Mass Shooting at Elementary School Connecticut 12/14/12

[ledded1]

"Citizen of the world"? In other words, he's a communist, because a global citizen is communist in its nature and idea. I must presume he also supports a global government to elevate so-called human rights above U.S. constitutional rights.

Oh dear Steve that's poor even by your standards.

[Reggie29]

They could make phasers that are only set to stun. Forward thinking and planning can be the way.

We already have them, they're called Tasers.

[SteveAJones]

A proper reading in today’s day and age, even if your argument is correct (which I deny), would have to impose limits based upon the realities of technology.

Countless limits/laws have been imposed through the years, but the right to keep & bear private arms remains intact (at least for now).

[SteveAJones]

Joe Biden to head the President's committee on gun control related to the recent massacre??? Was Alfred E. Neuman not available???

Good 'ol Joe, a career politician still striving to be taken seriously.

[ledded1]

We already have them, they're called Tasers.

Ah but you have to be up close to use them. Phasers you can fire from greater distances and no wires to get in the way.

[Dandu]

Countless limits/laws have been imposed through the years, but the right to keep & bear private arms remains intact (at least for now).

Let me ask you the same thing I asked Type-O:

What limits, if any, should be placed on the second amendment and how are such limits justified on your interpretation of the provision?

[LedZeppfan77]

I went into a local gun store today and called the local county clertk. Permit application appointments are now back logged until late Feb. Assault rifles have gone up signifigantly but according to the store owner not handguns. I was surprised to see my shotgun, used and in not so good shape for $600. Mine is in mint condition. Handguns, 9mms are on the average around $560, depending on what you get. But go much higher. Not much lower. So you have to have some money to buy a weapon remember. You cant be a bum off the street and afford these type of guns and you have of course a 3 day wait on handguns.

[Old Shep]

Do you think Japan would have attacked Pearl Harbor if they'd known they'd get nuked back to the stone age?

What delightful patterns of speech you employ.

And how astonishing that, within the space of 50 or so years, they were out-manufacturing you on every level.

Seems to me you're the one living in the stone age, dude.

[SteveAJones]

Let me ask you the same thing I asked Type-O:

What limits, if any, should be placed on the second amendment and how are such limits justified on your interpretation of the provision?

I think it's fair to say advances in technology and weaponry have ushered in the era of the super-empowered individual(s), which is as contrary to the second amendment of the constitution as super-empowered government tyrants. I'd like to see what can be done

at the local, state and federal level to mitigate the likelihood of further mass-shootings and secondly to reduce shootings in general.

A renewed weapons ban, more rigorous background checks, and limits on the quanity of firearms one can legally own (if stored outside of an armory) should all be options on the table. I'm convinced there is much that can and should be done. I'm not sure how

much progress the task force can make, nor if ultimately another amendment to the constitution has become necessary. I certainly do not support repeal of the second amendment.

[Stryder1978]

I honestly don't see what good the proposals will do:

Repeal Assault Weapons Ban: The Clinton 1994-2004 assualt weapons ban showed no significant decrease in the levels of gun violence - neither did it rise after 2004. The Columbine massacre and the DC sniper shootings both occurred during this ban period, and the weapons used in the murders were banned under that policy. The ban didn't stop mass murderers then, and I doubt a new ban would now.

More Rigorous Background Check: The firearms used in the recent murder of those innnocent school children were all leagally purchased and registered by someone who passed a background check. It was the sicko son who ended up using them, so a more severe background check...hell a psychological evaluation of the mother - wouldn't have stopped that mass killing last week!

Limit Magazine Size: One of the Columbine murders used a 9mm pistol with a 10 round clip - perfectly legal under the Clinton gun ban. He just happened to have a lot of them. It takes 5 seconds to replace a clip in a gun, so unless there is an armed individual there to take out the perpetrator while they are changing magazines,banning 30+ round clips won't do much good.

[Dandu]

I think it's fair to say advances in technology and weaponry have ushered in the era of the super-empowered individual(s), which is as contrary to the second amendment of the constitution as super-empowered government tyrants. I'd like to see what can be done

at the local, state and federal level to mitigate the likelihood of further mass-shootings and secondly to reduce shootings in general.

A renewed weapons ban, more rigorous background checks, and limits on the quanity of firearms one can legally own (if stored outside of an armory) should all be options on the table. I'm convinced there is much that can and should be done. I'm not sure how

much progress the task force can make, nor if ultimately another amendment to the constitution has become necessary. I certainly do not support repeal of the second amendment.

Wow. I have to confess that I was not expecting that.

I don't think it jives with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that is not worth quibbling about now.

Do you believe you are you in the minority of second amendment proponents or would many of them share your willingness to consider significant restrictions to curb the gun violence in America?

[Dandu]

I honestly don't see what good the proposals will do.

Ok so what would you suggest? Or are you content the way things are?

[Stryder1978]

Dandu,

I already posted my suggestions several days ago on here. It is more on the lines of what we did after 9/11, not ban flying but making it more difficult for the nut jobs to accomplish murder.

[SteveAJones]

Do you believe you are you in the minority of second amendment proponents or would many of them share your willingness to consider significant restrictions to curb the gun violence in America?

I believe I'm in the minority and that few are open to further restrictions. The inevitable public polling will probably confirm this to be true. America has become such a polarized and politicized society that tragedies of this nature ultimately seem only to divide them further.

[TypeO]

Oh your response is typical Type O tripe.

OK, confession time.

I got home and logged on and realized, "why am I arguing with 2 or 3 guys at the same time?"

Good thing I'm off the rest of the year - today was my final day until after New Year's.

But I brought it on myself, so...

lulz

I am probably older than you anyway son.

No idea.

I'm 52.

You tell me.

So forward thinking plays no part in your life or in the lives of governments/law makers/army commanders/tyrants? How deluded are you? We make decisions with some thought of the consequences of our actions surely or do you live from minute to minute and don't think about where y

our actions will lead? No wonder you don't seem to learn from your twisted statements and standpoints.

I'll buy forward thinking from you, but I believe it's a backpeddle to patch up your predicted comment.

Of course forward thinking is a part of our lives.

Because of problems I've had in my past as a young man, and dealing with the consequences thereof, I have developed a very acute sense of forward thinking, where I go to lengths to anticipate what could possibly result from a particular course of action.

The stuck record Type O style.

What you call stuck record, I call consistency.

I maintain very consistent opinions and philosophies, whether others agree with them or not.

Ps you must try harder to sound patronising you made me laugh with your "there's a good lad" comment..

That honestly was my intention.

I think I got it from It's a Wonderful Life, but it's also used in L.A. Confidential.

You are still not following me. My point was that it is hardly persuasive to hold up a Supreme Court decision and say "See, this is what the constitution means", if that decision is grounded in partisanship rather than sound legal reasoning. The point about 5-4 was an illustrative one. When the courts do not exercise sound reason but instead engage in partisanship and results driven logic then it only matters how many of "your guys" are on the court. Legal reasoning simply becomes an inconvenient formality to justify the result you have chosen.

When it is axiomatic for you that the court will decide a certain way on a certain issue simply as a function of how many "reds" or "blues" sit on the bench rather than on the merits of the issue, your judiciary has become irrelevant and mere pawns of the politicians who appointed them.

You may find that a banal observation. I find it frightening. I tend to like my judges to decide cases based on sound legal principle, rather than political considerations. You?

If the reasoning is sound, then they would be persuasive. If it is not, then they would not. You have to read them with a critical eye to decide. What is wrong with that approach? It is perfectly acceptable to have a 5-4 decision on a difficult LEGAL issue, capable of more than one interpretation. My beef is with a 5-4 split for POLITICAL reasons based on disingenuous legal reasoning.

By the way, I never said this was a conservative issue. Both sides have been guilty on this front.

I follow you, I just kind of take the political aspect of the SCOTUS for granted, thus the emphasis on what party holds the Presidency when new Justices are appointed.

And I do agree that the politics having sway in their decision-making sucks.

We're not really in disagreement there.

But again, it's been that way for so long, I take it for granted.

You rest your case? Sorry I will need you to do better than that.

Actually, that was just a follow-up to my comment directly above it where I said "see below".

Let me ask you this question:

Given your interpretation of the second amendment, where should the limit (if any) on your right to bear arms be drawn (types of weaponry, where you can carry it etc.), and why?

The limits are already in place, and I agree with them.

Full automatic weapons are allowed only by strict licensing.

I've already explained my position about Assault Weapons, they are, more often than not, cosmetic changes to already existing rifles that aren't considered necessary to ban.

And I favor closing the Gun Show Loophole.

Other than that, they are already myriad laws on the books controlling guns and their use, they just need to be enforced.

Why?

My wife mentioned to me, "nowadays, you even have to be careful driving, you might flip someone off and you never know if they might have a gun."

I responded, "that's a good thing, showing some restraint in what we do and say to each other, showing more respect, whether it be because of what could happen, or just because it's how we ought to act, anyway."

A current buzz phrase describes a wild, wild west mentality taking over.

I think that's a very negative and pessimistic outlook regarding human nature.

Kennesaw, Georgia is a great example of how more guns work.

What delightful patterns of speech you employ.

And how astonishing that, within the space of 50 or so years, they were out-manufacturing you on every level.

Seems to me you're the one living in the stone age, dude.

It's just a turn of a phrase, dude.

Besides, that reflects well on us, since we helped put them back on the track to becoming successful.

[Dandu]

Dandu,

I already posted my suggestions several days ago on here. It is more on the lines of what we did after 9/11, not ban flying but making it more difficult for the nut jobs to accomplish murder.

I went back and read it. The only restriction you seem to be willing to place on guns is smaller clips, but in your post above you suggest even that won't work. The rest of your suggestions deal with armed guards, marshals and changing architecture.

So you think there are too few guns out there?

[Stryder1978]

Dandu,

As I stated in that earlier post I was "on the fence" as far as the success of smaller clips reducing the mass killings - after watching a smegment on ABC news, where a firearm dealer replaced a 10 round clip and recocked the AR-15 he had in less than 5 seconds - that solidified my point that it wouldn't help much. The nut job who wanted to kill lots of people would simply carry multiple clips - like the Columbine killer did!

I think there are too many guns in the wrong hands here in the US. But as I stated in the earlier post, banning private ownership of guns ain't gonna happen - even if authorities went door to door. i have 5 firearms in my house, none of them are registered (not required when they were purchased or inherited), so the government wouldn't know I even had them! If it was mandatory to register ANY gun in private ownership, law-abiding citizens would probably do it, but the nut cases and criminals wouldn't. so what would that solve?

You neglected to mention my recommendation of dealing with the mental issues of those committing these crimes.

[slave to zep]

slave to zep,

Thank you - I try to keep it civil and objective.

I don't understand how you could have target practice or break skeets WITHOUT bullets/birdshot. What else would you fire from a firearm?

thank you for trying to keep it civil i don't pretend to know ANYTHING about guns, except for the FACT that they kill. quickly. easily and can also mame someone so badly that they probably wish they were dead .... i have never seen or touched any type of firearm. EVER. hope i never will.

i was thinking along the lines of this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_m_Air_Pistol

Dude, the majority of people who are so stridently opposed to guns have such a lack of understanding, it's incredible.

Many people have no idea what the difference is between semi-automatic and automatic weapons, and many don't even know there is a difference.

They think they are one and the same.

That's one of the biggest problems with the gun debate.

for you also, typo.

[Leather Apron]

I have heard of it [Afghanistan], thanks. The US military could turn it into a parking lot if they chose to. The fact that they have not done so only underscores my point.

My point was in response to your comment that semi-automatic rifles would be of no use against the United States Military. While it is certain that it could "make a parking lot" anywhere it wishes. History also tells us that an armed resistance can also be a bit of a tricky bitch for an occupying nation. The 2nd Amendment at least provides a fighting chance, or in another way puts the government on notice that there could always be a fighting chance out there.

Wether for a common defense, or an individual defense: the 2nd Amendment along with the other bills provide balance.

So I take it you agree that the constitution guarantees you the right to own a tank, nerve gas and an F-16? I thought the point was so absurd that nobody would seriously espouse it. It would seem I was wrong.

No reason to be obtuse, the point was that the framers saw no problem with allowing citizens to own the same military rifles which were in use at the time. Seems to me given where you keep trying to go with this silly tanks and F16 fallacy, that you selectively decide to ignore all the other prior developments in gun technology after the 2nd Amendment/smooth bore muzzle loading musket era? Why did the government not elect to restrict rifles which were far more accurate than muskets as they were developed? Why didn't they restrict breech loading rifles, repeating rifles and revolvers as the technology evolved to more efficient firearms?

Any chance it was because they understood that the 2nd Amendment was a guarantee of individual gun rights? And besides, I would really like to hear your explanation of how a semi-automatic hunting rifle is any different that a military "style" semi-automatic rifle? Just because of the scary name someone gave it? Just because of the way it looks?

If all you and others are going to offer is some new 'feel good' legislation, then you are just blowing hot air. It's up to you to come up with something more logical than what you are offering, if you are going to convice people who actually know a thing or two about guns. Because all you end up doing is sounding ridiculous to us. Because we know that there many, many more guns that can still accomplish the very same results. At some point you have to consider that you are being manipulated by politicians seeking only to secure their own political seats by playing to the masses of uninformed voters looking for quick (feel good) answers..

Don't insult my country. I have not insulted yours. I enjoy immense freedom in Canada. Contrary to your ridiculous assertion, I don’t have to think, worship or live the way anyone sees fit. No King (or Queen or government) tells me what to do anymore than your President or your congress do you. In fact, on balance people probably enjoy more freedoms in Canada. Oh, and I don't have to carry a gun around because I am so afraid of all the other people with guns in my country.

I think you have been insulting, or at least that's the way I am seeing it. Our constitution is not your concern. Type0, Steve Jones and Stryder1978 have already repeatedly answered your questions as clearly as can be answered, But still you and a few other non-Americans continue to scoff at the Supreme court decisions which have been made which uphold the definition of individual gun owner rights under the 2nd Amendment. On that issue it's not up for debate anymore than the supreme court decision which defined abortion laws. it is what it is. You may not like it, our own President might not even like it. But for you to say it was just a political hack job (United States vs. Heller) is insulting. When the referee makes the call, you live with the decision.

I don't resent my brother the US as you falsely claim. I love the US. It is a wonderful and beautiful country, with untold numbers of fantastic and intelligent people, that has done a lot of good in the world. Still, while it is a great place to visit, I choose to live here.

Good, same here. I wouldn't want to live any place where my rights are considered top down and not the other way around.

[ledded1]

When do you guys think the US governement will use the armed forces ( militia) to attack it's own citizens? Is it looking to Syria for tips and advice?

[Old Shep]

When do you guys think the US governement will use the armed forces ( militia) to attack it's own citizens?

When that question has been asked in the past, I've often seen them bring up the subject of Waco, which is a typically dumb thing for them to do.

[Leather Apron]

As I stated in that earlier post I was "on the fence" as far as the success of smaller clips reducing the mass killings - after watching a smegment on ABC news, where a firearm dealer replaced a 10 round clip and recocked the AR-15 he had in less than 5 seconds - that solidified my point that it wouldn't help much. The nut job who wanted to kill lots of people would simply carry multiple clips - like the Columbine killer did!

You've got that right!

Laws which have been made to limit "magazines" are only to give warm fuzzies to people. For example: I have a friend who lives in California and he was telling me that in his state a law was passed in 1994 which banned magazines larger than 10 rounds. However, they granfathered in anyone who already owned 15 and 20 round magazines who could prove they purchased their rifles before the deadline.

But here is where it gets ridiculous: If "Joe" has a granfathered rifle and he is out at the rifle range, and "Sam" his friend is at the range with the exact same model of semi-automatic rifle purchased after the restriction; Sam would be commiting a FELONY if he were to borrow Joe's magazine for his target practice session. Just the mere contact of a lager capacity magazine with a rifle which is not grandfathered in can get you in big legal trouble. However, there is ZERO enforcement on this because of course, it is not something the police have the resources to enforce. And of course if "Sam" decided to steal "Joe's" magazine, or God forbid aquire one of his own: how in the hell could that actually prevent it from being used in a crime?

Did you ever see video of the North Hollywood shooting that happend in Los Angeles? The two guys who went in and robbed a bank with full automatic rifles? Yeah, they did this in spite of the California assault weapons ban and the restriction of high capacity magazines. Apperently criminals tend to disregard gun laws it would seem.

[henrybonzo]

I’m sure we all agree with these lines from an editorial in the New York Times the day after the shooting in Newtown: “There is no crime greater than violence against children, no sorrow greater than that of a parent who has lost a child, especially in this horrible way.”

It is good to remember this in terms of all children, not just our own. According to the UN, a half-million children, many even younger than those at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, died as a result of Washington’s 1990-2003 sanctions against Iraq. We don’t have the child death figures from the wars in Afghanistan an Iraq but we do have some regarding Vietnam from various online sources:

1. Ten percent of the child population of North Vietnam was killed, mainly by U.S. bombers. Another 400,000 suffered birth defects because of the U.S. Agent Orange defoliation campaign. Untold thousands continue to die to this day from accidentally detonating unexploded American land mines.

2. According to American estimates (the Pepper Report) there have been 250,000 children killed, 750,000 wounded and invalided for life in a South Vietnam of 14,000,000 inhabitants. The great majority were killed by U.S. bombers, which decimated (allied) South Vietnam in efforts to destroy the liberation army and its many millions of southern supporters. More than 10,000 sorties by B-52s of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, have been carried out over South and North Vietnam, each plane capable of dropping over 30 tons of bombs; that the number of bombs dropped monthly by American planes exceeds that dropped by U.S. planes in the European and Mediterranean theatres in the Second World War.

3. On 27 September 1967 at 7:30 a.m., the day after classes reopened following the summer recess, while the children were happily bent over their first lessons, four U.S. jets, swooping in from the sea, fired rockets and dropped four CBUS (about 2,400 pellet bombs) on the first and second degree schools of Ha Fu (Ha Trung district of Thanh Hoa province) killing 33 pupils from eight to 12 years and wounding 30 more, including two teachers.

Remember the children — from Newtown to Vietnam!

[SteveAJones]

When do you guys think the US governement will use the armed forces (militia) to attack it's own citizens?

Two seconds after a state attempts to secede from the union.

[SteveAJones]

Apparently criminals tend to disregard gun laws it would seem.

That is the oft-forgotten pardox here, that the lawless do not abide by the rule of law.