolaphoto1 wrote:

I’d like to make two points…

1) Ever notice how these crazy senseless mass shootings always seem to happen in Democrat controlled states? Columbine school shooting: Colorado, “blue state;” Virginia Tech massacre: Virginia, “blue state;” Aurora theater shooting: Colorado, “blue state;” Sandy Hook Elementary shooting: Connecticut, “blue state.”

2) Ever notice how democrats always dismiss personal responsibility and ALWAYS blame the inanimate object used? Their response to murders in which a firearm was used ALWAYS blames the inanimate, lifeless firearm. What’s their fix? Ban firearms. Drunk Driving? Take away the car. Even when it comes to matters not resulting in death or injury they blame everything and anything but the person responsible. It’s always the fault of someone or something else. Single mom with 4 kids and on welfare? Blame the rich, because they are taking advantage of her. Lost your job? Oh its not your fault that you didn’t seek continuing education and you are now obsolete. It’s big businesses fault for not building in enough protections for you.

When are people going to realize that every aspect of the liberal-progressive agenda is what is the root cause of America’s downward spiral of morality?

Dec 17, 2012 9:18am EST  --  Report as abuse

The real issue is the failure of our mental health care system. Fixing that is hard. Passing meaningless laws is easy. They do it every day. Solve real problems… not so much.

Dec 17, 2012 9:22am EST  --  Report as abuse
passpass55 wrote:

The American colonists did not take the right to bear arms lightly. In fact, American colonists revoked the British crown’s right to dominate people, any people, and control them by disarming them. The British have a long history of disarming the opposition. The English disarmed the Scottish and subjugated them. Their tyranny over the oppressed is the very reason the American colonists decided they’d had enough and threw off the chains of oppression.

We will not give up our Second Amendment rights. It is a God-given right, not a right bestowed upon us by the Constitution. The Constitution merely embodied the natural rights given to us by God.

I have the right to be as armed, or better armed, than any potential home invader, attacker, or other form of criminal. A hand-gun is not a valid defense against a rifle in a firefight. Rifles have been, and will remain, in circulation. In the strictest countries in Europe, rifles abound. The Chinese and Eastern Europeans have been, and will continue, to make weapons such as AK-47s. These weapons will proliferate and move through porous borders and into the hands of criminals. Therefore, a so-called “assault weapons ban” is not a solution to a problem, but rather another tool criminals will use to prey on innocent people. Explain the situation that happened in Norway when people push for stricter gun laws.

Staff members at schools who have passed a law enforcement specific background check, maintain readiness by attending quarterly firearms training with a local law enforcement agency, and attend regular legal update classes, should be allowed to possess concealed weapons on their person in schools. It is reckless and, in fact, purposely negligent, to prevent school administrators from having the the means to defend themselves. The mass stabbing at a school in China is proof enough of that. Thus far, I’ve not heard calls to ban knives. Very interesting, right?

You people who are the first to call for a weapons ban, would be the first to give up in a life and death situation. You are cowards. You live in a mythical place where thinking happy thoughts about rainbows and unicorns makes nice things happen to you and others. Sorry, but in reality there are monsters out there. If you want to be unarmed in the face of that, so be it. I won’t be subjugated by your cowardice. Neither will the family I must protect.

Dec 17, 2012 9:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
mjs3350 wrote:

You’re right, not many people hunt deer with “assault rifles”. The standard AR-15 .223/5.56 round isn’t powerful enough to reliably hunt deer with. You risk injuring the animal and killing it slowly and wastefully. However, many people DO hunt smaller game with them. The ar-15 is a fantastic platform, and is easily customizable for any hunting/sporting/defensive need. It’s not a gun problem, it’s a mental health problem. Assault weapon bans only arbitrarily define what an assault weapon is, banning specific features like bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, pistol grips, things that have nothing to do with the weapons’ ability to harm.

Dec 17, 2012 9:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
godsmotive wrote:

I don’t hunt. Let’s get some things straight. The 2nd Amendment is not a “so called” right. It is a right. Rights aren’t granted by government. Self defense includes keeping the government on the straight and narrow not just keeping the thugs out of my house. If you want to start a real shooting war…come for the guns. There are lots of them. You don’t get to vote away my rights. Those aren’t options in the purview of voting.

Dec 17, 2012 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
sparky2324 wrote:

How about they deal with this fiscal cliff first, then the budget, then gun control.

Dec 17, 2012 9:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
Dr_Who wrote:

The truth is you can not stop these things from happening. Even in a restrictive society like China these attacks take place. China has been having issues with people attacking preschools for even longer than here.

Maybe valuing human life more by ending things like abortion and being more attentive to peoples mental health will help stop these events over time.

There was a time not too long ago when teens had guns they took to school so they could hunt before school and we didn’t have these issues! What has changed? SOCIETAL NORMS. Changing those is where a BIG part of the answer is.

Dec 17, 2012 9:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
riooso wrote:

Gun “control” worked. This guy was denied a gun when he tried to purchase one. The only other “control” that progressives want is “confiscation”. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York where guns are basically illegal to own. He calls for gun control as he moves his pistol packing bodyguards out of the way to get to the microphone. He’s rich, he can afford them. If he thinks gun control is the answer he wouldn’t need them….guns are highly regulated in NY.

Never mind that Obama cut security money for the schools, never mind that progressives have made it difficult for honest citizens to carry and protect themselves. Police arrive after the crime goes down and they “investigate”.

What sickens me is that the bodies have not even been moved and they are calling for more gun control. They are a slimy bunch for sure!

Dec 17, 2012 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
Howzah123 wrote:

Our Culture has been destroyed by Hollywood, Big Music, Violent Video Games, The MSM, and Academia ect.

We coddle mental illness instead of properly recognizing and treating it accordingly

Meanwhile the Gun Grabbing Collectivist Authoritarians want to take away our ability to defend ourselves from the monsters they’ve unleashed upon Society

The statistics don’t lie. Violent crime in DC has skyrocketed since they introduced strict gun control. In Australia home invasions, armed robberies and gun committed homicides have skyrocketed since they introduced hardcore Collectivist Authoritarian Gun Control. In VA however since conceal/carry laws were relaxed, these crime statistics have decreased significantly. The same statistics time and again are seen when gun laws are relaxed. Gun related crime decreases. Criminals don’t obey gun laws. Guns in the hands of responsible and moral people are not a threat. They are the last line of defense against tyranny.

Dec 17, 2012 10:02am EST  --  Report as abuse

This is the opportunity the government has been waiting for to disarm the American public. For those of you who think taking away guns will stop crazy psychotic people from going on violent crime sprees, you are sadly mistaken. This guy could have just driven his car through a crowds of children or used a machete instead of a gun (this has happened a several times in small villages in south America with a similar death toll) – You need to ask yourself, In whose best interest is it for the government to ban guns – yours or theirs?, When you hear someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night and you get put on hold after calling 911 You might reconsider.

Dec 17, 2012 10:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
4Freedom83 wrote:

This is without question a horrific tragedy. We can speculate and try to find a reason for why someone would commit such and act, yet, it’s difficult to find a sane answer for an act committed by an insane individual. My prayers go out to the families. Mr. President and Democrats in Congress, a statistic you should consider as you plan your attack on our Constitutional right to bear arms. More deaths are caused each year in the U.S. by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. 443,000 deaths per year in the U.S. from tobacco use. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Seems to me the Dem’s and the President’s focus is a bit off target.

Dec 17, 2012 10:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
wfd wrote:

So a shooter walks into a school with 2 x 9mm handguns and found in the trunk of his mother’s car that he stole is a Bushmaster. The logical conclusion is to ban all assault weapons because one was found in the trunk and (as of the last report I read) wasn’t actually used.

Makes perfect sense in a liberal world.

Dec 17, 2012 10:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
sharkbytes wrote:

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

I Thought you might appreciate this.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————- ———–
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

Dec 17, 2012 10:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
whtnationaist wrote:

A gun ban would leave women with no means to protect themselves. No wonder women are the fastest growing group of new gun owners. Including black women! Please sign this petition to preserve the 2nd Amendment and the means of self protection: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-ask-president-obama-support-law-abiding-gun-owners-time-tragedy/VBpRRMPR?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Dec 17, 2012 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
snewsom2997 wrote:

Molon Labe

Dec 17, 2012 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
snewsom2997 wrote:

Molon Labe

Dec 17, 2012 10:26am EST  --  Report as abuse

According to this story, gun control is a “long-ignored issue”… Ignored? Ignored by whom? In what universe? Anti-gunners have pushed through over 23,000 gun control laws the United States, most of which are unconstitutional in that they infringe on our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Attempting to disarm 85 million LEGAL gunowners in America will NEVER prevent criminals and psychotics from obtaining and using guns. Laws DO NOT STOP criminals…that’s why they’re criminals.

The problem in Newtown, CT was NOT firearms…it was a CRAZY person who everyone SUSPECTED was crazy for most of his life. You don’t fix this sort of problem by disarming the nation, you fix it by addressing the problem of mental illness. The United States alone has one of the worst systems for dealing with mental illness in the world, because we just hand them a bottle of pills and put them back on the street.

Dec 17, 2012 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
SunTzuu wrote:

I dare the government to come to my house and have me give up my arms. Feinstein has to realize that if she starts having people go door to door to get “banned weapons” that it may start a civil war. I strongly believe in my constitutional rights and especially the 2nd amendment. Most will say this amendment is for a well organized militia, well… every male over the age of 18 in this country is required to sign up for the selective service and be eligible for a draft. That my friends is your militia. I for one feel alot safer with my weapons in my hand so I can react to danger immediately rather than wait a half hour for a cop to show up. If we have to wait any time for law enforcement to show up to protect us, that will mean that we would all be just sheep to a criminal who could give a crap about gun laws. You might as well ban knives too, they are used in crimes as well. Not to mention that the events of 9/11 were accomplished by terrorists armed with box cutters. If a criminal has a Will, there is a WAY. The shootings in CT were tragic, and I truly believe that one teacher or principle with a concealed weapon would have saved many lives. Even if the shooter did not have access to guns he would have used something else, perhaps even deadlier such as an IED or bomb.

Dec 17, 2012 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
fgeric wrote:

The founders did not have deer hunting in mind when they wrote the second amendment; they had a tyrannical government in mind. A gun is neither good or bad, it is inanimate object. In the hands of an evil person it can be used to do evil. In the hands of a good person it is of no risk to anyone but an evil person bent on harming others.

Dec 17, 2012 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
FactCorrect wrote:

Leave it to politicians to be clueless as to facts. The .223 is a common caiber for deer hunting and many do use the Bushmaster for that very purpose. It would be great if politicians would just shut-up on the lecturing after tragedies considering that 95% of them don’t know what they are talking about

Dec 17, 2012 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
smokehouse wrote:

As a NRA patron member, I just mailed them a check for $250.00.

Dec 17, 2012 10:38am EST  --  Report as abuse

Can we please DEFINE what the Left means by “assault rifles”…?? I’ve seen at least three news stories in the last couple of days that defined “assault rifle” as an “automatic weapon”… Most anti-gunners, however, define “assault rifle” as ANYTHING that LOOKS threatening. I own tactical pump shotguns that ignorant anti-gunners have identified as “assault rifles”… Let’s tell the truth here, anti-gunners want to ban ALL firearms. They want to ban “assault rifles” and semi-auto hunting rifles and semi-auto handguns and semi-auto shotguns, as well as accessories that APPEAR threatening.

Of course, anti-gunners are TOO SPINELESS to come to our doors and disarm us. They’ll send police and federal agents who are armed with REAL, full-auto assault rifles.

Dec 17, 2012 10:44am EST  --  Report as abuse

I trust our Foundinng Fathers who at the time could not foresee weapons that fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but knew the people need access to weapons to form a well regulated militia. Yes, I trust the Founding Fathers any day of the week over this current crop of career polictical ninnies of nonsence! When has our military ever stood up to politicians antics? Guess we still need that militia attitude! Therw go the Dems again, want your money and guns! When they get that it will be dictatorship under Liberal rule! Talk about your Tryanny! Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolute! Our Founding Father knew that because THEY LIVED IT! I trust the wisdom of our Founding Fathers!

Dec 17, 2012 10:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

Idiots, Criminals don’t follow laws.

None of these shootings have taken place in an area where guns weren’t already banned.

All the while our wonderful government wants to preach to us about guns… but let me ask a question…

IN WHO’S HANDS have guns taken the most lives?
In the hands of Citizens or in the hands of Government?

I’d say that’s a real clear damn answer when you consider the incessant wars we are in.

That being said – statistically; who should be disarmed? This country would be a LOT better off, if Government was unarmed and the people were armed.

Dec 17, 2012 10:52am EST  --  Report as abuse

Once again, we are looking to blame an object for the actions of a person who…but all accounts, shouldn’t have had access to his Mother’s weapons. As many have said, “I am not ready to give up my right to defend myself”. But others will counter that legislate the guns away, no more problem!!! Take a look at the UK, they took away all of the guns! Look where it got them??!! Crime up 600% with firearms and the general public can’t do a thing about it. The police are not armed, so those in the UK just “grin and bear” it. In my opinion, blaming the gun is the easiest way out for politicians because political points can be scored and is easier to quantify to the voter. Taking effective action (before we get into a situation like the UK) is much harder. I dare the politicians to get into detail and work other solutions beside taking away weapons from law abiding citizens.

Dec 17, 2012 10:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
reuterssucks1 wrote:

There are three things in common with ALL of these shootings. First, a firearm was used. THere is no consist\nnet pattern regarding the type of weapon and that includes pistols as well as rifles.
Second, there ALL took place in a “gun free zone” where NO ONE would be carrying a personal defense weapon.
Lastly, they ALL involved insane people for whom there were enough warning signs to cover an interstate.
So, of course, the “progressives” focus on the one thing that will NOT solve the problem. The weapon. Take away gun free zones and remove the crazy people and this type of shooting will go away.

Dec 17, 2012 10:59am EST  --  Report as abuse
mark77 wrote:

It is asinine to go after guns and use this as a platform. Go after mental illness and correct diagnosis instead of believing that everyone is the same. (Liberals) Go after violent video games and movies that bring this type of behavior in front of our youth. While your at it have each and every child slaughter a cow to find out where all the mat they eat comes from to help stop the glamour associated with killing. This country needs a reality check and it isn’t about guns.

Dec 17, 2012 11:01am EST  --  Report as abuse
mark77 wrote:

It is asinine to go after guns and use this as a platform. Go after mental illness and correct diagnosis instead of believing that everyone is the same. (Liberals) Go after violent video games and movies that bring this type of behavior in front of our youth. While your at it have each and every child slaughter a cow to find out where all the meat they eat comes from to help stop the glamour associated with killing and death. This country needs a reality check and it isn’t about guns.

Dec 17, 2012 11:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
triumph900 wrote:

Don’t.

Dec 17, 2012 11:06am EST  --  Report as abuse

Would the new gun control laws apply to rich liberals? Having been a range safety officer at a public shooting range, I know that some of the most extensive arsenals belong to rich liberal Democrats.

Dec 17, 2012 11:08am EST  --  Report as abuse
worldsinmind wrote:

To stop people from becoming obese maybe we should take criminalize the possession of forks and spoons. Pause – reflect! The common thread in nearly all the recent shootings is a mentally troubled person who wasn’t being monitored tightly!!!! Fix the mental health system!

Dec 17, 2012 11:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
rbblum wrote:

To focus on firearms and not America’s mental health care system is no different than making the futile effort to save the fall of the Roman empire.

Dec 17, 2012 11:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
moosemiester wrote:

This is predictable as dawn.

And never does the lame stream media state the most relevant fact:

In America, the cities with the strongest gun control laws – have the highest rates of gun violence.

Repeating the same behavior – that doesn’t work – is the definition of INSANITY. GUN CONTROL LAWS DO NOT WORK.

And yet, the argument rages here, because this inconvenient truth – The Cities with the most restrictive gun control laws – have the higher rates of gun violence – is ignored by the press.

In the old days, omitting this important fact would make this article propaganda, something that our enemies engaged in.

Dec 17, 2012 11:21am EST  --  Report as abuse
emily3 wrote:

“It’s time for the president, I think, to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do – not go to Congress and say, ‘What do you guys want to do?” Does this scare anyone else?

Dec 17, 2012 11:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
garyinflorida wrote:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Dec 17, 2012 11:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
Pennybanks wrote:

Why not go after the violent video games or movies these warped individuals who are seemingly obsessed. Instead, we blame an inanimate object like the gun. Gun control is NOT the answer. It is not even part of the answer. Those who believe gun control is the solution are part of the problem. Liberals who never let a crisis or tragedy go to waste will try to push their liberal, progressive anti-gun agenda. The bill Feinstein will introduce is ONLY the beginning.

Dec 17, 2012 11:26am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

It seems as if the gun advocates here have two common reasons as to why they are against gun control….

1. ‘I am safer with my gun, if you take away my guns how can i protect myself’….Well in actuality you are more likely to die of gun violence if you own a gun or your household does. Here is the proof:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/

2. ‘Many people/children die in car accidents, so lets ban cars!’, this one is just laughable, cars were designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill things.

3. They also seem to want to bring up the crazy guy in China using a knife, but they fail to mention that 20+ kids where WOUNDED not killed. Bit harder to kill someone with a knife then a gun. This is actually a perfect argument FOR gun control.

The facts do not support any of their arguments.

Dec 17, 2012 11:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

Here is a sensible proposal for amending the Constitution….

It is FAR past the time to amend the 2nd amendment, here is the basis of my proposal, the goal is to preserve the spirit of the 2nd amendment , but update to modern weaponry….

1. All assault weapons(military style semi-auto/can be converted to automatic rifles), subject to VERY STRINGENT background checks, see point 4 for details.

2. Hand guns subject to same background checks as assault weapons, see point 4.

3. None or simple database check on purchase of shotgun or bolt action rifle.

4. Stringent background check consists of; minimum 6 month waiting period, a substantial fee that consists of a base fee + a percentage of the sale price, plus a visit by 2 FBI like (probably end up being ATF agents) that is very professional and assures that the person(and their home)buying the weapon is fit for ownership. This is the hardest part to get right because it has to be written in a way to preserve the persons rights, for example the agents do not have to come to the persons home unless their is some sort of reason and the applicant can refuse without further investigation at ANY time, but then they do not get their gun.

This will of course not be an instant ‘cure’, but a step in the right direction in my opinion. Also it shall preserve the right to own a weapon if you are a responsible gun owner.

Dec 17, 2012 11:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
DemSlow wrote:

Enacting more gun laws is a fools feel good errand.

The shooter broke existing laws, and those laws didn’t stop him. New laws, stricter laws, right violating laws will not stop criminals. Criminals don’t care about laws by their vary nature.

Banning so-called Assault Weapons would not have stopped the shooting, since the shooter didn’t use a so-called Assault Weapon.

Anti-gun laws only increase crime by guns, Chicago’s exceptionally high gun deaths being evidence.

2nd Amendment is not about hunting. The 2nd Amendment is about We the People being able to protect ourselves and others. Whether that is from criminals, rioters, militants, power hungry governments, or dictator wannabes.

Dec 17, 2012 11:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
Spoton wrote:

We glorify violence in this county. We need to clean up movies, & tv.
It would also help to get back to spiritual values of morality. We kicked God out of our schools and then think why does He allow such violence? We blame hurricane Sandy on global warming when God may be trying to wake us up. He has used natural means in the past to bring about reforms.

Dec 17, 2012 11:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
myother wrote:

If we are going to ban guns we should also ban how kids learn that guns can solve your problems. That is TV, movies, and video games.

Dec 17, 2012 12:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
RobNclt wrote:

If someone in the school had a gun this carnage could not have gone this far. Shooters usually go to places where they do not expect anyone else will have a gun and the Democrats are playing into their hands. Guns aren’t going away in this country, people are foolish to think they will. Gun control people live in a fantasy world, the problem is not guns and their availability, it’s a sick society made this way by left wing liberals who do not believe in punishing criminals. They think they should be rehabilitated. They do not believe in allowing people to fail and learn to deal with it, they think everybody has to be equal. Children are taught not to keep score, nobody loses and when someone grows up in that manner they can’t deal with problems and think the world should die because they are having them. How about returning to God and putting morals back into schools, movies, and video games. I think that would eventually go a long way toward cleaning up this mess.

Dec 17, 2012 12:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@RobNcit and others using the argument that this shooting occurred because it was in a ‘gun-free zone’. This shooter did not go to this school because it was in a gun-free zone, he went there because his mother was a substitute there and he wanted to kill all the kids his mother loved. He would have gone to this school and done the same thing even if it had armed security card, he just would have killed the guard first.

Dec 17, 2012 12:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
rbodell wrote:

And if just one person in that school was carrying a gun, this whole thread would be MOOT !!!

What I want to know is that when we take away the rite to carry arms, who is going to take the guns from the criminals? The gun control activists …… ???

Dec 17, 2012 1:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
aberdeenvet wrote:

People are the problem, not guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Dec 17, 2012 2:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse

One in ten mass-shootings are stopped by armed citizens.

Most mass-shooting occur where armed law-abiding citizens are prohibited.

Dec 17, 2012 2:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kjatexas wrote:

Dear Governor Malloy:
The Second Amendment is about militia weapons, that’s weapons suitable for war, not hunting. As such the military pattern, semi-automatic weapons, you have already banned in Connecticut, are exactly the weapons that Amendment protects, and that the Founders wanted in the hands of ordinary citizens.
I know it is not politically correct to expound on this subject, and they certainly do not teach it in schools anymore. But they did when I was in school. The Second Amendment, as the rest of our Constitution, is about checks and balances on the Federal Government. The Founders wanted an armed citizenry as a check and balance against an armed federal government. The reason being, they hoped that the sheer mass of an armed citizenry would deter the federal government from becoming oppressive and tyrannical. Should tyranny occur, those citizen arms were to be used to depose that government and reinstated the freedoms in our Constitution. I know, Governor, that is a very politically incorrect and radical concept. But then, our Founders were radicals and revolutionaries, weren’t they. Please also note the words “keep” and “bear” in the Second Amendment. They are such simple words, that I am sure an educated man such as yourself can understand them.
Instead of infringing further, on the gun rights of law abiding citizens, perhaps you should think about, or should have thought about armed security in your schools. Its not like these incidents haven’t happened in the past. A little common sense and preemptive action by Connecticut authorities, could have prevented this slaughter of innocents. But then, you ARE a Democrat. And as such you are about an agenda, and not commons sense and truth.
I find it appalling that I, a mere citizen, should have to give you, a governor, a civics lesson.

Sincerely
A mere American citizen

Dec 17, 2012 2:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBraasch wrote:

Well, seeing as how you can’t debate facts with a peanut brained lib, they are either too busy being brainwashed by their leaders or glomming onto dead children to advance their perverted political agenda, I post this video that pretty much puts everything into perspective…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77_BzTO7X0E

Dec 17, 2012 2:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PaulBraasch wrote:

Uh, prag, a bit of information for you…I am 46 years old and have owned firearms for 26 of those years, have quite the nice collection right now as a matter of fact. In those 26 years, I haven’t been killed once by my own guns or anyone else’s, at least I think I haven’t. I did however have a knife pulled on when I was younger…does that count.

You are talking about one case or two? I just gave you a case that disproves your point.

Dec 17, 2012 3:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ms.Morales wrote:

This isn’t going to happen Democrats until the government disarms those unlawful firearms possessors in inner cities i.e. D. C., Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. Does anyone actually think a law abiding citizen is going to allow someone to take their guns away while U.S. cities continue to go berserk? Where 99% of untraceable assault weapons can be found? Not with me, especially at this time.

Dec 17, 2012 3:14pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gunluvr wrote:

This is an old fight that’s gonna end badly for the Democrats if they try to push the issue like they did in 1994.

Dec 17, 2012 4:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@PaulBraasch, You are missing my point, when dealing with statistics you do not look at case by case, you look at the overall picture. And one can not deny the fact that gun ownership INCREASES your chances of injury due to guns. So therefore the argument that owning a gun protects one better then not is invalid.

Dec 17, 2012 4:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse

How odd. What the left doesn’t realize is that the Second Amendment is the only thing protecting the First Amendment.

Dec 17, 2012 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
batmanRox wrote:

Why do democrats exploit victims? … never mind, rhetorical question. Doctors kill more children than guns, cars, pools, skate boards and trampolines put together.

Dec 17, 2012 4:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
miss_msry wrote:

The Dems in Congress seem to forget that many of THEIR constituents are gun owners.

Dec 17, 2012 5:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
miss_msry wrote:

The Dems in Congress seem to forget that many of THEIR constituents are gun owners.

Dec 17, 2012 5:11pm EST  --  Report as abuse

If only the democrats would push for BUDGET control measures!

AS it stands, we have an out-of-control government which is seeking to expand its powers in all directions, is seemingly unconcerned about the economic catastrophe that is right around the corner, and now we have a renewed push to disarm its citizens. Alarm bells are ringing!

My fear of the government far exceeds my fear of some random criminal shooting me with an illegal weapon.

Dec 17, 2012 5:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
fromthecenter wrote:

Wow.. How many of these posters need a background check?

Dec 18, 2012 12:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“And one can not deny the fact that gun ownership INCREASES your chances of injury due to guns. So therefore the argument that owning a gun protects one better then not is invalid.”

That’s not true – does my chance of injury increase because I own a power saw in my basement?

I could *quickly* argue that that same power saw enables me to fix my house, thereby creating a safer environment in the end.

Also, I could argue that – if someone comes into your house, with the intent on raping your wife and daughter and kill everyone when done – that gun, will *dramatically* increase my chances of coming out of that safely.

A tool is no better than the person using it. A gun is 100% safe, *IF* you never point it at a person without need, even if it’s unloaded. Always point it down range or at the ground, pay 100% attention to it’s disposition and always check the chamber to see if it’s loaded.

With safe and responsible use – tools make us safer, not the other way around.

Dec 18, 2012 9:12am EST  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“Anyone can find a specific case or two where that one case my ‘prove’ your point.”

I can find *FIFTY* plus cases of whack jobs going into places where people are unarmed and shooting.

Schools, Churches, Businesses.

Name *ONE* incident at a gun and knife show, target range, or police convention….

You never hear about shootings in places where a large number of people are armed – unless it’s the occasional accidental one. And accidental gun deaths *pale* in comparison to accidental deaths on the road.

And IF something does, god forbid, happen to you at your home, you’ll call 9-11 – why? What’s the cop doing to do if he’s not armed properly to stop the perp? Chances are – they won’t get there in time anyway.

Everyone – honestly; should at the very least, have a taser at home, if not a gun.

Murder has been around a LOT longer then guns.
But my final point: In who’s hands have guns taken the most lives?

In the hands of law abiding citizens properly registered or in the hands of governments?

Sure, guns kill – but mostly when government is using them – right?

Dec 18, 2012 9:17am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.