Rallies across U.S. assail Obama's proposed gun curbs

Comments (113)
Globalman wrote:

Kenradke, the anti-second amendment advocates have turned this into,a political battle using the Newtown tragedy as a catalyst. You may want to check your facts. And no the NRA does not speak for all of us second amendment supporters.

Jan 19, 2013 8:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
crod526 wrote:

20000? That’s impressive, what percent of the US population is that?

Jan 19, 2013 8:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@kenrake11, Blame that on the Obama and Biden. They are responsible for choosing the poor timing you point out. Further, they are responsible for using a gut wrenching tragedy to push their politically motivated agenda and to extort illegal legislation from Congress.

Jan 19, 2013 8:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ShiroiKarasu wrote:

I support gun rights. I don’t have a problem with more effective background checks. BUT, everyone with any brain cells to rub together knows that the gun control lobby ultimately wants guns to completely go away. Gun advocates are not stupid, so they just oppose everything across the board knowing that it is indeed a slippery slope. But I wish that there were better background checks.

Speaking of selfishness, I think it’s disgusting that someone who chooses not to exercise a right thinks it’s OK to take that right away from others who choose to exercise it. It is actually the gun control lobby that is selfish. They talk about seizing the property of people who did nothing wrong and treating them like irresponsible fools at best and criminals at wort.

Ironically, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway for CN. This guy took his mom’s guns, killed her with them, and moved on to the school. No amount of legislation keeps people that insane at bay.

“Assault rifle” is an inaccurate term to describe what was used in the massacre. An assault rifle is an automatic weapon. The dude in Connecticut used a semi-automatic weapon that looks like the automatic version. Machine guns/autos are already illegal in the US.

Jan 19, 2013 9:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Randy549 wrote:

@McBob08, you’re wrong on so many fronts. Who are you to dictate what other law-abiding citizens “need”?

Go read more about the correct period-accurate interpretation of “well-regulated militia” in the second amendment. Hint: it does NOT mean regulated by government, or a “state” militia.

Jan 19, 2013 9:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bubba311 wrote:

Many millions of citizens are gun owners, many of those belong to the NRA, but very few of them fit the caricature so hysterically put forth by gun ownership opponents. Right or wrong, many law-abiding gun owners are convinced that President Obama aspires to confiscate their guns. If anything is to be achieved, gun control advocates must calm down, cease their histrionics, admit to some reasonable arguments from their opponents, and debate this complex issue calmly and in good faith.

Jan 19, 2013 10:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jose3 wrote:

If states pass laws to adhere to the Constitution, the “drug war exception” that Justice Scalia created will be nullified.

Jan 19, 2013 10:34pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jose3 wrote:

Any kind of gun control is infringement. If you want to interpret the Second Amendment you look at the Federalists Essays. It is what the Supreme Court did. Registering a gun informs criminals where to look to steal guns.

Jan 19, 2013 10:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fr0ntSight wrote:

What’s the deal with all the “gun nut” “anti gun nut” crap? It’s hard to have a serious conversation while people are just name calling. Come on! Grow up America.

Jan 19, 2013 10:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fr0ntSight wrote:

What’s the deal with all the “gun nut” “anti gun nut” crap? It’s hard to have a serious conversation while people are just name calling. Come on! Grow up America.

Jan 19, 2013 10:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AZWarrior wrote:

People in general are cowards. The majority will tade anything – even their very freedom for security from the dangers in life. All governments know this and all tyrants use this human fact to enslave the masses. However, there arises from time to time a small number of people who transcend the fear and say no, no I will no let you diminish me as a human being and I will overcome my fear of death to stand apposed. For example, I have always wanted to die of old age after a happy life. When I served in the military, I decided that my nation was worth the hardships and the risk of combat. I have not changed my mind. Please don’t panic and offer up to would be tyrants your willingness to trade your freedom for a false safety. You will only cause the deaths of those of us who will place our lives on the line for the Constitution and the people it protects. I don’t know how it would turn out, but rest assured that it will be a tragic waste of life. Look around you. Use your intelligence. Fix the real problem and don’t let evil men rob you of the liberty that men and women have fought for, bled for, and died for for more that 200 years. But, if it is necessary, at least I have lived and loved in a free nation – so if I must die for that nation, I can accept that.

Jan 19, 2013 10:55pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@McBob08, Absolute nonsense. You’ve “gone deep”? I agree, Off the deep-end and Deep into denial. Show me one SCOTUS ruling supporting that uneducated non-sense.

Here’s going deep. Read the Federalist Papers, Read the Anti-Federalist Papers, read the Bills of Rights’ Proposed at the preceding state conventions. At least read the SCOTUS rulings for goodness sake. The 2nd Amendment was intended to balance the threats of a standing Federal army to free states and free People. It re-affirms a “free State”s Power to have a militia, and guarantees “the Right of the People” to keep and bear weapons of war.

@Speaker2, look up the definition of the words “shall not be infringed”.

Jan 19, 2013 11:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
DrWhoWho wrote:

Define ‘arms.’

Jan 19, 2013 11:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Gigimoderate wrote:

AZ
I am a woman with courage And will always stand up to what I feel is right! My difference is, I don’t hate the government, for the most part I think they are good. Or try to anyhow! I love the FDA, EPA, ATF (if they confirm him), federal financial institute.

I describe myself as a fiscal conservative an a social liberal!

Jan 19, 2013 11:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ConradU812 wrote:

@McBob08 and flashrooster,

Both of you are the epitome of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and deliberate obtuseness. The resonating theme in all of your arguments is to belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

Grow up: this isn’t the third grade playground.

Jan 19, 2013 11:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gripp13ndk wrote:

The anti gun people are viscous they condemn the NRA and gun
gun owners out right ! Why , neither is evil or has an
evil agenda ! It makes no sense to vilify those of different
views. The facts speak for themselves guns don’t kill
people! People who are somehow mentally disturbed get there
hands on guns and kill people. This is a sad but true part of
our society.They do not consider gun laws or any other
laws in pursuit of there goals. There are no laws that
we as a society could enact to change this. The only way
we as a society could make such a change would be to
outlaw all guns and go door to door and confiscate all
firearms in the United States. That would be an impossible
task and would not be tolerated in the United States!

Jan 20, 2013 12:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

All you inanimate object-haters and gun-grabbers should really start thinking about moving to a country like the UK or Australia…because the 450+ million guns that are here in the hands of American citizens, right now, will NEVER just “go away” and vanish into thin air…Ever.

You all really need to kiss that pipe-dream goodbye.

Jan 20, 2013 12:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
lottatruth wrote:

gigimoderate: Aren’t you confused! Better check your history. MLK owned guns and applied for concealed carry permits! I guess that makes it a perfect day to fight for gun rights! This has nothing to do with color. You progressives have used the braod brush of racism too many times. Racism is dead in case you haven’t noticed we have people of color in some rather high places.

Jan 20, 2013 12:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

flashrooster wrote:

People want to be able to go to the mall or a skating rink without worrying if the person next to them is going to pull out a gun and shoot their children. Nor do most rational people want to have to be prepared to be in a shootout at any moment.
===============

Wow, hugely, super-bad argument. The massacre in CT was done with stolen weapons AND it happened in a gun-free school zone. Are you people seriously this mentally impaired?

Again, mass shooters DO NOT CARE about gun laws…and they only target GUN-FREE ZONES where they know they won’t face any resistance by someone who is armed.

It’s really unbelievable this has to be continually explained, over and over and over again to you people.

Jan 20, 2013 12:24am EST  --  Report as abuse
gripp13ndk wrote:

The anti gun folks have nothing to stand on when faced
with logic period ! It’s a sad state of affairs when
society is pushed by a group of people into being bad
citizens if they seem to be against protecting our
children !! Stand up for what is right America ! This
is our country !!

Jan 20, 2013 12:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

Speaker2 is another one living in fantasy-land. You need to go read the entire US Supreme Court Ruling: District of Columbia vs. Heller…again, read the ENTIRE ruling in detail. It defines exactly what the 2nd Amendment is, and is not.

Jan 20, 2013 1:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Grant_X wrote:

It is only a hypothesis that having more guns will reduce gun violence. This hypothesis has been shown in every possible way to be wrong.

The most glaring and obvious correlations is the strong positive correlation between us having more guns than ever right now and us having more gun murders and gun suicides each year than ever right now.

Funny, gun advocates point to a law Hitler enacted in 1938 restricting who could buy guns. But none of these gun advocates ever mention that this law actually was a reduction in red tape to get a gun, lowered the gun ownership age from 20-18 and made it easier for Hitler to arm his populace of anti-Semites he inspired. The law actually resulted in an INCREASE of gun ownership, and we all know how things turned out after that.

Of course, the law did restrict the ownership of guns to non-Jews…but nobody in this country is proposing omitting an entire race or religion from owning guns in this country (though I have heard in many right-wing, pro-gun circles how Muslims should not own guns).

Point is, given every measurement, as gun ownership increases, violence increases. Therefore, reducing the amount of guns should decrease violence.

We should try that.

Jan 20, 2013 1:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
cetj98168 wrote:

The right to bear arms is not unlimited. There have to be some limits. But those limits are not enough. The media has to stop publicizing the photos and names of mass shooters, since the next one is watching and wants the fame. Stricter laws regarding gun crimes need to be enacted and enforced. If a perpetrator with a gun faced life in prison or death, it could deter some criminals. At least get more of them off the streets. And gun violations, such as people who leave guns where children can get them, or felons caught in possession of a gun, need stronger punishments. There also needs to be a lot more done in the area of mental health services. It is criminal to turn mentally ill people who have a record of violence loose. I’m sure if there were more cooperative meetings instead of arguing, a lot more ideas could be put forth and a lot more done.

Jan 20, 2013 2:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
McBob08 wrote:

20,000 misinformed nuts verses the some 200 MILLION Americans that want sensible gun control; doesn’t even begin to compete. Frankly, if you think you need an assault rifle, you should either be in jail or an institute for the Criminally Insane. Shame on you sheep for ignoring the writing on the wall shown to us by the tragedy at Sandy Hook. The passion to fix America’s gun laws is genuine; and the majority of the nation support Obama’s actions entirely. When will you accept that you’re just deluded, paranoid, and gullible pawns of the Gun Lobby?

Jan 20, 2013 2:20am EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

Grant, you need to go do some more research. Q.) How many of the mass shootings in 2012 were committed in Gun-Free Zones? A.) All of them.
The bulk of all public gun violence/homicides occur in Gun-Free Zones where people who are licensed to conceal-carry a weapon…can not carry it.

Jan 20, 2013 2:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
CF137 wrote:

McBob is another one who never read the full details of District of Columbia vs. Heller, and he’s also the primary reason why the 450+ million guns that are in the hands of US citizens right now, will never, ever go away.

Jan 20, 2013 2:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

CF137 wrote:
“Wow, hugely, super-bad argument. The massacre in CT was done with stolen weapons AND it happened in a gun-free school zone. Are you people seriously this mentally impaired?”

Stolen from who? Oh yes – a so-called ‘responsible gun-owner’. That is exactly the problem. The average US gun=owner is not responsible, which makes it all too easy for criminals to obtain guns.

CF137 wrote:
“Again, mass shooters DO NOT CARE about gun laws…and they only target GUN-FREE ZONES where they know they won’t face any resistance by someone who is armed.”

There was an armed guard at Columbine. This proves that a) mass killers are not looking for ‘gun-free zones and b) armed guards don’t make an iota of difference. They are just one more target to kill.

Two more right-wing fantasies sunk.

A bit of rational thought (instead of parroting Fox News) says that schools, malls, and theatres are attractive because of a high concentration of people in an enclosed space.

Jan 20, 2013 3:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Indrahja wrote:

The probem is not a gun. The problem comes from society and individuals. No need to tight gun control – who would like to commit massacre – will do it. Better to concentrate and examine why people dare to commit shootings – reasons, thinking, planning.
Knife could be considered like a gun too – every household has plenty of them – but is not the reason to go out and stab people.
Dont be funny with your new laws, lol

Jan 20, 2013 3:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

@Speaker2, The definition of a Constitutional Republic, a “Bill of Rights”, and the 4rth grade phrase “Shall not be infringed” are beyond you? Get a dictionary.

Grant_X, You insinuate that an increase in personal weapons caused the holocaust. I do not think it mattered in the least that the majority suddenly had fresh new gun rights, the German military performed the slaughter for the state and the majority, a majority increasingly supporting Hitler and the Nazi Party.

The salient point is that personal arms and ammunition (especially ‘military’ types) were completely banned or strictly regulated for many years and then suddenly everyone was allowed further gun rights except the minority groups to be murdered, and worse, by the German Government military. You want to try that? As fun as it sounds, it is unconstitutional. Couldn’t we try the actual legal approach first, a Constitutional Amendment?

Jan 20, 2013 3:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
juxtapose wrote:

If strict gun legislation/bans works, why do police in the UK carry guns now. I have to say that all sides utilize any situations for their own gain, or in this case to push an agenda. I think that a comprehensive background check should help, and education about firearms listing the real world consequences. If some are criminals or unbalanced any law will not stop them, a drivers license doesn’t make a person a responsible driver , its the individual. Individuals who are responsible and secure their firearms and ammunition as most do. You cannot legislate your way to a utopia. Why do illegal gun owners get gift cards and folks who follow the laws get more red tape ?

Jan 20, 2013 3:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
chris87654 wrote:

crod526 wrote: “20000? That’s impressive, what percent of the US population is that?”

It’s about the same percentage as what showed up for Sarah Palin rallies…. These people are feeling increasingly isolated as their “pacifiers” don’t work anymore. All the hype and guns in the country didn’t stop people from re-electing Obama (and afterwards we learn Romney never wanted the job anyway…) – even after giving it their best shot by having Clint Eastwood yell at an empty chair.

Jan 20, 2013 3:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
chris87654 wrote:

juxtapose wrote: “If strict gun legislation/bans works, why do police in the UK carry guns now” yada, blah, etc…

Dear Chump,
No one is talking about a gun ban or unreasonable legislation. If you need an “assault weapon” or more than 10-rounds to hit a target/perp, you should give up your guns because you are a hazard to bystanders. And I thought the NRA was ALL FOR background checks, or did they turn against it now that Obama wants it?

Jan 20, 2013 3:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
FgGirl wrote:

WHAT AN UNDERSTATEMENT….THERE WERE THOUSANDS THAT SHOWED UP….I WAS AT AT STATE CAPITAL WHERE 3000 SHOWED UP! HAVE PHOTOS AND VIDEO TO PROVE IT! LOCAL MEDIA ALSO STATES 3000. MY BROTHER WAS AT ONE WITH EVEN MORE!

Jan 20, 2013 4:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
tl29szzz920 wrote:

The 2nd Amendment should come up for a Nationwide vote for referendum. Those that want it as is, and those that want it replaced with something designed for the 21st century and forward. If the majority want it changed, then thats the way it should be, and those that don’t like it can move to Somalia where their are lots of guns and people killing each other all the time.

Jan 20, 2013 4:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
AnandaMayi wrote:

You people are so primitive I wouldn’t take guns away from you, I would just put you down. Are you really so blind not to see what is going on? Adam Lanza’s body was discovered in the school with 2 handguns next to his body (that was later changed to 4), his assault rifle was recovered from the trunk of his car. Then who fired 233 rounds from assault rifle? 9/11 was orchestrated to scare you into giving away most of your human rights and civil liberties. School shooting was staged as an excuse to impose gun controls. All this while various government agencies are ordering 750 million hollow point bullets and another 750 million bullet of various type some of which can penentrate walls. Hollow point bullets are banned under Geneva convention, they cannot be used even during the state of war so what the hell are they getting ready for. Now is the time to arm, not the other way arond. This is not about gun control, this is about control. What will it take for you to wake up?!

http://www.examiner.com/article/feds-explanation-of-hollow-point-bullets-raises-more-questions

Jan 20, 2013 5:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

When you outlaw assault rifles..only criminals will have them. And there will be even more criminals that will provide them for the criminals that want them. Remember Prohibition? The golden years for the mafia in this country. If you think banning any kind of gun works..you are delusional. Look no further than Mexico. Strictest gun laws on the planet. The criminals there are better armed than their military. Thousands more innocent people die in Mexico than the U.S. every year. If I thought for 1 minute that a ban would stop the horrible tragedies I’d be first in line to vote for them. But they won’t.

Jan 20, 2013 5:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
misterjag wrote:

xyz2055,
Your assault rifle(s) isn’t being outlawed. You will be grandfathered. What’s proposed is prohibiting future manufacture of that weapon type.

Jan 20, 2013 7:41am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

juxtapose wrote:
“If strict gun legislation/bans works, why do police in the UK carry guns now.”

‘In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances.’ ~ Wikipedia

‘to most inhabitants of the UK – with the notable exception of Northern Ireland – it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns [...] “We are passionate that the British style of policing is routinely unarmed policing.” [...] When asked, police officers say overwhelmingly that they wish to remain unarmed.” ~ BBC

Why do you right-wingers just make stuff up?

Jan 20, 2013 7:58am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

xyz2055 wrote:
“If I thought for 1 minute that a ban would stop the horrible tragedies I’d be first in line to vote for them. But they won’t.”

If the problem is not guns, how do you explain the fact that the most heavily armed population also has the highest frequency of these horrible tragedies? The USA has more of these horrible tragedies than the rest of the world combined!

One thing is sure – as long as the “lets do nothing” lobby gets its way the horrible tragedies will never stop.

Think about that when the next horrible tragedy occurs – you are one of those that sat back, did nothing, and allowed it happen.

Jan 20, 2013 8:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

The question is often asked why supporters of gun rights don’t embrace some of the more rational, and seemingly benign, anti-gun proposals. The answer is, unfortunately, “If gun owners GIVE AN INCH, THE RABID ANTI-GUNNERS, WILL TRY TO TAKE A MILE!

It is exactly how the Boa Constrictor kills it’s prey. Every time the entrapped animal exhales, the Boa tightens his grip one tiny, seemingly benign, notch.

Jan 20, 2013 8:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
FWS wrote:

Paragraph 2:
He did not use. nor was he armed with an Assault Rifle.
The Assault Rifle was found in his trunk. He used 2 Hand Guns.
A little simple research would be nice.

Jan 20, 2013 8:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
Donnatello wrote:

I like to listen to the words of General Stanley A. McChrystal on the subject. He doesn’t seem to think that Americans need these types of assault weapons, and I think he should know what he is talking about.

Jan 20, 2013 10:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobdee wrote:

What throws the anti-2nd Amendment radical most is the pic in this article of the young couple supporting their/our Constitution. No longer is the image of some old guy in camo the face of the supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Many at the Boston rally were young folks, both male and female.

Jan 20, 2013 10:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

I was for the assault weapon ban (started under Reagan but that was fine because he was white, right Obama haters?), but then the media kept calling them “automatic weapons” (which were banned over 70 years ago and still are). A machine gun is an automatic weapon.
They know the difference, but they are deliberately lying to America. No media outlet lies unless they have an agenda or are told to do so.
The wealthy own the media and control it. So if the wealthy wanna be dictators are for the “curb on weapons” (more gun control) then I am now against it. The wealthy in America are only out for themselves, they treat working Americans like manure, and I do no trust any of them.
So now count me out on any changes to any gun laws.

Jan 20, 2013 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
americanguy wrote:

Since when is a politically appointed Army General an expert on what Americans need?
LOL

Jan 20, 2013 10:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
Kinnison wrote:

“More stringent background checks” will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Really Mr. President? You mean like the criminals your Justice Department ran thousands of guns—primarily “assault rifles”— to across the border into Mexico? Where are the DOJ and ATF memos, Mr. President, Attorney General Holder? When was the last time a U.S. Attorney Generel was held in contempt of Congress? (Never…) When will you start obeying U.S. law rather than ignoring it?

Jan 20, 2013 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
LazSwann wrote:

“Gun-control advocates say U.S. civilians have no justifiable need for assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, and they say more background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

Perhaps these so-called “Advocates” should read the second amendment and realize that the ability to own guns is to be able to oppose a tyrannical government that is unresponsive to the people that it governs.
It is not about having a gun to hunt with per say but to protect the republic from usurpers of power. AKA King George back then and Obama today.

Jan 20, 2013 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
bobdee wrote:

2Donnatello: If Gen McChrystal would first define specifically what he perceives as the “assault weapon” available to law-abiding citizens, that would help. There are definitions of what a “street legal vehicle” and what a “NASCAR race car” are, after all. Also, if the Gen would like to change the 2nd A, I am sure he is aware of the process. Don’t you? And, are you going to let the Constitution be altered by someone who “seems to think” about any right specifically noted in the Bill of rights?

Jan 20, 2013 10:36am EST  --  Report as abuse
Ken_S wrote:

Between 1998 and 2012, fourteen school shootings occurred, taking the lives of 58 and wounding 109. All fourteen of those shooters were taking or withdrawing from a psychiatric drug and seven of them had been under the “care” of a psychiatrist or psychologist.

There is no question that psychiatric drugs cause violence as 22 international drug regulatory warnings have been issued on psychiatric drugs citing effects such as mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation. Dozens of high profile shootings/killings have been tied to psychiatric drug use, yet there has been no federal investigation into the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

We lived this and attended group sessions with these kids and the kid taking the drug was angry and very edgy manic. Off the drugs a completely different kid. Calm and focused. It takes years of counceling to bring them back to a reality they can deal with. I am not mitigating what happened in CT. It was a terrible heinious crime and a blight on the nation. Taking guns away from people will NEVER cure what ails this problem. Getting the anger out can.

Jan 20, 2013 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
kestrel27 wrote:

You ever notice that the Liberals refer to those that believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fireqrms owners. the NRA. and just about anyone they disagree with as “Extremist”? They slip that word in constantly to describe Conservatives, Tea Party advocates, Christians and they do it so often, that most people, but especially the stupid, low information voters don’t even notice. It’s interesting to note that the Progressives, Democrats, and their follwers are never called “Extreme”, no they are just average, reasonable, people. It’s only those that don’t agree with their idiotic diatribes, that are extreme. Watch any show or read anything put out by Liberals and you’ll see what I mean.

Jan 20, 2013 10:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
emjones wrote:

Obama, Biden, Schumur, Feinstein, Bloomberg, et alia have have “ratched up” the concerns of millions of Americans by smearing the motives of Americans who want to maintain the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rather than push for civil debate they and the their elitist liberal lap dogs have attacked and besmirched (by design) the lawful behavior of Americans.

Jan 20, 2013 10:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
cutter77 wrote:

Even while hiding behind CHILDREN Obama can’t escape the HISTORY of Gun Control in the 20th Century:
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964-1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
The number of people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: ——– 56 million ———
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and gun-control laws adversely affect only law-abiding citizens. With guns, we are citizens, without them, we are subjects.
You’re not imagining it. History shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people. What we do not learn from history, WE WILL REPEAT

Jan 20, 2013 10:54am EST  --  Report as abuse
davidkachel wrote:

You communists on the left want to prevent gun violence? (Yes I know you really just want to disarm us so we can’t defend ourselves against you, but let’s pretend.)
Stop trying to take our freedom and I guarantee you, it will prevent a whole lot of impending violence! All aimed at YOU!

Jan 20, 2013 11:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
CashCrop101 wrote:

Nice to see Americans standing up for their rights. =)

Jan 20, 2013 11:07am EST  --  Report as abuse

Globalman… Actually if you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment of our founders, then the NRA does speak for you. If not, then just maybe you don’t support the 2nd Amendment.

Of all the amendments made to The US Constitution in the Bill of Rights, there is a reason the 2nd Amendment and its relation to self protection (from the government) came second and not 10th or 20th.

The NRA is a group of people most of which are proud, patriots fighting to maintain the rights the founders wrote of. I am the NRA.

Jan 20, 2013 11:07am EST  --  Report as abuse
TeddyMI wrote:

Let’s get one significant fact straight. “Assault weapon” was not used in this massacre. Killer used it to murder his mother but didn’t take it to school. It was found in his car. He killed all these little children with two pistols. So how all these new laws or new proposed laws would stop this massacre?

Jan 20, 2013 11:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
moosemiester wrote:

The cold, hard reality is that the measures being proposed have been tried in the past, and didn’t work.

So why the big production this time? Find out. Follow the Money Trail dot com… Or do your own research.

Jan 20, 2013 11:12am EST  --  Report as abuse

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the fact that The Second Amendment is an *individual* right (not some sort of “collective” right that gun banners argued).

U.S. v Miller (1939) said that the Second Amendment applies to military weapons, like assault rifles.

It is clear that individuals have the right to keep and bear assault rifles.

If you do not like that THEN CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION WITH AN AMENDMENT. Simply ignoring the Constitution, or “interpreting” it to mean something else, is not following the rules.

No form of government will work if you do not follow the rules.

Jan 20, 2013 11:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
Nomorehyphens wrote:

If gun bans worked, then wouldn’t Chicago be the safest place in the US since it has had a virtual ban on weapons for decades?

The truth is that Chicago had more murders last year than we had soldiers killed in Afghanistan!!!!! So let me put this another way. If you were on the front lines of the war in Afghanistan, you were LESS likely to be killed than you are walking to the Starbucks on the corner in Chicago. Pathetic.

Before you start squealing about how because there are guns in neighboring states, people still get them illegally so Chicago’s ban couldn’t work….blah, blah, blah You are right, thank you for pointing out that gun bans can’t work because criminals will still get them illegally so that being the case, what the hell are you trying to do here with your gun bans?

What is your end game. Tell us now and let’s get to it. We know the answer and it’s complete and total confiscation and that is NEVER, EVER going to happen so give up and let’s look at the real problems in America. The break up of the family, unwed single mothers raising children with no role models, gratuitous violence on TV, movies and video games and a complete lack of morality and a moral compass in this country. Address those and you will go a long way to fixing the problem.

Jan 20, 2013 11:14am EST  --  Report as abuse

And… this is just the start. Mind you this only took 2 days to get this big of a crowd across the country. Many were not comfortable with coming out until they saw this was a peaceful sane rally for gun rights.

Expect more next time, and next time. We will not be disarmed just because we have a Democrat party who’s motto is “Never let a crisis go to waste”

Jan 20, 2013 11:36am EST  --  Report as abuse

Yup, the anti gun people better wake up, there is a whole new breed of gun owner out there, young, in their 20s and early 30s and they will not be disarmed. This is not 1994 and we will not tolerate bans when we did nothing wrong.

Jan 20, 2013 11:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
I.M.Curious wrote:

Nice article but as with other good meaning articles the estimates of demonstrators were a little LOW….I was at the rally in Columbus, Ohio and there were more like 2000 American supporters, as opposed to, the 700-800 described in the Columbus Dispatch….no problems occured and many of us were openingly packing heat and the police had no problem with it….in fact the state capitols were probably the safest places to be in the entire country on Saturday!!!!!!!!!

GO AMERICA!

Jan 20, 2013 11:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
Sue01 wrote:

Why don’t we focus on the real problem in America? There have been, an average of four (4), of these crimes per year since l966-2010….but since 2010 the number has increased slightly. However, it is not the guns…it is the mental stability, ability or diseased functions of the brain brought about by parents, injury, schools, community, country and/or culture. Guns have become more violent vicious and more numerous…yet, the average has been steady u ntil post 2010. Cars, buses and trains have killed thousands. Alcohol and drugs thousands more. And, certainly since l966 wars have too. But the one thing that remains constant is our inability to deal with what causes the brain to break. What is the physical, emotional or condition of the psyche that leads a young person or older to do this? What have we given our boys since about l960 in “drug” therapy that might also add to this? But, no! The progressives aka democrats nee marxists want citizens to have no guns…so as Rahm Emanuel himself said: don’t let a good crisis go to waste…” even better when it involves little kids. And Obama appoints the one real dog in the group that is so sullied by ideology and hatemongering, that there will be a hard push to accomplish what they tried for decades. Not to mention that the progressive media will be led and prodded to do what they are told….watch Diane Sawyer to get a drift. So….let us not
look into the “why” of the thing…let us leave the rest of the young
children and adults to harbor those types among them…let us pretend
that when we have gotten rid of some or maybe all firearms there will be no more mass killings….until the next one with bombs, knives, illegal chemicals, cars, trucks or illegal guns! Who are we and they kidding?

Jan 20, 2013 11:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
delpapa wrote:

There was no assault rifle in the school.

Jan 20, 2013 11:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
drockEST1983 wrote:

prescription drugs kill over 100,000 people each year in the USA and alcohol kills 1.8 million people per year worldwide. umm, yeah, the USA tried a prohibition on alcohol…I don’t know, maybe some of you know how that worked out? gun control isn’t about saving lives, it’s about controlling lives. Oh and here’s some food for thought: people in the UK willingly turned in their guns after a school shooting in Scotland where 16 kids were shot after morning assembly, in 1996. Ask yourself, do you think that is a coincidence?

Jan 20, 2013 12:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Thron wrote:

According to the following quotes, the Founding Fathers had no intentions a president who destroys individual freedom for central government control could alter the core meaning of the Second Amendment:

“Those who hammer their guns into ploughs will plough for those who do not.” Thomas Jefferson

“The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” Noah Webster

Jan 20, 2013 1:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MelAnosis wrote:

Yes, this is a visceral issue with Americans. They realize the police can’t protect them as well as they can protect themselves. They also know history…Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others disarmed their citizens to achieve their nefarious ends. Many Democrats are gun-owners. It is mainly the northeast urbanites who push gun-control. It seems they don’t want diversity…they want everyone disarmed. Perhaps a trip to a good gun range and a fun afternoon of target practice with good middle class ethical people would change their minds.

Jan 20, 2013 1:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
emjones wrote:

The Second Amendment prohibits politicians from infringing on a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms…not for hunting, but for protection from tyrants who want to oppress.
infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
Synonyms
violate – transgress – break – contravene – trespass
Leftists: Admit it, be honest for once,you loath the second amendment!

Jan 20, 2013 1:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
emjones wrote:

The Second Amendment prohibits politicians from infringing on a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms…not for hunting, but for protection from tyrants who want to oppress.
infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy”.
Synonyms
violate – transgress – break – contravene – trespass
Leftists: Admit it, be honest for once,you loath the second amendment!

Jan 20, 2013 1:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ECOPOLITICS wrote:

Perhaps his lasting presidential legacy, Obama has championed two founding tenants of liberal-progressive government, 1) tax, regulate and spend to grow the size and power of central government, and 2) expand a debilitating, partisan voter dependency upon government with bribes of government benefits.

Here are some of the Obama Administration’s new, excessive and costly regulations:
• While Obama has deferred most of his environmental agenda items until his “more flexible” second term, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had the costliest regulations in 2012 amounting to $172 billion;
• The widely unpopular Affordable Care Act (a.k.a., “Obama Care”) legislation continues to burden American business with an additional 44 million paperwork hours (over 21 thousand man-years labor) needed from the Dept. of Health and Human Services, the Center for Medicare Services and the Food and Drug Administration;
• The controversial Dodd-Frank financial reforms legislation requires 32.7 million new paperwork hours (over 15 thousand man-years labor) from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission;
• Obama has enacted regulations amounting to over $34.6 billion in new regulatory costs to our 30 largest corporations;
• The most costly of all new regulations fall under the requirements for energy efficiency and fuel conservation totaling $311 billion.
ECOPOLITICS

Jan 20, 2013 3:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
CmdrBuzz wrote:

Globalman wrote:
“Kenradke, the anti-second amendment advocates have turned this into,a political battle using the Newtown tragedy as a catalyst. You may want to check your facts. And no the NRA does not speak for all of us second amendment supporters.”

And the little dictator Obama and his advocates have turned this into a political battle useing Newtown tragedy and children as a catalyst in an attempt to disarm the American citizens. You may want to check YOUR facts.

Jan 20, 2013 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse

We are talking about an *unalienable right* here. Juxtapose the First Amendment and the Second Amendment and see how you would feel if:

We had “reasonable book control” with “background checks” before and books could be bought. No one “needs” powerful books with dangerous ideas. There need to be registration lists so that the police know where your books are.

How about banning certain religions if it would make society “safer”?

This whole argument is not about “safety”; it is about Freedom. So quit trying to say this restriction or that regulation would make society safer…it is irrelevant.

Jan 20, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse

We are talking about an *unalienable right* here. Juxtapose the First Amendment and the Second Amendment and see how you would feel if:

We had “reasonable book control” with “background checks” before and books could be bought. No one “needs” powerful books with dangerous ideas. There need to be registration lists so that the police know where your books are.

How about banning certain religions if it would make society “safer”?

This whole argument is not about “safety”; it is about Freedom. So quit trying to say this restriction or that regulation would make society safer…it is irrelevant.

Jan 20, 2013 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Jhawke wrote:

Yeah BRING IT ON liberals.

Jan 20, 2013 4:10pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Heretic2011 wrote:

CaptainObvious1
Yea, we don’t care if you go to church, you just need a permit. Fingerprints and a photo. Oh, and your medical records.

Jan 20, 2013 4:48pm EST  --  Report as abuse
norinos wrote:

Until the anti-2nd amendment crowd can assure me that the government has zero weapons, we, the people need access to the same weaponry. The largest mass murder shooting is still WACO, and the GOVERNMENT committed that slaughter.

Jan 20, 2013 5:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ChuckShire wrote:

“Gun-control extremists say U.S. civilians have no justifiable need for assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, and they say more background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”
Tell that to the family who’s house is surrounded by the gang of the low life who was bumming a cigarette from the home owner who told him to “Get a job and work for a living” and it ticked him off because it made him feel bad.
With that we have had this instant check for over 10 years and it did not prevent the recent massacre, what makes them think it will with additional bans or laws? Or is it all about control?

Jan 20, 2013 7:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Mcbob08

“@Randy549: I have gone deep into the period-intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and I recommend that you do so aw well with something that WASN’T released by the NRA. Gun owners are charged to be part of a government-regulated state militia as part of their responsibilities as gun owners. That condition is ABSOLUTE; it was essential in the fight against England that all the America guns were government controlled, and all pointed at the English.

The NRA has done an admirable job of erasing that requirement from people’s minds, but those responsibilities still stand. The hard facts of the matter is that if you are a gun owner, and are not a registered member of a government-regulated state militia, you are an ILLEGAL gun owner.

Talk about gun laws not being enforced. If the existing gun laws were really enforced, a lot of so-called gun owners would be in jail right now for illegally shirking their Militia duties.”

You do know the bill of rights was written in 1789 right? A full 13 years after we declared our independence. A full 6 years after the Revolutionary war was completely ended, and a full 8 years after we had effectively driven the British out of our country. So please tell me how you came to the conclusion that it was written to establish a militia against an enemy that we had already beaten?

Read all of the Bill of Rights. It is directed at protecting the peope from an over reaching Federal government.

Prior to listing his proposals for a number of constitutional amendments, Madison acknowledged a major reason for some of the discontent with the Constitution as written:

“I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.”

And you should note that the right to bear arms is the only ammendment that clearly states this right shall not be infringed. You are either of a low education level/critical thinking level, or you are a liar when you state “I have gone deep into the period-intended meaning of the Second Amendment”.

Jan 20, 2013 7:37pm EST  --  Report as abuse
politiconned wrote:

Look at that crowd. People are getting tired of carrying others that are too lazy to support themselves which is why I tell my children was is coming to America.

Jan 20, 2013 7:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
nolemming wrote:

quick THIN OUT THEIR NUMBERS!

Jan 20, 2013 8:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
grii wrote:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Read carefully. What part of “shall NOT be infringed” do the majority of democrats not understand? The second amendment to the constitution is the second for a valid reason.

Instead of bloviating emotional knee-jerk reactions which frankly constitute many of the comments on this article, those who prefer gun control legislation would be wise to first arm themselves with historical facts and context. Their argument is irrational, is out of sync with the values which founded this country, and furthermore, contrasts with the 2008 supreme court decision which reaffirmed the right to bear arms (as if the second amendment needed yet another trial?).

Insanity and poor quality of character lust to kill, not guns. There are far more dangerous objects which should be banned using the logic of the democrats. Cars comes to mind. Knives, hammers, power tools, buses, and more, even. I say dangerous logic should be banned long before guns… ban the liberals!

Jan 20, 2013 8:43pm EST  --  Report as abuse
msb180 wrote:

To those who truly believe any of these proposed guns laws will reduce violent crime in the US please reference a single reputable study that supports the premise that gun control and confiscation results in reduced violent crime? When you reference the FBI statistics and multiple CDC studies (as well as a number of international studies)- the facts simply do not support it. So, if this is the case – why the push to disarm the general public?

Jan 20, 2013 9:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
royevatom wrote:

Bias and bigotry will get you no where.
The exploitation of the 2nd Amendment rights will on the other hand get you well armed and ready to kill, maim and otherwise destroy the husbands, wives, children, friends, sons, daughters, dogs cats, fishes, deer, horse, cow, duck, and highway sign. Not to mention automobile, truck, fence post, tin can, old shoe, refrigerator and just about any thing that you can take aim at on the planet.
Only God knows how much of a patriot you are in your own personal Amusement Park.
My country does not belong to you.

Jan 20, 2013 9:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
norinos wrote:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

royevatom, obviously not…

Jan 20, 2013 9:33pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ncpg wrote:

Obama thinks the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant.

Jan 20, 2013 9:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Elz wrote:

Now that two state’s passed pro-marijuana laws, federal gun control mean nothing as the Obama administration has already set the precedence for states ignoring federal law.

Jan 20, 2013 10:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
arnoldripkin wrote:

Anyone who thinks that banning ANY type of gun should think about how well the war on drugs is going. Limited supply will only increase prices. And drugs are consumed, while guns and ammo will last many years. Please understand that the right to bear arms originated with the 1689 English bill of rights not with southern slave owners according to the brilliant historian Danny Glover. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court remarked that the English right (to bear) at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was “clearly an individual right”, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia” and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.

Jan 20, 2013 10:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
arnoldripkin wrote:

tl29szzz920 wrote:
The 2nd Amendment should come up for a Nationwide vote for referendum. Those that want it as is, and those that want it replaced with something designed for the 21st century and forward. If the majority want it changed, then thats the way it should be, and those that don’t like it can move to Somalia where their are lots of guns and people killing each other all the time.****Sorry pal but that is NOT how we amend the Constitution!

Jan 20, 2013 10:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
arnoldripkin wrote:

tl29szzz920 wrote:
The 2nd Amendment should come up for a Nationwide vote for referendum. Those that want it as is, and those that want it replaced with something designed for the 21st century and forward. If the majority want it changed, then thats the way it should be, and those that don’t like it can move to Somalia where their are lots of guns and people killing each other all the time.****Sorry pal but that is NOT how we amend the Constitution!

Jan 20, 2013 10:58pm EST  --  Report as abuse
gotham1883 wrote:

Any who think that battles cannot be won with small arms should check out the siege of Stalingrad. The German tanks ran out of gas. And all those vaunted troops that no one could defeat became sitting ducks for Russian snipers. Tens of thousands of German soldiers were shot one at a time. It totally dispirited the German army and ultimately lead to its surrender and defeat.

Jan 20, 2013 11:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
smallgovt wrote:

Using churches for gun control? These same people say the churches should not be involved in politics something about the separation of church and state. Sorry I forgot when it is something they want then the church can be involved. Guns kill people so it is alright but to many of them abortion is not killing so the churches should stay out of politics.

Jan 21, 2013 12:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
RadioGuy87 wrote:

Arm up America! ARM UP!!!

Jan 21, 2013 1:28am EST  --  Report as abuse
kevin2ia wrote:

Thank you liberal press for the framing the argument. Those that argue for the 2nd Amendment are labeled as “Pro-gun.”

Those wanting to take guns away are provided the eumphemism, “Gun control advocate.” Something warm and nice. Why are they not considered “Con-gun” or better yet, “Anti-gun” activists? Anti is what they really are.

Jan 21, 2013 1:34am EST  --  Report as abuse
binthere222 wrote:

People injured ? Fierce Defiant? Lost loved ones to gunviolence? And this is a report on the PRO event, but it sounds like an ad for the Anti event.

What an anti 2nd ammendment slant from reuters.

The next time there is a pro abortion rally I want to hear reuters put in the story how many people were injured in the parking lot or the abortion mill next door and then talk about all the families who have lost loved ones due to abortion.

Jan 21, 2013 2:02am EST  --  Report as abuse
HeyYu wrote:

Lucky for the revolutionaries in 1776 that the British politicians had not restricted what type of guns people could have.

Jan 21, 2013 2:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
viper41 wrote:

——————————————————————————–

——————————————————————————–

It has just been researched and discovered there IS a common thread to the five worst mass shooting in America! It is “not poor gun control” as liberals would have you think but instead LIBERALISM itself! Now that we have discovered that all 5 mass shootings were related to them being liberal Democrats, should we regulate registered liberal democrats now instead of guns? Take a look below at the evidence just uncovered…….

The five worst mass killings have a common thread. Hint #1: None of them belonged to the NRA.

Ft Hood~~~ Registered Democrat and radical Muslim who supported Al Qaeda and Hamas

Columbine ~~~ Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals

Virginia Tech ~~~ Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff ~ Registered Democrat

Colorado Theater ~~~ Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal

Connecticut School Shooter- ~~~ Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats. Check the story link below.

http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-5-worst-mass-murders-in-the-usa-with-a-firearm-came-from-democrats/

Jan 21, 2013 4:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

kevin2ia wrote:
“Thank you liberal press for the framing the argument. Those that argue for the 2nd Amendment are labeled as “Pro-gun.”

Those wanting to take guns away are provided the eumphemism, “Gun control advocate.” Something warm and nice. Why are they not considered “Con-gun” or better yet, “Anti-gun” activists? Anti is what they really are.”

It would be better to be honest about it and call the NRA and their gun-nuts “pro mass-shooting”, and call the majority who want gun controls “anti mass-shooting”.

That makes the issue much clearer. So what are you – in favour of allowing mass killings to continue by doing nothing, or in favour of trying to prevent mass killings through gun regulations that force gun-owners to be responsible?

Jan 21, 2013 5:11am EST  --  Report as abuse
txguy2112 wrote:

Abulafiah

Maybe we should label those who advocate for our Constitutional freedoms to be “pro American and the Constitution” and those of you who are trying to take those freedoms away as “anti American the Constitution” which are you (don’t bother you have mede it clear multiple times that you hate everything that the US stands for).

Jan 21, 2013 8:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

I happen to be pro-second amendment and anti-NRA>

Jan 21, 2013 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

I happen to be pro-second amendment and anti-NRA>

Jan 21, 2013 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

I happen to be pro-second amendment and anti-NRA>

Jan 21, 2013 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

I happen to be pro-second amendment and anti-NRA>

Jan 21, 2013 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
lloydc1234 wrote:

I happen to be pro-second amendment and anti-NRA>

Jan 21, 2013 8:06am EST  --  Report as abuse
Fishrl wrote:

Where are the pictures of people who died from gun violence on Sunday? If you want balanced reporting, you need to publish those, too.

Jan 21, 2013 8:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@txguy

You start out from the assumption that pro-gun and pro-American are the same thing. As gun owners are a minority, and the majority of Americans support increased gun-control, your assumption is clearly false.

Neither the GOP, nor their armed wing the NRA, speak for America.

Jan 21, 2013 8:50am EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:

This story from the last two days shows just how pathetic we have become as a people with no common sense.

A five year old child invited her friend to come over and play – after school – with a Miss Kitty BUBBLE gun (yes, it “shoots” bubbles!). The child has now been labeled a “TERRORIST”!!!! Her parents attempted to transfer her to another school, but due to the “terrorist” label, that school refused to accept her. This is in Pennsylvania – so evidently the school authorities have become so paranoid that now a “BUBBLE GUN” is considered a lethal weapon.

PATHETIC – and wrong.

Jan 21, 2013 9:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

Gun-control is such a distraction. If you look into the backgrounds of these killers, nearly every one is on some Prozac derivative. These drugs even have a label warning of ‘causing homicidial ideations’. Yet everyone is strangely silent on the role of drug companies in these shootings.

Makes sense, though. The pharma lobby spend 3-4 times the money as the gun lobby. They’ve bought their protection.

Jan 21, 2013 9:52am EST  --  Report as abuse
SpectreWriter wrote:

Heaven forbid you should be required to use some common sense, to NOT be able to do whatever you want when and how you want to do it — even as people are being murdered in their homes and on the streets by those very guns. What a bunch of spoiled brats!

Jan 21, 2013 10:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
Jameson4Lunch wrote:

Concernedcitz – A gun is never a toy, and the government is not my parent.

Jan 21, 2013 12:50pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Concernedcitz…if you believe that banning assault weapons will solve the problem. The shooter in Tucson used a pistol (no help there), I’ve heard reports that the shooter in Conn. didn’t use an assault rifle (no help there)…and look to Mexico that bans ALL weapons (perhaps the strictest gun laws on the planet). Thousands more innocent people die in Mexico each year than the U.S. from gun violence. The cartels in Mexico are better armed than their military. Bans haven’t stopped the flow of drugs into our country one iota. Bans couldn’t stop the flow of alcohol during prohibition. And bans won’t stop criminals from getting any weapon they want. And contrary to your belief….I highly doubt that the House will pass a ban on assault weapons.

Jan 21, 2013 12:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:

Abulafiah…the blame for these horrific tragedies lies with those who have personal contact with the people who do these horrible crimes. The shooter in Colorado told his psychologist several times that we wanted to kill lots of people. The family of the kid in Conn. knew he had several mental problems. Same with the shooter in Tucson. The problem in America today is that “profiling” is a bad word. Tel Aviv is one of the safest airports in the world. They use professional screeners that are looking for people most likely to cause a problem. Assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols didn’t kill those people. Deranged people performed those acts. Actively look for those people and you’ll solve this problem. The only people you’ll impact with bans that have no chance of success, are us law abiding citizens.

Jan 21, 2013 1:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

@xyz2055

So… your argument is that the USA having both the most guns and the most shootings is a coincidence – guns and shootings are not connected in any way – and that the real reason is that the US population is the most deranged in the world?

Interesting argument…

… and irrelevant. Even if you are right and the USA is the most deranged country on the planet, the fact still stands that these deranged people arm themselves by obtaining weapons from irresponsible but legal gun-owners. If you are right, then there is even more need for regulations.

Jan 22, 2013 2:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@Abulafiah

The US does not have the highest rate of gun violence in the world. We are #10 for total firearm related death. #14 for homicides with guns and a rate at 3.6. Of that 3.6 the majority is drug related crimes, rather than crimes of passion.

Mexico has the laws and bans you seek. They have 2.5 times the rate of firearm related death, and 4.5 times the rate of firearm homicides. Sorry for bringing facts into the argument, I know you hate them because they never support your MSNBC and Huffington Post views.

Jan 26, 2013 7:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.