Newtown Calls for Armed School Officers

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local...

Obama could spend EVERY dollar of taxpayers money and it still would not stop criminal's from getting weapons..!

Nope, doesn't help at all...Proves to everyone that it's the criminal, not the object.
"Background checks" before buying a gun but none before anyone can drive off the lot onto a public road with something that weighs 4000 pounds plus AND can go over 100mph.

Mongo- WOW, I just got around to reading that link.
Those incidents have been growing and growing over the last 20 years.
When are "they" going to start DOING something about these violent killers??
"Taking away" their driving license works not so much.

Harry- Exactly and, exactly....

What is Obama doing about Black on Black and Latino on Latino crime?

BTW, that lady they call the first lady, looked like a robot with chains during the coronation of Hussein today.....certainly the common folks do not dress like that snob of a lady....

I just don't understand the double-standard.
They'll rightfully seek to prevent one kind of violent killer from obtaining one type of deadly object but won't prevent another type of violent killer from obtaining another type of deadly object.
It's assinine and flabbergasting.

I've even read many accounts of people being assaulted and maimed/killed while IN THEIR OWN HOMES by those things.

Exactly, Mongo, and a million other variations of that scenario.

Mongo, One of my points is there is no backgound check before anyone can buy a high-speed motor vehicle..No criminal check, no DRIVING RECORD check, nothing......But there is, for guns, and many people are refused gun purchases...I've never heard of anyone being refused a high-speed motor vehicle purchase even though they have a violent or irresponsible backgound......Something seriously amiss.

Yes, and why aren't there background checks before someone can get one capable of exceeding the speed limit...How many people have maimed/killed with motor vehicles or have multiple DUIs and can STILL walk into a dealership and drive off the lot with one that can go over 100mph.
How does THAT work??

actualy Mongo, assault style viehicles would be the kit car version of Ferraris, Lambo's etc. since you can own a true Assault viehicle if you wish to pay the luxury tax, gas guzzler tax etc. we need to ban viehicles that LOOK like their cousins. Yes, they both have an internal combustion engine but the original may have a V12 or V8 the kit version has a 4 or a 6.

When are we going to get assault-capable motor vehicles away from those with mental problems??
The problem is not only the offender, but the deadly threat is doubled when a police vehicle has to follow in high-speed pursuit in an attempt to make the apprehension.
This has been a societal problem for DECADES with countless killings taking place.

"This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe," Obama said.

Will he post this quote on the door of every planned parenthood building who killed over 300,000 babies last year with yours and my money.

Carlito cant put together a sentance witout contradicting his/her self. Does not want to take guns, just wants to ban scary looking ones. I guess a ban will make them magically dissapear without him taking them.

BTW thank you JPD and all other law enforcement employees, for the great job and quick apprehension of the criminals that robbed and stole 30 plus guns FROM RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS.

To the ignorant ones of the laws Obama wants to pass, I hope none of you have children and do not have to go through the hell these parents did and He does not want your GUNS! What is wrong with you people? To ban assault type weapons that have no business in the hands of civilians and limit the rounds in clips is a GREAT MOVE. A mental exam requirement IMO bothers many as some would not past the test as to the rage in the news lately. Also in some comments. As to using children as a human shield what a joke as what about those 20 children in New town and Columbine and the many other mass shootings of children, Who the hell shielded them????? GET A CLUE and for once in your life think with your brain. It is Okay for the NRA to run an add using children Yet if Obama has children that wrote letters at his speech that represented the letters they wrote OMG how dare he allow them to hear his compassion and HEART for what they want. It seems to some if a republican decided yo do this, there would be no problem, as there was not when Reagan did it. The laws he brought up in his SAFER AMERICA Speech, most of them are already there and he just wants them re entered into law. And to those that say *guns do not kill*, and think it is true, then try sending soldiers without guns into war? I don't think so !!!!!!! G-uns O-ver P-eople

"This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe," Obama said. "This is how we will be judged." and yet he supports killing them early in their life as do most of our liberal legislators. I suspect you all will not be judged very favorably. Sorry Obama, you can't have it both ways. You either support saving all childrens lives or drop the rhetoric.

right now, Im breaking no laws. Especially since all my firearms and magazines were lost in a tragic boating accident on lake Michigan. Guess I'll have to pick up a sheet metal brake and some music wire and start making some Art Nouveau "sculptures" as a hobby.

funny how some seem to postively delight in turning ordinary folk in to criminals by fiat.

'You voted for Obama, you are responsible for this assault on our constitutional rights'

My bad. I thought maybe I could make a point that we could discuss like adults. I should have known better.

Yes concerned, punishment has sure ended illegal activity... Maybe the fact that criminals, by definition, don't obey laws might make an impression on you but unfortunately the impression seems to be that we must punish law abiders because criminals are untouchable- and, like, we got to do SOMETHING man. No matter how pointless.

Hey Thompson, smoke em if you got em. As long as you don't blow it my way. One of the most non-issues all day.

You voted for Obama, you are responsible for this assault on our constitutional rights.

Why do you think Benghazi Barry are only using the kids of Sandy Hook? The exploitation is disgusting and what a shame they don't care about stopping taxes funding abortions with the vigor.
Hundreds/Thousands more childrens killed under Obamacare.

I wish Obama cared about guns while he was handing them out to Mexican drug lords. And no guns protecting the brave men in Libya.

Disgraceful

mteg, I saw today that 1300 kids were killed by drunk drivers vs 1200 in shootings.

Who can forget Sen. Joe Manchin shoot Obamacare as running in W.Virginia. Democrat Joe Manchin who with 10 other Democrats in the senate received A grades from the NRA.

There are a lot of house bills that are sitting in the Senate because Reid refuses to even debate them because he has a lot of moderates. The Obama administration has warped the process and the divided congress is on him.

Here are 2 statistics that obuma and biden have failed to share. Out of all crimes committed, "assualt style" rifles were involved .03%. In all of gun deaths in US, it's estimated that less than 100 deaths a year can be attributed to "assualt style" rifles, less than 1%. "Assualt Style" rifles kill less people in US than lightning strikes. So if this is all about the children (Obama stealing the teacher union quote), then why isnt he focusing his gun control measures on 9mm handguns. It's faulty logic. As for the opinion of people not needing "assualt style" weapons, heres a list of things people don't need to own or indulge in that can kill:
alcohol
fast food
smoking
certain breeds of dogs-pits, bulls, mastiffs, etc (kill on average 30 people a year)
any car that can go over 65
motorcycles
swimming
non-protected sex
etc....
Aside from dog owenership, alcohol, and smoking most people would scoff at banning any of these...yet they kill far more people...than all gun deaths combined. but like obuma says-its all about keeping kids safe

I think Concerned and Tthompson make excellent points in their support of guns, and is exactly why Reid can't get Obama's radical gun grab through the Senate. It is why he is targeting moderate Democrats with his Hitler style parade the kids propaganda attack. As Cutter says, they are going all out in the left wing propaganda machine that got this clown re-elected in the second place. The NRA and Constitution loving Americans are ready for this fight.
This isn't about guns, it's about liberty and freedom and Obama knows it.

Bunbun, and if a criminal does any of those things and gets caught, they are punished. Maybe we should make it legal to operate a meth lab because people do it anyways?

Mongo, If we went back and examined mass murders you would find people of all backgrounds, political parties, and religions.

"As time went it, they would become harder to get."

...because it will be impossible for a criminal to bend some sheet metal and add a spring. They can plant acres of weed, build a meth lab with hundreds of pounds of chemicals, set up a computer network and steal identities but cant operate a sheet metal brake.

The Portland mall shooter killed himself, a person with a CCW permit tried to engage him but never fired. The shooter in the Colorado church shooting was a former cop with training.

concerned,

Tim McVeigh was a registered republican when he lived in NY but espoused libertarian philosophy. His parents were lifelong democrats and union members.

Mongo, you forgot the harvard educated- University of Alabama -huntsville Professor who in 2010 killed 3 professors at a faculty meeting-she is a registered democrat.

I wonder why Obama or the press does not talk about the Portland Mall shooter who was neutralized by a citizen with a CWP or the person with a CWP who killed the shooter-Matt Murray at the colorado church after he killed 5?

Have you ever noticed when D.C. comes up with a plan it's expensive? Yesterday afternoon local talk radio where I live were kind of breaking it down by the numbers and it appeared that the police officers were going to be paid $266,000 per year. Sound about right with government calculating.

mongo, we were having a nice debate until you went there. That is inflammatory and unfair. It's like saying all KKK members are Republicans. Im pretty sure Timothy McVeigh was a republican. There are crazies on both sides, you can't blame the party for it. It's the same as saying all priests are child molesters, look at how many abused children.

Mongo, it wouldn't stop them from carrying them, but it would allow them to be charged for having them. As time went it, they would become harder to get.

Mongo, as I said in a previous post, I don't think that magazine capacity would effect mass shootings. But someone that carries a gun around that then uses it in a crime, would be limited on the amount of magazines they would carry on them. So the criminal that intends to do a robbery, would have to carry 3 magazines to have 30 rounds instead of just 2 or even one if you get the 30 round mag they make glocks.

Mongo, I agree that assault weapons is the least important part, but I do believe that magazine restrictions are good for police. As for the economy and budget, I don't believe that this is being used as a diversion. I think an issue came up that many people and the President felt required action. I don't believe that gun control would have come up if not for Sandy Hook.

Mongo, if there is something that you want to say, please share it with everyone.
It is not good to keep everything bottled up inside the way you do.

The children being on stage was a political trick used by both parties. It's an attempt to get more support for the bill they are signing. It's no different than a politician signing a bill in front of a business that will benefit the workers. It's it cheesy and pandering? Absolutely, but it's done by both parties.

Mongo, the NRA spouts off about the government taking your guns away, and registering is just a slippery slope until they come door by door to dearm everyone. It's time for both sides to be willing to compromise to get actual changes that will do good. It isn't about guns being evil, or good law abiding gun owners being punished. It's about safety for everyone.

I apologize, but blaming Special Education
for the Sandy Hook murders
is one of the most ignorant comments
I have ever read.

So the price tag is $500 million to assuage our national guilt. Using the Sandy Hook kids as a prop President Obama issued a number of executive orders regarding the evil gun and all is well.
The ususal suspects have taken their sides and are making the same arguments that have been made many times before. Much more will be spent to rehash the gun control argument. Like many times before the result will be the same.
Ignored in the gun issue is the root cause of the Sandy Hook incident.
Some where along the line it was decided that separating mentally challenged children to a program designed for them stigmatized and alienated them. The mainstreaming idea came to be, which was to give 'challenged kids' counseling and pills and put them in school with regular kids. If they 'act up' we can give them a time out. If that doesn't work we can give them more counseling and pills. What could possibly go wrong? What stigma could there be in going to school on the short bus?
When something like Sandy Hook happens we can always blame the gun.

Ezoner, homicide rates are down, but violent crime rates are up nearly 18% this year alone. I agree that some law makers are reacting on emotion, but the same can be said about the NRA crowd. The 2nd amendmenters are never willing to discuss anything involving gun control, not even background checks to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people. Once the issue of gun comes up, they become outraged and stop listening. It's time for compromise from both sides.

RAF, the point of stricter laws would be reducing the damage done by limiting magazine capacities. The police should have an advantage over the bad guys by having larger magazine sizes. I know the argument that you can reload very quickly, and it's true. However, if your limited to 10 rounds, to carry 30 you would need 3 magazines. If you have 15, you only have to carry 2. It doesn't sound like a huge difference but it would limit the amount of ammunition one person could carry. If the person is going to do a mass shooting and brings a backpack, it's on thing. But when talking about the average shooting everyday, from someone carrying a handgun (the majority of gun deaths as you pointed out), they would be effected. More stringent background checks is a way to prevent people from getting guns that shouldn't have them in the first place. The assault weapons ban isn't a part that I really care about or think will make a huge difference.

Midnight, I am pro gun, I own several myself. I am interested more in limiting magazine capacity and stricter background checks than an assault weapon ban.

Midnight: For the record, I consider myself a liberal. I've owned guns in the past and intend on getting a permit to carry. Just two weeks ago I had a friend over with his 9 MM and let both of my kids shoot it. Saying 'liberals don't like guns' because most agree with 'gun control' is like me saying 'conservatives don't like freedom' because I see almost none of them supporting an adults right to consume THC. Gun control that requires background checks and reduces the number of high capacity magazine clips are not the same as abolishing the 2nd amendment.

The KING has spoken!!!!!!!!

The purpose of the second amendment was to assure the southern states they could continue their brutal "slave patrols." Read all about it:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the...

COncerned --- There are already laws in place... Adding additional laws will do nothing except remove current legal ownership rights. Instead of an emotional response -- people need to be more pragmatic and think before acting. The actions taken by lawmakers are no different than those of Lanza. They are acting on emotion -- acting on illogical feels -- They need time with their therapist to work through their issues...

Murder -- absolute numbers are down from 1994, by gun are down, by % are dramatically down. Yet gun ownership is dramatically higher, and semi-auto rifles are currently legal. Is there a link between the 2. One could certainly make that arguement.

Oh brother concerned, CT had a gun ban already in place before Sandy Hook shooting. How safe has Chicago been?
Liberals really need to get a grip on this. It's a conversation on the other site. Liberals don't like guns so we all don't need guns. It's the stepford wives syndrome.
"we all bundle"

Individuals and individualism are words not in the liberal's dictionary.

Gonna have me a new AK Pistol and a new AR Very Soon !

http://www.bigskyguns.com/Arsenal_Arms-A...

Mongo "genius" said "Never got into the building. He used two handguns, a Glock 19 and a Sig. Get off your high horse, you don't even know what you are mad about." Actually he did use the ar-15. http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setti...

Reality number time, fair warning to the left fringe you might want to look away.....

In 2011 there were 2,513,171 overall deaths http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61...

In 2011 there were 8,583 murders by firearms http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...

Of that number 323 were rifles; catagory for "assult weapons" and hunting rifles.

There were 726 murders that the weapon used was hands, feet, and fists....Yep over 2 times of rifles.

There were 1,694 murders by knives and/or cutting instruments...over twice that of fists, feet, and hands.

So glad the "laser" focus, assult weapons, will solve the problem of murders....hint: sarcasim intended.

A reflection that many posting here need to read...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...

concerned you make valid point, to an extent. Murder and assault are already against the law. How exactly does another law make it safer? If a criminal has the intent, that is the biggest issue never addressed, combined with a lack of respect for human life and willingness to ignore current law what is your plan to fix it?

The supreme court has already ruled the police are not responsible for your safety, based on a case involving domestic abuse with a restraining order, so real defense is left to each person. Preventing people from defending themselves, in some cases, with the same level of destruction they are faced with who are you hurting and who are you protecting?

So using the logic that if criminals aren't going to follow laws so why punish everyone, why not apply that to every law? Putting laws in place gives the ability to enforce the laws and have consequences for people. It's similar to people saying that restraining orders don't work. Studies actually show that domestic violence is reduced drastically when a restraining order is in place.

If I'm not mistaken, 5-gallon buckets are a leading caused of child fatalities.
-
I suggest that any effort to reduce gun-related deaths use Chicago/Illinois and DC as a test-bed. Note to Obama - find something that fixes the total mess that exists in your own nests (in spite of unconstitutionally stiff gun laws) before you screw with the rest of the country.
-
Mongo, you appear to be one of the few contributors with a two-handed grip on reality. However, there's a very good chance that Adam Lanza never shot anyone. You should dig a little deeper.

Sigmundfraud, George Mason also said, "That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."

fearfulrhetoricposter said "Your consistency is to repeat the same meaningless talkingpoints over and over. Making ZERO points."

Another sermon from a member of the party do as I say not as I do.

Ahhh don't talk about Chicago....

The bastion of liberal ideology. City run by dems and unions; don't worry I won't mention the corruption. Many laws and ordinances banning weapons, in the name of making the city safer.

End result, only law abiding people follow the law while it remains more deadly for American's than the warzone of Afghanistan; more people shot and killed in Chicago than Afghanistan.

The same folks that favor more laws don't want to discuss the same failed policies (laws) tried in Chicago.

George Mason, co-author of the second amendment stated that militia meant each individual person. The Supreme court is supposed to decide the constitutionality of any laws not try and make the constitution fit new laws through interpretation. Adding amendments isnt meant to be used to fundamently change the constitution. The 40% number thrown out on sales is a made up figure. If theres no backround check how can you figure out the number? Im fine with backround checks but Im strongly opposed to registration and I think the mental health idea will require strict guidelines for those reviewing records or whatever. Are we going to ban everyone who was ever on Ritilin from owning a gun? Divorced men? Women who at one time were diagnosed with post partem depression? Any depression? Sounds like a very tough thing to enforce.

Your consistency is to repeat the same meaningless talkingpoints over and over. Making ZERO points. Maybe you righties are right the constitution was written in stone, LOL. Not even close. Hannity like you RAF is off his rocker. Tune in tomorrow, I know you will. It shows in your posts.

As usual the rhetoric machine must toss out the fox news and hannity...because that is the natural reaction when there is no consistancy; typical fall back responce......ahhh, ahhh, but, but, but, but, msDNC said I should say fox news!!!!!

A WELL REGULATED Militia...

18th amendment overturned by the 21st. Anither example of the genius of the constitution. We can fix mistakes made by others. Just shows that what siggy said about it being "what it is and not open to interpretation" is lunacy.

The supreme court believes in reasonable regulation of firearms:
District of Columbia v. Heller
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Both parties are useless and answer to the same paymaster puppeteers to keep them in power and on easy street. Federal elections are nothing more than a show to convince the few that pay attention that they still have a choice when we dont. Vote Dem or Repub and the same bills get passed and the same funding spent. The very last thing and possibly only thing standing between whats left of our country and a complete corporate dictatorship is our ability to resist and fight back with available arms. Out law Assault rifles today, handguns next year, rifles a few years after that and in 20 years we will have a society like the UK where government controls EVERY aspect of your life from birth to death. Criminals run rampant through the streets with a violent crime rate 4-5 times higher than we have today.They even have them on camera 24/7 everywhere they go yet an ultra liberal legal system more concerned with the feelings of an attacker than the victim of his attack allows crime to stay so high. Common sense reforms should start with the perps not the tools, if your carpenter sucks do you blame him or his saw?

Amendment II

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.

Ths means that you get to own stockpiles of weapons? Where in that text does it say that you are afforded the right to own tanks, bazookas, and the like? And you honestly believe that your interpretation of that isnt a little slanted? Laughable!

Siggy-"The constitution doesnt require interpretation, it says what it says and means what it says."

You are WRONG!!! That is why it is Amendable!! What do you think the Supreme Court is for? Civics class for you, too much Fox News. The Genius that is the constitution is that it is changeable, that was the intent of the founders. Womens sufferage, the abolition of slavery, the bill of rights is actually AMENDMENTS not a part of the original document.

Mongo- Number 4 makes sense but I will agree in the light of Fast an Furious (not an Obama admin program) that they ould include that.

More Chicago talk? Look down gus, point has been made and re-made. At least try and use another Metropolitan area when making points. Getting more and more repetetive.
I get that we wont stop all gun deaths, NO ONE is suggesting that. READ more, dont just blah all the time. These measures are common sense and have not been addressed by ou or really anyone but Mongo. Who has NO problems with background/mental health screenings.

Hysterical conservatives flying off the handle screaming about cars, abortions, and Chicago. Over and over, not making any arguments in the context of the discussion, thanks for playing. Gangsters and Graffitti in Chicago.

The constitution doesnt require interpretation, it says what it says and means what it says. Only those who wish to distort it feel the need to interpret. Our Nation is not so flawed as the government we have allowed to develope over the last 100 years, I dont have blinders on and fully acknowledge the depths of our mistakes but I find it annoying to listen to someone praise then slander something in the same paragraph. Politicians interpretations of the constitution have brought us here to edge of financial and moral bankruptcy, we need look no further than the mirror for the culprits.

"How about we just start trying to reduce mass murders."
-
Talk about faux logic, the president stated legislation is required to protect just one. Moving the bar because your points have no consistancy smells rather funny. I say we ban criminals, where was that executive order?

The majority of gun related murders are gang related so wheres the executive order on gangs? This is like chicago banning spray paint to stop graffiti, it didnt work because criminals dont follow the laws. Why do people think that disarming law abiding citizens will stop crime? 2,000,000 times a year guns are used in self defense in this country so whats the real goal here creating 2,000,000 more victims? Out of control government supported by ignorant people accepting more and more federal handouts is the real threat to our safety. We are everyday coming nearer to a total economic colapse but here we sit distracted from the real problems.

"Eye on Ball...Abortion is not the issue, neither are cars."
-
Correct, protecting just one child is...

But in liberal logic doing this is only performed by making laws for firearms that law abiding people will follow; all done in the name of feel good legislation.

Hmmm, wonder why he didn't pass an executive order to stop the gun killings in Chicago; the same place guns are already removed from the hands of law abiding people.

Remember the 1st amendment? It give you the right to keep arguing YOUR OPINION, because thats just what it is, AN OPINION. Nothing more. Grow up.

More nonsense from Siggy, too bad Siggy no one is pooping on the constitution, and YOU and yyour ILK dont get to be the sole interpretors of it.

LOL, Mongo. One of my all time favs

thats it siggy? I am a "blame America" liberal? I guess you are a blind "America is perfect" numb skull. All I have done ispoint out factual evidence about our nation and do not blindly follow our government, or a 250 year old document. An amendable document. All you have is a list of blather that sounds like something I would hear on Hannity.
Blame America? YES, sometimes it is important to realize while we are the greatest nation on Earth we have very large, very noticable flaws, why so blind to facts? Just keep marching lockstep with your crowd, I however enjoy thinking for myself.
Similar to Sandman, nothing factual, nothing related, just more crap about cars and Kool-aid. You fellas should really try and read some books.
Tell me why I cannot respect our military and question the laws and lack of laws related to guns? Do you make the rules of what I can and cannot believe? Do you support the first amendment to the constitution? Or is that only for conservatives?

10,000 schools already have armed guards and one of Oblabla's executive orders was to provide funding for another 1000 schools to add armed guards/resource officers. I just love how liberals swear their undying love to constitution in one sentence then sh** all over it in the next. Move to England where its safer, I hear Russia is nice and safe.

Why do we guard money? Movie stars? Politicians? but guarding kids is dumb? You are the fool living in the past.

The War on Gun Violence begins (again)! Anther photo op and money down the drain, for a cause we won't admit the roots of.

Wrong end of the problem here. We need to gear up the PRE-crime units. You can't tell me that most of these shooters didn't show inclination of violent behavior before they finally melted down.

It's not the guns - it's our inability to realize that not everyone is a bright shiny snow flake...some are just plain flakes and should be dealt with BEFORE they hurt others, albeit with with guns, swords, knives, clubs, or Kool-Aid!

I love it! Of course I support the constitution but it is an out dated piece of paper written by racist white slave owners and should be rewritten by Obama,Reid,and Pelosi. You are a liberal tool. Just admit that you hate this country and anyone who disagrees with your narrow blame america point of view. But first throw in the typical I love the troops and bla bla bla.

Mongo how man different email accts have ou created to come back? Wh do you keep getting booted? Makes no sense. I dont agree with you but way worse fools on here that never get booted. Me included.

Siggy , STOP REPEATING, good lord. Read down, you are essentially repeating what Mongo and RAF are repeating. I have 3 young kids in school, I DO NOT want armed gurads at schools, and guess what niether do 80+% of other parents. If ou want armed guards at school? Home school your kids.

BTW that is a LIE I do not hate guns. I am a gun owner. Just because I believe in common sense reform and regulation does NOT mean that I hate guns, total hysteria on the right and misrepresentation of reality.

So is Conservative logic this.....
The only way to keep you kids disciplined and to raise them as good people is to beat the snot out of them. We also should bring religion to the forefront. You will worship our god or be beaten. This is the way to live in a societyof 300 million people. Is that the conservative commonsense logic?

You hate guns I get it,my point is that guns are protected by the constitution while abortion is not. Just because you dislike something doesnt mean it should be banned, as in abortion or guns. Since Whitman climbed the bell tower to today 200 people have been killed in mass shootings, thats 200 deaths in 47 years. In that same period( I know your gonna hate this) 1,500,000 have died in car accidents.You want to ban "assault weapons" than lets ban assault cars, what reasonable purpose does a 600 horse power car serve? And before you even start just because a cars designed purpose is not killing it doesnt make those people any less dead. Enforce the 20,000 laws on the books for a start and put guards in our schools,why is that ok for the rich but not for us common folk.

Eye on Ball RAF. Abortion is not the issue, neither are cars.
The shooter in Colorado breaks into a crowded theater with a 22 caliber weapon, does he get 100 rounds off in less than a minute? Wounding 70+ and killing 12? Huh?

Repeating talking points are NOT working. Cars, knives, abortions, etc.... all designed to take the focus off of the subject. The NRA says they want mental health checks, yet they dont support it if it means lunatics cant get their hands on a weapon, right? The NRA should be consistent and support a law for gun show checks 100% of sales REQUIRE background checks and mental health checks for EVERY weapon purchased. That is really ALL I want.
Why would anyone oppose that? The NRA does but they say they dont.

I see poor DiGriz is back. Bannination inevitable in 5...4...3...

The logical fallacies abound. How about we just start trying to reduce mass murders.

Of course I "support" the constitution. Of course I support our wonderful military, they arethe best and bravest on Earth. I do NOT support people interpreting the constitution to their own benefit. The Second amendment is among the most MIS-interpreted amendments to the constitution. I would also remind you , Raf and the rest of the right wing posters on here that the constitution while a great-living document, is almost 250 years old. It was written for 13 colonies, NOT a union of 50 states and 300 million people. The genius of the constitution is that it is amendable. Changes can and have to be made. So to wrap ourself in it as if it were written in stone like the ten commandments is silly at best. Remember the 3/5 clause? That is all about freedom isnt it?
Maybe when you are worshiping the founders of the nation of freedom, maybe you should look and see that they were all rich slave owners that essentially didnt want to pay their taxes, no? Dont preach about a document that is supposed to be about a free nation, that was written by a group of men who owned people as slaves. At the very least we could say this nation was started in ultimate hypocricy.

BTW, thanks for serving this nation.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Speaking of dumb, the fringe wants on one hand to ban things based on design while on the other talking about outcomes. There are plenty of wepons in this country owned by millions of law abiding people, that were designed to kill (liberal logic) and defend that have neve been used to hurt a human. Declaring the design of an item is the reson for banning is faux logic, since the intent of the user has impact over the outcome.

Cars aren't designed to kill but they do, so it is okay...liberal logic.

Abortions are designed to kill, but the same folks that want to ban one design are never consistant.

I guess liberal logic must be common sense. Apples and oranges. Guns are designed for one purpose, no matter how much ou keep re-stating lets ban accidents, you look dumber and dumber with each and every try to compare the two. Try to stay on topic instead of repeating the same talking points over and over as if you are making a legitimate point.
A GUN is designed to Kill something(person/animal) its specific design is a tool of killing, do you deny this? Cars are not designed to kill anyone.

And as the looney right wingers keep ignoring, NO ONE is talking about banning all guns. No one!! Just placing restrictions on certain types of weapons, yet the hysterical reaction(over reaction) is predictable.
Please point out one thing in our list of items that are designed to kill RAF, just one. Not even a knife, get a clue.
Heres a tip, keep your eye on the ball. Make your own argument, stop repeating the gun lobby's talking points about cars and knives. Not working, look at the polls. Good luck convincing people based on cars. Reforms and regulations are coming, like it or not.

Information, only for those open to having all information (this excludes ford and most of the fringe left), about how our founding fathers knew full well about multi-fire weapons while wording the second ammendment. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Correspond...

Interesting how they never "banned" this future idea, they knew about, from the common man. Clearly they knew murder was already against the law and the intent of users were always more important than an object.

All cars are registered. You have to take drivers education and pass a test to get a LICENSE, and yet still there is irresponsibility. Lets please not compare apples to oranges, because cars are not DESIGNED to kill people. The AR-15 is, so lets not repeat the same old tired arguments, because I have heard them all before and so have you which is hwy you continue to repeat.
NO ONE is saying that anything anyone does will prevent a majority of gun deaths, you are barking up the cartoon tree. What banning assualt weapons may do is prevent people like the shooter in Colorado from acquiring these ASSAULT WEAPONS (because THAT is what they are) online with NO mental hhealth screening, no background check? Your statistics are skewed. Banning ASSAULT WEAPONS is intended to prevent mass murders. I would much rather make an effort and do something meaningful than do nothing and continue to bend over to the lunatics like Ted Nugent and his like that yes may be responsible but take the second amendment to their own definition.

Time to use liberal logic to protect "even one child" by banning the following.

-All accidents; number one cause of childhood deaths.

-Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities, and Malignant neoplasms; number 2 causes of all childhood deaths.

-Mothers in Milwaukee; they sleep with their children and suffocate them. Not all, sure, but remember if we can save just one...it is worth it.

-All types of motor vehicles; these kill.

-Peanuts; could cause death from severe reaction, just one child...

-School sports; some kids have died, one is TOO many.

-Trees; Kids have fallen from these and died.

-Water; Kids have drowned.

-Siblings; Children have died at the hands of family members.

-Bridges; Children have died falling from and during a collapse of.

-Natural gas;

-Normal houshold chemicals;

-Electricity;

-Construction equipment;

-Boats---never mind already banned water.

Please feel free to help the liberals ban these and other dangerous things, except abortion, in the name of protecting just one child.

Dont hate guns, OWN guns. Hunt. No need for ASSAULT weapons ina civillian capacity, period. 30,000 people die a year in the United States each year due to firearms. Murders/Suicides/accidents.

You want emotion? That is the equivalent of 10 9/11s. That should get conservatives all fired up right? Have you forgotten?

Mongo you dont get to make up the definition. Lets try Websters Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
Definition of ASSAULT WEAPON
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; especially: assault rifle

Any questions?

Not emotion, just the facts.

Its called society Siggy. Keep you eye on the ball stay on topic. This is not an Abortion/welfare topic.
At least the immigrant Mongo agrees with background checks. Baby steps, baby steps. Its called common sense. Ie the Chicago/Urban argument. Replace Chicago with any large city in the US. Crime rates are high because of poverty and large groups of people of different backgrounds in a small area. If your looney argument held any water than the crime/murder rates would be SIGNIFICANTLY lower in areas that have more lenient gun laws, THEY ARE NOT. Matter of a fact the mrder rate is higher in most states that have lenient gun control laws, WHY? POVERTY, not gun laws, not gun ownership, not CC(which I am fine with). These are all Myths cooked up b the Gun lobby and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not the one making the Constitution argument. Its lack of specificity, but general guidlines, is exactly why the government (We The People) can ban full-auto weapons, not limit abortions, and decide to aid other countries.

Diane Fienstiens proposed assault weapons ban calls for the banning of ALL semi automatic handguns, rifles , and shotguns as well as a complete firearm registry and tracking and logging all ammo sales. So I'm not to concerned with Oblabla's meaningless feel good executive orders its the upcoming bill that threatens everything other than revolvers and break action single shots.

Please point out the parts about abortions and welfare in the constitution or where it says we should pay taxes to then have the government send our money to other countries governments. What amendment was that?

Did you even read the article? Very little is about banning certain weapons.

Chicago is not an island.

"...why hasn't making drugs illegal stopped the spread of them?"

Your use of the word "stopped" is a straw man argument. Making drugs illegal has certainly limited it's use versus making drugs legal.

"If you make guns illegal then the only ones with guns will be outlaws, so how does that make us law abiding citizens safer?"

The Sandy Hook shooter used a legally obtained assualt weapon.

I think the Gazette just hit a new low.

When are you people gonna look in the mirror and realize how these comment sections reflect directly back on you?

And that reflection is not at all flattering.

Tell me why you have a problem with background checks?
Tell me why you have a problem with mental health screenings?
Tell me the problem with banning the production/distribution of weapons designed SPECIFICALLY for mass murder of people?
NO ONE is taking away personal protection weapons. Making it a little more difficult to acquire these weapons for people with honorable purposes SHOULDN'T be a problem, yet it is.
Lets also take a reality check here if, IF our government becomes truly tyrranical, due to the structure and strength of the military, you can amass all the bazookas and AR-15s you like you havent a prayer. So that argument is moot at best.
SO what is with all the Hysteria? This is nothing more than a Black Muslim Socialist president that you hate for all those reasons. These statistics from urban areas and murder statistics are slanted and you should know it. Why? Urban violence and gun crime is high in every state, NOT just Chicago. There are CC laws in effect in Texas and Florida, what are crime statistics in Miami, Orlando, Tampa Bay, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas?????? Are there no gun crimes Murders there? Wake up Immigrant.

http://247wallst.com/2012/06/11/the-most...

Something you might notice about this list of STATISTICS is that:
1) Chicago is NOT among these
2) More than half of these cities are in states that have Conceal Carry laws. Wonder how on Earth there could ever be high crime rates where everyone can carry guns in their pockets?

Time to require citizens who want to be gun owners go through similar checks and training that Law Officers go through if their purpose is TRULY personal protection. At least training for any type of weapon that is deemed a weapon intended SOLEL for the purpose of killing mass amounts of people.

Here are some real gun violence numbers to think about, 23 homicides and 80 people who have been shot through Sunday January 13th 2013, not even half way through the first month of this year! Where are these numbers from you may wonder, those numbers are from Chicago Illinois, a city that has strong gun laws already in place, from a state that is the only state in America that doesn't allow conceal carry. So to say that we need more gun laws to stop the gun violence is not the case as the true numbers show. Another fact is that Connecticut where the Sandy Hook shootings took place has some of the strictest gun laws as well, so to think that banning guns will end the violence is not using common sense here, if that were the case then why hasn't making drugs illegal stopped the spread of them? If you make guns illegal then the only ones with guns will be outlaws, so how does that make us law abiding citizens safer? I realize that the shootings that took place in Sandy Hook are tragic, and no one, not a single person would ever want to see that type of tragedy occur ever again, I just fail to see how this will address the real problem here, and that is a mental health issue. What steps can we take to curb that problem? That is the question, the real issue here in the US that needs to be addressed, and the sooner, the better.

I never wrote that people couldn't fight the U.S. government because of the armed forces superior firepower. You did. That being said, I don't see many of those people flying fighter jets and UAV's.

A 10 round magazine in a semi-auto rifle is not a pitchfork. Typical logical fallacy. You've still failed to make the argument that a 20+ magazine is required to overthrow a tyranical government.

Besides, comparing the Taliban and Iraqis to U.S. citizens is outragious. Who are you comparing the Taliban to, U.S. civillians or U.S. military?

"NV - Ignorance is no excuse." I agree mongo/RLOT you hould heed your own words unless you're a Chreokee Indianor a member of another tribe, we're all immigrants, got it mook?
There is no cure for stupid. This hysteria and panic over common sense restrictions are comical at best. Are the 40% of weapons sold with no background check okay with you "mongo", isnt there laws n the books preventing felons from acquiring a firearm? Pretty easy to circumvent dont you think? Go to a gun show to buy a weapon free and clear with no proof of who you arelegal or illegal, felon or non-criminal?
Maybe you should read the second amendment and put some context into it, instead of interpreting it however you feel? I would also read the Supreme Court decision about the interpretation of the amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller

"Read George Washington's first innaugural address to the nation"

Why? That's not the Constitution.

surprised

You obviously don't understand the definition of "per capita". I'm not suprised.

Nothing on the Constitution says we must be allowed to own 20+ round weapons. Nothing.

I own firearms. Your definition of assualt weapons is not the common one.

"Then we will all be safe, like I was in 1963 when there were just as many guns, and no violence like you see today,"

Gun ownership per capita has doubled since 1968. 310 million guns, as of 2009.

Your family pedigree matters naut. Your argument doesn't make any more sense because of it. Who cares who your ancestors were?

Nothing Obama has proposed would take your guns away. Quit taking your talking points from the media trolls.

There is no logic in the idea that citizens must own 20+ round magazine assualt rifles to protect themselves from "the government". WE, the citizens, are the government. We aren't fighting the British. Anyone who thinks American soldiers would actually participate in either a military crackdown of fellow Americans, or a military coup, are ignorant wingnuts.

oh and what about JOBS... just like obama thanks

spend spend spend. it never ends. enjoy what you voted for... its only the beging. by by usa

Well said !

We're so blessed to be able to witness first hand, the African American version of the modern day Adolf Hitler.........

Much of what he signed as executive orders are already binders full of existing law. All pomp and no circumstance. It's nice the way he used children as human shields to push his leftist agenda. And since when is it anybody's business if doctors ask if you have a gun at home when you go in for a medical appointment?

Obama is a freaking puppet ! And that is an insult to puppets. The war will never end. Who distributed guns to the Cartel in Mexico ? HMMM
Look at Chicago 16 days into the year and there are 25 deaths 23 due to gun fire,I would bet my left teste they were all drug related and stolen or hot guns that were used,it will never end. If they want them they will get them,so why should us law abiding gun owners have to suffer ? How many guns protect him and his family ? Would he feel comfortable without his Secret Service Goons carrying guns ? I think not !