.
Guns and Congress
December 20th, 2012
06:00 AM ET

Guns and Congress

By Lisa Desjardins, CNN

Follow on Twitter: @LisaDCNN

Editor's Note: Listen to the full story in our player above, and join the conversation in our comments section below.

Washington (CNN) -  The debate over how to prevent another mass shooting in America is echoing across the country, but it’s more staccato in Congress. Especially when it comes to a central issue: guns.

Many members of Congress who are known as supporting gun rights are remaining quiet for now.

[2:06] “I think we need to talk about this in another time. With a bigger focus with everything that is brought to bear on this.”

- Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX

However, those pushing for gun control are moving fast and speaking often, holding news conferences, sending press releases and in multiple cases, crafting proposed bills.

[1:09] “It’s going to ban by name at least 100 military-style semi-automatic assault weapons. And it’s going to ban big clips, drums or strips of more than ten bullets.”

- Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. And listen to CNN Soundwaves on our SoundCloud page.

soundoff (760 Responses)
  1. Oinia

    CT already has the 5th strictest gun laws in the nation.

    What this terrible shooting tragedy proves is the failure of strict gun LAWS to prevent murder.

    Murder is a crime. Bringing weapons onto school property is a crime. Shooting people is a crime. Everything this murdering punk did broke existing LAWS. Adding more laws, when existing laws already failed to deter or prevent this, would do nothing at all to deter or prevent violence!!!!!

    December 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Agreed!

      And the original Clinton-era assault weapons ban of 1994 – 2004 did nothing to reduce crime. Look it up – it was largely viewed as ineffective by many independent studies. Not to mention the fact that assault weapons were not used for crime that much in the first place.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • DingGate

        So...are you asking for even stricter restrictions then...you know...seeing how the first ban didnt' do much?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
        • Rick

          No DingGate.

          I am saying we focus our time, money and effort into areas that address the root cause, rather than waste time, money and effort on what has been demonstrated over the course of a 10 year period NOT TO WORK.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • certik

          Well, the burden is on the regulator to come up with sensible and rational regulation that will actually have a chance to be approved in the democratic process

          In my crystal ball, I see a lot of angry posturing, with a possible totally inefficient and ludicrous piece of factually irrelevant legislation

          December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Idareu

        It actually reduced gun deaths by over 6%. But even if it saves one life, isn't it worth it?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • Rick

          All deaths related to gun violence are regrettable. Especially when it involves the blood of innocent childern. I certainly deplore any act that sheds that innocent blood. However, I would rather focus our limited resources as a country toward the areas where we have the greatest chance to fix the root cause.

          Take smoking for example. I'm sure we could save many lives by enacting all kinds of arbitrary regulations all across the U.S., such as raise the smoking age from 18 to 21, for example. But this would not be prudent or cost effective because it does not focus on the root cause. Instead, invest the time, money and effort into those areas where we can actually do the most good. Such as educating students that smoking is unhealthy.

          A simple analogy, but you get the point.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
        • Me

          Cite your source, cause every study I have read (and I am in academia, I do a lot of research) has said just the opposite!

          December 20, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • certik

      Interesting. So why exactly do the republican lawmakers insist on being "tough on crime" when all crime by definition is already against the law and therefore adding to the laws will not change anything?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Ian

    Land of the free, and the home of the brave? Not anymore. Try land of the heavily regulated, and the home of the terrified. After 9/11 we tore up huge chunks of our constitution with the Patriot Act, because we were broken hearted and scared. Now we tear up more because we are scared of lunatics and are once again broken hearted. I am the father of a four year old, of course I think about his safety at school, but to be honest because of the odds involved, I'm more concerned about him growing up in a semi fascist police state. Its each generations duty to make sure our children get the constitution in the same shape we got it in. We cant keep giving in to fear because its easier to ban things than it is to really solve cultural problems.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Since the constitution was written our country and society has changed immensely ... with it the constitution must to change.

      Gun regulation does mean we will solve this issue completely because there are other factors that need to be addressed as well, but that does not mean we should sit idly by and not address gun laws that permit people to own assault rifles and magazines meant for one thing and only.

      Should the government stop the fight against drugs? Terrorism? Both are battles which we won't win ... they will forever be battles that will go on forever. The same as this.

      This will not be the last such tragedy but to sit and do nothing about the current gun laws and regulations would just invite more such tragedies

      December 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ian

        We are steadily marching towards fascism. The trajectory should be obvious to anyone willing sto stop drinking the KoolAid. Look at our police state we've developed into. Look at public losses and private profits, endless "wars" on everthing. We may need the second amendment more than ever before its all said and done. (Good lord I hope not)

        December 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • czamdesigner

        Sadly no gun ban or law will prevent the next mass killing in this country as no laws have ever prevented them in the past including the last federal assault weapons ban. Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine are good examples. how many kids died in both and not from any assault weapons... Banning one kind of firearm doesn't prevent the criminals and killers who already have them from not killing more victims or find other more deadlier means in gun-free zones period! This idea of a gun ban is just a quick fix bandaid to make you all feel better for yourselves till the next mass killing occurs and will, with the current trend even if there ban goes through!

        December 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • john smith

        Um – as far as I can tell, laws don't stop criminal acts, laws are made to punish criminals and deter honest citizens. I'm pretty sure that when people go around killing other people, they aren't really concerned about "laws".

        December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
  3. czamdesigner

    Interesting that Obama and our Government is trying to take a stance on a anti-gun country movement and promoting this in legislation to curb the 2nd amendment and yet funded the Social Security Administration ammo purchase of 174,000 rounds of Hollow-point bullets... a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the 1.4 billion rounds of hollow-point ammo so far acquired by the Department of Homeland Security. Mind you that these bullets are meant to kill, not wound or take prisoners and have been outlawed by the Geneva Convention, that is why the US Military do not use them. I still like to know why Social Security feels the need to have these kind of killer bullets? BTW these bullets have only one purpose period, to shoot Americans plain and simple. Wonder why the media don't push Obama over this instead of the BS anti-gun propaganda...

    December 20, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Idareu

    Idiots!!! I dare any of you supporters of assault gun ownership to go face to face with the parents of those dead children and explain to them your twisted logic on why people should own guns designed only for mass slaughter! Look them in the eye and tell them people should be allowed to walk around carrying these types of weapons. Until then, shut up! If you do it, we'll know because it will definitely be something that makes the news. Otherwise keep your opinion to yourself. 20 small children are dead!!

    December 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      I would be glad to talk to those parents. I am not ashamed about what firearms I own. I am a responsible law-abiding adult citizen and I keep my firearms secure when not in use. I have plenty of reason to believe in the lawful, legitimate use of modern sporting semi-automatic rifles (the same firearm that is unfairly called an 'assault rifle'). I will not be placed in the same category as those cowardly irresponsible criminals who commit these heinous crimes. If more time would be spent talking to like-minded gun owners like me, I'm sure there would be more understanding about us, our sport, and our love of freedom in America. Not that I am 'special' or better than anyone else, but I am confident in my position as a responsible gun owner.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kevin

      So your saying their is a collective responsibility amongst gun owners? Last time I heard that was from when I was reading a speech made by Mussolini. Honestly it's people like you that scare me with your shrilling and screaming. Bubba may be a gun totting Redneck, but at least I know he is mentally stable even if he is ignorant.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Idareu

        Wow, not sure where you got that. There is no logical reason for a civilian to own a weapon that has the capability of an AR 15. None. If you have a good one, go look those parents in the eye and tell them. Until you are capable of standing up that strongly for what you believe then you really shouldn't be saying much of anything. 20 small children are dead because of a crazy person with access to a weapon civilians should not have access too. Simple as that.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
        • Rick

          I own a .22 bolt action rifle with a 7 round magazine that I use to plink cans and paper targets. It's an honest way to spend a fun afternoon. I also own a .223 caliber AR-15 semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round mag. Its also an honest way to spend a fun afternoon. While I love my .22 rifle, I happen to appreciate the quality, capacity and high performance of the .223. It makes for great fun at the range! You should try it. Ya know, you can drive a Ford Escort to work everyday with no problem. But wouldn't it be much more enjoyable in a Ferrari?

          To flatly state there is only one purpose for these semi-auto rifles is shallow. You are creating an unfair false equivalency with the military style, fully automatic version.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
        • Idareu

          To Rick, you sound like a sensible gun owner, much like my brother. nd this isn't personal. Unfortunatelly, to "spend a fun afternoon" is not a good enough reason. If someone enjoys spending their afternoons driving around neighborhoods as fast as they can, should that legitimize it? If restricting these types of weapons, assault/military, or whatever you want to call them, saves one childs life, or any one persons life, isn't it worth it?

          December 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • czamdesigner

      Sorry, to say this but I didn't see your outrage when during the last so called gun ban a killer by the name Timothy Mcveigh drove a truck bomb that killed 168 people and 19 were kids under the age of 6. He killed them all without the use of a single bullet. Tell me why it is ok to set up gun free zones that don't stop killers from going there knowing no one there can defend themselves or prevent them from killing period! No one has the right to kill a single child, but no one has the right to stop anyone from the means to defend them ether. Killers will kill no mater what laws are there to try to prevent them. Your laws only prevent people from the ability to defend themselves period. Stop supporting the idea for more defenseless victims! BTW the Oregon Mall shooting could have been far more deadlier if it wasn't for the fact of one concealed armed citizen that took aim but didn't fire. That shooter ran and took his own life. There are plenty more of these acts where if it were not for a someone with a gun more lives would have been lost. You will find if you do some research that all the mass shootings took place in gun free areas.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Idareu

        Yea, but did any of those civilians have a concealed AR 15, or something similar?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • Me

          @Idareu.....You do not need an AR15 to take down someone who has one. There was an incident where I live about 5 years ago or so. It happened in a smaller mall and the gun man had an AR and pistol, he was taken out by a law abiding citizen who carried a pistol for self defense. The gun man killed 7 before the person shot him, but he could have killed dozens if it was not for the one civilian!!!!! Again, stop thinking with your emotions!!!!! I agree with someone in this thread who said they are more afraid of people like you, I completely agree, you sound nuts and like you could easily snap and do something stupid cause you don't think with your brain!

          December 20, 2012 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
        • Idareu

          @Me, you are a tool! To try and make me out to be something like that is beyond reproach. I never said take all the guns away numbnuts. My point is there is no need for certain types of guns in the hands of civilians. And that you cowards talk your crap out here, but if it was your family, you wouldn't be saying this. And you cowards don't have the balls to take your "concerns" to the families touched by these guns. Like I said, I dare you!! But I know none of you will, because I know you are all cowards, hiding behind your "rights." No one law, or group of laws will ever stop all the killing, but if they just save one life, then it's worth it. It's sad to see people that think their "rights" are more important than the lives of children. It's people like you that society needs to worry about.

          December 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • wanfuforever

      Please tell me, seeing that there are laws against murder, theft, rape, drugs, et al., how a law banning the will stop their procurement? If one wishes to engage in criminal activity, laws do not stop you; it only allows redress of the issue after the fact. You must also realize emotions make for bad law. Please tell me you can go to a relative of a victim of a DUI driver and tell them alcohol is OK, even though more die from drunk driving accidents then from gun violence in America. in short, the argument is flawed. The car's creation meant the death of over 100,000 per annum by itself, over 10x the rate of gun-related deaths. In short, tragic needless preventable deaths happen *daily*. What needs be done is comforting those who have experienced the loss and holding the perpetrator accountable. We should also look into bringing back the flophouses and mental wards that could give people treatment and housing that the do-gooders thought were undignified (read: didn't want to look at them) so now there is no accesible treatment for people caring for those with diminished capacity and those on the bottom rung who at least had an address for work are now homeless. But that last part doesn't fit the do-gooder story for America, so now one person who commits an atrocious crime and the gun is blamed (along with video games, because blaming people is verboten in the modern age), when he could have been getting help all this time. Seeing how all the people who are responsible with their guns now must have their guns taken away, by this logic do you wish to ban alcohol, cars and anything else that can lead to fatal consequences?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • Idareu

        It's harder to get a drivers license than a gun. See the problem! And just because because I have a drivers license doesn't mean I should be allowed to own/drive a tank does it?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      Idareu, your comments are ignorant. i would also gladly talk to those parents. you're logic is dangerous. its nutcases like you who would put the blame on drunken driving deaths on anyone who has consumed alcohol. you need some severe mental help.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Idareu

        Based on your logic, if a person who had driven under the influence hasn't killed anyone than they should continue to be allowed to drive while intoxicated.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          not at all what i'm saying. no one should drink and drive, i believe we should be putting less emphasis on this gun debate and more on fixing that since automobile deaths cause 4x the death rate as guns. my point is people like YOU would say that if i consume 1 beer in my own home and go to sleep and then someone dies that night because of a drunken driver that it woudl be inherintely my fault for having consumed alcohol even though i had absolutely nothing to do with the accident other than the fact that both the driver and myself consumed achohol.

          December 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • Idareu

          @yousiraredumb, what an appropriate name for you. Typical republican bs to take what I say and twist it into something so far off the mark it's unrecognizabe. I have no idea how you came to such a conclusion.

          December 20, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Me

      @Idareu....first, I would in a heartbeat and second, you are the problem right now. You are thinking with your emotions and not your BRAIN!!!!!! Stop thinking with your emotions and you might be able to come up with a logical argument but until you stop thinking with your emotions you will not!

      December 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Idareu

        then do it, chickensh!t

        December 20, 2012 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
  5. UnFred

    Maybe we should ban trains when a bunch of people killed, Airplanes too.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lawless4U

      That comment right there proves you are deficient upstairs. Cars and other forms of transportation aren't meant to kill.

      Guns serve one purpose....................killing. It doesn't matter if it's an animal or human or for purposes of defense, they are meant to kill.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ian

        Guns are indeed meant to kill. Thats obvious. The second amendment is military in nature, its a check on federal power. Its there so the people can defend themselves from a tyrannical government. So logic says the guns it covers should be MEANT TO KILL. And dont give me the "muskets" argument. Muskets were state of the art at the time, so if that was a valid argument, the first amendment would only cover the town crier and hand cranked printing presses.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • certik

      Absolutely not. We should legalize sale of landmines to private hands, because it is people and not land mines who kill other people. In addition, it the newtown school was correctly mined under the control of the principal and/or the coach, the shooter would be immediately blown to smithereens

      That and the flame-throwers

      December 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ian

        Mexico has the most restrctive gun laws in the western hemisphere. Hows that working? If laws mattered much, they'd also be the safest people in the western hemisphere. Are they? Virtually all the states with the highest levels of violence already have assault weapon bans. Thats funny, huh? How could that be? Leave gun laws to the individual states, reinstate the five day waiting period, and insure mental health records are included in background checks. No more restrictions on mags or gun type.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
  6. george

    I see how some of you hillbillies got your a ss kicked in the civil war...You people are delusional as history has proved so ...If the feds decide to take your guns, you would lose and die trying to fight that war..the Constitution was written before modern technology and ther is no way some hillbilly militia is going to stop them if they wanted to regulate your guns..20 kids dead and you people still dont get it..

    December 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • CommonC$ents

      Another narrow minded liberal who thinks people are ignorant just because they don't agree with their one fits all view of the world. America has a society problem, not a gun problem. Look at Switzerland as an example. Look to yourself and your party as the foundation of our declining morals. Look at the world's view of America with our Hollywood movies promoting sex and violence, the family unit being destroyed, God being taken away from our children and a Government that thinks it knows how to run a person's life better than they can run it themselves. It starts and ends with the love from a Mother and a Father for their children. A child is not born a killer but evolves into one based on his or her life experiences. Fix that and you'll prevent these terrible events. I don't see that happening as people are focusing on the end game instead of the origin of why this is happening.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • DingGate

      So...playing devil's advocate...if the hillbilly's militia can't stand up to the military due to the modern weaponry, shouldn't gun laws actually be loosened so that the hillbilly's militia can obtain the weapons to BE ABLE to stand up?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      Thousands of Waco's, you support the killing of Americans

      December 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • certik

      Watch your arguments. The afghani hillbillies are proving you wrong right now. The trouble is that a good part of the US fantasizes about living like the afghani hillbillies

      December 20, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • riddlemethis

      I cannot understand how anyone, (the government included) thinks they have the right to tell me with what and how I may protect myself and my loved ones. Reguardless of the second amendment I believe every person has a right to life, and a right to protect that life how they choose.
      What happened in Newtown was horrific evil, but DICTATING how the rest of society has the right to live is not the answer.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

      December 20, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • DingGate

        "What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

        December 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          sorry sometimes i forget that people dont have a reading level above the 4th grade.

          December 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
  7. YouSirAreDumb

    Democrat: You don't need Guns!
    Republican: You don't need Welfare!

    December 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Eric

    I am against any more bans. Something happens and we run with legislation to fix the issue. If you disagree with the so called popular opinion, you are called an insane wacko.

    Machine guns etc are illegal all ready. Most people here have no idea what they are even talking about. It's just ban ban ban now now now. Comparing the US to any other Western democracy is also an invalid argument. Conditions in this country are very different than any other. We have a high percentage of people in poverty with no way out. Our government continues to write a blank checks to fund wars on 2 fronts. This is money we don't have. Even if you have access to healthcare, it's minimal at best for most.

    The ban ban ban mentality will do nothing to fix the issue. It's a little late to fix the bridge after it falls down. We only focus on the end result. Make drugs illegal and put people in jail. That has only created a thriving black market and has caused numerous other social problems.

    Putting further bans in place will create a black market etc etc. Laws do nothing to fix issues. They deal with end results and not causes. But lets go ahead with the mob mentality so many people seem to have in this country.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • DingGate

      Pssst...machine guns are not illegal...apply for a license...wait....wait...buy

      December 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      Finally someone using their own head instead of some BS political party beliefs. Bottom line is that our society enables people like this and banning certain types of weapons won't prevent it. If someone really wants to kill in mass they will figure out how to do it. We need to treat the disease, not the symptoms. The disease is neglect for our children (in general not specifically in this case) and teaching them how to treat each other. If we teach them to behave like responsible adults by setting an example and try to reverse this disgusting sense of entitlement much of our youth exhibits today then maybe America still has a chance. Anybody that thinks law making is going to fix this problem or other problems in America is just kidding themselves.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
  9. UnFred

    Dianne Feinstein = stupid is as stupid does

    December 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lawless4U

      Yup, because we all know that wanting to keep potentially dangerous weapons out of the hands of maniacs and ensure that hunters have the weapons that tehy need to hunt is stupid.

      Seriously though, are you simple or something? Wait a minute, scratch that.......of course you're simple.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
  10. BILL COLLINS

    Do not touch my guns. But if you must pretend that you are going to protect society then how about arresting those who sell heroin and meth? Why not incarcerate them with out parole? How many lives lost due to drug illegal usage? Oops why don't you libs write stories on how many people weren't killed or made victims due to their ability to defend themselves with guns? I guess that's not politically correct. Then libs why don't you tell us who is responsible for each individuals safety? Bet you clowns don't know. Maybe you can lie to yourself but the police department is not responsible for your safety. According to the Federal Courts. . .YOU ARE!!!

    December 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Ben

    I guess I shouldn't be but I'm shocked at how many truly ignorant people live in our country. Actually, I'm surprised that many of them are able to turn a computer to comment on this topic. Gun control will change ag=fter this and it should. I own handguns and can honestly say that I have no need for high capacity magazines. And neither does anybody else. And anyone who thinks that the 2nd Amendment was written to provide you access to assault wepaons is an idiot. Period. Stop frothing at the mouth and hiding guns in your basement because the government is coming to confiscate them. This will never happen. The NRA will try to scare you into believing it but it's time for their members to stop being frightened and start being informed.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • DingGate

      So...you are the one person that knows concretely what the 2nd amendment means and is not merely tring to interpret?

      Good to know.

      And also keep in mind that when the 2nd Amendment was written, the average citizen had access to the EXACT same weapons that the armies did.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Assault weapons are capable of automatic fire. You are entitled to your opinion on this topic but please use proper terminology!

      December 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        BTW, after the incident in China on the same day, perhaps Ms. Feinstein should add knives to her ban list too!

        December 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • DingGate

        I believe you're looking for Assault Rifle which typically refers to weapons with burst or automatic rate of fire. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (coincidentally located in Newtown CT), A so-called "assault weapon" is functionally no different than any other "legal" firearm. These guns fire in the same manner as any other semi-automatic firearm (one shot per trigger pull – no spray firing), they shoot the same ammunition as other guns of the same caliber and are no more powerful. What differentiates a so-called "assault weapon" from other guns is cosmetic; for example, the type of stock on the gun, which makes the conventionally operating firearm look more like a military firearm.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Rick

    Top Reasons To Oppose Assault Weapons Ban

    1. Reducing magazine capacity limits our ability for self defense.
    2. The Clinton-era ban did not result in any measurable decrease in gun violence.
    3. There are too many firearms and magazines in circulation for a ban to have any real impact on availability.
    4. An outright ban would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
    5. The 'assault weapons' definition is arbitrary and based largely on cosmetics that have no bearing on function.
    6. Magazine capacity alone does not determine the ability to fire rapidly. The VA Tech shooter used pistols limited to 10-round mags and 15- round mags.
    7. Statistically, deaths from mass shootings are a fractionally small problem. The death rate is smaller even than accidental drownings, car wrecks, and lightning strikes.
    8. Dishonest anti-gun lobbying groups tend to inflate the statistics about 'assault weapons' to achieve their agendas.
    9. They very term 'assault weapon' creates a highly negative connotation about semi-automatic firearms in general, and it creates and unfair equivalency with actual military weapons which are fully automatic.
    10. We should not expect a new ban to be any more effective than the Clinton-era ban. What is the expression about "Doing the same thing but expecting different results?"

    December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      Rick,
      I say we start by registering mentally ill people first. They need to start doing mental health evaluations on these children during their school years. Statistically speaking most of all these shootings are done by kids or young adults

      December 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
  13. sly

    Who cares about a bunch of dead little children.

    I have my assault WMD's, and you cannot take them away from me.

    So we use them to murder 100,000 people each year, while other countries just as big have about 100 murders per year.

    Numbers are for idiots. I have God on my side, and God ain't takin' away from WMD over a bunch dead little kids.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • undertread

      God is on your side? really?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Run along and play like a good little boy.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Oh my!

      Sly – I get this was suppose to be sarcastic. Or at least i hope it was but any valid point you would have made was lost because of your tone. No one, pro or anti gun control has mentioned that they don't care about the lives lost. What you posted is just straight up wrong and you should hang your head in shame.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Real American

    I will only give my guns up when the senate and President, and all of the Rich Hollywood liberals all give up their armed guards. Why they feel they can protect themselves, yet I can't protect my family is beyond comprehension.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • DemocratRat

      They need those armed guards to protect themselves against nuts like you who own guns. Are you really that dense?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • OregonTom

        You honestly believe one segment of our population has the right to be armed and another segment does not have the right? Are you a US citizen?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • CTed

        That is the point he's making. If the law that ban guns also bans their armed guards we'd believe them, but they are hypcties. They are basically saying that gun laws will make us safer, and we don't need guns, but they will have their armed body guards just in case.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
  15. sly

    I should be able to mount nuclear missles on my car – it's protected by the Consitution.

    I am not going to let a few dead little children prevent me from owning my own RGP or submachine gun.

    Who do those children think they are anyway? If their parents were smart, they would have armed all of their children with assault rifles, and that bad guy would never have gotten 20 of them.

    Dont take my guns away ... I don't want to live like the rest of the world where they have 1/1000th the number of gun deaths. You liberals are all the same with your silly numbers trying to prove Global Warming or Gun Control or Evolution is backed by statistics and science. Us Cons use beliefs instead.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • bluejacket

      wow.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • certik

        obvious troll is obvious

        December 20, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      Owning nukes is not protected by the constitution.

      RPGs and submachine guns are not legal to own.

      Children cannot own rifles – you must be 18 to own a rifle and 21 for a handgun.

      Your 1/1000th stat is not a real stat. You made it up. If you want a real stat look up 'Effectiveness of Clinton-era assault weapons ban'. It was judged ineffective by a few different studies.

      Don't be so wreckless with your statements please.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • DingGate

        What's the point of using this argument "If you want a real stat look up 'Effectiveness of Clinton-era assault weapons ban'. It was judged ineffective by a few different studies."

        Isn't the obvious retort...make the restrictions bigger and more harsh. If the former didnt' work it was because it didn't restrict enough.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:36 pm | Report abuse |
        • Rick

          More gun restrictions are an unwarranted waste of time, money and effort because they will only restrict the law-abiding citizen from firearms – while the law breakers continue to retain possession. Instead, we should focus our time, money and effort to fix the root cause, which involves better recognition and control of borderline personality disorders, mental health issues, etc. and a whole host of contributing factors. Mass shootings are a terrible, highly publicized, low frequency symptom of a much broader problem.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • lostinnocence

      I hope you never reproduce.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Devils Advocate

    I will glady give up every firearm I own if and only if all alcohol is banned. Just look at the facts the number of people murdered by firearms is remarkable close to the total killed by DUI drivers.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • DemocratRat

      Why should giving up firearms be dependent on the abolishment of liquor? They're both a problem. But do you refuse to address one because of the existence of the other? Yours is nothing but a ridiculous excuse to avoid doing the right and sensible thing.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
  17. UnFred

    What you should have asked Dianne Feinstein is why people are leaving California in droves. Is it because it's the most over regulated, over taxed and yet COMPLETELY BROKE State in the nation. Dianne Feinstein s' leadership should be the question. As a former resident Californian AND NATIVE Californian all I can say about Dianne Feinstein is she s been in office WAY TOO LONG. She has destroyed my home state making it almost impossible for the average person to live there. Now she wants to destroy the second amendment. She thinks this countries right to bear arms is about hunting. Again, she's reckless and stupid, and has done enough damage to her own state. Has crime in California gone down since the assault weapons ban? NO.. And when California is is the beacon of light with no crime then maybe I'll listen to her.

    "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Oh, except by Dianne Feinstein

    December 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • DemocratRat

      Diane Feinstein isn't trying to take away anyone's hunting rifles. She wants to get hand guns and assault weapons off the streets. These posts from gun lovers get more and more stupid.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • BILL COLLINS

        Stupid lib, how is it that a rifle will protect you when you are driving your car, or walking down the street, or sleeping in your bed?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • LiveFree

        Nowhere does she say anything about banning handguns. Check your facts. She was also one of the few Californians with a CCL, so why would she ban a gun, she herself had a license to carry? I really wish pro gun control advocates & the media would educate themselves before they speak about guns. Then again, maybe not, so much easier to win a battle of wits with an unarmed foe.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • joe

      California is the worlds 9th largest economy, as a state – it could be part of the G20 summit if it became its own country, and it would still have about .003 percent the amount of debt as the United States federal government.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
  18. midwesterner

    I am in my fiftys and have owned guns since 16 and you know what, they have never shot a human being, game animals yes and more paper targets than i could even guess. The point is that people that are determined to do mass murder will always find a way to do it same as other criminals and single murderers to commit their crimes because they do not follow or care what laws are in place.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
  19. YouSirAreDumb

    This is what gun control looks like.

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to
    1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
    rounded up and exterminated

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
    Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
    of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
    rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
    political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
    exterminated

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
    Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
    Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
    educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
    exterminated.

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • DW

      Yes guns do kill and to say no it’s not guns but people is lying to us and the children who have die. It’s the type of guns used and whose hands we put them in. Many other things can be used to kill yes, but there sole propose alone is not to kill like a automatic gun so quickly. Seem some countries have better weapon limitations and gun control laws which are more affect than our country. Why? Are we the world leader when we can not improve on something so important. Guns ownership yes, but assault no. Get a gun in a day no, but make it harder with effect gun control laws yes.

      In Japan, you cannot buy a handgun, much less an assault rifle. In fact, even off-duty police officers are banned from carrying guns.
      You can buy a shotgun or an air rifle, but it is not easy:
      • First, you have to take a class and a written exam.
      • Then there's a skill test at a shooting range
      • Next is a drug test
      • Then a mental evaluation.
      • Assuming you pass all those tests, you file with the police, who then run a background check.
      No wonder Japan has one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world.

      But does it work?
      In 2008, the U.S. had 12,000 gun-related murders. Japan had 11. More than double that number were killed in the massacre in Newtown, Ct.

      United States is ranked 22 on deaths because of guns; and 22 is not to be proud of if you look who is worst and Japan is 3 from the bottom. United States is ranked 3 in population 314,964,000 and Japan is ranked 10 in population 127,547,000 compare this size to amount of deaths.

      Our founding fathers look as them having weapons equal to the government when the 2nd amendment was written. This will never be any more now or in the future. The American public will not own tanks, jets, missiles and advance weapons. No way did our founding fathers ever foresee the future, but we should see the past and the reasoning then and now. So we need to change the laws in what it takes to get a gun and stop selling assault weapons which only serve one thing kill quickly.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        I think you should move to Japan. I will not give up my guns!

        December 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
        • DW

          I think you should call the parents and tell them you guns are more important.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • pogojo

        You can restore a tank and own it, just no bullets, civilians can own military jets, just will not have bombs and guns, get some facts

        December 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
        • DW

          You better do real research and check your facts. What you just stated is not true at all.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brian

          DW...you need to "check your facts", everything he said is 100% FACT.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Brian

        Japan also is among the leaders in suicide, so what's your point? Over half of all firearms deaths are suicide, most of the rest are attributed to gang/criminal violence. Yet, you want to strip responsible law abiding citizens of their rights, and at the same time, don't want your rights stripped.

        Alcohol kills roughly 115,000 people a year. 75,000 from related medical problems and roughly 40,000 from vehicular incidents involving alcohol. That's 400% more than guns.

        You up for banning alcohol? Those deaths don't even take into account how many lives are destroyed by alcoholics, how many jobs are lost, how many children are abused, spouses, etc.

        I'm sure you'll give the typical, "Oh, the old alcohol argument", just like "the old car argument".

        It's funny that people don't want to address issues that claim so many more lives.

        What benefit does alcohol offer society? What benefits does it offer at all?

        None.

        Can it save your life if an intruder enters your home?

        No?

        I guess guns serve at least one purpose then, don't they? Alcohol serves none except to destroy lives.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • DW

          So one evil gives the right for another.. Wow makes sense to me.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brian

          Just answer the question. Are you up for banning alcohol and stripping Americans of their rights in that aspect?

          December 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
        • SuperDave

          Any data Brian? Or are you just spouting useless fabricated facts while you hug yoru gun?

          December 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brian

          Yeah Superdave, I'm more than willing to do your homework for you since doing a simple google search is too much for you to apparently handle..

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/#.UNNV_nczSuo

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/alcohol-related-deaths-_n_821900.html

          Is that enough for you, or are you going to chalk up the hard truth to the fact that I'm just one of those gun nuts who has never harmed a soul or broken the law?

          December 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brian

          I imagine the two of you will now just conveniently disappear instead of discussing the reality of the situation.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
        • MR

          Brian, your argument would make sense if the request was to ban all types of firearms. As it stands, most of the legislation being proposed limits ownership and purchase of semi to automatic weapons. There is no reason a person needs a semi/auto. You get the exact same benifits of defense from a common handgun that is not automatic. Unless, of ciourse, your reason for wanting one is to do as much damage as possible. And as for banning automatics while leaving semi's alone, it is far too easy (and legal) to obtain a simple kit to convert your semi to full automatic.

          Banning all alcohol does not work. Banning all weaponry does not work. These are understood and accepted beliefs. But there is no reason not to initiate a ban on firearms whose only purpose is to cause as much damage in as short a time as possible. If you are unable to defend yourself with the firepower available in a non-automatic weapon, than you obviously do not have the skill to adequatly protect yourself with such a weapon, and much less so than would be required to safely handle a semi, much less automatic.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • Brian

          MR....this is a perfect example of the average person who knows nothing about guns.

          Almost every gun available to the public is semi-auto. Every pistol that is not a revolver is semi-auto. Every rifle that is not a bolt action is a semi-auto. These so-called "assault rilfes" are all SEMI-AUTO, meaning the fire ONE SHOT per trigger pull.

          Very few individuals in this country can even get their hands on an automatic weapon because the process is very scrutinizing and the weapons are more expensive than your average cars.

          So for you talk about banning semi-autos, you're talking about virtually millions and millions of weapons that people own for home defense or conceal carry.

          So please, spare me your argument about my argument when you haven't the slightest clue as to what you're even talking about.

          It would be nice if those demanding legislation were slightly educated on the subject.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • CTed

        Eaxctly why the Contisuttion came packaged wtih Article V. Use it. If you can ignore the 2nd amendment becuase you don't like and the founders "Didn't envision it" then we can ignore your free speech rights, after all they didn't envision the internet. :eudicrous argument. The Amendment process was put in place for exactly that reason. You want to pass gun laws, amend the Consitution.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • certik

      I think the people in question were murdered because they had no access to tanks, RPGs, flame-throwers, land mines, and chemical weapons

      The same thing is about to happen in the US. Govt prohibits sale of land mines, RPG's and chemical weapons to private hands in order to commit genocide. People should prep and stockpile weapons, that will prevent murder

      December 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      Note that none of the countries on your list are democratic countries. It's really comparing apples to oranges.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Christina

      The thing that all these countries dont have is Democracy. That is what protects us from Tyranny, not assault rifles.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Real American

        democracy?!?!?!? WHAT?!?!?! The presidential election was stolen, Brian Terry is dead, Our Benghazi embassy was wiped out while the dictator watched and you think this is a democracy? Try reading a book and you will see that Obama is taking the same path Hitler took to destroy Germany. He is also mimicking Stalin. Check your facts.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • mp531

        Our "democracy" was won by those armed to defend their rights against a tyranical government who persecuted them for their beliefs. These brave men, our forefathers, took and kept their freedom and founded our democracy from behind the musket. Had they not been so armed, we would all still end a ceremony or event with "God save the queen". The answer to the other countries issues is democracy you say...that must be fought for! A tyrant will not step down because he is asked nicely.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • sqeptiq

      If a government ever decided to forcibly confiscate guns in this country, you would lose your gun or your life so fast you wouldn't get off ten rounds.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • Real American

        One of the great mistakes of the Jews during WWII was that they outnumbered the SS yet did not fight them when they were "collected." I will not make that same mistake. Even if I just take one or two with me, If every American does this they will not win.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • My own mind.

      I can see you are a follower of Rush, Sean, and Glenn, and all the propaganda emails that are floating through the internet. Try thinking for yourself and do some research. If you find the US intolerable, move. And take your guns with you. I'll bet you're from Texas.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • ex military

      it is paranoid people like you that shouldn't have a weapon. We the people control the goverment.Our sons and daughters are in the military. The military wouldn't carry out unlawful orders againt our own people. I take it you have never been in the military. So relax, take your finger off the trigger, put the gun down and back away slowly. I take it you never had a mental test before you bought your guns.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        point out facts and people get all butthurt. i'm sorry you failed history class and havent figured out that we repeat history if we dont learn from it. and they arent a democracy. neither are we. we can vote for 2 parties that have way too much power and are on the verge of being able to do whatever they want.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • musicwanH

      Are there more civilized Western countries, not Dictator led and more current statistics that you can offer. Not being sarcastic, simly trying to understand. I dont think your reference points: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot are good examples of civilized leaders.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • colin

      A lack of gun control is not the only way to prevent tyranny or the slaughter of innocents. (Can't believe I even have to write that.) In this country we have many institutions and processes in place to prevent such pogroms, mostly the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to bear arms. I do not want the second amendment repealed, but neither do I think every body should be allowed to own a drone, tank or nuclear weapon. There is almost no credible argument – none that I have thought of or read – for people continuing to acquire and use such lethality with such a lack of oversight. In fact, if you recall your American history, there was very strict gun control in the colonies as we approached the Revolution, but it didn't matter. We got the arms we needed when it was time to battle tyranny. In the other examples you cite, there were many other cultural and political factors at play. To suggest that gun control is solely responsible for these deaths is just plain silly.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • DemocratRat

      Japan has banned guns and there is no gun violence, and the government hasn't rounded up and exterminated anyone that I know of. The UK has had a long-standing ban on guns, and again, no one has been rounded up and exterminated. Neither in Australia. Could it be that in all those countries where people were rounded up and exterminated they were governed by dictatorships? No child sitting in a school room should lose his or her life because you have twisted the meaning of the Second Amendment to suit your needs.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      It wasn't because of the gun control law. it was because of the people behind the law.These people who instituted those laws had already anticipated what they were going to do in order to have complete control over them. The only way to do that was to take away any kind of future resistance. Hitler was a prime example. You and your narrow minded bachelor's degree need to read a little more about the history behind these acts. You can't have absolute power if there is the slightest possibility of resistance or retaliation. These examples you portray are extreme examples of dictatorship.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
  20. certik

    My gun control proposal:

    all guns must be painted bright pink, smell after violets, and have an image of a well known effeminate homosexual emblazoned in a prominent place. Stiff penalty for defacing the said image

    December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • the_dude

      I like your idea. THe only problem is we need to figure out how to make weapons effeminate and queer without offending the fems and queers.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • nurahun

      tell me how long you gona fight with the govmt. with your gun, if the govmnt want to come after you?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • sqeptiq

        About fifteen seconds.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • certik

        In principle indefinitely, as the afghans are showing us. It is just a question whether we want to live like the afghanis or like the japanese. I suspect most americans would choose the afghanis

        December 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
        • DemocratRat

          Put me down for living like the Japanese. Just in case we're counting.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • kabong30

      Considering that I'm not a homophobe this is fine with me. I have my guns to defend me and mine. Don't care what they look like. This whole argument is ridiculous. The majority of the big names promoting these restrictions have armed guards and those that don't are simply ignorant. Not one single verifiable fact backs up the concept of "gun control" as it is being proposed or as it has been in the past and in fact every single study shows that an environment with less restrictions lowers violent crime.

      I'm disgusted with those who are using Newtown killings as justification for their agendas. It's demagoguery defined. And to the person who keeps saying. "Tell the parents that guns are more important": No, tell the parents that your agenda of fear and cowardice is more important that addressing mental health issues.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Report abuse |
  21. BADGUY

    I think assault weapons should be illegal for private home ownership. Assault weapons CAN be "accessible" to sports enthusiasts..BUT...under "controlled" conditions...ie at a sports club, where those weapons are kept under "lock and key", in that facility, and CANNOT be "taken out"..

    December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • H-K

      Please define "assault weapons". Thank You.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        Unfortunately, there IS NO set definition on "assault weapons". Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. SOME states define it as weapons that allow MULTIPLE shots, with ONE pull of the trigger. Fine...but THAT feature has only LIMITED impact on the mass killing capability of a weapon. When I was trained in the military, on the M-16, the instructor told us to ALMOST NEVER use the automatic mode. Reason: The muzzle recoil drives the bullet stream off target. The first one or two bullets might be "on target", but the REST fire off into "Never, Never Land". So calling an M-16 in "non-automatic" mode or an AR-15 (a civilian M-16) that does NOT have an "automatic" mode, a "non-assault" weapon, ESPECIALLY when the military taught us to USE the M-16, in the "non-automatic" mode, when ASSAULTING a target is ludicrous.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • rtrMicky

          Wikipedia may not define an assault weapon by itself but the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 does. Defined by the government and it is in Wikipedia. Look that up!

          December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
        • DemocratRat

          How about we define assault weapon as any weapon that fires more than ten bullets without having to reload?

          December 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • rtrMicky

        The definition is easily found in Wikipedia. Basically has to do with number of rounds in the mag, the grip, appearance, and the stock.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        There IS NO set definition on "assault weapons". Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. SOME states define it as weapons that allow MULTIPLE shots, with ONE pull of the trigger. Fine...but THAT feature has only LIMITED impact on the mass killing capability of a weapon. When I was trained in the military, on the M-16, the instructor told us to ALMOST NEVER use the automatic mode. Reason: The muzzle recoil drives the bullet stream off target. The first one or two bullets might be "on target", but the REST fire off into "Never, Never Land". So calling an M-16 in "non-automatic" mode or an AR-15 (a civilian M-16) that does NOT have an "automatic" mode, a "non-assault" weapon, ESPECIALLY when the military taught us to USE the M-16, in the "non-automatic" mode, when ASSAULTING a target is ludicrous.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        There IS NO set definition on "assault weapons". Look it up on Wikipedia if you don't believe me. SOME states define it as weapons that allow MULTIPLE shots, with ONE pull of the trigger. Fine...but THAT feature has only LIMITED impact on the mass killing capability of a weapon. When I was trained in the military, on the M-16, the instructor told us to ALMOST NEVER use the automatic mode. Reason: The muzzle recoil drives the bullet stream off target. The first one or two bullets might be "on target", but the REST fire off into "Never, Never Land". So calling an M-16 in "non-automatic" mode or an AR-15 (a civilian M-16) that does NOT have an "automatic" mode, a "non-assault" weapon, ESPECIALLY when the military taught us to USE the M-16, in the "non-automatic" mode, when ASSAULTING a target is ludicrous. If the term "assault weapons" bothers you, then let's let's change the ban terms to "self loading" or "clips over 10 bullet capable" weapons.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • Steve Bishop

        Thank you! "Assault Weapon" is nothing more than a media buzz word.

        Other people have proposed banning Military style weapons, but what are they? It depends on what time frame you're talking about. Muskets, bolt action rifles, and semi auto rifles have all been military weapons, so every variation of them could be defined as a "military style rifle."

        However, I do agree that there is no need for 30-40 round magazines, or drum magazines. Limit them to 10 rounds for rifles and pistols. If people want the "military" look for their AR-15, you can get 10 round mags that are the same size as the 30 round ones.

        Something else to consider: People go on about how the founding fathers never envisioned a semi auto rifle. with a 30 round mag capably of firing bullets that travel at 2000+ fps, which is almost certainly true. But, they put the right to bear arms in the constitution to make sure that the "people" would always be able to take back their government should it become necessary. All you have to do is read some of their writing to see this.

        The problem isn't the guns, it's the current mentality of the people. These things didn't happen 50 years ago because kids were raised right. If your kid came home whining about how he or she didn't get a good grade in school, or the other kids made fun of their clothes, hair or whatnot, or because they didn't get a trophy in the track meet, they got a smack on the side of the head and were told to smarten up, and usually they did. Today however, you get parents storming down to the school screaming profanities at the teacher and or principal, and threatening legal action if they're "perfect little prince or princess" doesn't get a pass. Then when they have to enter the real world and that doesn't work anymore, they can't deal with it, and they decide that everyone is against them, and something like what happened last week occurs.

        What happened was, is and always will be a tragedy. But to put all the blame on guns, is stupid.

        BTW, this comment is coming from a non gun owning Canadian, not an "American Gun Nut".

        December 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • certik

      it does nothing. Just as the 1994 assault weapon ban. The makers adjust their products in a minor way, crime rate or mass shootings will go neither up or down. It is only a lot of hot air and posturing on both sides

      December 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        Well, we're likely to SEE whether it makes a difference, if a ban on private control of assault weapons is banned. We'll NEVER KNOW unless we try it...will we?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
        • certik

          well it has been tried for ten years, you can look at the results. A lot of angry posturing, yes. Some minor and inconsequential adjustments in gun design, yes. Drop in gun violence or mass shootings, no

          December 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shootsforaliving

      So as a competition shooter, I can only shoot against members in my own club? come on. That's like telling a pro basketball player he can only play against people who come to his gym.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        Use the guns stored at the other guy's club for competition. What's the problem?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
        • LiveFree

          Competition firearms are usually customized to their shooter. Sights, trigger pull, zeroing, all very necessary to being a successful competitive shooter. Why would I use a gun from an opponenets club? Why shouldn't I be able to own, practice and compete with my own? Again, please educate yourself on a topic, prior to arguing either for or against it.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Joe

    Since schools are strapped for cash and not able to pay for security or a police presence, why don't we have the local municipalities and the federal government start a program to have off duty law enforcement volunteer for these assignments and compensate them with a slightly lower tax rate on their regular earnings for their service?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • The Big Troll

      Hmmmm, wonder who cut $$$ for education and security at our schools.....perhaps the one in office......

      December 20, 2012 at 12:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • My own mind.

        Of course you mean the Governor of the state. They cut school budgets and lay-off teachers. Remember?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • ernie

      How about... if you own a weapon and are brandishing quotes from the second amendment we force you to actually be a participant in the MILITIA... then you can give up a few hours a day and spend it patrolling schools, public palces etc etc. Trained, ready for combat and certified...

      In addition when you purchase a weapon you must purchase a locked safe mandatory... it gets a permit and inspected 1x per year with the costs to be paid for by the gun owners...

      December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
  23. Sam

    What do I want to tell our members of congress?...simple..WE DON'T TRUST YOU!!!

    You have passed law which have, for decades, infringed upon and slowly rolled back the constitution. Your laws control the actions of law enforcement and the military regardless of their constitutionality and you want ME to TRUST YOU? Have you lost your mind? If and until there are iron clad disconnects in place that prevent law enforcement and the military from acting on unconstitutional legislation that you pass, I will NOT give up the means for the people to have some sort of teeth to prevent you from shredding my rights and freedoms.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Report abuse |
  24. The Big Troll

    If somebody comes up to you and kills you with a hammer, will your loved ones blame the hammer?

    December 20, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • john smith

      I will have to blame you now, for giving them the idea. And do they really love you if they are smashing you to death with a hammer?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • The Big Troll

        I dont know where you stand on the subject but I did not say that the loved ones were the ones bashing you with a hammer....

        December 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Report abuse |
        • john smith

          Yeah, i was typing to fast, didn't remember your post correctly, then I went back to read it and saw my mistake. :(

          December 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
  25. The Big Troll

    If and when they come for my guns I will first give them any and all alcohol that I have. Cuz, well, my fience was hit and killed by a drunk driver in 1993 and, well, I blame the booze not the @$$ hole that killed her. Then, I will give them all the tobacco products that I can find. I dont smoke but tobacco kills thousands every year and well, I blame the tobacco. Then I will give them my perscriptoin medications because they kill thousands every year as well. Then since many many peolpe die in car accidents I will give them my Jeep and GMC.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Troll Hunter

      Cars are not designed to kill people, they are designed to help prevent death while in use. You're supposed to drive them. Tobacco and alcohol are consumables. A hunting rifle is designed to kill game. A small pistol is designed for personal protection. Semi-auto, military-style rifles with high capacity magazines are designed for massacres. Other than killing massive amounts of people, what is their propose? What else were they designed to do? What else were they intended for? You can be cute and troll CNN all day, but if you can't answer those questions then you need to join so many other conservatives and rethink your position on gun control. Again: Was are assault rifles, like a M16 or AK47, designed to do? What is the purpose? I served my country in Iraq as a US Marine. I know very well the answer to those questions, do you? Can you answer them honestly? Are assault rifles supposed to do your taxes Troll? Are they supposed to get you good and drunk or stoned? Do you ride your assault rifle to work, class, or the grocery store?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • The Big Troll

        Dear Hunter, Your assumption about me havinig an assult rifle was your own perception. My post was about firearms in general. I never stated that I had an assult rifle. When criminals use their vehicles to try and run over anybody, its an assult with a deadly weapon. How many poisons are in tobacco? How many people die every year due to alcohol abuse and drunk driving? How many people abuse perscription medications and die each year? Knives have been used recently to kill children. I dont hear anybody crying about those tragedies. The ban against any type of AR is only the beginning. Its called the termite effect. Its a way for you left wing libs to slowly eat away at our rights as Americans. How many guns did timothy mcveigh use to kill 168 people, 19 of them being children? His device was fertilizer and deisel fuel. How many guns were used on 9/11? 3,497 died all together that day and the WMD of choice was aircraft and jet fuel. If a sick person wants to kill somebody, or hundreds or thousands of people, they will find a way. The tragedy in CT was in a gun free zone. Criminals know this and know there will be no resistance. All it would have taken was for one armed person to stop the killer that took those innocent lives..........

        December 20, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Report abuse |
  26. b.krasne

    Any gun which can shoot off more than six rounds should be banned. The gun dealer who sells the murder weapon should be held legally guilty of enabling the shooter to kill.his victims. There's no place for the necessity to posess automatic rifles which can rip through the bodies of young children or innocent animals at the rate 100 rounds per minute. The legislators should get off their asses and stand up for regulation and sales of all amunition to a qualified buyer. Those legislators who bow to the perks and gifts from gun lobbyists should be voted out of office. See how fast they would support gun control if one of their own children was a victim. A simple Saturday night special killed the Kennedys, Martin Luther King, and others.
    What will it take to stop the mayhem. Let's arm everyone , teachers and students, and turn the country into the Wild West

    December 20, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • john smith

      So in your first sentance, you say ban any gun that holds more that 6 rounds, then go on to say the president of the united states was killed with a 5 round revolver. Do you even know what you sound like?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • asche

      What kind of media driven delusions do you hold that says people only do horrible things with guns? Guns.. do.. not..kill.. people any more than swimming pools swallow people up when they walk by.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Report abuse |
  27. mikeinsjc

    I am 65. In 1968, I could order from Sears by mail an M-1 carbine. This is a semiautomatic rifle using high-capacity magazines that was used by the military in WW2 and the Korean war- the predecessor of the weapon used in Newton. No forms to fill out, no background checks, training classes, etc. Guns were very easy to obtain. Those of you anxious to tighten the noose on gun owners, do a simple search comparing the gun murder rate in 68 vs. today.

    Those of you at home or abroad appalled by the rate of violent crime in America might consider this point. For decades, Blacks in America have committed roughly fifty percent of the murders. This statistic is easily obtainable from a cursory read of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. Why does this statistic never see the journalistic light of day? It is radically politically incorrect to discuss this. Yet those calling for gun control as a solution to America's violence are perfectly content to sweep this fact under the rug and are apparently unconcerned about the issue of Blacks killing other Blacks.

    Americans have made choices. They love TV shows where a dozen guys an episode get blown away (Alias, Nikita). They love their drugs, and they aren't concerned about the violence that ensues getting the drugs into their hands. They love their violent music and their porn. They want no voices chastising them for the choices they make- from the media, the pulpit, or the government. We have become desensitized to every single thing that would have disgusted Americans a couple of generations ago. This feigned shock, surprise and outrage over Newton is so much BS. This is exactly the type of society we have created for ourselves chosen to live in.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • frnd

      All agreed....but why do you need a military grade weapon ?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • asche

        "Military grade" is a fallacy and irrelevant. If we lived in an age with nothing but flint-locks would you the argument be that people only need stones to throw?

        December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • mikeinsjc

        I didn't use the word "need".

        December 20, 2012 at 12:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lisa Desjardins

      Passing on some FBI data (not passing on any opinion, just data). The FBI says blacks are disproportionately both victims and offenders in homocides, but they are more so victims than offenders.

      Homocide victims 2011: 50% black, 46% white http://1.usa.gov/SZTs42
      Homocide offenders 2011: 37.7% black, 32.5% white, 28% unknown. http://1.usa.gov/YpKDCb

      Homocides by weapons in 2011: 67.8% firearms, 13.8% knives, all others lower. http://1.usa.gov/VSxz1j

      December 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • the other guy

      The problem with blacks committing 50% of the murders has nothing to do with the gun debate. Black people are found guilty at a higher rate than white people. Now, as for mass murder, white people are the main perpetrator. They use their parents guns or grew up in houses with guns, that were all legal. Disregard race in the gun debate, it's a moot point. We aren't having a race war, even the KKK and Black Panthers are mellow. The speak with words and not weapons. If you have a revolver and some aim, you would be able to take out someone with a semi-automatic weapon. It's about compromise, not 1968.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Report abuse |
  28. Sagebrush Shorty

    Will President Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg and the rest of the two-faced politicians give up their armed to the teeth bodyguards or Secret Service? Of course not. Their life and well being is far more important than that of any average citizen. Lead by example? Never happen.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • aktap

      There is nothing new about this, the day the British burned washington D,C to the ground, the generals and politicians sat on they horse's behind the lines safe and sound. When the Well regulated militiamen (mostly just Boys) ran in fear from British rockets. many an Officer cut the feeing a farm boy down by saber from house back, for being cowards. Well, all but the Marine cannon crews and they're officer and navy buddy's. But that was before the rich guys (remember the only ones who could vote) thought we needed a real Army. still its sad to think that the America officer's killed more militiamen or militia kids if you well, then they did British soldiers that day!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
  29. Branden

    It amazes me that we are talking about more gun control. What about Fast and Furious? What makes everyone think that by giving the government more control over what guns law abiding citizens can purchase will change anything.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
    • asche

      I agree, look at how leadership on all levels seems to mismanage every aspect of our economy and social system (although we allow it really), and right now there's a wave in this country to let them disarm us? At a time when the world is at its craziest and honestly, the WILD majority of law-abiding citizens could need them MOST?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
  30. Rod in NJ

    Let me first say that I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership. The key word being responsible. I do think that some things need to change however. Why not make the future restrictions a 'win-win' for both responsible gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates? Here's my proposal:
    1) Make it a felony to lie on a gun registration application–make the minimum sentence something like 10 years of probation that the criminal is required to fund (i.e. they pay for the time they have to spend with their probation officer). Also make this a mandatory prosecution, take away the DA's choice.
    2) If someone gains access to your firearm and commits a crime, YOU are charged as an accessory to the crime and YOU are liable for any damages.
    3) Ok, then what if someone stole your gun?–If you report the stolen firearm to the police BEFORE the crime is committed, you would no longer be criminally liable, but you would be liable (i.e. break out your check books, someone's going to take all of your stuff)
    4) If you legally sell a gun to someone who commits a crime within one year of the purchase, YOU (this can be the business and/or the individual) are liable for the damages.

    As I said, I believe that people have the right to have guns, but they also have the responsiblity to everyone else to make sure that they keep them away from those who would misuse them.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:53 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      4. will nver fly. You can't hold a gun shop responsible for knowing the intent of a person buying a gun, nor can a private seller know the intent of the purchaser. You would need to be God, or at a minimum have a crystal ball, to know what that person will do with the gun 11 months from now. I don't think any reasonable person would be willing to stand up and say they can see and/or predict the future with such accuracy that they would be willing to go to jail for life if they misread what the ball is telling them.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rod in NJ

        Dave, I'll admit #4 is a bit of a stretch, but I'm not talking about jail. I'm talking about being civilly liable (i.e. you can be sued). Just as in any civil trial, it would be up to a jury of their peers to decide what the damages would be. If they truly think it was unforceable, then no monetary penalty. If they did know or should have known, then the penalty would be high.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • john smith

      Why stop there? I say the same punishment is justified for anybody who has a car stolen, or loses a knife, or even has a baseball bat stolen. We should make the original owner responsible for everything. If you have a computer stolen, you should pay the fine if the thief downloads pirated software. If you lose your wallet and somebody purchases a weapon with your credit card, you should really be put in jail.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rod in NJ

        The reason that I stop there is because I understand that a gun's primary purpose is to kill something. If a person has one, its reasonable for them to take care of it in a manner that doesn't endanger innocent people. If they can't do that, I'm completely ok with them either going to jail or into financial ruin.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
        • Dave

          Rod in NJ: "I understand that a gun's primary purpose is to kill something" I own a pistol, semi-automatic 22, that I use strictly for a Bulls Eye Target League. The only think I "kill" is pieces of paper. A lot of people in my league are not hunters, and shoot only Bulls Eye for the sport of it. I also know a lot of people that shoot "clay pigeons", and nothing but. Their guns also are not used for killing anything, just for sport. So not ALL guns are used to "kill something" unless you want to lump paper and clay, and tin cans into the statement.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShadowOnABubble

      People do have a right to have guns, yes, as the second amendment permits it. However, the question is not their right, but the need. Why should a person have a gun? For protection, they say. from what/whom? There needs to be a justifiable reason for gun ownership. I can understand a person living in the middle of nowhere having one to ensure for protection, but in thriving cities and neighborhoods? And if the gun is to be kept in hiding so that no one can steal it or have access to it, what is the point in having a gun which is left at home under lock and key when the gun owner is at a mall under attack from another? what protection does that gun provide? It is true that guns do not kill, people do. So, what is required is not a ban on the gun, but limitations on the access of it.
      Law enforcement agencies should obviously get what they need. However, the general public should be held accountable for what they can own and how much of it they can use. If again for protection, a person does not need more than one on his person and a family no more than two. So, it should be limited to that many firearm that one can get a license for. So also goes for the ammunition. Only a set number of ammunition – depending on the criteria it is approved for – is to be allowed per person or family for a particular period, and should be replenished only upon due diligence that the gun ownership during the period has been responsible. Also, any gun ownership license should be revoked if the owner has any cases registered against him, regardless of whether it involves gun use or not, till two years after such case is dismissed or proven to be unjustified.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Craig

      2) If someone gains access to your firearm and commits a crime, YOU are charged as an accessory to the crime and YOU are liable for any damages.

      I disagree with this one, whose to say the key can not be stolen and made a copy of and returned before i realize it or have a combination cracked or stolen via video recordings. I work between 8-16 hours a day, more then enough time for some one to "borrow", commit, and then clean the gun with out me ever knowing. If this is the case, and I'm following the law, why should I be held accountable for a crime. Its locked up and hiding, nothing more i can do other then to not own one.
      Only other way to make sure is if I have the gun with me at all times.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Rod in NJ

        Craig,
        The purpose is to make the stakes of not taking care of your firearm so severe that, if you chose to have one, you would take extraordinary measures to make sure that NO ONE could get to your gun without your knowledge and permission.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Lisa Desjardins

    Last chance – I have to focus on my next story but want to check one more time. Any other thoughts on what questions I should be asking Congress on this issue??

    December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Marie

      How do we get the guns out of the criminals hands?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Tim

      You should ask them why they are sanctioning Iran/North Korea (or any other nation seeking MDW) for developing nuclear weapon, since technically, they are using those weapons to defend themselves. It is comparable to allow everyone to have a guns to defend themselves.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Craig

        I'm sorry but that is just a dumb question. Iran has publicly announced how they want to annihilate Israel. To me that means offense. So it is not the same.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dale F. Hill

      1. It is important to remember that banning guns of any type will not end or limit mass murder in this country. Some folks can't accept this fact.

      2. When this sort of legislation was introduced in the 90's, it had no effect.

      3. The root of the problem has nothing to do with guns themselves. Look at each incident case by case and form a logical conclusion. If the types of weapons politicians had been banned already, Lanza would still have been able to pull off this mass murder because there are hunting rifles that operate exactly the same, and some more effectively. Ask around and get the facts. It has nothing to do with the weapons themselves.

      In this country, we blame everybody except the person responsible. I don't know how or when this happened, but I think you will find that this the root cause of many if not all of our social problems is lack of accountability.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sagebrush Shorty

      Ask them this "If guns are banned here in the US can I go to Mexico and pick up a Fast and Furious brand weapon and bring it back here ?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nabob

      Yes, according to FBI statistics there are twice as many murders committed annually with physical force (hands, feet, etc.) than with rifles. Why are we focusing on rifles at all? Roughly half of all murders, on the other hand, are committed with pistols. If we are serious about reducing the murder rate, shouldn't this be our focus?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShadowOnABubble

      1) In the 2000-2010 period there has been over 60 cases of school shootings with over 100 fatalities. Majority of the perpetrators were juveniles. Obviously, they are having access to guns that are owned by someone else. How will any new gun law address this?

      2) If guns are to be kept under proper lock and key, with restricted access to a second person, and hence the owner himself not likely to have it on himself for protection, then what is the gun going to be used for? TSA has a security process that is allowed to be shared only on a "need to know" basis. Is it not proper to have a person meet the "need to own" criteria before he/she is issued a license?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
  32. John Black Hills SD

    Do any republicans remember erasing the Brady Bill from law. Another reason Americans should not support the remedial political party aka republican.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
  33. hyde

    BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES.
    Why teach kids to behave this way?

    December 20, 2012 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
    • john smith

      we should ban auto racing, so we don't teach the kids to speed on the road. We should ban wrestling and boxing and every other combat sport to prevent our precious snowflakes from fighting. We should ban tv, to save our little billy from mimicking the actions of the "stars".

      December 20, 2012 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
      • Trokur

        Oh, lets also ban schools, or at least ban recess, lunch, and bus service in schools, since those are the times when kids learn bad language and a host of other bad habits (like bullying) from other kids. Also, lets ban books and music because they contain violence sometimes too.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
      • GOD

        Exactly! you're getting it now!

        December 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobPitt

      Parents should take responsibility for their kids, I have a three year old and I make sure his video games are age appropriated, regarding guns the something applies responsibility for them is a matter of public safety, make sure they are properly stored and secure. Don’t sell a gun to a person that may suffer from a mental illness, is all a matter of common sense, the mother of the killer had none, and now both are dead, plus a bunch of innocent children and adults..

      December 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nabob

      The video games are just a symptom of the actual illness – a fascination with violence. I don't believe they are the root cause.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
  34. john smith

    This is why we don't need guns. An armed homeowner shot at innocent armed intruders, how dare he protect his family from these men.

    http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/police-home-invader-dies-after-jumping-out-window/nTZnm/

    December 20, 2012 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • H-K

      Way Kewl...now that's what i am talking about!

      December 20, 2012 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
  35. R

    Congress will say whatever the highest $bidder$ pays them to say....regardless of how many or whom is killed...

    December 20, 2012 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
  36. Thrash Bolsheviks

    Want to know why Congress–especially the stinking DemoNcrats–wants to limit gun ownership?? Because, if the average American (yes, it's still spelled with a C; not a K as desired by the Criminal in Chief) knew what Congress and West wing admin offices REALLY had in mind for the reformation of this country, that average citizen would storm D. C. and execute most of the lawmakers on sight.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Marc

      This line of thinking is the problem in the US, your guns WILL NOT make a lick of difference in what happens in Washington DC, none, zero, this is a pipe dream of the far right wing nuts. This was also the reasoning of the woman who owned the assault rifle that killed all those innocent children and herself, it's a good thing she was armed and ready to take on the government huh?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
      • k210

        Don't tell that to Syria.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      What the hell are you talking about. Please just go back into your bomb shelter. For the rest of us, we will continue to live our lives in reality.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:43 am | Report abuse |
    • vidal808

      You are an idiot! Sore looser Republican that still can't see the light and does not understand that President Obama is actually. The President. Ha, you get it now? I am glad that there is a discussion about guns and with a little luck, this time we will be able to ban all assault weapons for civilian use.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobPitt

      Here is a good example of the reality of your country, is obvious this guy posting here is an extremist and soon to be a possible armed lunatic on the loose. How many more have to be victims of an armed lunatic before people understand is not normal to shoot others..

      December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • jorge washinsen

        Might be other reasons his comment stayed posted.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Nabob

        By this thinking, the men who founded the United States are all extremists. The original motivation of the 2nd Amendment was to maintain limited government and preserve individual freedom by all means necessary, including revolution.

        "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson (extremist)

        December 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jace

        Tell that to the hordes of police that shoot and kill innocent people every day in this country. This country is young and history always repeats itself when left unchecked. -go google what happened to Australia when they turned in their weapons. Crime went up 60% robbery went up 30% and something never even thought of happened: home invasions went up for the first time ever to 25+ percent. The only thing people could do is bar up the home, lock themselves up inside, and hope that some crook with weapons (because crooks don't care about law, so they still have weapons) don't break in and rape, murder, and ransack the homeowners home. -maybe that's your vision of the future but it sure isn't mine. If you want to leave your life in the hands of others, go for it. Take a chance, but If it ever comes down to either me or my family vs an agressive intruder, I will win every time, and will will protect my loved ones until the blood stops pumping in my veins. I will NOT leave that up to anyone else.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Report abuse |
  37. Brian

    Banning Assault weapons will not make a difference. Assault weapons are used in less that 2% of violent crimes in America. The problem isn't guns, the problem is the lack of education involved with the use of guns. Do we ban cigarettes when we know they will kill more people in this country then anything guns will ever do? No we don't. We educate our youth on the dangers associated it. Please don't tell me cigarettes don't commit mass murder because they do. Blaming guns for violent deaths is like blaming greed on monopoly. Think of Crack and Meth, its illegal in this country, does that stop people from getting it? It does not get to the root of the issue. Furthermore holding Europe as the example of gun control makes no sense considering how many American lives were lost fighting TWO world wars there. What we need is education in our classrooms and Strict background checks. If your a felon, you can not legally own a gun, If you are diagnosed with a certain severity of mental illness you are restricted to owning a single gun or not at all.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Marc

      Okay, by that logic we should just go lawless, because after all people are going to break all of our laws right? This is such a pathetic cop out of an argument that people use to hide behind their guns, it's such a selfish and pathetic line of thought. When the Brady bill was in effect in the 90s we had 100x less violence with assault weapons than since the bill has expired, that's not an opinion or open for debate. The statistics are there and supported by the FBI.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
      • BobPitt

        Brian does have a point, but it has to be a combination of both, education and limits. Is not a great idea to sell guns to mentally incompetent people as much as selling guns to people with a criminal record, I would think everybody agrees with that..
        Changing the culture of guns will take a long time buy it is possible as Brian pointed out the case of cigarettes.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • RICH

        So Columbine in 99 didnt happen cause the Brady Bill was in place right. O wait that was right in the middle of the Brady Bill and that still happened. We need to be armed to keep our goverment honest. It's the reason why we have the second amendment.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Anna Farr

    Since CNN stopped comments after just 57 on Obama and Biden ............................................... Really the headline reads "Obama taps Biden" hysterical!!!!!!!!

    December 20, 2012 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
  39. Joe Indian

    NO,...Israeli teachers do NOT all carry weapons. Only those next to the West Bank. Also,...ALL Israeli citizens go through Military training,...it's required,...not the phoney classes that are taught over here to meet minimum CC requirements.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Joe, I lived in Israel teaching counterinsurgency for a defense contractor; any teacher that wishes to carry a gun may, regardless of their proximity to the West Bank. While the vast majority of Israelis choose to serve, they're not required to be in the military. Hasidic Jews are exempt, as are individuals who wish to serve in some civil service/emergency service capacity.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
  40. owtdorsmn

    The fear I read in some of these posts to arm yourselves against an oppresive government or tyranical government is astonishing. If you think we have either of these types in America, and you need to arm yourselves with weapons of mass destruction to protect yourselves. I beg you to go to a 3rd world country for a month. Go live in China, or north vietnam, or Mexico. While this country has divided itself in its core beliefs from right republican to left liberal. This is still the best country in the world. Because we can go to bed at night knowing our marines, army, navy, and air force are sitting on that wall, protecting us all as americans. Its enough of the insanity. We need to remember to love our neighbors and protect our communities. Love our country once again. Not engage in militant and anarchy of this country. Times are tough all over the world. Not just in America. We need to rally together not further apart. Sad to say but our grandparents from WWI and WWII would be ashamed of all of us. These generations loved this country. Becuase they knew true Tyranny from the countries they came from. Sad but most of you on these posts are out of your minds with what the government is saying and you have gone a whole other direction.. Proof you can not change peoples minds. And that this country has a plague of irrational thinkers. I wish the government would give all of you that want out the help to get out.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      I couldn't have said it better. I would really like to know how these individuals came to these beliefs. What has the US done in the last few years to convince anyone that the US is being taken over by anyone. I agree, that if you think the US is being taken over, then please leave and go to another country that you think is better.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        Wow, wake up. Every time there is a tragic event we are required to give up a little more of our freedom. The Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Warrantless wiretapping, rendition and now they want to disarm us. Where do you think this is heading? When will it be enough? What's the next step when this happens again and their assault ban is already in place? My god when did the Land of the Free and home of the brave become the land of the police state and home of the scared to death??? This was a tragic event caused by one deranged individual. If terrorists hate us for our freedom they won't have much left to hate pretty soon. Bravo sheeple, you're playing your part beautilfully. One day you will wake up and wonder how you let the constitution get torn up and your country stolen. Just remember, it was you that gave it away because you were frightened by the boogie man.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • Liberty over Tyranny

      "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."-Thomas Jefferson

      Dont forget, my 2nd Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms, directly protects your 1st amendment right to disagree.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:59 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        exactly. without the second amendment the people have no way to stop the government from taking away the 1st and 3rd.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:22 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Joe Indian

    First off,...criminals don't go on shooting spree's in schools or theaters. Secondly,...not all Israeli teachers carry weapons. That is a fallacy. Only those closest to the West Bank are allowed to have weapons. And bear in mind that all Israeli citizens are required to go through Military training. Not some phoney 4-8 hr course designed to meet the minimum requirements for CC. The very idea that more Guns is the answer here is not only ridiculous,...but probably grounds for Psychological evaluation. The whole idea is to prevent these nuts from obtaining access to these guns. The guys mother was a gun owner,...it didn't do her any good.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
  42. tim

    as i sit here and read all the comments made here and think so many people want gun control and so many are not realizing that a gun has no feeling or a concience, it is reall sisturbing to hear americans think it is only the gun that did all of this horrific crimes but as we all know it is a person some sick individual that has no concern for human life. i am a gun owner and i have children and it is my responsibility to teach the just what the gun can and cannot not do. the person that has guns and thier child does something wrong and takes a life and many others as what is done in the schools, we should ask first why does someone want assult rifles what use are they except for military use, the handguns why have so many automatic hand guns, are they stored properly where only you as the owner has access only, a depressed person or someone with anxiety problems knows exactly what they are doing when he or she picks up that weapon and knows what they are fixing to do. the gun cannot do anything till it is told what to do by a person holding it and doing what it does. it isnt going to stand up and hgurt or kill by itself it has to be a person behind it holding it and telling it what to do. people blame movies and video games becouse of the violence in them are you going to ban the great movies and games. this can be all avoided if the parents and children put god back in thier life and start back discipline and love tuff love is what i see needed everyday. there is no respect tought at home by mm and dads there is no discipline at schools to teach the children you have to take responsibility for what you do and get the parents involved, parents get the teachers involved and help each other out. put GOD back in the school system. put the blame where it belongs on the individual that done this horrible thing not the gun and if you own a gun have it locked up where no one can get to it they sell gun safes and trigger lock everyday use them. use common sence that is all it takes. teach your children love and compassion for thier fellow man and you teach them by example by show that also. our great nation was created for the freedom we know today with the words IN GOD WE TRUST. those for words was printed on our money and in our constution well this is what i think and what i believe

    December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
  43. JJ

    Ask them why this is sensational. Perhaps 100 people have been killed in "sensational" shootings. About 12000 people are killed each year by firearms, with the majority being cheap handguns in the hands of the marginalized killing other marginalized people. Why, when "assault rifles" are not the root of most of the gun violence, are we so fascinated with them? A Glock handgun with a 20 round magazine holds more than many assault rifles.

    As an aside, drunk driving accidents kill about the same number of people as guns.

    December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • swh

      Because they look like the ones on TV.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
    • bfpiercelk

      It's simple really. This is all about getting votes, not public safety. The 'assault weapons' Feinstein is talking about aren't even close to the most frequently used weapons in murders, but they do make big news, meaning the sheep are running scared. Gotta take advantage I guess...

      December 20, 2012 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
      • Sir

        True – the only power the legislature has is to pass laws...and the only thing a law does is to deny or prohibit something.

        What is needed is commitment to looking at better mental health care.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
  44. IRF

    Those in congress now need to lead rather than being led. The silence by many in congress on the many facets of the tragedy of last week is deafening. If they truly had any decency and wanted to show the country that we are indeed a civilized nation they would have sat this week and passed an interim bill that sought to do the following:

    1. Immediately place a moratorium on the sale of these semi-auotmaic weapons + clips etc.
    2. Immediately cease the sale of ANY gun at a gun show – while awaiting legislation that ensures all secondary sales are registered through the appropriate authority
    3. Identify a program for the buy back of these weapons sold in the last ten years.

    We look for those in political leadership to make meaningful changes for the good of the entire country, looking for reasons why something can't be done is much like the roaches that run to hide in the shadows. For too long the minuscule percentage of the population that feel they need these horrendous weapons hold the vast majority of the population in harms way. True, criminals will get these weapons, but the criminals don't burst into schools and slaughter children, we know unstable young men do that. The criminals will engage activities where they will ultimately be confronted by the authorities and that is another issue to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

    There are 32 murdered every day in the USA ( apparently, the greatest country in the world) and those mainly occur because of a multitude or criminal, social and economic reasons. We look forward to the leadership coming to terms with the CAUSE of these crimes rather than hoping a particular punishment will suffice.

    Leaders, you have be elected to act. Leaving Washington this week without agreeing simple actions is essentially turning your back on the people of this country and those bereaved families in Newtown.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:55 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      So do you propose to ban cigarettes, alcohol, and unhealthy foods as well? Those factors contribute to more deaths in this country than any other.

      Or maybe you're referring to items that may be used as a weapon; so fertilizer (Timothy McVeigh never aimed a weapon at any of the people he killed), cars (which account for nearly 40,000 deaths a year with a great deal of resulting in vehicular homicide or manslaughter charges), or any knives over 6 inches (kitchen knives are the weapon of choice in most domestic disputes).

      Anything can be dangerous if wielded in such a manner.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Sorry..

      Won't happen. While I am appalled at the murder in Newtown, as I am a father of three children, one of which is in elementary school, I can tell you that the percentages, in terms of murder rates just aren't there. Newtown = .00000006 per capita. Does this warrant going after 256,000,000 guns and ~90 million gun owners? I think not. Also, if we are going to address these issues, we also need to greatly decrease the birth rate in this country. Place a moratorium on people having children who cannot afford them. Including a compulsory sterilization program for those who break any number of criteria established that determines that they are not fit to father or mother a child. Sorry, the population in this country needs greatly reduced. We do not have the economy, resources, or environment to support our current rate of derelict breeders.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:11 am | Report abuse |
      • PsyWar7

        I agree. Overpopulation is the underlying cause of many problems, and they will continue to get worse unless we experience some negative population growth and relieve the stress.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      "Immediately place a moratorium on the sale of these semi-automatic weapons + clips etc." Please don't call them "clips"...it only serves to identify you as someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. They are "MAGAZINES"...the box that holds the ammunition. Also, please define "THESE"...are you talking all .223 caliber rifles, all semi-automatics rifles and pistols, rifles that "look" military even if they are ".22 caliber tin can plinkers"? Please define "these" before meaningful dialog can continue.

      Immediately cease the sale of ANY gun at a gun show – while awaiting legislation that ensures all secondary sales are registered through the appropriate authority" Many gun shows already have this legislation in place! I guess you are talking about those states without this legislation, in which case ANY gun at a gun show would not be what you want to do.

      "Identify a program for the buy back of these weapons sold in the last ten years." The money set aside by congress would have to include ALL the ammunition spent by everybody owning these guns over the last 10 years also. If I'm going to spend 3 times the price of the gun on ammo over a 10 year period to become proficient using that gun, and you take that gun away, then you owe me the TOTAL cost of owning that gun, including all ammo, cleaning supplies, license, gun club dues, etc. You don't want to put more teachers in the classroom, police on the street, and fire fighters to make you safe...you SURE you want to reimburse me the total cost of owning/operating my guns for the last 10 years?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • labotomi

      There's this little snag called the 2nd Amendment that prevents the knee jerk reaction you seek.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Randall Shutt

      Ok – on the buyback issue. Lets do a little thought experiment. If we have 300m guns, lets say that 10% of those are semi-automatic long guns and another 30% are semi-automatic pistols or pistol-caliber carbines and such. That's 40% total of 300m which is 120million. Lets propose that the average buyback price for these weapons would be ~$600.00. That would be 72 billion dollars (seventy two billion!). Are we going to borrow that money from china?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Lisa Desjardins

    Hi guys,

    This is Lisa Desjardins, the reporter on this story, up here in the US Capitol. What do you think I should be asking congressmen and senators right now, after #Newtown?? Seriously, looking for your thoughts.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Ask them why instead of disarming individuals by creating "gun-free-zones" (which nearly all major sprees happen in [movie theaters, malls, schools]), why not empower them to protect their life by striking down such legislation? I already mentioned earlier that there haven't been any spree shootings in Israeli schools (where the teachers, faculty, and staff all have weapons), so how is it that further disarming law abiding citizens is the answer?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
    • MidWestern

      Lisa, my question is this:

      How will the owners of legally purchased guns be compensated for the loss of any 'banned guns' which can cost several thousand dollars ?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Got it. When we get some specific legislation, I'll look to see what that say on that. If it's not clear, I will definitely ask.

        For now, I have not heard any discussion of retroactively banning guns or taking back current privately-owned guns. So far discussion is sales going forward.

        Of course that could mean – though no one has laid out specifics – you might not be able to sell your gun in the future. Unclear.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:03 am | Report abuse |
        • slason

          Gun legislation will not remove current guns rather just stop sales of specific guns. As we have seen with prior bans, the numbers of those weapons dwindled as time went on.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
        • Justin

          I would like to know why the killer was allowed to enter a gun free zone being that he was carrying firearms. No really, what will be done to address the gun free zone issue?

          December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
        • Dave

          If the government says I can't sell it they better be ready to buy it at a fair price, since they said at the time I purchased it it was legal! and when I say "fair price" I am talking the steet value that other gun owners would be willing to pay for it, not some reduced price so the government can "clean the streets" at a marginal cost.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          2 questions for you to ask.

          1.) if the ban will work then how did columbine happen in the middle of a ban?
          2.) why dont they employ former vets at the schools as security? many are unemployed. this provides jobs and security without infriging on the constitution.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
        • Lisa Desjardins

          Thanks for that YouSirAreDumb. I'm cutting and pasting your words onto my list as well. (Along with other comments here – sorry can't respond individually to all) BTW, I really like your use of "Sir".

          December 20, 2012 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
        • Dave

          YouSirAreDumb: The reason they won't employ former vets in the schools is really easy...MONEY. People don't ever want to spend money on much needed teachers...what is the chance they will want to spend it on vets? Teachers are NEEDED every day to teach...the vets would be needed only on the occasion that something might happen. The mass killers would just move to other places if schools became heavily fortified. Malls, churches, hospitals, HS sporting events, stop a school bus and climb on, you name it there are plenty of places where they can capture a group of people and shoot them up where they are defenseless. The answer is to address the root problem, and the root problem is not guns...it is a society that promotes violence through all it's forms of media...books, movie, video games, etc. You can't post a guard at EVERY location where 5 or more people congregate. Solve the problem, don't try to limit the tool available, as human's are very resourceful and if there is a will there is a way.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
        • nlees

          I haven't read anything on the basic part of the 2nd ammendment to protect yourself from the government as in the times of revolution. I am for responsible ownership definitely, but many people have good points. You won't stop crimininals because they do not care about laws. You should beef up the laws as in maybe that one person who stated a felony for lying on your application. The main thing is for us to have the freedoms we do have the 2nd ammendment goes hand in hand. If anything were to happen in our "perfect" world here in the US and we had to go back to defending ourselves from the government where will you be with a ban on guns? There are so many issues in this one issue. I would rather own and gun properly and not use it than need one and not have one. Then what happens? When you haven't any guns and you need one you call the police to help you. Now it is justified to own a gun when it personally affects you? This is such a sensitive subject and anything should be voted on and let the majority vote as always.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • NJERSEYJOE

      You can ask them, why after the bombing in Oklahoma City didn’t they ban the sale of fertilizer and diesel fuel, since just as many young innocent children were killed that day. Or why not take away our automobiles and alcohol since just as many lives are lost because of drunk driving.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        If you had to put that into one question what would it be?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
        • Dave

          "Why single out guns when there are many items which pose greater risks to the American people, such as alcohol, tobacco, unsafe cars, food poisoning, receiving the wrong medications at the pharmacy, hospital mixups, etc?"

          December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
        • Lisa Desjardins

          Thanks

          December 20, 2012 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Christine

      Lisa, Ask them this. How is banning a style of firearm that wasn't even used during this horrible event going to stop anything like this from ever happening again? The rifle he used is legal under Connecticut's AWB and it was legal under the last National AWB. Both the shootings at V-Tech and Aurora used handgun, not rifles, both of which is legal under both AWB's. Why don't they stop looking at the tools and start looking at the why's. The real causes of this, not the knee-jjerk reactions of the ill informed.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
      • Christine

        Correction... Tuscon, not Aurora., sorry.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
        • Lisa Desjardins

          No worries. I knew what you meant.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
        • Tom

          Even with Aurora, the clown's gun jammed because he was using a cheapo 100 round drum; if anything the fact that he had that saved lives since anyone in the firearms community knows how unreliable the things are.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • JlG

      Lisa,
      Ask them how they plan to enforce new laws. There were many gun-control laws broken in the Newton massacre and Connecticut already has an AWB that did not prevent this.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Enforcement is a very good question. Putting it on the list.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • John

      Lisa,
      Ask them why they feel banning high capacity magazines and "military-style" rifles is going to make our country a safer place? Ask them why they define an semi-automatic weapon as an assault weapon? Ask them why with every idea they're coming up with up there on the hill they are infringing on our rights?

      People, we need to wake up and realize that our government is slowly turning into something terrifying. This is only the beginning. As soon as they have completely taken our guns from us, they'll systematically take the rest of our rights away from us one by one. Hitler, Stalin and Tse-Tung ring a bell? I'm sure you've all heard this time and time again; because it's true!

      DO NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT SCARE YOU INTO GIVING UP YOUR RIGHTS!

      December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        I definitely think people on all sides of this debate are v eager to hear how Congress defines "military-style" weapon. Congress may pass laws, but those definitions and the interpretations by federal rules-makers are often what really governs the country. Good point on checking definitions.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
    • bfpiercelk

      Ask them when they're going to stop cherry picking sensational topics for votes and actually lead.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
    • NJERSEYJOE

      You can also ask why is it ok for the Goverment to sell these same weapons to Mexican drug cartels ala Fast and the Furious, which got one of our law enforcement officers killed.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        I may pass that question on to our Justice Dept. folks.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Stan

      Do you have a brother who server in the USAF as a camera technician?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Lisa Desjardins

        Is that for me? If so, afraid not. We're a Navy family (my dad). Though my granddad was in the Army Air Corps, so there is a USAF connection there. Desjardins is my married name – the family is from Maine with Quebecois roots.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:42 am | Report abuse |
    • Peterindiana

      Ask them why should it be ok for security guards to have guns to protect money, but families shouldn't have guns to protect themselves? I guess they feel money is more valuable than lives.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Sid Airfoil

      Lisa,

      Ask them if they are comfortable taking away a right of millions of honest, law-abiding citizens in order to prevent a small number from abusing that right. Ask them if there are other rights, perhaps free speech, that they would be willing to take away from us all just because some one might yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

      I have no problem with laws regarding gun ownership. But I do have a problem with being denied my rights and treated as criminal for something that I MIGHT do. Liberals oppose preemptive wars, why do they support preemptive laws?

      Sid

      December 20, 2012 at 11:45 am | Report abuse |
      • H-K

        hmmm...the movie "Minority Report" ring a bell?

        December 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      2 questions for you to ask.

      1.) if the ban will work then how did columbine happen in the middle of a ban?
      2.) why dont they employ former vets at the schools as security? many are unemployed. this provides jobs and security without infriging on the constitution.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Aimee

      Hi Lisa, in the Pearl, Miss. shooting, the vice-principal stopped the shooter (who was on his way to the junior high school) by going to his car, taking out his gun, and disarming and detaining the boy until the police arrived. No children died at the junior high school. To do that, vice principal Myrick had broken the "gun-free zone" law (aka "we're unarmed, don't shoot!" law). My question is, why does the government think it has the right to disarm citizens, and then not offer them on-site protection?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
  46. Adam

    In response to the call for MORE Gun control laws, I would like to bring to the basic premise that people kill people not guns. The first control law passed was the in 1968 the Uniform Gun Control Act, since then numerous laws and acts have been passed by our states legislators, and still people are killed with guns. Critical Thinking would lead one to the fact that more laws are not going to put an end to people killing people with guns. When I think about this subject I am reminded of a quote I read many years ago back when doing research on the subject. A prisoner in CA serving time in San Quentin wrote a letter to the then governor of California Ronald Regan “Dear Governor, I hear you all talk about gun law, let me tell you what it means to us here in prison. When we case a place or person the one thing we have to think about is does that person have a gun, if you can guarantee that isn’t true anymore, that’s our heaven.” When talking about laws, especially Gun Control Laws remember they are only as good as those who obey them, criminals by definition do not…

    December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
  47. cgowens

    Funny, I don't ever hear about police stations getting shot up by "mass murderers". I wonder why?

    December 20, 2012 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      There's never been a spree killing in an Israeli school, I'd venture to guess it's because the teachers, faculty, and staff all carry guns.

      But who knows, maybe Hamas is just afraid of schools?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • JR

      So true.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • rman

      No, you are correct, police stations have not been targeted. Yet.

      A military installation has, though...combat trained soldiers, intense security, and an overabundance of assault rifles, sidearms and those who know how to use them.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Tom

        If you were in the military, or knew anything about the military, you'd know that we're not allowed to carry weapons while in garrison.

        The only people on base carrying live firearms are the MPs or the contracted security people at the gates. Weapons aren't accessible either – all the weapons/ammunition on base are stored in armories which are locked up.

        And it's not for safety reasons either, it's because people have sticky fingers.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • Christine

        Which were disarmed and not allowed to carry on base. Another example of how safe gun free zones are.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
      • mike

        It was a military base, but most if not all of those who were armed had no ammunition. It's not unusual for ammo to be locked up, with no access without special permission on base.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
  48. nietodarwin

    The NRA is a powerful beast. This probably won't change much, there will be more restrictions on assault weapons, and gun shows, but other than that, the NRA and their agenda will do well. There may be MORE guns in schools, NOT a good idea. ONE guard, OK. Arming teachers is a bad idea. (Teacher who has worked at schools with shootings) The NRA will ride this out just like the others, but the fact is was kids and the country is upset will change things just a little . GUN SALES ARE RISING. The NRA has NO COMPLAINTS.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
    • djc60

      "the NRA and their agenda" The only agenda the NRA has is protecting the right to bear arms, just as the First Amendment guarantees your right to post nonsense.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
  49. Benn 965

    Feinstein – go away.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Libertarian

      I wish she would. If there is any argument for term limits, she would be the reason why. I have voted against her in every election possible. Impossible task here in CA, which is full of Dems. Funny thing about people here, they keep voting in the same failed policy makers, yet complain that things do not get better.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Sagebrush Shorty

      Far,far away.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:55 am | Report abuse |
  50. halo117a

    You gotta love those DEMONCRATS and our FAKE PRESIDENT,along with their Brain Dead Slaves the Liberals,Atheist and Gays.

    All of them want a TOTAL GUN BAN after the Sandy Hook Incident ,but yet they all support THE LEGALIZED MASS KILLINGS and even send OUR TAX DOLLARS to other Countries TO DO THE SAME....LEGALIZED MASS KILLINGS.

    It's called ABORTION.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      How come right to life crazies appear in every thread regardless of subject. Are they that insecure in their arguments that they think repeated usage instead of reason will change minds.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
    • internalfusion

      Funny, I'm atheist and I am a huge gun-rights advocate. I suppose you just can't pigeon hole everyone because your preacher tells you to, huh?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        "atheist and I am a huge gun-rights advocate" Some would argue that they go hand in hand. You have no God to answer to so why not promote guns? I however have a friend who comes to gun practice Sunday mornings right after church. You can be God fearing, or not, and still advocate gun rights. Your beliefs are your beliefs, and as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to believe as they please then they are fine. An example where I would have a problem is Islam where I believe the Koran says that if I don't convert then I should be slain...that I have a problem with. You, not so much so. Have a good day.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
      • Joe Peterson

        Funny I'm a theist my preacher does not talk like this....

        December 20, 2012 at 11:00 am | Report abuse |
    • Duc749

      As one of the thousands of Americans who raised his/her hand and volunteered for the so-called "legalized mass killings" overseas, I'd like to point out that we went there behind a CONSERVATIVE president.

      I'm not sure where the 'atheist' and 'gay' comments came from. Perhaps some closet desires you are allowing to bubble to the surface?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      As a Libertarian, I love watching you far right and far left people go at each others throats. You both accuse each other of the worst things you can conjure up, yet both the far right and far left are nothing more than polar opposites of the other.

      Stop frothing at the mouth and think for yourself.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
      • djc60

        I'm on the "right", and I think for myself. The problem is those on the "left" want the government to do our thinking for us. So, as a "right-wing" conservative I would rather think for myself and take personal responsibility for my own actions.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
        • Tom

          You're right leaning but the "radical" just like the "radical left," has more than it's fair share of people screaming over perceived issues: "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM (So what if he was?)" "OBAMA IS GOING TO TAKE ALL OUR GUNS! (Mitt Romney's record on gun control is far worse)" "OBAMA IS [Insert nonsense here]"

          But as a Libertarian, I'm exactly with you on people making their own choices. We're not a nanny state, and the government has no legal basis or authority to regulate my life.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
        • Libertarian

          Sounding to me like you are really a Libertarian. :)

          December 20, 2012 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      I see a lot of people in here calling for a ban on not only assualt type weapons, but also all semi-automatic weapons as well. That may, and it's a big MAY, cut down on some, but not all mass murder scenes like what we just saw in CT. However, an unforseen consequence may be MORE total gun deaths starting shortly after the ban took effect. I am a gun owner, and I own a semi-automatic pistol. I do NOT keep the gun loaded in the house because I can get to my magazine, then to my gun a few seconds later, and load the magazine into the gun in about 1 second. If you take away my magazine, and make me use a REVOLOVER which is MUCH slower to load, I, and MILLIONS like me, will start keeping LOADED guns in the house ALL THE TIME. If I can't load my gun REALLY fast the other option is to keep it loaded ALL THE TIME. I have no children in the house, but those parents with children will be taking a big risk keeping a loaded weapon in the house within childs reach, ALL THE TIME. Please do not force people to start keeping loaded guns in their house. You will of course say "but the don't have to", but in your hearts you will know that you are, and you will be indirectly responsible to some childs death...the thing you say you are trying to prevent. It won't be your finger on the trigger, but for all intents and purposes, it will be. Can you live with that childs blood on your hands?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
  51. HifromNM

    We need a long-term solution that replaces all dumb guns with new "smart guns". Smart guns that are fingerprint activated and deactivate when a mass shooting is occurring (or shoot the shooter between the eyes). Everyone would have to turn in their dumb guns and set them all up in a museum, like dinosaurs, and get a free smart gun from the NRA. This way we can keep the out-dated constitution that some feel is an American value. We moved from dumb phones to smart phones pretty quickly, we can do the same with guns.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • cory

      that was the stupidest thing i think i've read this week...

      December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
      • djc60

        I'm not sure if that is a serious or sarcastic comment. But I do agree, that is the stupidist thing I have read also.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • karen

        I can't quit laughing, you are so right...lol

        December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      "Smart" phones are a real problem. They allow drivers to text while driving, pushing up the body count from distracted drivers. Please find another argument to use, because finger print ID on guns to limit who can use them is not a bad idea. Activating/deactivating from a central location may be a bit of a stretch. By the time you could identify which gun was being used for a BAD purpose the damage would already be done.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
      • HifromNM

        The analogy to smart phones was intended to mean it can be done quickly (timing). Smart Guns is not a stupid idea. We need solutions not more complaining about the Constitution and Gun Ownership. Whining won't solve the problem. Solutions will. Guns currently are just a gun that shoots, why not add capabilities? I am speaking from a possibility perspective of a better future. Technology can help and we have technologists that can provide new innovative solutions.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • djc60

      Are you being serious or sarcastic?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Libertarian

      interesting comment regarding our consitution. Are you also stating then that the First, Third, and Fourth Amendments to it are 'out-dated'?

      December 20, 2012 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
      • HifromNM

        That's a different set of problems. We have to live with the Constitution since for some reason we believe this was prophecy and is set in stone.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • HifromNM

      I am being serious and looking for real solutions rather than more complaining from "gun rights people" with the Constitution supporting the right to bear arms. Why can't they be Smart Arms? Technology is serous business.

      December 20, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Skeptacular

    Many of the commenters have proven themselves master of the metaphor....of the comparison, of the other terrible indignities and and infringements on our liberty and way of life should gun control be any way enhanced. So I have one question. I won't insult anyone by suggesting it's a simple question or one entered into without serious soul searching; but it's one all Americans ought to consider and understand while dealing with tragedies like this one – and one I think anyone any legal gun owner should answer...for themselves and for those who disagree: Do you have a limit....a line in the sand beyond which your mind can be changed? Is there any killing with legal guns large enough, awful enough to make you more receptive to ANY kind of augmentation to gun control, be it assault/new-style sporting rifles, semi automatics based on military designs, enhanced registrations? Anything at all? I would only ask that you not quote from the NRA boilerplate or once again not answer by hiding behind comparisons. Just answer and if you're proud enough of your rights and beliefs, stand behind either your yes or no. It'll be illuminating to see who among you can and will actually do this.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Duc749

      Your extremely long post fails to focus on a key point – what will banning SOME weapons accomplish? The focus on firearms is a band aid on a fist sized wound. Does anyone realisticly think that banning assault style weapons will stop mass shootings? So then this begs the next question – do you ban ALL guns? If your answer is yes, how exactly do you propose the MILLIONS of guns that have already been sold be collected? Not to mention, has banning things like cocaine, crystal meth, etc. eliminated the drug issue?

      Focus your efforts where they can acutally address the problem – mental health. Guns are the band aid, mental health is the cause.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
      • Duc749

        ** realistically **

        December 20, 2012 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
        • Skeptacular

          My post could have, as I saw fit, focused on any one of a number of points. As it was, I asked one question and you deflected it. My respect to the others with the courage to answer it honestly, yea or nay.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • I will only reply this once

        No, there is not anything which will convince me to sacrifice my right to own and bear arms. While I will state there are very many who (I feel) should not have the right, for they are not intelligent or responsible enough to own and maintain firearms, I do not believe I should be limited. Just as with this tragedy, you cannot be certain of what tomorrow will bring. I would rather be prepared for something which will never happen then to be unprepared for whatever just happened. Let me ask you, how many people do you personally know which were affected by gun violence or a gun accident? How many times has someone pointed a gun at your head? What if someone does point a gun at your head? Sure you'd give up your wallet, but what if they want to tie you up? How far will you go with fear before you will be ready to die trying? Like the principal and the therapist of the school. Would you give up your chance to have a chance? Do you need "assault rifles" for a chance. Here in Houston, there were several Home invasions which several suspects overcame the home owners beat and tied them up before having hours to load up their bounty. This is why even in my own home I have a gun on me. Now if four guys are armed in your home about to tie up your wife and kids, would you rather have a kitchen knife, a handgun or pistol, a shotgun, an "assault rifle", or would you rather get beaten tied up and robbed and wonder if you and your family might be killed? As I asked earlier, what does it take before you are willing to die trying?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      I believe fully in the Constitution, and the principles that the founding fathers established for this country. The government has no right to determine what I may say, guns I may own, no legal authority to determine what plants I grow, substances I consume, or any of the various issue where the federal government has overstepped their bounds.

      The Constitution was (I use the past tense of the word because we're so far from our roots it's absurd) supposed to be the framework for this nation; instead, the federal government thinks that they can regulate whatever they please, regardless of what the Constitution says.

      Gay marriage, marijuana, gun control, etc. are issues outside the purview of government, yet people kick and scream for regulation because they care more about their own political opinions than the values our forefathers fought and died for.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
    • mp531

      Skeptacular,

      To answer your question without spouting NRA off at you, no. There is no tragedy that will make me relinquish my firearms. I wore the uniform of my country for many years and lost many friends to a war my government said I needed to fight to protect freedom and what is right. All I ask is that I get to enjoy those same freedoms I nearly gave my life to protect. The troubled young man who committed the most heinous act a human can – he took the lives of the innocent – wasn't even old enough to acquire what he took them with. The supposed assault weapon he had with him wasn't even in the building. Video evidence shows the police discovering the AR-15 in his vehicle after he had already taken so many lives. The two pistols he had with him are commonly purchased for self-defense and law requires a background check for the purchase of any hand gun. Not to speak ill of the deceased but it was his mother's responsibility to ensure her firearms were secure. She failed to live up to her responsibility as a gun owner. The tragedy in Oregan would have ended much differently if an armed citizen hadn't stood up and said thats enough, you will not take any more lives on my watch. Tougher gun control will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase them. If you wish to use a firearm with malintent, the chances that you will adhere to a stict policy on the purchase of the device is minimal. Many countries have outlawed guns and among them are Mexico and England. How many tragedies have we heard from them these recent years? Guns are not the culprit. The killer behind it is to blame. Timothy McVeigh took 168 lives, including 19 children under 6 with a U-Haul, some diesel, and some fertilizer. The Towers fell killing 2,000 plus many many soldiers with an impact from 2 commercial airlines. Normal items, inanimate object become weapons of terror in the hands of any monster. A gun is nothing more than that. An object. Free will determines whether or not you will use it maliciously. You cannot change the action, merely the implement. And lastly, to quote a great man you will only take my firearms "From my cold dead hands" . RIP C.H

      December 20, 2012 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
    • AK

      I enjoyed your post, but your request for self reflection requires the notion that the individual has the ability of self reflection and I am not seeing any of that in these other posts at all. In fact what I see is an almost programmed well scripted almost reflexive response to the idea that there are no limits. I think some of these people would have patriot missiles in their backyards if they could afford them, or perhaps a missile silo if they had a shovel to dig it. That is the question! Where to we draw the line? What might make sense in NY city would not make sense in Helena Montana, and in many ways this is and should be a state's issue if not a county issue. These people have no limits, they are drunk on the idea that tyranny is all around us, and somebody somewhere is coming to get them or take their guns! Clinical paranoia!

      December 20, 2012 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
  53. aktap

    I know this sounds just so tired out right now. But this really is all about America and just how much freedom American's are welling to pay for? in a country where People can pick up a pack of cigarettes a 40 oz malt-liquor, grab a bag of bath salts hop in the hummer for a quick in and out at the local Gun shop, just before a hot night at a strip club. You ever wonder if It might be time to cut back a just a little, on something? or is that just something the other guy needs to do?

    December 20, 2012 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." – Benjamin Franklin

      If someone wants to cut back, that should be their own choice; not some mandate passed by overpaid detached cronies who use their office to further their own agendas.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
      • andrewx80

        Jesus Christ said turn the other cheek .. not grab an AK 47 an kill you neighbor... Benjamin Franklin is not my savior.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
        • Tom

          Turning the other cheek refers to not letting your pride, in instances of quarrel, not driving you towards anger. In matters regarding the defense of your life or others, it's your duty to protect the gift of life.

          Luke 22:36 "He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

          Just as defense of your home and property is acceptable.

          Exodus 22:2-3 "If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

          The Bible says nothing about killing being wrong; the Greek translation of the Sixth Commandment is though shalt not murder, not thou shalt not kill. I'm not a Bible scholar, but after my first deployment I had long talks with people who were.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
  54. dd

    Three countries are currently having their religious freedom challenged: Syria, Egypt, the United States. Rebels are waging war against the anti-freedom presidents in two of these countries. Obama fears that the people will rise up to oust him next. That's why people need weapons. Dangerous leaders can quickly consume freedoms and destroy a culture.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      Well at least your making a case for broader mental health programs.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
      • AK

        Love it. Ya think this guy will get himself some Obama care and spare the rest of us?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
  55. DumpDC

    The answer to all of our problems is very clear. It is time for the "Red" states and the "Blue" states to go their separate ways. The liberals can live in their nanny police state and the decent people can live in a new country where they can once again enjoy freedom of association, the right to defend themselves, and protection of private property. The liberals can put an abortion mill on every street corner and in a few decades there won't be any of them left. And they can work to subsidize the diversity they want to force on others. Think about it liberals. No more racists to complain about. It's a win-win for everybody.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
    • texhimself

      Dump, please leave our country. You do not contribute. You are not seeking solutions only verification of your own ideology. You do not encourage democratic debate as you are correct and everyone else a loafer or beneath you. Or, as my old daddy used to say, you are a waste of skin. Go away.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
    • AK

      Go for it! Us blue states are tired of subsidizing your lazy butts any way! Go take a roll in the periwinkle and scratch your behind in the grass.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
  56. Old Nam Vet

    I will never understand how or why an intelligent blog can go from informative to nit picking. We all want to learn, and taking eachother apart over what is written or opinionated is (in my opinion) non-productive.
    That said, I've been around guns all my life including military combat. Guns can be lethal. In the hands of individuals with no concern for human saftey or life, the guns themselves become a target.
    We cherish our children and refuse to spend a few bucks for a school security guard.. We send our children off to war with no regard for thier lives.. Slowly but surely, we, as a nation, are killing our most precious resource.. OUR CHILDREN..Think of how one of them could be the greatest president the world has ever known.
    Lets allow licensed, sincere, capable, trained and responsible individuals have guns if they wish.. Very, very few of those have mass murdered any people.. It appears that those who do not have those credentials have stepped over the line continually..
    Hitler took away the right to bear arms during his time and look what happened to the world..

    December 20, 2012 at 10:22 am | Report abuse |
  57. Gene

    The annual gun-related crimes in countries like Japan, England, Australia, and most industrialized countries total less than the monthly occurences in the United States. And we still have morons in this country who want to fight gun control. I guess the phrase "dumbing down of America" refers to more than just our educational system.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Brian

      Banning Assault weapons will not make a difference. Assault weapons are used in less that 2% of violent crimes in America. The problem isn't guns, the problem is the lack of education involved with the use of guns. Do we ban cigarettes when we know they will kill more people in this country then anything guns will ever do? No we don't. We educate our youth on the dangers associated it. Please don't tell me cigarettes don't commit mass murder because they do. Blaming guns for violent deaths is like blaming greed on monopoly. Think of Crack and Meth, its illegal in this country, does that stop people from getting it? It does not get to the root of the issue. Furthermore holding Europe as the example of gun control makes no sense considering how many American lives were lost fighting TWO world wars there. What we need is education in our classrooms and Strict background checks. If your a felony, you can not legally own a gun, If you are diagnosed with a certain severity of mental illness you are restricted to owning a single gun or not at all.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
    • mike hunt

      Of course they are less, guns are banned in those countries! But the violent crime in the UK beats out the US, violent crime in austrialia went up after the ban there, and Japan is a freaking police state.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
      • Dan

        Have you ever been to Japan? How is it a police state? I was there for 3 months and a police never interfered in anything I was doing. Yeah you have to take a test, pass a few screening and wait some time for a gun but they arent even banned there.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
    • cagekicker

      Gene,
      You are an idiot. Try using the brain God gave you before you open your c0ckholster.
      Those countries have less people, so yeah their numbers are less in the United States. I hope the day never comes where you, without a weapon in your home, are faced with an ARMED burglar or home invasion and have to watch helplessly as they take all your stuff, maybe rape your daughter or wife and take your belongings. Look at MEXICO, where the citizens have no real way of defending themselves, but the criminals have plenty of ways of assaulting innocent people.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
  58. Cathy

    If all guns were destroyed and not a single gun available, not even to the criminals, these people would find another way, possibly even worse. Bombing the entire school would kill everyone. And information to make bombs is available on the internet. How many people did Timothy McVeigh kill? and did he use a gun? NO. How many people did the terrorist kill on 9/11? And did they use guns? NO The issue is mental illness. And common sense. We removed a .22 caliber rifle from our father's house when we just thought he was going a little nuts. It was the responsible thing to do. I would not oppose refusing gun ownership to anyone with a mentally ill person living with them. And to the ones that say, she needed protection from her mentally ill son..... Well, if he's that bad, he needs to be locked up

    December 20, 2012 at 10:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Tonyh110

      Sadly Cathy the anti-Gunners are similar to cigarette smokers just inverse – cigarette smokers will blame everything and anything for their ills but refuse to believe cigarettes are a problem – inverse – doesn't matter what horrors criminals inflict whether fertilizer bombs or aircraft – its GUNS GUNS that are evil and should be banned then everything will be fine

      December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
    • cagekicker

      Yes, cuz prohibition worked really well for alcohol too. Do you realize how many places there are too hide weapons? How easy it is to MAKE a weapon? How is it people can be this stupid? LMAO...Durrrrrrrrrr.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:42 am | Report abuse |
      • cagekicker

        My bad. Replied to the wrong comment, lol.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
    • cagekicker

      My bad, replied to the wrong comment. :o)

      December 20, 2012 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
  59. NRA

    The only reason for silence on the Hill is that the crooks up there are awaiting instructions from their financial masters. So much for governemnt by the people and for the people.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:20 am | Report abuse |
  60. MardeDallas

    We constantly refer to the constitution as the reason why we can't regulate or ban guns, yet I never hear anyone intelligently offer up what the context of firearms was in then. In 1781, there were only single shot, black powder, muzzle-loading muskets and side arms. Muskets were originally used to hunt, and to protect from Indians. Sidearms (pistols), were never accurate more than 10 paces away, so they were never intended or used in 1781 for hunting. Sidearms were then, and are now, used solely for 1 purpose; to kill another human being.
    So an intelligent person would recognize that the context of our constitutional right is for any American to own as many single shot rifles or pistols that they want. Anything more deadly than that IS NOT protected by our constitution.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:18 am | Report abuse |
    • NRA

      http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html?mbid=nl_Daily%20%28144%29

      This is a pretty good piece on the evolution of the 2nd Amendment. The notion that gun rights were individual and not state in natures really on emerges in 2008 at the SOCTUS level. Chief Justice Warren Berger was very clear on the issue of these being States Rights pertaining to the structure of the army at the time of th Bill of Rights.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:23 am | Report abuse |
    • tODD

      Amazing how something so simple can't be seen by everyone ! They love to bring up the 2nd amendment and not mention the well regulated militia piece as well. Just pick out the bits and pieces so you can carry any kind of grenade or rocket that you like.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
      • NRA

        What is really amazing to me is that the strict constructionists on the right have benefitted massively from evolving intrepretations of the Constitution and are too stupid to acknowledge it.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
        • AK

          It is clinically referred to a Palhannityreilitus!

          December 20, 2012 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
      • Trav

        tODD your an idiot

        December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
      • aktap

        The very meaning of a well regulated militia is truly lost on most of us today! because most people just can't imagine of a time when almost no white men could vote, were made to buy they're own military grade weapon by law. ruled by a land owning elite who ordered them to protect the stolen indian lands that had been granted to them, by the king of England of all people. with the militia ( pour white men ) to defend the entrust of the wealthy and powerful, I some how just really find it hard to see much difference between America then and America now. Guess we do let Black and brown men die for the rich too, Wow equality at last! now Washington just needs to make sure the lower class's are all, well regulated?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • Brian

        Are you aware what a militia was in context? There were no police. There were no standing armies or national guard. Militias consisted of the general populace, called upon when needed, to bring their own firearms and confront problems such as indians. One of Washington's biggest problems in building the first Continental Army was that not enough colonists owned their own weapons. There's your context. Citizens being prepared to deal with their own problems.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Trav

      The constitution's second amendment stated the right to bare arms. This was not an amendment giving us the ability to protect ourselves our family or our home. These are God given rights. The second amendment was written to protect a nation from a governmental takeover. It is the responsibility of each and every citizen to hold the government accountable and keep them in line with what is best for the nation. Somewhere we have forgotten that and at this point the wheels of motion have so much steam it will take something supernatural to stop it.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
    • JA

      Do you really think that the founding fathers put the Second Amendment in so that people could hunt? The Second Amendment was put in place along with other rights that they believed were necessary to keep a people free. These rights and principals do not fade with time or become outdated because of technological advances. The rights were designed to limit and control government intrusion into your life and to keep us free. The 1st Amendment allows for free speech. The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The 5th protects the right to due process. I could go on but when you read the Amendments you will see a pattern. The Second Amendment follows the same pattern. It is there to guarantee you ability to fight against tyranny. The Fathers of this nation were wise and understood history. The wanted the people to be empowered and they didn't trust government.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
    • cgowens

      "The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

      -Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
    • cgowens

      "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."

      –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

      December 20, 2012 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • cgowens

      "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

      –Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

      December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • mike hunt

      So the founding fathers who wrote the constitution were too dumb to recognize that gun technology would ever advance? Wepons went from sticks and stones, to swords, to guns and cannons, and you think they thought it would stop there? Based on your logic, freedom of the press should only apply to manually printed newspapers since social media and the internet clearly would not have been imagined by them.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • cgowens

      It's kind of funny you people say more gun control is better. Funny, I don't ever hear about police stations getting shot up by "mass murderers".

      December 20, 2012 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
      • mike hunt

        and with as many libs, OWS, and your general scumbags who hate the police and "pigs", you would think attacks and shootings on police stations would be common place.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:49 am | Report abuse |
  61. DJones

    One of the most disgusting things I have ever witnessed is the liberals trying to use the momentary shock at this situation to accomplish their vile agenda. If they honestly believed their argument has any real merit they would be willing to wait and discuss it when people are more stable. They should have more respect for the victims at Sandy Hook. Even the most professional law enforcement officers have stated that in all likelihood stricter gun control laws wouldn't have made any difference for these victims so playing there agenda to the backdrop of this tragedy is dishonest and manipulative and utterly vile.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Noah

      I bring a side arm with me when I go hunting elk in Canada to protect against bears, and go deer/elk hunting with my .44 side arm. I also do competition target shooting with several pistols. So how are they only used to kill another person?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:22 am | Report abuse |
    • tODD

      no what is disgusting is that these tragedies are occuring weekly, and all that the gun loving hick morons can say is, this is not the time to discuss gun control. Then when is the time to discuss it moron ?? The time to discuss it was last week, before this shooting occurs. Instead, lets just keep delaying it, and let the gun toting idiots keep shooting us one by one.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
    • NRA

      It amuses me that somehow we accept that the 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms and we defend are ownership of an AR-15 to the hilt as if that weapon is a magic line. If we have the "right to bear arms" ungaulified then the 1934 gun act goes away and I should be able to own machine guns, stinger missiles, atom bombs, grenades. The fact is we do accept limits on the 2nd amendment that are nowhere in the language and it is all about where is the line.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:28 am | Report abuse |
  62. Billy

    Vote out the TYRANICAL DICTATOR wanna be called LIBERAL DEMOCRATS and maybe we want need Arsenals to protect our LIBERTY from THEM. Wanna know what the founding fathers had in mind when they said 'Armed Militia Being Necessary to the Defense of a Free Nation" See the Movie Patriot with Mel Gibson. That is what the father meant, The first thing the Britsh Gov't did when they realized they were going to enforce Martial Law on Colonists was to outlaw Gun ownership and go into peoples houses to find and remove them. It's still in the History Books, for now.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Moose33

      Congratulations, you're insane...

      December 20, 2012 at 10:18 am | Report abuse |
    • tODD

      lol hey stupid, do you think your little pistol collection can take down drones, and tanks and bazooks and rockets that the US gov't has ? The same gov't that took out saadam's family from the air and found bin laden is going to be put down by a bunch of gun loving hillbillies ?? And of course the lives lost in these types of shootings daily are just collateral damage for you, right stupid ?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
      • KatyCajun

        It's working for the syrians against al Assad!

        December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Gerry

      Really? The British went into american homes and confiscated assault rifles and weapon clips that held more than 10 bullets back during the revolutionary war? Because that's all the gun reform wants to do. Take away assault class weapons, and take a way bullet clips with more than 10 rounds.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        Take my clips, i have mags! stupid hippies! and you dont realize what the law entails. its anything semi automatic. then they'll just take firearms period, and then knives. give an inch, they take a mile. over my dead body!

        December 20, 2012 at 11:10 am | Report abuse |
  63. advocatusdiaboli

    Enough hysteria—the actions of a deranged few do not require infringement of the rights of the many...
    “What is the gun community going to do about this tragedy?”
    I dunno. What is the gay community going to do about Penn State?

    I dunno. What are drivers going to do about 15,000 DUI fatalities a year?

    Want mental health evals and licenses for firearms and restrict or even ban firearms? Don't see the problem with infringing on that right?

    How about:
    - Requiring homosexuals line up for a license and mental evaluation and prohibit them all from any job in contact with youths

    - Requiring yearly drug tests and mental health evals for all drivers to prevent DUI and limit size and weight of cars to save lives. Require cell phone canceling circuitry in all vehicles to stop texting and phoning distractions.

    "Oh no!" you say? It restricts freedom? Adds a different perspective on liberty doesn't it? The Founders made bearing arms a right knowing the pros and cons but felt it too fundamental to take the chance a government might take it away.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:10 am | Report abuse |
    • tODD

      we will listen to all of your suggestions, just turn in your guns first !

      December 20, 2012 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Michael

        Amazing how easily liberals can ask someone ELSE to give up their freedom. Sorry, "tODD", that isn't going to happen.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
      • Serena

        You can have all of my guns, the Brown Bess isn't good for much. Jusst leave my rifles alone. Don't any of you realize that a "gun", when dealing with small arms, is referring to a smoothbore weapon? If you really need a lesson on the difference between rifles and guns, try watching "Full Metal Jacket". Gunny will teach you.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      Great post, and exactly right. This is a very slippery slope. We Republicans have our faults, God knows, but so do Democrats and liberals and hypocrisy is one of their big ones. They're reactionary and have NO problems taking away other people's rights when they don't agree with what it is they're doing. If this was related to an issue that liberals cared about, do you think they would even REMOTELY be talking the way they're talking? No.

      This is a societal issue. We'll see where Biden's group comes out, but I have ZERO confidence that he'll do anything except focus on guns. He's a) just not bright a guy, and b) hates guns and doesn't understand them. For all you gun owners out there (including you shotgun shooters) heads up...Ol' Joe is on record as saying he'd outlaw semi-automatic shotguns too.

      The real issue here is violence in our society. Quentin Tarantino of COURSE says that "nope, extreme violence in movies doesn't cause any problems". "Violent video games? No, of COURSE they don't have an effect."

      Of COURSE they have an effect. They slowly (or quickly in some cases) desensitize our society and the children within it to violence and to the need to be good to others. If Piers Morgan wasn't an incredible bully (the one thing he apparently IS good at and will likely never be fired for) he would have also mentioned that another difference between the Brit society he got booted from and our society is the extreme level of violence on television. Talk to people from Europe or the UK and ask them about TV here. They'll tell you that a) we're ridiculously cautious about nudity, and b) we're ridiculously violent and show stuff that would never be seen back in their country.

      Pointing fingers at guns is a satisfying response for some, and it makes you feel like We're Doing Something Effective. It's just like Tax The Rich. It makes you feel good and gives you a quick little rush, but it doesn't address the real issue, and that is a culture that glorifies violence in many ways, and a culture that stereotypes, stigmatizes and does NOT treat the mentally ill.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
    • levigarret

      Very well put. I know that some disagree with both sides of the issue, but it is difficult to address the problem without comparing in the context of other societal issue we have.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:35 am | Report abuse |
  64. Bill

    Strange how our president has been slaughtering innocent civilians in other sovereign nations with bombs and missiles from unmanned drones, and the protests from these nations, where the president is personally responsible for these innocents deaths goes unnoticed in the press even though there are complaints filed against our government on a regular basis. More than a bit hypocritical, I'd say. What about these other countries that say we can't let this continue??

    December 20, 2012 at 10:09 am | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      The middle names of all liberals are "hypocrisy" and "NIMBY" (not in my backyard).

      December 20, 2012 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
      • Ren

        Jesus Christ is a radical Liberal ... so you're saying that the Son of God is a hypocrite and NIMBY?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:07 am | Report abuse |
  65. Chat Pata

    What can congress say? They all were probably elected by the campaign money donated by gun manufacturers.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      Most of them were elected by liberals who don't understand rights and freedom.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
      • tODD

        you mean the right to not get gunned down in a classroom stupid ? What most conservatives want is more metal detectors everywhere, and then armed guards to watch armed teachers. They know that their welfare checks won't pay for it anyway, so that they can keep chugging beer and shooting anything that moves during their days.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
      • Ren

        Jesus Christ is a radical liberal ... so you're saying the Son of Man doesn't understand the idea of God-given rights and freedoms?

        December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
    • JP

      If you took the time to actually research the amounts given towards campaigns, it's not that much really.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
  66. OREGON

    The city that gave us Obama, Chicago, IL, has one of the most strict gun control laws in these United States. Things should be good there, huh? Here are the numbers of school-age children killed by firearms in 2012, sorted by age:

    446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far This Year

    18 years old: 110
    17 years old: 99
    16 years old: 89
    15 years old: 62
    14 years old: 39
    13 years old: 21
    12 years old: 10
    11 years old: 2
    10 years old: 3
    9 years old: 1
    7 years old: 3
    6 years old: 2
    5 years old: 1
    4 years old: 1
    3 years old: 1
    1 years old: 2

    The liberal media don't tell us numbers like this because they have an agenda and don't want people to know. Gun controls will never work. What would work is responsible parenting and education. But that is an inconvenient truth, so it gets dismissed.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Chat Pata

      Obama was not born in Chicago, Republican Abraham Lincoln was. Gun control laws at state level means nothing. The CT

      December 20, 2012 at 10:09 am | Report abuse |
      • advocatusdiaboli

        If gun control at the state level means nothing then: 1) why do you support it and 2) why do we even have it? Hypocrite or liar—which are you?

        December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
        • Chat Pata

          It has to be at national level. If it is not at national level, and just at state level, guns will keep coming from red states.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
      • Sabre546

        Lincoln was born in KY. And Obama and his goons have increased crime in Chi town

        December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
      • Tonyh110

        qoute:Chat Pata

        It has to be at national level. If it is not at national level, and just at state level, guns will keep coming from red states.

        how completely naive and stupid a statement that is – Mexican cartels bring in drugs to the US with impunity – guns could easily be a sideline – and Eric Holder has already been equipping them – I dread to think where 300 million confiscated AR and AK weapons would end up!!

        December 20, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
      • Darkseider

        Gun control at any level doesn't work. Simply put it isn't the object or the implement used. You cannot say an AR-15 w/ a 30 rd. mag is any more or less dangerous than a standard Remington 870 12 Gauge shotgun. For that matter most standard pistols and revolvers are far more effective. Point is guns, knives, bats, spoons, cars, forks, gas, pipes, matches, ammonia, diesel fuel, fertilizer, alcohol, pens, pencils, letter openers, etc... any object can be used, most to a far greater effect, than a firearm. You may also like to know the #1 weapon used in homicides throughout the United States as recorded and reported by the FBI is a baseball bat.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
        • spock500

          "Most standard pistols and revolvers are far more effective" than AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles. One of the most preposterous statements I've read here in quite some time.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
        • Darkseider

          Spock500 really? A 115 grain 9mm hollow point imparts far more kinetic energy as well as creates a larger wound cavity than a 55 grain .223 Remington FMJ that is fired from an AR-15. This applies to close range, which in this case, the shooter was. Whereas the inverse holds true at 100 yards or greater. Where the .223 Remington being a high velocity round will be able to keep far more of its energy over distance than the slower 9mm. Then again I wouldn't expect you to know this so it is of no matter. The .223 Remington, 7.62×39 and 5.45×39 ammuntion used in the AR series of rifles as well as AK and its' variants were designed primarily to wound. You can look it up if you'd like. Any bullet can kill someone if hit in a vital area. In general though these rounds were designed to wound whereas a pistol caliber .38, 9mm, .357, .40, .41, .44, .45, etc... are designed to be slower moving and far heavier thus imparting more kinetic energy as well as generating a larger wound cavity due to bullet design and weight. kthxbye

          December 20, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chat Pata

      So why are you here? Go back to Fox News. Oh I forgot, like any other neo-con, Fox News does not believe in freedom of expression, and wont allow you spill your garbage there.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
      • JLL.

        Chat Pata, you like most left wingers I know are clueless at how the world works. The US is not Europe, Canada, Japan, or Australia. We are culturally different. We are unique. People there through much of their history were subjects of the crown or emperor. We are united by our constitution which liberals want to rewrite to serve their politics. You want to see how gun control will work in this country, look south to Latin America where zero tolerance of guns has only led to astronomical crime rates that are under reported by the governments there and where people live in fortresses called their homes. I know I'm from Mexico. People support your right to bear arms from elitist types like Chat Pata.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:21 am | Report abuse |
    • RD

      If gun control "will never work", why does it work so well in Australia? Canada? Germany? UK? Not talking about banning all guns, but why should someone need a 60 round clip? If you can't hit your assailant in the first 6 shots, you're better off throwing the gun at him anyway.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
      • Chat Pata

        These are the facts that neo-cons would never speak of.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
      • myk

        Germany has similar gun laws to the US. Gun violence in US is a small fraction of overall violence. Those countries you mention have high violence regardless of the word "gun". USA has a violence problem not a gun problem, put the blame where it belongs, people are accountable for their actions.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:23 am | Report abuse |
      • RB

        How do you know "gun control" is the policy responsible for the result? Maybe it's better education or other cultural factors? I think if someone is intent on doing harm - they will find a way. There are many instruments and chemicals, some much easier to obtain, that can be used to do harm. Gun control is an easy and convenient thing to go after, but will be effective in getting us the desired result? Let's let the emotion of this tragedy settle and take a more thoughtful approach to the problem, instead of jumping to a convenient conclusion that may not be the answer.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
      • Tonyh110

        You mention the UK – it has a total gun ban yet Glasgow a UK city has been branded murder capital of Europe – people are the issue we should ban them too

        December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
      • Ren

        In Switzerland, almost every adult male is REQUIRED to own a firearm and keep it well-maintained. It is not for the purpose of hunting but for military use. In other words, almost every adult male has an assault rifle at home and is trained to use it.
        And strangely enough, there is no history of mass shootings in Switzerland and gun violence is virtually nil.
        Gun Control hasn't been the answer in the several decades of trying in this nation.
        And I really would wish that people would stop trying to distort the intent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment exists clearly to ensure that people are armed with whatever weapons they can get their hands on to ensure that they have access to the armament necessary to fight against any and all enemies, including the State and Federal governments when they cross the line into tyranny.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      Fear-craven gun-grabbing liberals hate facts like that.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
      • Chat Pata

        These pseudo facts provided by Fox News, works only for fear mongering, hate mongering, war mongering, tea bagging, neo-cons.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Gene

      New York City has strict gun laws, and their gun-related crimes have decreased significantly. How about that???

      December 20, 2012 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
    • matty

      99.9% innocents killed vs 001% bad guys shot in self defense.. I know The Liberal press never report the self defense angle; so I checked Fox; nada.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:16 am | Report abuse |
    • dd

      And Obama has never lifted a finger to stop the child shootings in his adopted home town. Obama was an Illinois legislator and a Senator before becoming President. He never did a thing to stop the Chicago gangs! ZERO! He won't even talk about it. Now he has helped the gangs. The open borders make it easier for the Democrat drug gangs to get supplied.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:19 am | Report abuse |
    • The Other Bob

      And what the NRA and the conservatives don't want you to know is that the reason guns are available in Chicago is not the strict gun laws in Illinois, but the lax ones in states like Indiana. Further support for the need for national laws.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
    • djc60

      Many of those were gang related shootings. But, the liberal media won't tell anyone that the large number of gun related deaths in the United States result from gang related shootings. Gang members are not innocent victims. They are as criminal as criminal gets and they own guns illegally.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:54 am | Report abuse |
  67. Michael

    Agreed, Dave. Good thoughts.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:05 am | Report abuse |
  68. Bill

    I'd trade a ban on assault weapons in a heartbeat in exchange for a nationwide concealed carry right.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
    • advocatusdiaboli

      Count me in. The ORegon mall shooter stopped and killed himself when confronted by an armed person. Being armed works.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
      • DingGate

        You mean the armed shooter who he himself was committing a crime by carrying. If an establishment declares themselves as gun free and you carry anyways, you are guilty of trespassing.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:23 am | Report abuse |
        • Darkseider

          Wow... guilty of trespassing. I'd be more than happy taking a trespassing charge knowing I stopped a madman. So you're point is moot.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:11 am | Report abuse |
        • swh

          DungGate.... Go _____ yourself.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
        • DingGate

          Point is not moot...you just missed it. If there are laws that disallow the carrying of firearms or the obtaining of firearms, people say that this is hurting "law abiding citizens" from making a difference. Then Oregon is brough up as evidence. What people fail to realize is that person was not a law abiding citizen. He too was committing a crime.

          If he indeed had an effect on the outcome, I'm happy he was there, but in a sense, it was vigilante justice, i.e. I'll do something illegal to stop your illegal act.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Canyon

      Damn right

      December 20, 2012 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
  69. owtdorsmn

    Also, society needs regulated cause you all are crazy. A person is smart. Regulation to big pharma, responsability to psychiatric care given to doctors, hospitals, and teachers. Give the teachers back their schools. I was paddled in school and was affraid of principles and teacher. Kids aren't affraid of anybody today. Parents spend more time teaching your kids the value of life and love. Parents have alot of blame along with pharmaceuticals and societies rules of no engagement in schools. We need to develope a better country.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:03 am | Report abuse |
    • owtdorsmn

      And I'm no bible thumper, but the decline in religion in the homes today adds to the idea that life is irrelavent. I had to grow up going to church on sundays, confirming in 9th grade, and now have great memories of church on christmas, sunday school, easter. I question god and science, but i worked for a foundation. And catch myself sometimes praying. I'm a presbyterian. I don't take my kids to church nearly enough. But I am going to start to do it more often. Not just for them but for my memories as well. Anyway, Just another society breakdown I believe. This will teach love of neighbors and life. The things most lacking from society today.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
      • Chat Pata

        The only group that says life is irrelevant are the religious people. That is why Christians had no problem wiping out entire races from Australia, North American, South America etc. They also had no problem destroying earth. They had no conscience problem because their faith told them that god wanted this.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:18 am | Report abuse |
        • owtdorsmn

          I agree with that. But I didn't live during the dark ages. I know catholics still preach intolerance to other religious views. I am a presbyterian christian. We believe in a loving god. I never was taught intolerance. And it taught me a core to treat others as you would be treated and believe in something bigger than myself. I love life. I learned that through a good family and great memories and responsabilities taught to me at a young age. Anyway, I just want to figure out how you teach value of life, love, and the belief in something bigger than yourself.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:09 am | Report abuse |
  70. Kevin

    Someone please define an assault rifle ... One the merely looks like a military gun or one that shoots 30 rds ? what is it that defines this term "assault rifle".

    December 20, 2012 at 10:03 am | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      assault weapon will be whatever the government decides it wants it to be. an SKS is hardly any different than a semiauto 300 winchester mag but because it has an attached bayonette its an assault weapon eventhough you can attach one to a 300 winchester mag. that mossberg 500 you turkey hunt with, well you put a pistol grip on it so now its an assault weapon. with the way the government likes to define stuff any gun and every gun will become an assault weapon. they will disarmt he people with this bill.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
  71. Jake

    Pro Gun people will always be the first to demand Gun Laws when it's their child or grandchild that is killed by guns. The world as you now know it will turn around on you seeing your loved ones killed by guns. Always happens.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Darkseider

      Sorry but that is the furthest from the truth. You see I had a friend and a brother killed by a criminal who was wielding an illegally obtained and concealed pistol as well as being high on meth. Had either of them been allowed to carry concealed, which in this state we cannot, they may have lived. So I fully blame the criminal who did it and I also blame the state from barring me the right to protection. Since then I have been active in petitioning to get the laws changed and have never nor will I ever ask for a ban on a tool.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:14 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        well stated. i had a friend i lost in a "gun accident' with an ak. i do not hate the gun. the gun didnt load, cock, aim, and trigger pull on its own. ignorance and lack of gun knowledge did play a part in the accident but thats why we need to educate the youth on guns. do guns cause deaths, but its usually due to something else, such as mental health, or ignorance. you can kill yourself with lots of things through ignorance. and someone with mental health can cause catastrophic damage if they choose. these havent been brain dead morons. they've been intelligent individuals with mental issues.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  72. sundownr

    When everybody gets to the bottom of this gun debate, I believe many will agree, the first line of defense will be armed teachers in schools... that is there is no better deterrent to mass murder than a well trained, well prepared group of people dedicated to protecting our children.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Bob in NC

      You are as crazy as the shooter.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
    • swh

      I don't know man... in a previous life I use to work in a school district and I recall two occurrences when police officers left their "service weapon" in the bathroom at a campus (one found by a teacher, one by a student). Yikes!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
    • John

      Pistol toten teachers will NEVER be the answer. NO guns in school, ever, under any circumstances, is part of the answer. It is getting there that is the hard part. Total gun bans are as absurd as your suggestion... let's fix the problem, not attempt to regulate the vehicle people use to carry out their violence.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:22 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        The teachers shouldnt necessarily have guns but we have how many unemployed veterans? why don't we just hire a few veterans as security. they already know how to use guns for protection. we'd both be protecting our children as well as providing job opportunities.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
  73. Once and for all...

    "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."

    Please, simply in the name of a respectful, intelligent discussion, can we agree that the above statement says nothing about "hunting". It states that the the people have the right to keep and bear arms to ensure a free state. All the heartbreak that we all feel about Newtown can't change this statements intent. If you disagree with that or feel that it only applied to 18th century flintlocks then the solution is to rewrite the Constitution perhaps starting with the First Amendment and banning the internet, radio and television since none of those existed in the 118th century either.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Jake

      "A well regulated militia" is the key word here, not gun nut jobs.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
      • JP

        Define a gun nut job. A person who likes guns? A person who obsesses with guns? A person who has seen a gun once but never shot one and doesn't know what he's talking about? Who is a gun nut?

        December 20, 2012 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
        • Jake

          A licensed gun for hunting or for the home is not what we are talking about. Talking about the incestuous love of guns in this country where people have arsenals in their homes with more firepower than a soldier in war has. This isn't rocket science folks. And please don't even think you can school me in guns as I worked 27 years in law enforcement in a major city. I know too well what a child looks like killed by gunfire, or parts of body blown away by gunfire. I know the carnage of gun violence too well and the numerous funerals of fallen officers killed by gunfire. See it enough times and you'll hate the violence of what a gun can do.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
      • Michael

        Sigh. See, "Jake" here is part of the reason why there is so much intransigence from gun owners and enthusiasts. Knows nothing about guns except HE doesn't like them, doesn't understand the Second Amendment and its implications, or the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled TWICE that it grants individuals the right to own firearms.

        For those of you wanting there to be discussion; who think we as gun enthusiasts are irrational for being concerned that you will try to take away our rights....I give you "Jake". Keep it up, bubba...keep it up. You're doing more to keep things from happening that anybody.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
        • The Other Bob

          The SCOTUS that made those rulings is the same bunch of dopes that ruled that corporations are people. I'm not impressed.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:27 am | Report abuse |
      • whatever

        The SCOTUS has rule on this many times and you're wrong.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
        • Rem1061

          And you are a no spelling idiot. Yes they have ruled that individual ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution. Try goggling it. If you can spell it.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
      • Darkseider

        The well regulated militia is the body of the nation and IS the people or citizens of the United States. We are not gun nuts, nut jobs, or whatever label you want to put on us to make yourself feel better about your ignorance. Seeing that the United States is a Constitutional Republic we the people, citizens NOT subjects, limit and control government and the document known as the Constitution is what enables that. Whereas being subjects, like Piers Morgan was/is, explains his take on things where he believe the government rules the people. The reason the Bill of Rights precedes the Constitution is because these are inalienable rights granted to all citizens of the United States that cannot be granted, restricted or taken away by any person or persons or government.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:19 am | Report abuse |
      • Ren

        So Jake, as a former officer of the law, you're all for disarming the public at large so you don't have to worry about getting shot while encroaching on the rights of citizens in the name of a tyrannical government that has decided it no longer answers to The People.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
    • GunControl

      I totally agree. If you take guns away from the innocent, the immoral and evil will use that to their advantage. If everyone had a gun on them, people would think twice about doing anything stupid. These cowards hide behind gun control as they know where people will not have them, then they really turn yellow and take their own life. Now think, if that punk kid walked into the school and every teacher had a 9mm, that kid wouldn't of even got a round off.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:09 am | Report abuse |
    • The Other Bob

      Where do you get the idea that the second amendment must remain in place forever? I refer you to the 19th (Prohibition), which was repealed by the 22nd.

      Anyway, the second amendment was written when the federal government didn't have the money to maintain a standing army and needed armed citizens to be available on short noticce to defend the country against foreign powers (does the War of 1812 ring a bell). It is NOT about this ridiculous notion of the citizenry rising against our own government. That is a latter-day, NRA-type distortion.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
      • Darkseider

        Simple. If you for once ever bothered understanding the Constitution of the United States the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, are unalienable rights. in English that simply means that they are the basis, they cannot be granted or removed by any person or persons or government, they cannot be changed or amended away. The cannot be legislated away. They are the right of EVERY United States citizen, period. End of discussion. Once liberals understand this things would be so much easier.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Ren

        Your argument about the Standing Army doesn't negate the intent of the Second Amendment, but it only serves to strengthen the argument that the Second Amendment is more necessary today than ever. The intent of the Second Amendment is to ensure that all citizens will have access to the armament necessary to stand up to ALL enemies – including a government which has crossed the line into Tyranny. There is no guarantee that a Standing Army will defend the rights of The People against any Tyranny of the Federal Gov't. In fact, it is more likely that the Standing Army would more likely be the instrument which strips away the freedoms of The People.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
      • H-K

        I think you mean the 18th and 21st Amendment...

        December 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Calidip

    UK has a higher violent crime rate then the USA. DC and Chicago have a very tough gun laws, and has a higher violent crime rate than the rest of the USA. Less guns = more victims.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:00 am | Report abuse |
    • JP

      I just read an article in a UK paper where people are crying because knife crime is on the rise, and hundreds of people are being murdered by knives in a relatively short time. You just can't win. People will be violent no matter what you do.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Jake

      No guns means no gun violence. It's as simple as that.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
      • JP

        There are still gun crimes in the UK. They banned all handguns, and there were not nearly as many there as there are here. You are correct. But even if there was a ban tomorrow, I doubt all the criminals will be waiting in line to give up their guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
      • Tank

        Jake I will get you something to think about. With guns we are citizens, without guns, we are subjects. During world war 11 the japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were Armed. That is the reason the Obama is talking about gun control. It is not because of those kids being killed., He is using this to dis arm the people in America. Look at any country that has done away with guns what happens. When you can not defend yourself then you can be taken over or done away with. Now before you go off. I have two guns , one for my business to protect me , and one for my home. I pray that I will never have to us them , but if a nut come my way I will shoot him. Tank

        December 20, 2012 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
  75. owtdorsmn

    I am a gun owner, hunter and target shooter. All of my guns where aquired with background checks and I am on record with these guns. I believe that Assault weapons should be removed from the public. There is no need for them. Except for those who think they need to defend themselves with guns against tyranical government and criminals.And then this brings up the need for more psychiatric reformation to help these dillusional people. My pistols and rifles are very equipped to do that to. The argument that hard wing rights and liberals need to decipher is the language. I know for a fact many states sell guns out of trunks at gun raffles and don't do background checks. I don't need to explain why this is bad. I think logic and love for this country, and value of life has left this generation and ones behind. Sad time to be an American. We have no identity to our communities and trust to those around us. I believe pharmaceuticles are to blame for alot of this. Big Pharma has drugged our kids, created drug addicts among our working people. And all want free handouts. Start fixing this nation with yourselves, your dillusional view of your safety, and work together in your communities. Stop believing all the crap of the end of the world and anarchy in this country and lets try to make it better. Ughh. I'm done.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
    • brewgeek

      define 'assault rifel'.....full auto? Plastic stock? bipod? Looks?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
      • owtdorsmn

        I would define Assault Rifle, sorry about the spelling, as a weapon compact, auto, semi-auto, with capability of magazine installment for multiple kill effect. Also any gun not legal for hunting. Not mentioning pistols here. I understand the capability of this, but a pistol is held to a 6 and 9 clip capability. It is limited in round capability.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
        • Michael

          Owt, do you mind me asking what you own? Because you don't sound like someone who is a hunter, target shooter, etc. A pistol holding 6 or 9 rounds? So my guess is that IF you own a gun, it's a 22 revolver, right? And maybe a shotgun. Fair enough, but plinking with your .22 isn't what most of us gun enthusiasts think of as "target shooting" And FWIW, almost EVERY single pistol out there (and of COURSE you know a pistol is different from a revolver) holds at least 9 rounds. So by your definition, those are all assault weapons too? So essentially you're fine with banning things that YOU don't have...that's what it sounds like. Thanks for the broad perspective.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:16 am | Report abuse |
        • Observer

          So by your definition, the Remington Model 742 would also be and assault rifle? I expect Congress shares your sentiments.

          December 20, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tonyh110

      Most standard 'pistols' carry from 10 to 19, on average, bullets in their magazine. The classic Remy 700 rifle – in its hunting variant has a fixed magazine that can carry 3 to 6 rounds – and even though bolt action can be fired rapidly. These after AR or AK style weapons are banned will be next on the list. You see Obama, Clinton, Bloomberg use the words Gun Control but MEAN Gun Ban – they wont be happy until we are like the UK!!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:14 am | Report abuse |
      • owtdorsmn

        I believe we all know what an assault weapon is. I don't have any problem with a definition of gun ban on these weapons. I don't know why these are problems. I think some language should be put together with guns of use. Hunting and target shooting. My 30-30 is capable of 5 rounds. My pistols are capable of 9 shots. Determine round size anything larger than 10 or 12. Its a start. We can all agree that some guns are just ridiculous and pointless to own. Unless you think your going to war. Again just logical thinking. It seems so many think far right and so many think far left. What has happened to the polarization from side to side in this country. It has made people incapable of thinking logically.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
      • owtdorsmn

        And just speculating here, but if that kid had a bolt action and had to reload instead of just pulling a trigger, that principle might have knocked him down before he could have got another shot off. Just saying.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:28 am | Report abuse |
        • Darkseider

          Then you have never used a bolt action. I can fire off in rapid succession, with a reasonable deal of accuracy, all 5 rounds in my Mosin Nagant into a human sized target. Then reload in a near instant using a stripper clip and continue firing. Seeing that Adam Lanza was somewhat proficient in the use of firearms because his mother had taken him shooting regardless of the weapon he would have done just as much damage. If you bring up the question of pistols... same. A magazine fed semi auto while having a higher capacity is no more or less able than a revolver with speed loaders.

          December 20, 2012 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
      • owtdorsmn

        Ok, michael, really. I have a baby eagle 9mm, I have an ortgese .32. I have a Marlin 30-30. I have a piece of crap 12 gauge. And a .22 single shot remington(very old) And a Hoyt bow. So what was your question?

        December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
        • owtdorsmn

          Michael. Being a gun enthusiast and a militant are 2 seperate perspectives. And you can't understand the difference between a large capacity assault rifle(which i have already explained my view of what that is in previous posts), and a revolver or semi-auto pistol. I'm just saying language needs to be drawn. We aren't complaining about our rights to buy rocket launchers!

          December 20, 2012 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  76. carlos

    We all know the left loves to exploit these kinds of events to further their agenda, playing on the emotions of the weak masses in order to get them to agree to give up freedoms in order to feel better. Rahm Emanuel was even quoted saying this. That is why they don't want to wait for ALL of the facts to come out, or for the emotional effect to wear off so that people are thinking more clearly.

    Its very sad that anyone would exploit this kind of event for pollitical gain or for pushing an agenda. It was proven during the original so-called assault weapons ban that these type of laws do nothing to curb these events or gun viollence in general.

    Think rationally, why do people call the police when there is a violent crime? Obviously because the police are armed to stop this. So if a cop where there, this could have been stopped sooner. By that reason, anyone trained to use a firearm, and possessing a firearm in a situation like this could stop the bad guy. But unfortunately, we don't allow firearms near schools. Obvioulsy, this stopped the good people from having the means to stop the bad guy, but did nothing to keep the bad guy from bringing his gun. Its really not that complex to figure out.

    If you really think that having a gun around won't stop gun violence, then why do we call the cops? And why do the cops have guns? Why does Bloomberg travel around with hired guns while professing that no one needs them? Why does the President have sooo many armed guards with all kinds of guns, including full auto? If these schools and other areas where so many inocent people congregate were guarded like we guard the President, surely this kind of thing would not happen. Obviously armed people can be used to stop armed bad guys as that is how it works for the Police, Secret Service, or any other group tasked to provide protection in this day and age.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
    • A

      I should have a gun. I argue this with my family all of the time. That way, when I'm standing in my kitchen, and my gun is locked up in my bedroom(as it should be because I have small kids), the fictional bad guy has just broken in and is armed in my living room...I can excuse myself and ask him to hold on a sec while I go fiddle with my safe and pray that I can work the gun that I never shoot, but have just in case. Nobody needs assault weapons. They are flying off the shelves now because all the "police state" wackos are running scared. Guess what? The police still win because they not only have the same weapons you do....they also have better weapons and more of them....

      December 20, 2012 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
      • Darkseider

        If using the recent incident in NY to gauge the competence and accuracy of police, where police fired on ONE individual and ended up injuring 13 bystanders, then police have a hard time hitting the broad side of a barn. Not to mention that if you for one moment think that police would willingly and unquestioningly follow an order to confiscate firearms all well knowing that they are breaking the law and an oath that they took then you sir are delusional.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
    • owtdorsmn

      No ones talking about taking your guns away. Just making laws that to buy guns background checks and purchase of has to be done in a place that can put you on record. Also they are only talking about removing weapons of large kill effect capability. I don't know why this message is being mis read. Left and right again taking extreme sides. Can somone logical and in the middle run this country and get the right message out...PLEASE!!!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:17 am | Report abuse |
      • Leslie

        What people fail to understand is this:

        For the sake of argument, let's say all guns are banned. Criminals do not follow laws, and it is very easy to get ahold of a gun and commit a crime regardless of whether it is legal to carry. Not only are they coming across the borders, but it's not difficult to build a gun yourself out of parts you can get at the hardware store.
        Then we will have to have a discussion about knives. How many serial killers have enlisted the aid of a knife to torture and kill their victims? Granted, not all at one time, but dozens of victims over the course of a handful of years. Somehow this type of thing flies under the radar. Why is this?
        Hitler committed mass murder through the use of the gas chamber. (He was an elected official and he also made Time's Person of the Year in 1938.) You may remember that Germany also had a gun regulation law in which people were forbidden to have firearms until 1956.
        Murder is murder, it is ILLEGAL, yet still prevalent in our society and those around the world. Until you tackle the root of the problem, not the item used, you are NOT going to get anywhere.
        Some people are knowledgeable enough to know that history tends to repeat itself, it's only the methods of destruction that change.

        December 20, 2012 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
  77. John T

    PEOPLE WATCH THIS AND LEARN WHAT A CLIP IS AND WHAT A MAGAZINE IS!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzmVJ1rXD9U

    GOOD GOD YOU ALL SOUND SO DUMB!

    December 20, 2012 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
  78. brewgeek

    The REAL BLAME should be placed squarely on the media and psycologists that brought us these issues by not enforcing a parents right to punish children, within reason, when they do wrong. Instead worrying about their 'self esteem'. If these borderline (and over) mentally unstable people were brought up with a clearer sense of cause and effect about their own actions perhaps their instability wouldn't be magnified like this.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
  79. Robert

    Just in....
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/cnn-poll-bare-majority-now-support-major-gun-restrictions/?hpt=hp_t2

    52% of Americans make decisions based off emotional knee-jerk reactions to tragedies rather than calm rational thought.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
  80. Linda

    WOW Bill, you need some mental health help. I hope you don't have access to guns, we'll be reading about you next

    December 20, 2012 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
  81. Linda

    Wow Bill, you need mental health help. I hope you don't have a gun at home. We'll be reading about you next

    December 20, 2012 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
  82. Wow

    We need to take a test and to have a license to drive a car and we are arrested if we drive under the influence... but for buying and carrying an object that is specifically designed to kill?? No, we don't want more restrictions or more gun control... Bunch of idiots!

    December 20, 2012 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
    • Leslie

      By your logic, we should ban cars, alcohol, knives, rope, blocks of wood (you can drill holes in it to make a garrotte, after all), pills, baseball bats (both wooden and aluminum), forklifts, acid (for use as baths or otherwise), hemlock and belladonna plants, arsenic, illegal drugs (oh wait!), mercury thermometers, machinery that you could potentially get your clothing caught in while operating, anything that creates fire, saws, drills...just to name a few. Let's be serious and reasonable here. It's not the object's fault that tragedy happened. That blame lies squarely on the individual. Address the problem instead of shoving it under the rug.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
  83. ug

    P i s s on all lib who want to control our lives period! there are over 20,000 regulations on guns in this country...the only onw left is to try and take them away from us...I dare them to try it...

    December 20, 2012 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
    • truthbetold1226

      ug wrote:
      P i s s on all lib who want to control our lives period! there are over 20,000 regulations on guns in this country...the only onw left is to try and take them away from us...I dare them to try it...

      ----–

      We can plainly see that you have been sipping of NRA KOOL-AID..

      Not only that, you be a wimp, that is why you got guns to make and extension of your ---!

      Beat it wimpo..

      December 20, 2012 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Jack Rivera

        Regardless, what are the feds going to do, track down citizens and take their property? No guns=No freedom, no guns =no rights!

        December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
      • Vermont guy

        You sound like you shave your legs and wear a skirt... typical femine type liberal lefty here folks.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
  84. John T

    Clips do no hold more than ten cartridges now and would someone please tell me what a "strip" of bullets is? Diane F has no clue what she is talking about.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
    • truthbetold1226

      John T, another NRA KOOL-AID sipper!!

      December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
      • Jack Rivera

        At least John is not an OBAMABOT who drank all the Kool-aid in November

        December 20, 2012 at 10:12 am | Report abuse |
  85. maximus

    What do you expect to hear from a cowboy from Texas? Let's sweep another 20 innocent human beings under the carpet so single mothers with troubled kids can keep building small arsenals of military assault weapons, in the name of freedom and the 2nd amendment. After all, that's what the forefathers had in mind...arm yourself to the teeth in case you have to fight a government with cruise missiles and atomic weapons. Absolutely ridiculous.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:50 am | Report abuse |
    • bowhunter

      You are an idiot!

      December 20, 2012 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Wes Scott

      You fail to make a credible argument when you state or imply that our government would EVER use cruise missiles or nuclear weapons in our own country against our own people. Most military people would refuse to act against American citizens because they would be taking up arms against relatives and friends.

      The Second Amendment exists specifically because the Founding Fathers has just fought a bloody war against their own government to win freedom from oppression and unfair taxation. They knew the need might arise again, and so they delineated the right to keep and bear arms as a means of protecting ourselves from our own repressive government.

      By the way, I am a well-armed, dyed-in-the-wool, tree hugging, bleeding heart liberal and I do NOT belong to the NRA! But, I do believe in the Constitution, and I do NOT believe in substituting anti-gun laws for a lack of parenting and self-control.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Jack Rivera

      You mean like Lord Obama and Benghazi?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      are you that stupid? What's the government going to do, nuke itself? coudl they, yes but it woudl ruin themselves. it would end up a well if we're out everyone dies and then the world would blow up because everyone would start nuking everyone in that case. its called the samson option. google it!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:18 am | Report abuse |
  86. YouSirAreDumb

    the second amendment has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING. have you even graduated high school? and before you come at me i have a bachelors so shut your face. the second amendment states "right to a well regulated militia" in it's opening line. its about owning "arms" to defend the population and yourself whether it be a foreign enemy or internal. i dont care that my assault rifle isnt for hunting because i got it due to the 2nd amendment which has ZERO to do with hunting.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      So you are protecting your self from a foreign military....LOL. Good Luck!

      December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        Fact! the only reason America hasn't been invaded is because so many citizens have arms. as another country would you want to try and take over a different country knowning any given citizen owns enough weapons to fight back. no youwouldnt. take that away and see what happens. you'll either become a slave to the government or a slave to another country. our military is not in this country. they are in about 4 other ones across the atlantic. Do you ever read anything?

        December 20, 2012 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
        • J Lock

          We haven't been invaded because we have two huge oceans bordering us on either side and two friendly countries to the north and south, not because of the populace. A well trained military would make short work of all of our 'citizen soldiers', not the National Guard mind you, but those who feel the need to have an assault rifle to 'protect the country'. And BTW, the U.S. military has a substantial force stationed within our own borders (I'm there now), and we are in fact in about 150 countries worldwide in some capacity, a tad more than 4. Do you not read anything? (Which is horribly condescending for you to use and shows a complete disrespect for any position other than your own. Grow up.)

          December 20, 2012 at 10:16 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          if we can cross an ocean to fight overseas other countries have the ability to cross the ocean to come here. this isn't 1910. and you also forget that a large percentage of the populous are former veterans. the public isnt as defenseless as you think. well not those with guns. the only people that would be useless are the ones that are afraid of guns because they havent takent he time to learn how to use one. god you are ignorant

          December 20, 2012 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
        • RD

          Congratulations – you are the winner of stupidest post of the day. Yep, North Korea, China, Russia aren't worried about our military, but rather Billy Bob and his shotgun.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
      • Jack Rivera

        Actually the biggest threat to freedom is a power mad president and a bunch a raving liberals. I'm going to add another gun to my collection.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
    • J Lock

      I don't care if you have a Ph.D. You are correct in that the Bill of Rights says they the right to bear arms is in order to support a 'well regulated militia', this was back when there was no standing army and the government was going to have to call out citizens to protect the country. Allowing them to already have their own weapons saved on cost as well as time since they did not have to worry about distributing arms to people before they were able to fight. They were also expected to drill with their militia units to maintain proficiency. So my question to you is, are you a member of a militia? If no, I think that the U.S. military can take care of everything that we need just fine, and by the way, we take an oath to protect against all enemies foreign and domestic so they are supposed to protect us against an unconstitutional government as well. The Supreme Court for over two centuries ruled that the 2nd amendment applied in the broad sense of collective protection. It was not until the case of D.C. v. Heller in 2008 that they interpreted it is an individual right.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
    • HartLee

      Apparently you are not aware of drones, chemical weapons and bombs. I don't think your guns will do much good against governments who possess those... no matter what type of gun or clips you have. It is difficult then to follow your logic.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:18 am | Report abuse |
      • HartLee

        Sorry, this reply was meant for YouSirAreDumb

        December 20, 2012 at 10:20 am | Report abuse |
    • HartLee

      Apparently you are not aware of drones, chemical weapons and bombs. I don't think your guns will do much good against governments who possess those... no matter what type of gun or clips you have. It is difficult then to follow your logic.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
    • The Dings

      Look at DC v Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Darkseider

      Most people between the ages of 12 and 30 currently in this country have NO idea what the Constitution means or the importance of the Bill of Rights. This has been taken out of the school curriculum now for nearly two decades. I had to deal with this with my children when they started questioning gun control, freedom of speech, etc... They were NEVER taught anything about the Constitution in depth at all. So without giving any bias I asked them all to read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers, the Articles of Confederation and Thomas Paine's Common Sense. They all did what I had asked, 1 of them somewhat begrudgingly, but when they were done they understood. Not only did they understand what it means to be an American but what responsibilities we as Americans have to our country and our neighbors. Responsibilities left to us by our forefathers. A little bit of education goes a long way to maintaining a free and healthy society. Sadly this is exactly what is NOT happening in public schools now and they are breeding generations of functional illiterates looking for government help. Dumb down the people and they are easier to manipulate. Why do you think Stalin slaughtered the educated in Poland when they took over after World War II? Why do you think Pol Pot slaughtered the intellectuals and educated in Cambodia? It's very simple to do what you will when those who would challenge you both intellectually or forcefully are removed from the equation.

      December 20, 2012 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |
  87. ForGoodOfAll

    Vote out the GOP obstructionists in Congress that refuse to support legislation banning the sale of assault weapons to the general population.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:48 am | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      I voted for Obama because of his ability to potentially fix this nations REAL problems. but this attack on guns... it's not the problem. I will vote for EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN I CAN in the next election if this passes and so will a lot of people who usually vote democrat. I am not a fan of most of the republican ideals but leave my guns alone.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
      • Nancy

        I do not understand why ANY person needs to own more than one gun. I do not understand where people get the time to ENJOY? target practise. I do not understand how people can afford these WEAPONS in tough economic times. I do not understand HOW the American People can be so brainwashed by the NRA or how they can STAND BY and watch their CONGRESS DO NOTHING – I Sincerely hope things change. When and if they do change the UNITED states of America will truly be the Most Respected and Most Powerful Nation in the World. I am a Canadian.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • johstone39

      "Assault weapons' aren't available to the general public unless they have very hard to obtain license. Actually, 'assault weapon' is an incorrect name for any weapon. Therefore, before you strip away a Constitutional right, learn the correct language.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Oneleg

      yeah, make sure that only the government has the weapons, make sure that if at some point the people of this country get tired of the bullshit being spewed and forced upon us by the 1% have no way to fight them down... Welcome to being a third world country folks.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
    • bowhunter

      If we let them take an inch they will come back and want a mile. I will not give up my guns period. I do not own any assault weapons but they will not stop there. So all you people that don't like guns thats fine,thats your choice,your right. But don't ram your bull crap down my throat because you don't. It is also my choice and my right to own them. I use them to hunt and to defend my home if needed. I even bought my daughter a rifle for her 7th birthday on 12-14-12.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        Exactly. First the government will say "assault weapons" then they will say semi-automatic. then they will say you dont need anythign because you dont need to hunt the stores have food. the people will be told no knives the food is pre-cut (happened in the U.K.) then they will say no more 1st ammendment your freedom of speech causes fights. then they will say no more 3rd amendment. we need to "protect the people" and then when the whole country is a slave the moronic democrats will realize that it wasnt just a "small detail"

        December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
  88. Aaron K

    I think BOTH sides need to come together on this issue.

    What politicians label an "assault" rifle is really just a particular look of a semi-automatic hunting rifle. It's a buzzword to elicit fear. Until we can have open, honest and transparent discussions about these issues we are not going to achieve the results necessary to move this country forward. Do people really think that banning things like collapsible stocks, fore grips and magazines >10 rounds will make these weapons safer? It's a gun and it will always be dangerous if you use it recklessly and don't treat it with respect (just like baseball bats, cars, alcohol, etc.)

    If you're going to participate in this debate please remember that there are extremists on both sides of the issue. Let's focus on keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people like criminals, the mentally ill/unstable, children and irresponsible adults. I think BOTH sides can agree on that.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:47 am | Report abuse |
    • Milton Platt

      I agree.....both sides should keep a cool head and actually do some critical thinking. There are many millions of guns already out there, so regulating them is problematic at best. But it is possible to have tighter regulations on the people who own them. If you choose to own a gun, then you should be held accoutable if you fail to take reasonable steps to keep it secure. A gun safe should be mandatory. If you loose a gun, or it is stolen because you did not keep it in a safe, and it is used in a crime, then you should be held partially accoutable for what happens.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
  89. Dan

    A lot of pro-gun people here are now saying we need to have better access for people to get mental health services. These are the same people who were against broadening social services and universal healthcare just before this event.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:47 am | Report abuse |
    • MGMGMG

      Republicans and gun owners are not the same thing. Gun control is mostly an urban vs rural issue.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      thats because a lot of pro gun people are also democratic. i voted for obama for every policy he talked about apart from guns which i didnt hear much of an attack on during the debates. however had i known this i wouldnt have voted for him. there are a lot of people that perfer democratic policies but still want their guns. life isnt black and white anymore. there are people out there, like me, that own "assault rifles' and want proper health care in the country. its not an absurd idea. we have the right to defend ourselves and that should not be burdened. but i believe we also should have a right to proper health care.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  90. usresham

    NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNLESS REPUBLICAN CONGRESS WANT LEGISLATION FOR GUN CONTROL.
    IF THEY REFUSE TO WORK OUT A MEANINGFUL LEGISLATION TO REDUCE MASS KILLINGS USING AUTOMATIC WEAPONS PEOPLE SHOULD HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE AS PARTNER IN THE CRIME AS MUCH AS AS THEY DO THE GUNMAN.
    THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONAL, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO CUT FUNDS FOR METAL HEALTH, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO CUT FUNDS FOR EDUCATION, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TO REDUCE TEACHER AND INCREASE # PUPILS PER CLASS AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO WANT TEACHER TO TEACH AND CARRY WEAPONS TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN THEY TEACH.
    WHAT WILL THEY DO ? NOTHING. HELP THE GUN LOBBY AND WALL STREET EXECUTIVES.
    I AM SURPRISED THAT 49% MIDDLE CLASS ARE BLINDED BY THESE FACTS AND READY TO PUT THEIR CHILDREN AT RISK.
    IF SOME DAY THEY ARE THE ONES WHO LOSE THEIR CHILDREN THEY NEED TO BLAME THEMSELVES FOR SUPPORTING REPUBLICANS.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      You use of Caps Lock is impressive.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:49 am | Report abuse |
    • johstone39

      Your argument lost all credibility as soon as you mentioned automatice weapons. The public cannot own automatic weapons without having a very hard to obtain license. Also, the weapons used in this tragedy were not automatic. Learn your facts before posting.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      I don't normally read posts that are all in CAPS because it is a sign of their immaturity that they feel a need to shout to get their message across. To hold republicans (I am a democrat) responsible for mass killings like what happened in Conn. is absurd. Like would be like holding You responsible for all the drunk driving deaths because you hold stock in Baccardi Rum and you won't join MADD. Until Rational discussion comes from both sides of the aisle nothing will be accomplished to stop mass murders. It isn't only guns, it is our violent society with our mass murder movies and xbox games like Call of Duty that are teaching our youth that violence IS the answer to your problems. Unfortunately people like you with your extremist attitudes just add to the problem and do nothing to finding a solution...therefore I consider You part of the problem, not part of the fix.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        I forgot to mention that I am a gun owner, a pistol with a 10 shot magazine. Please people, stop calling it a "clip" or "stipper clip"...it is a magazine. I would gladly vote for legislation to limit "assualt style weapons" and magazines over 10 rounds. but we must be careful what is designated as an "assualt style weapon"...is it looks or functionality that offends you? A rifle can look like an assualt weapon, yet be a 22 caliber and be no more an "assualt weapon" than your traditional "tin can plinker." Let's use rational thought in moving the debate forward.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      As is your lack of knowledge about firearms. You ARE, however, quite hysterical, aren't you?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
    • Richard Manning

      Not to mention they were not AUTOMATIC WEAPONS (I know where the shift key is also). CIVILIANS CANNOT OWN MODERN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS (yeah shift key still works!)

      December 20, 2012 at 10:07 am | Report abuse |
      • MarkO

        Your wrong, all that is required is for you to have federal tax stamp for a pre 1976 (I think) fully auto MG or firearm google it

        December 20, 2012 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Michelle

      I would reply to usresham but I figure it would not do any good. You want a country where the privileged few make the decisions for the majority? Please go elsewhere. Instead of adding more laws and reducing the ability of legal, responsible citizens to purchase firearms, why don't you go after the criminals with their unlawfully gained weapons or push Congress to provide better mental health care? Oh wait...it is easier to go after the average gun owner than do something substantial. The CT deaths were heartbreaking and I cried as I saw it unfolding but taking away my rights will not change it. The mother of the murderer should have had any and all weapons secured in a safe

      December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
    • Jack Rivera

      It is too bad you have strings on your fingers and toes, because you will be a puppet to the government. You are on your own for the first 5-10 minutes of a crime, everyone should be forced to buy, train and keep a weapon.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:21 am | Report abuse |
  91. Albert Friday

    When is there going to be a debate on Mental health? That’s what started this issue.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:46 am | Report abuse |
    • johstone39

      Amen!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
    • truthbetold1226

      Albert Friday wrote:
      When is there going to be a debate on Mental health? That’s what started this issue.
      ---------------------------------–

      I agree, every daggone NRA member should have their head examine, right away!!

      December 20, 2012 at 10:05 am | Report abuse |
      • Richard Manning

        Along with people who either can't spell or are too lazy to use spell check.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
  92. Daniel

    banning specific guns by name is not the answer. Congress needs to ban a specific type of gun, by describing it through ammo and styles.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:43 am | Report abuse |
  93. R.U. Thinkingclearly

    Republican views on assault weapons is too little too slow. You don't need assault weapons to hunt deer, quail, squirrel, or turkey. You need assault rifles to go to war. Do the Congressman think the civilians are at war with animals or each other? Are they really thinking clearly? Why do little children need to loose their lives before there is even dialogue.

    Congress, loose the special interests and become part of the US Government again. Thank you.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      What gives you the right to tell me what I do and do not need, especially if I causing no harm? What gives you the right to tell me what I do and do not need, period?

      December 20, 2012 at 9:47 am | Report abuse |
      • Dan

        Yeah if I want to snort Coke I should be able to. I need it just like I need my guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:49 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          Ban guns like we banned coke and heroine that worked. while we are at it lets make murder illegal

          December 20, 2012 at 9:51 am | Report abuse |
        • Dan

          So essentially because people break laws we shouldn't have any. You are are a smarty.

          December 20, 2012 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          No that not my point. my point is people like you thinking banning guns will fix the problem are moronic. it will create a black market. how well is that war on drugs working out. you really think a war on guns will go any better. blaming guns in this incident would be like me saying you've drank a beer so every child killed by a drunken driver is now your fault. until it becomes an issue of people going crazy with the guns they bought themselves we can't say guns. every incident has been soemone stealing guns from somone. so you're blaming someone who was lawful for something they didnt do.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
        • Bill

          If you can do it without killing anyone else, go for it chief.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:06 am | Report abuse |
        • Dan

          No one is saying this is the fault of everyone who owns a gun. I'm not even for banning guns. But assault weapons with 30 round clips are a hobby. I am not saying if you put tighter restrictions on guns you won't still have murders but you will lessen the likely hood of these 20 dead kid murders.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          if you are talking slightly better background checks most gun owners like myself would say fine. but everyone is saying ban. my fear however with tighter restrictions is that they will make it impossible. the best example is marijuana. it is "legal" to grow marijuana if you get a permit. good luck getting that permit. they dont allow anyone to have one. I'm afraid they will do the same thing. the same happened with black voters when they were initially allowed to vote but then they made it so they couldn't pass the test. We learn our lessons from history and history shows that the government likes to make the public feel that things are good alternatives when they arent. you give an inch and they take a mile.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
      • Exhiled

        Generally rights are a good thing . Sometimes one persons rights are in conflict with another's . It seems to me that anything that increases my child's right not to be butchered at school is fundamentally more important than your right to a weapon of mass killing . It's really very simple . We hold a refer random on the issue and if I am wrong people will vote against my position . At that point I can accept the result or move somewhere else .I

        December 20, 2012 at 10:02 am | Report abuse |
        • Jack Rivera

          Why don't you just go ahead and move to whatever socialist country you like.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
        • Exhiled

          Good morning Jack , In time I likely will move to a socialist country but for better or worse my child attends school in this country, today . I have always found this use of Socialism as a negative strange and can only assume it is coming from a place of extreme ignorance . Lets say there are 4 or 5 systems of running a country to keep it simple . What is wrong with taking the best ideas from each system and striving to improve on what exists . I guess saying this is the american way and it cannot be improved on in any way works well for you . Do you have a problem with evolution ? It is an odd coincidence how the socialist countries usually come way higher on the standard of living charts[the ones that aren't going bankrupt!!] . I guess it is just a left wing conspiracy !

          December 20, 2012 at 10:46 am | Report abuse |
      • truthbetold1226

        Bill, please don't choke on the NRA KOOL-AID you be sipping!!

        December 20, 2012 at 10:06 am | Report abuse |
    • brewgeek

      I'm not a gun owner but what is an 'assault rifle'? The mechanics and function is the EXACT same as many hunting rifles. So just having a plastic stock and a bipod makes it an 'assault rifle'? I agree on big mags/belts/drums. There is NO need for a clip over 30 rounds for sure. BUT lets not inadvertantly ban hunting and target rifles based on ill informed media and political blitzes. The REAL BLAME should be placed squarely on the media and psycologists that brought us these issues by not enforcing a parents right to punish children, within reason, when they do wrong. Instead worrying about their 'self esteem'. If these borderline (and over) mentally unstable people were brought up with a clearer sense of cause and effect about their own actions perhaps their instability wouldn't be magnified like this.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:49 am | Report abuse |
      • Milton Platt

        With hundreds of milliions of guns in circulation, a ban is laughable, anyway. But instead of taking away the right to own, let's make ownereship carry much heavier responsibility.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
    • Albert Friday

      You also don’t need Corvettes or Mustangs over 165hp to drive on our streets. Right?

      December 20, 2012 at 9:51 am | Report abuse |
    • John T

      I have several AR's that I use for plinking. Never hunted a thing in my life. What does hunting have to do with anything anyway?

      December 20, 2012 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
      • truthbetold1226

        John T wrote:
        I have several AR's that I use for plinking. Never hunted a thing in my life. What does hunting have to do with anything anyway
        -----------------------------------------------

        I hear ya, and you sleep with the 50 cal right next to you too.

        Ha, another NRA-KOOL-AID SIPPER!!

        December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          people say democrats are logical unlike republicans. i'm ashamed to have voted democrat. you people are worse than any republican banter i heard during the election. raging about guns. what are you mad that no one likes your corvette that you bought during your midlife crisis? get over yourself

          December 20, 2012 at 10:33 am | Report abuse |
    • jdcasse101

      i guess your not from america. i guess you dont know what the second amendment is for. Study your history before you start shouting anti-gun comments. Ignorance is not bliss. You people need to educate yourselves. Its really pathetic that you actually think that the guns are for hunting.The second amendment is intended for citizens to be the military of their state to ensure that a government does not oppress its people using its own military. The founding fathers fought and died for freedom. They won that freedom with guns. The British king tried to take the guns before oppressing them more so they can't fight back. But they did and won all the rights we have today. They wrote out each right specifically for a reason. Free speech being number one, and guns to protect your rights as number 2. Its the only reason our nation is free. One of the forefathers said, "a nation without guns is a nation of slaves", and "when the nations people are restricted the same firearms as the military, it is tyranny". It has NOTHING to do with hunting, fishing or sportsmanship. It is to be a free people. Hitler disarmed the Jews, polish and Germans before taking over a million lives. Im not saying that is going to happen here, but the Bill of rights is in place for a reason. To protect you as an individual from oppression and slavery. Without the all your rights, the other ones fade over time. They knew this, and so should we as Americans. But we are at war with animals so what am i talking about?

      December 20, 2012 at 10:00 am | Report abuse |
    • samsamlion

      If people would actually read about the assault weapons ban they would see that the restrictions imposed by it were 100% cosmetic and had no effect on the functionality of the weapons except for the magazine ban. An adjustable buttstock and a threaded barrel do not make a gun more lethal. If gun control supporters were smart they would be focusing on magazines. Even in Canada, where rifle magazines are restricted, you can still get an AR15 with all of the "evil features" as well as larger magazines for handguns. I think they should at least exempt all .22 rimfire magazines and allow carry permit holders to own what individual police officers can own at least for handguns (I say this because permit holders are more law abiding than police officers).

      December 20, 2012 at 10:08 am | Report abuse |
    • Richard Manning

      If you go to war with the so called "assault weapons" that are available to the civilian populace, you will be removed from the gene pool very quickly by the military folks that have real automatic weapons. Why don't you take the time to find out what they really are before you start spouting the same old same old? While you are at it try checking the laws that prevent ownership of fully auto weapons by anyone other than a LEO or Judge or Military type folk

      December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
    • myk

      Becoming part of the US Government means they have to uphold the constitution not pick and choose the parts they want to support. Including the Second Amendment which according to SCOTUS is in favor of gun owners. You don't have to like that but you have to live with it.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  94. bard

    The grieving will absolutely want to talk about gun control right now. Unpopular as it may be to say so, however, this is not something that needs to be injected with heavy emotion. We need to be looking at what can be done that will actually make a difference in cases such as this. As for bans, as there was no uptick in these crimes when the original assault weapon ban expired, there is no data to support the projection that they will decrease if such a ban is reinstated.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:35 am | Report abuse |
  95. dsangiovanni

    We know what they are waiting for. Us to forget about the 20 Children....

    December 20, 2012 at 9:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      You don't care about anyone elses dead children. Why aren't as upset when a child is killed by a drunk driver?

      December 20, 2012 at 9:41 am | Report abuse |
      • Dan

        Why are you hating on drunk drivers? Whos to tell them what they can and cannot do?

        December 20, 2012 at 9:50 am | Report abuse |
      • hcx

        Driving drunk is illegal and when those people are convicted of vehicular manslaughter they go to jail. It's the law. Get it?

        December 20, 2012 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
        • Bill

          Killing someone with a gun is murder and you could possibly get the death penalty. Why aren't you calling for alcohol bans? Why don't you want V6 and V8 engines band? You could easily get along with a tiny 3 cylinder car. Why? You don't get all that upset when someone is killed by a drunk driver. You've probably driven drunk yourself at some point.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
      • kdenzler

        Bill –

        Perhaps you should take the time to think before responding. DSangiovani is referring to the fact that Americans have VERY short memories and tend to forget about tragedies before things can be done to prevent them from happening again. This is what the fringe gun-rights people are counting on. As for your idiotic reference to drunk driving, you should know that that this was a MUCH bigger problem until Mothers Against Drunk Driving came along and got state governments to actually do something aboout it.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
        • Bill

          Did they take care of the problem by banning alcohol and big cars? My point is death by car isn't sensational enough to get attention at all. And it's hypocritical to get upset about gun deaths while ignoring car deaths, which kill more people than guns every year. To following the anti-gun logic, if you defend your privilege do drive any kind of care available, you part of the problem and you have blood on your hands.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
      • TacomaDancer

        Because of the nature of this fundamentally insane society, whether we like it or not–and I definitely do not like it–most of us are essentially forced to own, maintain, and drive expensive, Earth-killing cars in order to work. We are not forced to own assault weapons, despite the "reasoning" of so many gun enthusiasts.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
        • Bob

          Sorry, but you aren't "forced" to buy cars...you could ride a bus, bike, or even walk to work. So stop with the dramatics. You are right...we are not "foced" to buy semi-auto weapons (the term assault weapon is a label used by liberals to instill fear in the general public so I refuse to use it), but I do have the RIGHT to own one. You don't have a right to a car or to drive...that is a privilege. Two completely different things.

          Remember, the colonists had muskets because that was the weapon of the day. If there were AR-15s back then, those would have been covered under the 2nd amendment too.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:25 am | Report abuse |
        • Bill

          No your not. Many people care take public transportation. For those who can't, you could buy or be forced to by small car slow cars. Cars could be made a lot safer with few "reasonable" restriction. Beside, what gives you the right to tell me what I do and do not need, especially if I use the gun safely?

          December 20, 2012 at 10:29 am | Report abuse |
      • briantrudeau

        That's a simple one to answer Bill, because this is one of the worst displays of gun violence in the nation. As long as there are sick people like the killer, and easy access to these types of weapons, it could happen again and in your town. I live in Newtown and I'll tell you no one ever in a million years thought this horrible nightmare would come to pass. Drunk driving and other random tragedies are an entirely different issue.
        Will a ban on assault weapons stop someone with a grenade or someone with a determination to do as much harm as this sick killer? Probably not, but you have to start somewhere, and there is no logical need for anyone to possess these types of firearms. Anyone who even wants to have one of these types of guns in light of this massacre is in my opinion, of a questionable mental state. The people who think they have a "right" to own these guns under some perversion of the 2nd amendment, written at a time when the technology was a single-shot musket, are completely delusional.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:59 am | Report abuse |
        • johstone39

          Completely delusional? The 2nd amendment makes no mention of the type of 'arms' a person can posses, but it does state "....shall not be infringed upon". I am sorry for this tragedy, but don't you think we should spend our time and energy in the real issue here? The real issue is mental health, not guns. This country has long abandoned our mentally unstable citizens and it is time to fix that problem. It is time to stand up and say enough is enough with gving people big pharma drugs and putting them back on the street and hope all is well. The mother of the shooter tried in vain to get help for her son from some accounts. If she had a better system in place, we may not be having this situation. However, she also should not have had weapons he could access since she knew he was unstable. The mental health issue is the largest issue and hardly anyone in our govt seems to want to address it.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:16 am | Report abuse |
        • Bill

          "Drunk driving and other random tragedies are an entirely different issue." So, if those kids were killed in a bus crash, it would somehow be different? It would be less tragic? More random? The only different between a car accident and the shooting is, a car death hasn't effected you.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
  96. Joe

    I believe those Congressman who choose to ignore the problem by making excuses to address it later are ignoring their responsibilities to the citizens they are supposed to represent. They are more or less useless in their capacity as usual in getting nothing done – Send out some Pink slips to them!!!!!

    December 20, 2012 at 9:32 am | Report abuse |
  97. b-dub

    We don't need to wait for clearer heads to prevail to ban possessions of assault rifles. Americans should keep their rights to gun ownership, but their needs to be more reasonable limits. This makes sense to all but the most extreme among us. Do it. Get it done and let's move on.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
  98. azrael

    The key to this isn't necessarily out right banning things. It's going to lay more in the area of education and providing better care in the mental health arena. I will say though I am very pro gun but would agree to banning large capacity mags...... and would be all for manditory safety courses when purchasing firearms...... and it wouldn't be a bad idea to require the purchase or so proof there of of owning a gun safe.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      I am very similar but I believe us gun owners have to understand that here is no place in our society for these types of weapons. They are designed to kill many people quickly and therefore very dangerous. I pray the NRA can understand and support this. There have been times I've thought they would even fight legislation for a ban a bazookas. We need their help with this problem and they need to moderate their position and re-gain the respect of all Americans.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
  99. FreeYourselfFromCNN

    Okay? Stop pushing across your agenda CNN. Just because the "left" is inconsiderate of those grieving, doesn't mean that they will get what they want. Please, just let this go.

    December 20, 2012 at 9:23 am | Report abuse |
    • FreeYourselfFromCNN

      Also, Sen. Dianne Feinstein doesn't know the first thing about gun, "assault" weapons and why she wants to ban them. Google it. Use common sense here.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:27 am | Report abuse |
      • Todd in DC

        Assult: they can kill lots of people in a little amount of time. And they are affordable to the masses.

        Golly gee. I didn't even have to google that.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:29 am | Report abuse |
        • FreeYourselfFromCNN

          Golly Gee, This could have easily happened with a typical pistol. It makes no difference. Also I was referring to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, look her up and how little she knows.

          December 20, 2012 at 9:34 am | Report abuse |
        • Bill

          You've just described a Ford.

          December 20, 2012 at 9:44 am | Report abuse |
        • BreckNDpendent

          A 12ga Shotgun loaded with 00buckshot and the plug out would do more damage and quicker than any of these "assualt" weapons. Are we going to ban semi-auto shotguns too? ITS NOT THE ARROW........ITS THE INDIAN that applies here.
          BANS are NOT the answer. True High Capacity magazines (20+rounds) would be fine to remove from the market, but banning makes and models of firearms is a slippery slope. Our culture is making us reap what we sow. Punishing responsible gun owners is knee-jerk reaction that will not bring the change we desperately need in this country.

          December 20, 2012 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
      • myk

        Dianne Feinstein carries a concealed gun by permit.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
    • Todd in DC

      Um, hate to break it to you, but the grieving WANT to talk about gun control. A lot. Now.

      They are sick of "waiting for the right time". THere have been too many massacres caused by semi automatic weapons in easy reach of mentally disabled people.

      It's enough.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:28 am | Report abuse |
      • FreeYourselfFromCNN

        Of course they want to talk about it right now, when people like you have emotion clouding your view. Bans, restrictions, etc. have done nothing. We all need to seriously talk about why people are doing this in the first place, NOT what they're using to carry out their evil wishes. We didn't ban airplanes after 9/11, so why are we trying to ban "assault" rifles after this?

        December 20, 2012 at 9:31 am | Report abuse |
        • ACTIONNOW

          FreeYourSelf you are right, "We all need to seriously talk about why people are doing this in the first place", on top of every other argument you have about the reason why this happend.. this also happened becaue LANZA.. was able to get an assult waepon.. as crazy and evil as he was.. had he not bein able to arm him self like he was going to take down the taliban, the chances of it happening would've been smaller.. all the other examples you are going to try to use agaisnt these where done by criminals with a higher IQ level than LANZA... given the cirumstances I don't think he was smart enough to figure out how to carry a mass munder with fertalizer...

          December 20, 2012 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
      • Yeah right

        How'd that handgun ban work out for DC crime rates?

        December 20, 2012 at 9:32 am | Report abuse |
        • ACTIONNOW

          You are not going to stop criminals for doing what they do, they wouldn't repect the law in the first place... the problem here is that LAW ABIDING citizens are not thinking about the safety of everyone else around them.. they are purchasing this high caliber weapons, not keeping them secure... there should be a ban on high caliber weapons, this are weapons that should only be carried by FULLY trainined individuals... not everyone that meets the minimun requierement... that's not even that hard to figure out

          December 20, 2012 at 10:00 am | Report abuse |
      • BBell

        Hi Todd,

        I'm not following here? I know of not a single person that is not grieving on this. People do have genuine differences about whether additional gun control will have any impact or is a strawman. That's a fully separate discussion that should not be conflated with grief over this horrible incident.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:40 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Actually, it was a sick, misguided individual who "caused" this.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:48 am | Report abuse |
        • hcx

          Yes indeed...a sick individual with a lot of guns...assault guns no less.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:01 am | Report abuse |
        • ACTIONNOW

          Not a carrier master mind criminal that could've used anything as a weapon of mass destruction.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
    • DanB

      CNN is so very obviously the propaganda arm of the Obama administration. I would back a law that would prohibit organizations like CNN from using the word "news" anywhere at any time on any of their mediums (online, printed, cable).

      December 20, 2012 at 9:32 am | Report abuse |
      • J Lock

        Dan B,

        I hope that you would also ban Fox News for being the Republican party's PR firm. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it is not news. You can't always just have your own views presented and expect that everyone else is wrong or shilling for the other side. While CNN can at times lean liberal I think that charge of them being in the pocket of the Democrats to be a little overblown. That is much more applicable to MSNBC. Also, if you hate the news on here so much, why are on this site? You realize that you are not going to change anyone's opinion just by blasting CNN for being liberal right?

        December 20, 2012 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
  100. oldesalt

    According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year - one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
    Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection - a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

    In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first - disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

    In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

    In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare - well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

    In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers - and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm - martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns - gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

    In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

    Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

    December 20, 2012 at 9:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Todd in DC

      Sandy Hook was caused by someone who bought assult rifles for self defense.

      Didn't work so well for her, did it?

      December 20, 2012 at 9:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Bill

        Sandy Hook was cause by a very sick boy. Please learn to lay blame properly.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:45 am | Report abuse |
      • bobby jones

        ban? ban? ban? there are ~300 million guns in the country, what good does a ban do now? why ban them now? 100% control on transfer of firearms is needed, better screening. you can ban every single gun sale from now till 2099 and there are still ~300 million guns, our elected officials need to come up with real solutions instead of the popular, lets ban sales!! rediculousness.

        December 20, 2012 at 9:48 am | Report abuse |
        • tODD

          well heck, if there are that many guns out there right now, then lets just legalize everything under the sun that the gun hicks want. Hey genius, if they ban the manufacture of the ammo for those guns, guess what the 300m guns serve as...paperweights !

          December 20, 2012 at 10:34 am | Report abuse |
      • ACTIONNOW

        none of the massacres happen in 1994.. they all happen way after.. how could that be an answer to anything that happen last week!! that should not even be in the discussion!! how many of those gun defenders used assult wepons? or stopped someone with an assult weapon? if the answer is none.. you entire survey breakdown is useless at this time, I don't think no one is denying the fact that having a gun could save a life at the right place and the right time.. but I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that military style assult weapons don't belong in homes of regular citizens

        December 20, 2012 at 10:10 am | Report abuse |
        • tODD

          you're right, we really should let some assclown shoot and kill 100 people with an assault rifle before we put safety measures in place, because hey, it's not happened yet. And guess what, no one has been killed with a rocket launcher in recent memory, why not let us all carry rockets too, stupid ?

          December 20, 2012 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
      • Milton Platt

        That kid did not buy any weapons....he stole his mother's weapons, which were apparently not properly secured.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:15 am | Report abuse |
      • John

        The mentally ill individual did not get a weapon legally; the laws we already have worked. The failures were:
        a) His mother's failure to lock up her gun properly- a preovetion that even the NRA advocates strongly;
        b) The school's failure to have someone armed on site who could have stopped the shooter; and
        c) The societal failure to identify this boy as mentally ill beacuse no one wanted to "stigmatize" him or harm his self-esteem.
        Note that with one exception (the Gabby Giffords shooting), all shootings with multiple deaths (3+) have occurred in "gun-free" zones, in which the attacker knew that there would be no one else with a weapon who could halt their killing spree. Columbine, the Colorado theater shooting, the Oregon mall, this tragedy- all awful things that were made possible by barring trained, legal gun owners from being able to defend themselves.

        December 20, 2012 at 10:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Steve Lyons

      Too bad the aniti-2nd amendment crowd will suppress your evidence.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      None of what you have said is relevant to this event. We are talking about a military style weapon designed to kill many people quickly. The vast majority do not think we should ban weapons for self-defense.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:57 am | Report abuse |
    • AK

      I don't really think that gun ownership for self defense is the issue. Nor the second amendment, which I, personally, support. It is the availability of military assault weapons that should be the focus of this issue. I have many family members in law enforcement and for them this is the crux of the issue. THey know they can not easily stop a man so armed. it puts them at a disadvantage, and their lives in jeopardy. And guess what, they are armed all the time! Even if you own a hand gun, and even if you were present in Aurora, or Sandy Hook, you can not stop a person armed with a military assault weapon, and body armor, and if you think you can, you are suffering from a delusion of grandeur! You may as well be armed with a pellet gun. These weapons are a threat to all of us, even hand gun owners, police and every law abiding citizen. The ultimate question is where we draw a line. Assault weapons are designed to make one soldier as effective as ten. In a fire fight a soldier armed with a weapon of this sort and protected by body armor can fight off dozens of attackers armed with hand guns. They can "repel" and assault. It is a fallacy and a false argument to make a claim that just because a person is in favor of an assault weapons ban, that they are "anti-2nd amendment". I am not in favor of prohibition, however I do not think liquor stores should be permitted to sell 200 proof alcohol.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:04 am | Report abuse |
      • John

        AK- If by "assault weapon," you mean fully automatic weapon ("machine gun"), those are already illegal, with very few exceptions.
        The current "assault weapons" ban proposal isn't about fully automatic weapons, but about semi-automatic weapons- a very large distinction that many reports ignore by simply calling the guns in question "automatic." Most weapons are "automatic" by the broad definition- the vast majority of which are semi-automatic. Hunting weapons, home defense, and many other legitimate, lawful weapons would be threatened by an ill-considered, broadly-written law.
        The part that most Americans agree on- criminalizing fully automatic weapons, for example, and performing background checks- already exist. Perhaps we might consider enforcing the existing laws before we make ourselves feel good, like we "did something" by creating laws that are an emotional reaction instead of logically developed, smart policies?

        December 20, 2012 at 10:26 am | Report abuse |
        • tODD

          ya, that's not good enough. Make a specific list of weapons that are banned, and only allow the manufacture of a select few, like hunting rifles and less than 10 round hand guns. Rest you can do away with...

          December 20, 2012 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          if the citizens have to hand over their "assault rifles" then the police should have to hand them over too. the police are not the military, they are not allowed to own anything that the general public can't and if you make it so they can, well you will be living in a police state and on your way to government slavery.

          December 20, 2012 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
    • The Other Bob

      Absolutely untrue. The study itself admits there are flaws in its methodology.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am | Report abuse |
1 2