By Henry Decker

Gun Sales Rise Sharply After Newtown Shooting

December 26, 2012 5:03 pm Category: Memo Pad 89 Comments A+ / A-

Firearm sales are surging across the country in response to President Barack Obama’s promise to pursue new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, CT.

According to a December 18 Fox News report, shortly after the massacre, consumers began buying huge numbers of AR-15 rifles — the same type used by shooter Adam Lanza — in preparation for Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban:

–The Colorado Bureau of Investigation says it set a new record for single-day background check submittals this past weekend.

–In San Diego, Northwest Armory gun store owner Karl Durkheimer said Saturday “was the biggest day we’ve seen in 20 years. Sunday will probably eclipse that.”

–In southwest Ohio, from dawn to dusk a Cincinnati gun show had a line of 400 waiting to get in, said Joe Eaton of the Buckeye Firearms Association. ”Sales were through the roof on Saturday,” said Eaton. “People were buying everything they could out of fear the president would try to ban certain guns and high-capacity magazines.”

The initial sales surge has proven surprisingly durable in the days since the shooting. Several gun store owners told Outdoor Life’s John Haughey that the weekend before Christmas was one of their busiest ever.

According to local reporting, gun sales have also skyrocketed in Arizona and New Mexico.

One weapons company, Brownells Inc. — which claims to be the world’s largest supplier of firearms accessories and gunsmithing tools — says that it sold an astonishing three and a half years worth of ammunition magazines in three days after the Newtown shooting.

This is the second major surge in gun sales over the past two months; they also rose sharply directly after President Obama’s re-election on November 6th.

The rapidly rising sales help to explain the motivation behind the NRA’s inflammatory response to the Newtown shooting. Although Wayne LaPierre’s defiant speech and appearance on Meet The Press were widely panned, they kept guns in the headlines, which have kept gun sales high. Over the past seven years, the gun industry has donated between $14.7 million and $38.9 million to the NRA’s corporate-giving campaign; even if Congress does reinstate the assault weapons ban in the coming months, it’s pretty clear that the NRA has gotten a good bang for its buck.

Photo by “Chris and Jenni” via Flickr.com

Gun Sales Rise Sharply After Newtown Shooting Reviewed by on . Firearm sales are surging across the country in response to President Barack Obama's promise to pursue new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elemen Firearm sales are surging across the country in response to President Barack Obama's promise to pursue new gun control laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elemen Rating:

More by Henry Decker

Mitch McConnell

Outraised By Grimes, McConnell Rethinks Money-As-Speech

Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) has once again outraised Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) in their 2014 Senate race — and all of a sudden, McConnell no longer seems so enthusiastic about the use of money as free speech. In the first three months of 2014, Grimes raised $2.7 million, edging McConnell’s

Read more...

Ted Yoho

Today In GOP Outreach: Congressman Tells Black Voter Civil Rights Act May Be Unconstitutional

U.S. Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL) became the latest Republican to spit on his party’s minority outreach plans this week, when he marked the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act by suggesting to a black voter that the law may not be constitutional. During a town hall in Gainesville, Florida on Monday evening, a 57-year-old

Read more...

Mary Landrieu

WATCH: Landrieu Calls Obama ‘Simply Wrong’ In New Ad

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the nation, is further distancing herself from President Barack Obama with the second television ad of her 2014 re-election campaign. The ad, titled “Will Not Rest,” emphasizes Landrieu’s differences with the White House on energy policy. It shows Louisianans watching Landrieu on television, pointedly

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • Michael Kollmorgen

    I would love to see a Retro-Active Clause in any new gun laws that state any purchases up to, say, 3 years prior of enactment of the new law must be turned in, or the registered gun owner will be fined to the hilt.

    And, be aware, this would only be for Military Styled Assault Weapons and extra-capacity magazines for any weapon.

    • http://profiles.google.com/kestrel9000 Ed Garcia

      Bans based on “style” huh? Let’s ban ass-sagging pants while we’re at it.

      • johninPCFL

        Good idea, because those are particularly deadly.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/P3NXX7AD64NWRRT65INAEULVEU Don

          How about those who are on a bus and stick their naked butts out the window for all to see. discusting.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/P3NXX7AD64NWRRT65INAEULVEU Don

        Oh, are they around yet, with the guys showing their striped underpants? Thaty is a big, big, LOL

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        If you can’t tell the difference between a Military-”Styled” Man-Killing Assault Rifle and a regular Animal Hunting Rifle, there is no hope for you at all.

        There is, well, sort of, you know, DUH, quite a difference.

        I’m almost getting to the point of favoring BANNING anything bigger than a BB Gun. After all, it wasn’t an assault rifle that killed those two volunteer firefighters.

        Actually, we might even start thinking of BANNING Blow Guns as well! I don’t seriously think we can trust anyone with any weapon anymore. Yea, maybe even the typical Thanksgiving Carving Set is up for question…………

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

        And body piercings.

        • http://twitter.com/PoliticalClyde Clyde Johnston

          And idiots like Dominick.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/S5QPJ4F2FQXAEKNRCOGYWQ7TQE Phillip

          Body piercings? Depends on the part. Is it between the legs?

    • ObozoMustGo

      Mike, what would they do with you if they banned stupidity? Where would they send you?

      Merry Christmas!

      “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin

      • KDJ54

        What liberty am I giving up? If all those people purchasing assault rifles and ammunition can prove to me they belonged to a “well regulated militia”, which I would believe to be a government run military body, where the participants receive training, screening, both physical and physcological, before they are allowed to use their weapons, and they all thereafter used to protect the security of a free state as the second amendment states, then I’ll let them use such weapons, but only during military exercises and under competent supervision. Otherwise, the weapons remain under lock and key as the “well regulated militia” would dictate. Otherwise, the only liberty I’m in danger of losing is my first amendment right of association, as I cannot leave my home, send my children to school or go to a restaurant without worrying that a deranged gun owner will decide to rain mayhem down on me and mine, because a feckless government and society does not have courage to reign in our gun culture.

        • ObozoMustGo

          KD…. the 2nd Amendment is in place as recognition of a person’s God-given right to protect themselves, their property, and their liberties from oppressive governments. And it may NOT be infringed. Too bad for you. So until you leftist freaks can repeal the 2nd Amendment, you can either stay in your hovel and hide out for the rest of your life, or you can just STFU!

          [click image to enlarge]

          Merry Christmas!

          “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            What God given right of your’s did those 20 kids infringe upon.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Chuckie… that’s a question that only a fool could ask. The real question is what good did having a “Gun Free Zone” do for those 20 kids? It did wonders to make the politicians in CT and leftist losers like you feel good, like you were “doing something”, when the law was passed. But in reality, all it did was hang a neon sign out for nutjobs like Lanza that they could walk in to the school and be completely unopposed by the threat of a potentially armed defender. But hey, you and the other leftist freaks felt good when you passed a stupid and useless law, didn’t you? And in the end, that’s all the matters to you leftist freaks. No 20 dead 6 year old children. They’re just pawn in your attempts to take away the rights of others.

            Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

            “Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.” – unattributed

          • KDJ54

            What a cogent response, did it take you all afternoon to come up with it? So your response boils down to an ad hominem attack with nothing to back it up except STFU and and irrelevant Orwellian quote. Just for your information, the Second Amendment states as follows: “[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.” The NRA has sold us its propaganda, that the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right which cannot be infringed upon. The Second Amendment does not stand for such a proposition. James Madison stated that a “well regulated militia” was the appropriate body to guarantee the “security of a free state”. There is no mention of a right to keep and bear arms which is a standalone right separated from the concept of a “well regulated militia.” A “well regulated militia” is not the proliferation of 300 million weapons throughout our country causing approximately 23,000 deaths during any given year. We are creating our own insecurity with this unchecked plethora of weapons which move in and out of the hands of anyone who wants to have and own one, regardless of their mental state, the amount of training they may have had with regard to the use of that weapon, the security surrounding that weapon, etc., etc. Our freedoms are being eroded, but it has nothing to do with the right to bear arms. George Orwell, whom you like to quote, would have been proud of the doublespeak that Mr. LaPierre unloaded on us last Friday. It was a classic example of the erection of a straw man, e.g. video games, violence in movies, in order to divert us from the real problem: too many guns. If you want to buy into the propaganda, that is your choice, but at least when you look at the facts, there is nothing which can justify the current state of affairs.

          • ObozoMustGo

            KD… this is where we diverge: A person’s right to life and the protection of their life is NOT a government granted right. It’s a God-given right to self defense and the protection of one’s freedoms. The 2nd Amendment simply codifies this fact in our constitution. Further, it does NOT limit the right to bear arms to only those members of an organized and standing militia. Rather, it recognizes the right of people to keep and bear arms in order that they are able to form a militia against a tyrannical government if needed. You obviously have little to no understanding of the Constitution and it’s true meaning other than that which you can cut and paste from Media Matters or other leftist freak organizations like them. I have a right to keep and bear arms just like you do and I will continue to defend that right and fight ANY attempts to infringe upon it.

            As well, your comments on this matter are nothing more than proof that you are, like most all leftist freak morons, driven by emotion and not rational thinking. The guns don’t leap up and kill on their own. Nor do they leap up and defend on their own. Rather, emotionally unstable people (like Lanza) are just symptomatic of the greater cultural decay that America has been experiencing for decades. And when LaPierre discusses movies and video games as cultural influences, he is 100% correct to do so. It’s the motivators in one’s mind that cause murder, not the weapon they use. This is true because there are too many examples of wackos using weapons other than guns to kill lots of people. Things like fertilizer and diesel fuel, dynamite, machetes, knives, chemicals, fire, etc. etc. Are you going to outlaw those things?

            While we are at it, click on this image which cites FBI stats on murders by weapon in the US and note that there are more killed per year with hands and feet than there are with rifles, semi-automatic or not. I suspect that you will not like the facts since they don’t support your emotional argument.

            I recommend you keep quiet.

            Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

            “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.” – Mark Twain

      • Sand_Cat

        @ObozoMustGo
        You’d better hope they don’t ban stupidity, Obozo, or you’re in HUGE trouble!

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        If they banned Stupidity, you’d probably first on their Hit List.

        I’d be the one doing the Banning:)

        Happy New Years:)

        • ObozoMustGo

          Mikey… LOL ;-)

          Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

          “You mean that you’re telling me that we have to go spend more money to keep from going bankrupt? Yes, that’s what I’m telling you.” – Joe Biden

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            DUH!

            What Job Biden’s comment got to do with Gun Control?

            Emmm, at least stick to the subject matter of this thread……

            Trying to get a political Rub in, don’t cut any ice with me.

      • neeceoooo

        Ben Franklin was not referring to assault rifles with his temporary safety statement. There is a big difference.

        • ObozoMustGo

          Are you so stupid as to be unable to read a bit of wisdom and not be able to interpret it’s meaning? Some may say that my question is a dumb question.

          Merry Christmas, and remain oblivious!

          “The difference between being stupid and being a fool: A stupid person at least has an idea about their own inadequacies. The fool is oblivious to them, and is more inclined to believe their own fantasies and lies as truth.” – ObozoMustGo

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charlie-Watkins/100001075495857 Charlie Watkins

            Your description of a fool sounds like you.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ZJ5BBSQIGTUMERPZFALES6HQNY Bill

            Charlie, don’t waste your time on Bozo the Idiot. He claims (like many other gun people) that he is protecting his Liberty bu owning semi-automatic weapons. He also claims that the Gov’t will be coming for him and others in the future though in over 200 years I haven’t seen or heard of a “real” event like that taking place.

            He also likes to use quotes in his comments but generally qutoing someone whose philosphy is diametrically opposed to his like Orwell and Jefferson.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/P3NXX7AD64NWRRT65INAEULVEU Don

      Based upon the writers about bearing arms we should have only the arms they had back then and no more.

    • http://twitter.com/PoliticalClyde Clyde Johnston

      All you would do is turn law abiding citizens like myself into criminals. Because I would neither turn in my collection nor pay any fine. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect it from any enemy, both foreign and domestic.

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        IF that’s the case, you would be going to jail or dead if you try to resist “the law”.

        I thought you said you would uphold the Constitution? If that sort of clause was to be included in a new Amendment, it would be a part of the Constitution just like any Amendment that was included up to this date.

        I suppose you think you don’t need to obey a law you swore to uphold, since the majority would have voted it in?

        You, I or anyone else does not get the opportunity to pick and choose which laws to follow or not follow. None of us are “above” the law.

  • Melda Page

    Do you think the NRA provoked Adam Lanza to engage in this massacre just to promote gun sales? Given their recent remarks and their history, I wouldn’t put it pass them.

    • oldtack

      I believe that is a little :far-fetched”. Adam Lanza lived in la la land. If any thing – he only communicated with the demons dancing in his head. I am a gun owner but I am not a member of the NRA. I look at them as I do many other organizations that solicit support of their cause by membership. I question their motives. Are they in it for “the cause”or for money?

      Right now this entire Nation is in a “feeding frenzy of fear”. Millions of guns are owned by individuals. Of this myriad of gun owners – about 99 +% pose no threat to anyone except for a target on a gun range or perhaps an animal in hunting season.
      Then there are those people of the -1% like Leoehner (Gifford shooting) Lanza of the Newtown School tragedy and the deranged man that killed his sister, set fire to the neighborhood to set a trap for firemen so “in his words”..I can do what I love most -kill people – this is the man that beat his mother to death in a fit of rage.

      We are a Nation of 300 million people. We have a plethora of this type among us and many will fulfill their fantasies. That is a fact of life.

      Banning guns per se is not the answer nor is it feasible. Buying back guns is a waste of money as the gun manufacturers produce them faster than we could destroy them.

      We do need more stringent purchase restraints. I have 5 guns and I am not a registered Gun owner. All 5 were bought through the years from friends or acquaintances because I liked the weapon and they were willing to sell. But- if I could buy 5 weapons in this manner then what prevents one of that -1% from doing the same?

      There should be certain stipulations and requirements to be met before one is eligible to purchase a weapon. To a far lesser extent this is practiced in Gun Stores but lacking in other areas such as Gun Shows. This has to be addressed. I also feel that legal Gun owners should be held accountable for their weapons. When not in use the weapons should be secured in a locked heavy duty gun safe. If proper precautions are not taken and those guns are stolen then the gun owner could be held liable.

      We also need to focus on how many of these “monsters” are allowed to walk among us
      when they should be institutionalized. What is amiss with our laws in this country?

      In Texas there was a man, Kenneth McDuff. He killed a young man, kidnapped his date, raped, and tortured her then strangled her to death leaving her corpse in a field. He was captured and sentenced to death – spent many years on death row. then through family pressure his sentence was changed to life imprisonment then after more pressure he was paroled – and immediately kidnapped, raped and killed three more women before he was finally executed. If the laws had not been manipulated McDuff would have died for the first rape and murder and the other three women could have life out their lives in the natural order of things.The same scenario with the fireman murders – the man was sentenced for his Mothers death spent 18 years then was paroled to the custody of his sister whom he promptly killed before killing the firemen. We need to address these problems and we need to address better control of who can qualify to own a gun.

      Mass hysteria and unfounded paranoia are certainly not the answers to this problem.

  • rpg1408

    As well as fines .and/or suspension of the license to sell, for the gun shop owners and for purchasers and salespersons in gun shows.

  • AlfredSonny

    USA will be known as the country of armed freedom.

    Republicans will be discarding many hours of reviving the motto, In God, We Trust, and replace it with In Guns, We Trust.

  • http://profiles.google.com/kestrel9000 Ed Garcia

    So. If you believe that more guns in private hands equal more shootings, and you see from this that calls for gun control cause runs on gun shops and more guns in private hands, then you have to believe that calls for gun control cause more shootings. As for bans, you’d need unanimity among house Democrats plus the assent of 20 republicans. How likely do you see an “assault weapons” ban in view of those facts?

  • Budjob

    I’m not into guns anymore.Now,I’m thinking bigger is better!How about a nice surface to air missile,or,a rocket propelled grenade launcher?Sound stupid,it is!Almost as stupid as AK47s to go deer hunting.

    • Michael Kollmorgen

      People who buy those weapons, more often than not, DON’T go Deer Hunting with them. It’s a handy smokescreen tactic the NRA, Gun Lobbies and Gun Shows uses to sell them.

      Besides, in Ohio, you’re not even allowed to use a Rifle at all for hunting, other than Black Powder Rifles during Black Powder Season.

      So, why are people buying these things? I’ll tell you why. They’re hoping they can get off a shot at Humans.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dominick.vila.1 Dominick Vila

    Can’t say I am surprised. What does surprise me is the lack of courage shown by our elected officials and responsible businessmen – if there are still any – who instead of taking steps to suspend the sale of semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, and high capacity magazines until a debate on this issue comes to a logical conclusion, allow people to buy and store mini-arsenals in anticipation of elusive new gun control laws to be ready in case the boogeyman comes after them.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/P3NXX7AD64NWRRT65INAEULVEU Don

      I say give out the guns freely but sell the bullets for $1,000 plus 10% interest much like they are selling tobacco.

  • montanabill

    Had the President not knee-jerked into anti-gun rhetoric and instead simply appointed a panel, not lead by Mr. Assault-Rifle-Ban, to do a full study and report, there likely would not have been a surge in gun sales. To our credit, a substantial percentage of our population still has a greater fear of government than of random violence by a mentally ill individual.

    If a gun looks like a military weapon, is it an ‘assault weapon’? Is it easier to conceal 3 10 round magazines than to hide a 30 round magazine? Will not being able to buy a 32oz soda keep you from getting fat?

    • stcroixcarp

      You fat analogy is silly.

      • montanabill

        It is perfectly analogous to banning large capacity magazines. A purely symbolic move.

    • johninPCFL

      Good idea. Because then the 73% of Americans who say banning 30-round magazines could start screaming about his inaction. I know you want the President to fail, but try to be less transparent about it.

      The day the president was re-elected there was a gun-sales surge. He terrifies the crazies.

      The rifle is harder to hide than either. Stopping to change magazines is when the shooter is vulnerable. The 30-round magazine allows more murders before the ability to stop the shooter obtains. Why is 30 murders at a time so important to you guys?

      • montanabill

        The only things I want this President to fail at are his crazy choices about the economy and his budgets.
        Since he very prone to taking one man action, legal or not, he does terrify those not in his camp.
        You missed the point on large magazine. A magazine can be switched in 1 to 2 seconds in the hands of practiced shooter. So banning them is like banning large sodas. It won’t make a difference. A purely symbolic move.

        • johninPCFL

          I didn’t miss the point, and most of the mass murderers using weapons of mass casualty don’t change out a magazine in 2 seconds. The ones stopped before they killed themselves were overpowered during magazine change-outs.

          So, again, why is so critically important that you get to murder 30 people before giving anyone a chance to disarm you? Is it the spiritual God number times the “man’s” number that powers your insane desire? Why doesn’t murdering ten people at a time satisfy your need for killing?

          • montanabill

            Most of them carried more than one gun too. I really don’t have a problem with banning large magazines. My experience is that they are prone to jamming and unreliable. When that happens, you can waste a lot of time trying to figure out the problem rather pushing the eject button and throwing in a new magazine. But if you think it will have anything to do with eliminating mass murder, by all means, support it.

          • johninPCFL

            Lanza had no trouble with his jamming. He had no trouble with any of the ones he brought jamming.

            He was so successful at having no jams he could shoot each child three to eleven times.

          • montanabill

            I don’t know that you can say that for sure. He did have lots of time and no one to challenge him.

          • johninPCFL

            We can say that for sure, and we can also say that of the last several mass murderers using weapons of mass casualty, several defenders arose with concealed carry weapons and all were shot down. After killing or paralyzing the defenders, all of the mass casualty attackers went forward to continue their mayhem. They were only stopped when they ran out of ammunition, or when they stopped to reload.

            It seems like forcing the murderers to have a difficult time carrying loads of ammo, or making them reload more often, would be advantageous to the defenders. That would also continue to allow the NRA to continue to whip up gun sales after each mass murder event while still limiting the carnage the murderers could dish out.

      • montanabill

        Just one more reason why I would like to see him fail. The 5745 new regulations, some hundreds of pages long, that have been written in the last 90 days. That is 5745 freedoms lost. It is 5745 regulations that will affect business lowering their ability to be competitive, profitable and growing. It is 5745 regulations that will cost business substantial compliance money, which will be passed on to us.
        It is just the start.

        • Cairndance

          REALLY! 5,745 NEW REGULATIONS IN THE PAST 90 DAYS!

          I’m pretty sure Congress has done NOTHING in the past 90 days, let alone write 5,745 new regulations!

          • montanabill

            Congress doesn’t write regulations. Unelected bureaucrats do and did.

        • johninPCFL

          Ah, bullshit. 5745 more “don’t pour poison into the aquifer” rules gets my vote. Go kill yourself if you want, but with the rules my kids can sue the living hell out of the murderers.

          How many more have to die of cancer before you and your ilk stop paying Dow Chemical to poison us? How many more have to die in coal mines before you realize that the robber barons still own the company store? How many more politicians does ADM get to buy before you realize that food costs in stores have nothing to do with production costs in the fields? In short, when do you wake up from your fantasy and start living in the real world? When do you start letting the adults take the wheel from the drunk teenagers who put the car in the ditch with their endless “for free on the credit card” wars while “free money for the rich is pays for my retirement” GOP politicians kill off the middle class?

          • montanabill

            You don’t have any idea what the regulations were about, do you?

          • johninPCFL

            Dozens were abou Sarbanes-Oxley. Dozens weer about auto companies reporting accident trends (after Toyota). Hundreds were about offshore drilling and pollution control originating from drill muds and slop. More were written and are coming about fracking.

            Which ones do you object to most?

          • montanabill

            All of them.

          • johninPCFL

            Ah, so in your mind it’s OK for large corps to lie on disclosure forms, for oilcos to dump poisons into the water table with no liability, for manufacturing firms to produce hazardous products with zero liability.

            Good to know. East Germany was run that way, and North Korea is today. Is that really the future you desire for the US?

          • montanabill

            So it is OK with you for unelected bureaucrats who probably aren’t smart enough to work in the public sector, to write law with no debate, no impact studies, no oversight and no accountability. And you are pointing to East Germany and North Korea as examples of what happens if government doesn’t arbitrarily make rules? Are you kidding? Do you feel the same way when Republicans are in charge?

            If a regulation is good enough to be law, then it ought to be debated and passed as such by Congress.

          • johninPCFL

            Those unelected folks are usually in their positions because they were hired from the industries they regulate. That’s where the term “revolving door” came from, the continuous movement of folks from industry into government and back. The impact studies are performed (that’s where the Keystone pipeline through the Oglala aquifer was held up until Congress intervened), rules are published in the Federal Register before they take effect and can be denied there, and Congress just acted on Keystone so how can you claim there is no oversight?

            NK and EG are perfect examples of what happens when government allows and encourages business to do whatever they want, being that government was the business so doing anything at all was defacto legal and accepted. Pollution is the norm, recourse is zero, and workers rights and consumer rights are non-existent.

            EPA came into existence under Nixon (good) and was rendered toothless by Reagan (bad.) The GOP occasionally does good, but as Reagan demonstrated, it’s not guaranteed.

          • montanabill

            So you are claiming that just because 5745 new regulations were published in the Federal Register in the last ninety days, that would constitute oversight? Think how many pages that is. Obamacare was only 2700 pages, and darn few bothered to read that.

            I guess then that the U.S. for the past 200 years has operated like North Korea and East Germany. Apparently businesses are not to be trusted, but government is.

          • johninPCFL

            Fee schedules, meeting notices, revisions to existing rules, as well as new rules.

            “The thousands of entries run the gamut from meeting notifications to fee schedules to actual rules and proposed rule changes.

            In recent days, for example, the EPA posted a proposed rule involving volatile organic compound emissions from architectural coatings: “We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),” the proposed rule states. “We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.”

            Another proposed rule will provide guidance for FDA staff on “enforcement criteria for canned ackee, frozen ackee, and other ackee products that contain hypoglycin A.” (Ackee is the national fruit of Jamaica; unripened or inedible portions can be toxic.)

            Some of the proposed regulations revise regulations already on the books.”

            Supervision would involve someone, like an affected business reading the new rules. They take effect 90 days after being published in the register.

            Hyperbole doesn’t help. For 200 years government has regulated business whenever those businesses begin harming citizens. The first gun control act, which regulated automatic weapons, was passed when the idiots making automatic weapons sold them to criminals. Background checks were non-existent and all you needed was cash. Kind of like the border businesses selling dozens of high-powered semi-automatic weapons to whoever walks in with cash today. They know the weapons are going to Mexican criminals, but there is no law preventing the sale, so the sale is made.

          • montanabill

            Now that you have justified all regulations ever conceived and convinced yourself that the nanny state is just what we need, and if fact, we need more of it if only the Republicans would quit blocking ever more much needed nannying, try this exercise. Pick any of your favorite regulations and see if you can find the unintended consequence. If you don’t find one, you haven’t tried. Then put yourself in the shoes of someone who is trying to start or run a small business and see if you can determine how many lawyers and accountants you need to pay to make sure you are in compliance with every single regulation in existence. Finally, admit to yourself that you don’t trust your fellow man to have any common sense or responsibility for themselves.

          • johninPCFL

            I didn’t say anything close to that and you’re just being third-grade silly. While that is typical of the GOP today, how about you stop screaming about the color of your tricycle and join the adult conversation?

            Does the Keystone pipeline run through the Oglala aquifer? Did the company applying for the pipeline transit in the US have multiple pipeline failures in its Canadian distribution pipelines, involving millions of gallons spilled? Did the Canadian government reject their Canadian permits for pipeline expansion there because of the failures there? Is most of the oil they will supply to the pipeline far more foul that anything pumped in the US? Will they be directly liable for any spill here, or will an easily closed and disbanded subsidiary carry the liability burden for them? Will most of the oil pumped through the pipeline in the aquifer be sent to coastal dockage to be loaded onto tankers bound for China?

            Any adult thoughts about why our water sources should be put at risk to supply oil to China for a company that cannot be sued when they fail, just as they have hundreds of times in their home country?

          • montanabill

            You have narrowed down 5745 regulations to an argument about the Keystone pipeline that will do nothing more than augment the already existing 55,000 miles of crude oil pipelines in the U.S. That is seeing the big picture!

          • johninPCFL

            I stepped away from the discussion on regulations because it was leading nowhere. You had no particular regulations that you objected to (all of them? really?). So rather than pick one that I think does some good with no backing, I chose to focus on a particularly egregious circumstance that was proceding per the existing regulations (i.e. awaiting an environmental impact statement on a corrosive fluid pipeline built through a regional water source) to see if some of the appropriate questions had been answered in your mind from this particular regulation. In my mind, several questions bear thought, and this regulation requires that they be thought out and explained.

            The questions were listed. Have you seen answers to them that satisfy you that the benefits of supplying a Canadian business with a corridor (purchased using eminent domain foreclosures against US citizens) to the gulf outweigh the risks to the US citizens living in Nebraska whose water source will be fatally polluted in the event of a pipeline failure? Was this environmental impact regulation worth it in this case? Or shall we, as you claim we’ve done for 200 years, simply accede to a business’ desire for increased profit to the detriment of our citizens?

          • montanabill

            I’ve done this exercise before, but it might be eye-opening for you to try it. Google ‘new regulations’ or ‘number of regulations over last 10 years’. The idea that we, as a country, cannot function without the ever increasing mountain of regulation is simply ludicrous. Do you really need for some government inspector to watch to make absolutely sure, that under no circumstances, will you ever get a 32oz soft drink? It is, of course, a silly example, but in the mountains of local, state and federal regulations, it is not unusual. It is equally hard to find a regulation, however well meaning, that does not have a negative aspect.
            Did God give man the ability to think and free choice, only for government to come and say, “not on my watch”?

          • johninPCFL

            Yeah, there were 6125 last year (when I looked Saturday). How do we handle the situation where things continuously change, and unscrupulous companies do anything, even poison folks for profit?

            Specific case: ADM is now putting genetically engineered food in our stores. The ‘food’ grows its own pesticides. Are things poisonous to bugs poisonous to us? We don’t know. Want to avoid eating it? Well there WERE no labelling requirements. Would you want to avoid eating something known to be poisonous from a FOOD STORE SHELF? Were those labelling requirements necessary so if you wanted to, you could avoid eating POISON?

            Specific case: Mortgages were classically held by local banks. When the larger banks got into the business of taking those over from smaller banks, their bottom lines grew. However, even that profitability increase wasn’t enough, so they came up with a new thing: bundle up the mortgages as the underlying asset for a new type of security to sell. They’re kind of like business assets (buildings, land, tractors, etc.) but their intrinsic value only holds so long as the mortgagees make their payments. Was the nature of the underlying asset explained to the folks buying the security? Well, no. They were pushed as a low-risk security (after all, who doesn’t pay their mortgage?) for retirees. Since they were a brand new concept, there were NO RULES about disclosure, and guss what? “These securities have no risk” were the disclosures made. That lowers profitability, you see. So when the mortgage mess unfolded, hundreds of thousands of retirees who had been lied to (lies of omission) and had no recourse. After all, if your entire life savings just evaporated, could you afford a lawyer to sue in a brand new securities field with no case law and no-one to take the case on contingincy?

            Specific case: Does your cell phone antenna radiation cause cancer? We still don’t know. It’s a risk I take knowing the danger because I studied RF in college. How many folks simply use the phone thinking that ATT, Apple, LG, Samsung, etc. would NEVER sell a product that would cause CANCER? I mean, after all, you would sue, right?

          • montanabill

            As is the case with government in general. No one wants to do away with government nor does anyone want to eliminate all laws or regulations. But…
            As some point in the life span of every government, it gets too big, decides it knows better than its citizens and we have reached that stage. When a government decides it can dictate the size of a soft drink, the line has been crossed. Another case in point. Four years ago in Florida, it was a nightmare for the average citizen to even do something as minor as erecting a storage shed in their backyard. (maybe you tried) Trying to build something on your own without ‘zoning’ and ‘building regulations’ consultants was an almost impossible task. Reviews, inspectors, licenses, more inspectors, more codes, more engineering studies, 3 to 12 or more sets of plans, all of which had to be resubmitted every time a single change was mandated by some poorly educated inspector or clerk.

            When the building stopped and local government folks started getting pink slips because the money had dried up, it was amazing how suddenly helpful local boards became. No regulations had changed. No requirements had changed. Just the sudden realization that just maybe the folks wanting to build something weren’t the enemy after all.

            Your case regarding mortgages conveniently left out the biggest cause of easy, sub-prime mortgages: the laws and pressure from the government pushing ‘affordable’ housing. It wasn’t the ‘profitability’ of bad mortgages, it was the attempt to find a way to keep the government happy while avoiding future huge losses that resulted in the bundling of bad paper trying to move it on, spreading the Ponzi scheme ever further. If they could make a profit reselling bad paper, that was a bonus. But everyone single one of us knew it was bogus. We all looked the other way as long as the boom was going good. The few naysayers were shouted down. Now, of course, it is all Bush’s fault. Can’t blame the real causes or ourselves.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YDGRKS5L2M2G2J6DTM4ZI25C2A John Griggs

    How about keeping a guy that kills his grandma in prison, or putting him to death? That would have saved the lives of some of our finest, firemen. The criminal is the problem, not the gun. This guy didn’t use a gun the first time, he used a hammer.

    • johninPCFL

      And if he had only a hammer, his sister would still be dead and he’d be on his way back to prison, but the two firemen would be alive.

    • stcroixcarp

      Guns are obviously extraordinarily efficient killing tools. Criminals are the problem, but how do you separate the criminals from the “good” guy before the crime is committed? How many firemen who are armed with high power water hoses could the granny killer wiped out with a knife or a baseball bat?

  • howa4x

    I don’t see how buying an assualt weapon and a lot of ammo will protect your child at school or protect you at a large venue like a mall or movie theatre where you can’t walk in with a gun over your shoulder. I guess gun owners like the fact that we are the most violent country in the world that is not labled a war zone. Our 34,000 killed per year ranks the highest in the industrialized world, and the answer to that is of course to buy more guns, and more ammo. The reality is that all these guns have not made anyone safer. We have a whole section of our population, maybe 5-8 million, that is suffering daily from paranoid dellusions with many fictional threats. This is why they want assualt weapons since no one can logically tell me why somebody needs one without bringing up a mythical dellusion that they fear. Anything from the UN’s black helicopters, to the turner diaries, to hate groups subjects, to the feds taking their guns away, to criminals runing wild, qualifies as a threat. Then you have to add in the end of the world groups who are arming up.
    Of course the rest of us don’t think about these threats and this is why we don’t see the gun lobby as reasonable people. You can reason with someone suffering from dellusions. If someone is agiated about end of the world chaos, you will not be able to have a rational discussion. This is the gulf between the groups. One side is trying to have a reasonable rational discussion and the other is amped up yelling about paranoid imaginary threats. This is why we have a gun problem in this country.

    • DEFENDER88

      Reasonable rational discussion? BS If you even mention you have seen a picture of a gun in the last 10years, you are villafied to the nth degree in here as being totally paranoid, a danger to society, etc. I have tried that in here and get nothing but hate and vilafication. And if you say you have a permit and been checked by the FBI, fully trained to the competitive shooter level(well above average police level) it gets even worse.

      As for rational – I have NEVER heard such agressive and violent talk from any permitted gun owner as I heard in hear after the NRA guy presented his opening position on the issue. “Tear his limbs off, tear him limb from limb” etc
      Kind of scary, made me want to go out and get an assault rifle and join the NRA.

      It was his “opening position” on an issue that he knows is going to take a lot of debate. What did you expect him to say- that he wants all guns banned?

      He also knows the “ultimate goal” of those on the other side(the people in here) is banning all guns in the US. The talk now is about assault rifles but we know the ultimate goal of the anti gun people.

      So we have largly disconnected from discussion in here since we cannot get an airing of our positions and suggestions for improvement of the system etc without being villafied in here personally, I have tired it, (my inbox filled with hate mail) and like publishing permit holder addresses like you do sex offenders. Even though we (gun owners)(we typically know a lot more about the system than non gun owners)probably know more about what is wrong and what could be effective and reasonable than the non-gun owners.

      There are enough things wrong that can and should be corrected – real, effective changes could be found and done. But most in here are not interested and will not listen to real workable solutons that could go a long way to limit the killings or anything short of a full gun ban.

      I proposed some solutions even more stringent than those being discussed like:
      1) No-one can sell or purchase or even give away a gun unless they “already have” a CCW permit. This is way more stringent than anything being proposed now.

      2) There should be a National Standard for CCW Permit issue that includes extensive training – like I have had.

      3) Include a phyco test in the CCW Permit requirements.(Not now required)
      But most of the instructors are Law Enforcement people and they at least get to interact with you and evaluate you somewhat.

      Just these 3 things alone would eliminate the Gun Show problem and the individual sales problem Nation Wide.

      I thought you anti-gun people might be at least somewhat amenable to this.
      But NO – I was vilified again.

      Not sure you people realize what it takes to get a CCW Permit at least here in Tenn.
      What it takes:
      8hr gun safety and law course including qualifying actual shooting.
      Local, State, FBI background check, Finger Printing, etc – Pretty much the same requirements as Law Enforcement.
      Extensive discussions on “over-penetration” and “shoot-throughs” ie be aware of what is behind what ever you may be shooting at.
      And a lot of us practice all this extensively.
      And most if not all, never “want” to have to shoot anyone.

      4) These “Gun Free” zones have become the new killing grounds of the crazies and need to have “armed” security and allow CCW Holders to carry there.
      Yup – vilified again.

      5) Other changes I wont mention here.

      Thus I am pretty much done now even trying here.

      • howa4x

        I actually agree with what you proposed but you are rare in the NRA who opposes any and all restrictions. I woujld love to see the changes you mentioned but the gun owners are the obsticle. You are like the silent majority that Nixon used to talk about. why aren’t you avocating these positions. If the NRA came out and and just said 1/4 of what you suggested the debabe would have taken a different direction. So if you say that was Wayne P’s opening position, then banning all assualt weapons is the other side. Somewhere in the middle of this is the compromise, but no one is going to invite the NRA to the table unless there is room to negotiate. I do think large magazines should be eleminated since all the guns are out there and no one is going to take them all away. That’s what I call paraniod. There is never going to be another Ruby Ridge or Waco, since they were giant mistakes. We can’t even get the 12 million illegal immigrants out. How are we going to find 300 million guns? I do believe every gun should be registered since we have to register everything else. In NJ they are going to ban large magazines since assualt weapons are already banned and have been for 20 yrs and want the tri states to do the same NY, and Conn. We have hunters here and no one seems to mind the fact that they can’t have a BAR-15. They also proposed a bill to make sure no pension money is invested in Gun manufacture. In every thing you wrote you never convinced me you need an assualt rifle so I still don’t see the point. BTW I grew up in a rural area and had my first gun at 12 yrs old

        • DEFENDER88

          Dont know about where you are but the Police cannot protect us here. And unless they live with you they cannot PROTECT you either.

          For me, I have been shot at 4 times, 2 times by gangs, 2 by individuals. So my paranoia has been replaced by reality and 4 wake-up calls. And no, it was not in the ghetto although the gangs do have them and will have for a long time. It was out in wilderness areas. I used to go kayaking all over the country including the Grand Canyon.

          The 1st two times I was attacked was in so called Gun Free National Forests.

          Once 4 pickup loads of rednecks blocked us in a campground and started shooting, one night. We had a mixed group men, women, children(about 20 of us). I was a anti-gun pacifist at the time and unarmed. However I had grown up hunting for my food so I knew how to handle and shoot a gun. Fortunately one woman had a small 5 shot revolver. They gave it to me and in short I/we faced down the coward bastards on the rough dirt road they were coming up to get us and finish us off. Fortunately it was pitch dark and they could not see it was basically me and a bunch of women and children. If I/we had not had a gun though some children would have been killed then.

          Another time and place they shot into our camp from the adjoining road and hit the guy next to me. I had my weapons by this time though and repelled the dirty bastards.

          And 2 other similar but not quite times.

          I have learned not to go out into those areas without an assault rifle ie at least equal force. The guy beside me got hit(wonded), I got lucky. The 1st 2 attempts I was not armed and just got lucky. The last 2 I was armed and repelled the sorry coward bastards.
          It may not be “real” for you but it has been all too real for me.

          I realize while I personally have good justification for wanting an assault rifle and that I am not typical and have actually had to face down more real and seriously deadly threats than normal. In fact, if I had not been armed, I assure you, I would be dead and we would not be talking now.

          But there are real threats out there. At least down here in Dog Patch USA.

          I can tell you that another reason why many people are getting assault rifles is they
          anticipate a time coming in this country when there will be a break down of civil order and there will be no police to be found and no weapons will be available when actually needed. Much like the situation I have found myself in 4 times before. Think roving gangs looking for food, etc. How real that is I dont know but I would have to say that is a possibility. About 30% probability last I heard. And no-one can say that will not happen. If it does, people dont want to be defensless. Some paranoia here I suppose but given the near total dysfunction of Washington, even I am beginning to think the odds are going up. And if it does happen ie Marshal Law you will not be allowed to get a weapon and defend yourself – think New Orleans after Katrina ie it has happened – this particular thing has been real and not “imagined”.

          Even so, Assault weapons is an issue I and most other gun owners think a discussion shoud be had, but to just say(as your final position) there can be no justification for responsible people having one is not going to fly.

          I personally want one for the reasons above I have detailed but I am also somewhat of a prepper. Not End of The World type but somewhat prepared for a local, regional, or national disaster. Enough food, water, etc stored to last for 1month if ever necessary. I live in the new tornado ally and that is probably my most likely threat at this time.

          Another long term potential threat we all face is a Solar Flair(It has happened before and WILL again) would take out all power for years.

          And there are other potential threats we face – most with admitted small odds but still possible.

          I dont want to be totally unprepared and have to depend on the Govt to get me out of trouble or survive. Along with the mind set of being prepared comes the issue of security. From that stand point there are 2 primarily recommended weapons 1- A 22 cal rifle for small game. And an Assault Rifle for self defense and larger game(should the disaster be long lasting). In a sitiation of this type civil order often breaks down and it is everyone for himself much like the colonial days. But the gang threats now will not be carrying muskets. They will have Russian AK47′s, now there is a true Assault Rifle and good pretty much only for killing. But is is the preferred weapon for the gangs. Since they are cheaper than the US made AR15. THey are also much more powerful.

          The AR is a Riflemans gun – small caliber but accurate. The AK is a killers gun – big caliber but not accurate.

          Most responsible gun owners are getting the US made AR15 which can also substitute as a good hunting rifle. And no they are not the Military full automatic version like many say. They are the semi-auto civilian version much like other hunting rifles except a much smaller caliber but still deadly though if hit in the right place. The AR15 is also often used for hunting predator and nuisance animals like coyotes etc. The AR is also a preferred pig hunting gun. In spite of all the talk about it not being used for hunting.

          The AR is also used extensively as a sport shooting rifle in competitions.

          I dont really like shooting and AR that much myself but it “is” the most versatile weapon available for all the above reasons(Self defense and game gatering, etc.)

          The AK 47′s are already prolific in the gang communities and are not going to go away anytime soon. NO law passed restricting the good guys from having an AR is going to change that and I could argue might even make the situation worse.

          The bad guys are going to have them no matter what law you pass. They could care less about the law.

          However, I would like to see more restrictions on who can get one.

          This is something we, together can do, but not if people are going to continue to berate anyone who owns a gun. Like they have me on this forum.

          Prison interviews have shown that the bad guys do not fear the Police – they know they will not be there when they attack. What they do fear is armed citizens.

          Even so, I think there should be more restrictions on who can get them. You see, I am not hard core NRA.

          My stance is – we need to develop systems to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys but available to the good guys so the bad guys will have pause and actually fear trying to take us on.

          Some of these restrictions I detailed earlier.

          If the gangs do come here some day, which I think is possible, I dont want to be facing them with a single shot 22.

          Again “my” paranoia has been replace with reality. I have actually been there before.

          So? What do you think now?

          • howa4x

            Imagine if you were in the woods and this group you 1st encountered didn’t have any guns, then you would not need one to defend yourself. The problem is we have far too many people who are dysfunctional and have a weapon that can kill. Gangs in the inner city were I worked don’t leave their neighborhood because it is outside their confort zone. They know the people there won’t rat them out and also know that if they go on a rampage in a white neighborhood they will be shot dead by the police.That is who they fear the most. Inner city gangs don’t come into contact with many white people, so don’t fear their guns. If the jails weren’t filled with drug abusers who need treatment, then there would be room to fit these clowns. The inner cities have violent gangs but face other well armed enemies. They trade drugs for guns with the surrounding white areas. That is the problem for law enforcement.
            I see you point about societial collaspe. I did disaster planning so I know about what to expect from chaos. I don’t think everyone with an assualt rifle is going to help stabilize the situation since they would be just shooting each other anyway. Well armed people would just steal resouorces from everyone else, and that is all that would happen, a survival of the fittest type situation. If that ever happened I would want to be the first one dead so I don’t have to live through that nightmare. I can’t bring myself to kill another for food, since I would try to work oout a way to share it.
            Global climate change will bring resourse shortages but not in my lifetime, more for those in their twenties and thirties.
            We need to find a way for a national sensible dialogue to keep guns away from imbalanced people. Since Sandy hook there have been 3 other shootings. In Fla the stand your ground law has given whites a license to kill young black teens as too were already murdered for no reason. We can’t settle all our differences by a gun. It didn’t work in the old west and won’t know. We are moving toward a situation where certian states tighen gun laws and some don’t. Hopefully in the ones that do we will have less mass shootings and good luck in the states that don’t. I see your point and it’s people like you and I that can compromise. I wish there were more like us.

            Have a happy holiday season with your family

          • DEFENDER88

            I would like very much a world where I did not have to worry about being attacked by a gun.

            But my experience has shown otherwise.

            I can hold my own in hand-to-hand with “anyone”.

            But I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Even if all guns were banned in the US right now it would not be so.

            It would take years and probably never really possible.

            In the mean time I don’t want to be vulnerable – I know that feeling way too well.

            I have no desire for aggression. That is why I have some stored food and want hunting rifles. And failing that, have heirloom seeds to start a garden. I will grow my own before stealing from others. But then I will have to “defend(AR)” my crops.

            You are probably right about there being a lot of looting and killing and people trying steal food etc and that is why I want guns. To protect what I have but not to go after anyone else.

            Me with my firepower might be able to assist with stabilizing my small neighborhood, repel roving gangs etc possibly restore some order here , but probably not much more than that but that may be enough for us. And hopefully others like me in other neighborhoods, then rebuild.

            Also, if and when my neighbors are starving and see their kids starving they will not be in a normal state. They will be like crazed zombies. I expect them to come here and demand everything I have. I would be willing to share but not robbed of everything.

            The only aggression I ever plan to muster is defensive, but plan for that to be considerable.

            By nature I am a very peaceful person. But if they/anyone attacks me I plan to make them regret it.

            Or if anyone attacks the 90 old lady living alone next door.

            Something like the old “Walk softly but carry a big stick”.

            Drugs and prisons – don’t get me started there. If we would legalize all drugs we could empty what 70% of the prisons? Do away with 50% of the police needed. Make it legal, collect tax, balance the budget. They were all legal at one time, why not now?

            Are drugs any worse than alcohol?

            Yes, people like us could reach a middle ground and lets hope those who are supposed to be smarter than me do so.

            I wish you and yours well and a safe and happy holidays.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            If there was a total collapse of our system, no one is going to hoard food, etc. for very long.

            Yes, you might be able to hold up and fight for a few days, but, eventually, they, whoever they are, is going to get the best of you.

            I don’t think these Militia Groups would hold up long either. Maybe a little longer than just an individual, but not a whole lot longer. Anyway, the Feds already have these groups under surveillance and targeted for elimination.

            Besides, IF anything like that were to occur, the Federal Government would declare Marshall Law, curfews, you name it. Anyone out of line would be either thrown into a holding prison or shot on sight.

            Also, what we used to see in those black n white SciFi movies of army troops all over the place to repulse the alien/invader will become a reality. Something I personally don’t want to see.

            Many of your fears are totally unfounded, only because we all are going to be in the same pile of crap.

            Instead of worrying about the possible downfall, we should be doing all we can to build this country up and solving our problems.

            But, too many people fall prey with this sort of theory.

            I too believe it will happen. But, I don’t believe it out of fear. This is a reality that all countries experience sooner or later. Look in your History Books. No country lasts forever. We are no different than any other country. We are not exceptional. We are either going to stay stagnant, advance, or revolution which will change everything.

            We can do it one of two ways. We either do it peacefully or armed. It’s our choice.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Most of these Semi-autos CAN BE modified to shoot fully auto with the right parts and machining knowledge.

            Just saying………………

            Wow, sorry to here about this in our National Parks. I’ve heard other stories about these sort of places.

            I question the sanity of even myself camping out in one of these places where no ones is supposed to be around, somewhat desolate. I did that sort of thing 20 years ago. I wouldn’t do it now. Just too freaking Dangerous these days.

            Emmm, maybe next time, go to one of these privately-run parks. They’re a lot safer.

      • Michael Kollmorgen

        I totally agree with all of your propositions.

        I only want to BAN Military-Styled Man-Killing Weapons and extra-capacity magazines. I also want all CC Holders to pass a MMPI Test for screening purposes, maybe even to get any gun.

        I do not support banning all weapons, and certainly not those used by legit hunters and hobbiest.

        You’re a rare voice in the NRA. I applaud your viewpoints.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/P3NXX7AD64NWRRT65INAEULVEU Don

    According to channel 6 many in LA are turning in their guns for cash.

  • ArtWhimsicallyYoursStudio

    When that window crashed, confusion flashed
    in the eyes of teachers stunned
    till true understanding gripped them
    as they heard the crack of guns.

    And I’m sure their first instinctual thought
    was to grab their coats and run,
    but they bravely stayed,
    through the price they’d pay,
    to protect their little ones.

    Defenseless with just her bare hands
    the principal chased him down,
    then she lunged at him with no chance to win,
    as she faced her final rounds.

    Filled with courage that is seldom seen
    against madness never cherished,
    she tried to buy her teachers time,
    and in that selfless act she perished.

    Chorus-

    I just can’t fathom the horror
    in those children’s eyes that day,
    as they watched their teachers gunned down,
    then that demon turned their way,
    extinguishing their innocence with a unquenched evil lust,
    like some monster from beneath their beds,
    turning all their dreams to dust.

    After six adults lay dying and 20 precious tots lay dead,
    he heard many sirens wailing and put a bullet in his head,
    if each teachers spirits rising had the capacity to breathe,
    I’m sure they saw him tumble and let out huge sighs of relief,
    for all the children that he didn’t get,
    and fellow teachers blood not shed.

    Then angels came to cradle all the cherubs who had fallen,
    to take them to a place where guns would never come a calling,
    And six educators souls all rose,
    from life’s hardest lessons taught,
    while hell’s minions dragged one maggot’s soul
    to the damnation he’d sought.

    Chorus-

    I just can’t fathom the horror in those children’s eyes that day,
    as they watched their teachers gunned down,
    then that demon turned their way,
    extinguishing their innocence with an unquenched evil hate
    but I know they’re all in God’s arms,
    healed from pain at Heavens gates.

    All that’s left now is prevention, far too many students die,
    while we scratch our heads and argue,
    somewhere out there WAITS A GUY!!
    with an itch to kill, and a date all planned,
    till we once again wail “Why?? ”
    the solution is quite simple, no more students have to die…..

    Take the troops all coming home from war,
    who have no jobs and are idle,
    pick the best who spent years over there
    trained to spot those suicidal.

    Arm them with non-lethal weapons
    make their new fight something vital,
    with each school their base, where they will patrol….
    and remove what’s homicidal.

    Lest again we fathom horror in more children’s eyes someday…
    as they watch their teachers all gunned down,
    and a demon turns their way,
    extinguishing their innocence, with an unquenched evil lust,
    we don’t need gun control, we need patrolling guns
    non-lethal heroes we can trust,
    turning a madman’s schemes to DUST!!!

    + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

    + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

    In memory of those fallen, and in hopes that we will never forget
    and steadfastly CRY OUT!!….”Never Again!

    ** Authors Notes:
    Also base them in the malls
    and movie theaters,
    and any place where the public gathers.
    Will it be inconvenient? your damned right.
    but it just might save your life,
    or your dearest child’s as well.

    MFB III Productions
    Art~Whimsically Yours Studio
    (c)-2012-all rights reserved
    including the right to bear arms
    sensibly, locked up and unloaded
    with the ammo also locked in a place
    only the gun owner knows. PERIOD!
    And if your loaded, un-locked up gun is taken
    and used used to kill children
    you must face the charges of
    “Voluntary Child-Slaughter”
    and do time in jail
    for providing a madman
    with his weapon.
    PERIOD.
    Exclamation point.
    Then very few will die.
    at least it’s a start,
    before the next
    group of precious children
    and teachers are finished forever!

  • ArtWhimsicallyYoursStudio

    In Memory Of The Fallen At Shady Hook.

    The solution is simple, you base three military soldiers with non-lethal weapons at all of the campuses and schools, and malls. They will be paid by the military to take on a pretty easy duty, they arrive before school opens, an hour ahead of time, and they go home when the buses leave, No one suicidal will get past the checkpoint, and if by some ungodly reason they do they will be nullified before any students or teachers die.

  • atc333

    Semiautomatic assault weapons have doubled in price since Sandy Hook in CT. The local gun shops are sold out until new shipments comes in.

    Any legislation outlawing ownership of assault weapons and or high capacity magazines must include a buy out provision for those surrendering their weapons during the first year.

  • http://www.facebook.com/alexis.paima Alexis Paima

    porque se permitio la venta de armas tipo fusil a la gente comun y corriente, esto de debe recortar a revolver o pistola

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KV2YCNDU755CHTULDVEIFTW7GE steven c

    You people make me sick. You people are going to give away your Second Amendment right (that by the way has given you the lives you have now) because you think a ban on guns will keep everyone safe. Safe from who. There will still be illegal guns out there because the government cannot control other nations from manufacturing guns, so there will be a massive black market for guns and ammunition. On top of that the action you want to take will start a second Civil War, only this time everyone will be in the line of fire with nothing to fight back with, because you gave your rights, and guns away. If you people are STUPID enough to think the government has not been waiting for a chance like this to step in and declare martial law then you obviously have not been paying attention to whats been happing in the last twelve years since 9/11. The federal government has slowly eroded away your rights under the U.S. A. PATRIOT Act and will continue with new laws restricting who can travel on a plane. Wake up sheeple this country is becoming a socialist nightmare.

    • Michael Kollmorgen

      Did you ever consider the remote possibility that the 2nd Amendment is the main cause of all our gun problems in the first place? When it was composed, they had no idea that automatic weapons of the type we have today, could have ever been built. They were dam lucky if they could shoot a Deer at a 100 feet, let alone autos that can shoot hundreds of rounds a minute, or be as deadly accurate as they are today.

      In fact, the entire Constitution is the base of many of our current problems.

      Could our founding fathers think that far in the future where we would have so many problems that that document 300 years ago was going to solve in the future?

      Seriously, their biggest headaches at the time was just trying to survive and to form a new country. They had absolutely NO idea our society was going to become as complicated as it is. Their thought process as compared to today was so primitive, is like comparing apples to oranges.

      And, whether you or anyone else likes it or not, the Constitution is NOT a Static Document. It can be changed to meet current needs. That’s why we have Amendments attached to it ever since.

      I’m not trying to be a smartass about this at all. Just stating plain facts.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/V76SOFAXAIZRWC6MNAX5Z3DLAM mothermaybe

    We know where their priorities lie,(guns), not children or people’s lives. They are living in the Civil War era. So far I haven’t gotten a reasonable answer from these people why they need assault weapons. They are no better than terriorist, criminals and hate groups. These NRA fanatics say it’s the “mentally ill that kill people” well do I need to say more NRA. I hope you get help before you use your guns.

  • DEFENDER88

    Most of this happend to me years ago but it is even worse now.

    Point is there are real and deadly dangers out there and it aint just paranoia.

    Your standard street mugger has gotten more aggressive and deadly.

    And more likely to use a gun.

    And the ones on drugs very sketchy and deadly.

    They will absolutly kill you for $5.

    Those of you who dont have to worry about any of this I am happy for you.

    But many of us do.

    As for modifying the AR to Military Level Full Auto.

    Yes it can be done to many of these rifles.

    But it is not commonly done, actually rarely.

    Too expensive and not considered needed by most.

    Some few Dr’s etc have done it for show, etc.

    Of the 2,000 or so members of my gun club, I would say

    no more than 1-2 have done this.

    Also it eats ammo and is expensive from that standpoint.

    But mostly it is just not considered a good thing to do by most.

    Again – The assault rifle is a fact of life here and will be for a long time to come no matter what law is passed.

    The bad guys have them and no law will free them. Just blindly banning the gun will result in the responsible

    gun owners being dis-armed while the bad guys will still have theirs.

    Banning Assault Rifles will not make an “immediate” difference.

    Maybe in 20-30yrs when you finally get enough out of the system to make a diffenence.

    Changes like protecting Gun Free Zones with Armed Security can and would make an immediate difference.

    Changes to registration requirements like Requiring a CCW permit to even be able to buy or sell a gun can make an immediate difference.

    Requiring a phsyco test to get a permit can make an immediate difference.

    You should know that nothing is going to be 100% effective but, I think, we should concentrate on the things that will make an “immediate” difference.

    So – I dont mind having a discussion on what, if anything, we should do about banning the weapon.

    But we should concentrate 1st on trying to make an immediate difference/change in this wave of killing.

    In the mean time, have a reasoned discussion/debate on Assault Rifles and how to treat them.

    ie The best way to reduce the threat they pose in the wrong hands.

    There is a lot of dis-information and non-information out there about them.

    Those of us who know and use guns for protection, sport, etc should be involved along with Law Enforcement, and all other parties.

    • Michael Kollmorgen

      I agree.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4JK5UTBYBW34I6QZZXYEBMSTT4 TEN-OF-WANDS

    Guns sell guns. No need for a middle-man.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/S5QPJ4F2FQXAEKNRCOGYWQ7TQE Phillip

    This is the second major surge in gun sales over the past two months; they also rose sharply directly after President Obama’s re-election on November 6th. What does this say about the American mind-set? Are we not a bunch of crazies who hate the fact that some of us lost the civil war but will still fight to keep some relics of it by going against anything minority such as civil rights equal rights, unemployment compensation, welfare for those who have failed(despite all efforts) etc etc? Americans give a bad name to democracy.

scroll to top