Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, September 30, 2016

WASHINGTON — The heroic and inspiring role played by the families of the Sandy Hook massacre’s victims should not be used to create what would be a dangerously misleading narrative about how they changed the politics of guns.

The importance of last Thursday’s 68-31 vote in the Senate to proceed with debate on a bill to curb gun violence cannot be understated, and the testimonies from the citizens of Newtown were vital to that victory.

To say this is not to deny that many fights loom ahead. This was a vote to debate, not to pass, a bill — and the House of Representatives could prove an even larger obstacle to change than the Senate. We should not be blind to the skill of the weapon manufacturers’ lobby at the art of undercutting legislation through subtle amendments.

And this legislative round is unlikely to lead all the reforms that President Obama proposed, or that the country needs. It will be vital in the coming weeks to battle for additional measures beyond the background checks deal negotiated between Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), notably a ban on high-capacity magazines.

But make no mistake: The nation’s reaction to the killings in Newtown and the persistence of the advocates of sane firearms laws, including the families, have fundamentally altered the balance of power on guns. This is why 16 Republican senators joined nearly all Democrats in refusing to shut down the debate on a bill before it even started. It’s why abject timidity on the issue has been replaced by a grim determination.

The misunderstanding of why this happened, however, could set back the cause in the long run unless it is dispelled.

Because the accounts from the Sandy Hook families have been so moving and so wrenching, it is common to say that a gun bill is being carried along “on a wave of emotion.” There is nothing wrong with honest emotion, but the implication is that we are acting on guns in a way we would not act if our judgments were based on pure reason or a careful look at the evidence.

This has it exactly backward.

  • The ZOMBIES are coming the ZOMBIES are coming!

    • TheSkalawag929

      The Zombies are here. They are the Grand Old Party.

      • lana ward

        Which party demonizes Christmas, Easter and won’t let people fly the American flag anywhere, and wants the Ten Comandments taken down everywhere and on and on–it sure isn’t the Republicans!!!

        • TheSkalawag929

          lana the only thing you have are discredited talking points.
          The only demonizing of Christmas and Easter that is being done is in imaginary land of Faux Noise.
          I don’t know what orifice you pulled people not being allowed to fly the American Flag out of but that is just nonsensical.
          As far as the Ten Commandments are concerned you can put them anywhere you like just not in government buildings. If you have a problem with that then you need to take it up with the Supreme Court.

          • lana ward

            People are being told to take flags down, even on their own property. People are on Fox all the time saying they are being forced to take their flags down. You really need to start getting your news somewhere else. They are not informing you about anything. It took me a minute to find what to say to you–I can’t believe you don’t even know about people not being able to fly OUR FLAG. This is pitiful!!!!!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            lana people are on Fox saying all kinds of things. So what. Give me a link to some of the stories.

          • lana ward

            Call your Congressman!!!!! Ask him these things. I don’t know links, I haven’t had a computer that long. I’ll see what I can do, but you really need to calll your Congressman. Something has to be done with the Media. They are performing a GREAT disservice not informing the American people on what is going on!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            lana maybe if you learn how to use your computer you might find out that a lot of what you hear on Fox News is either old or already been resolved.

          • lana ward

            Have you ever watched Fox?? Or are you believing what liars are telling you. Try watching it, you WILL learn something. The MSM can’t be trusted with the news. This flag deal has me in shock. I just can’t believe it!!!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            Yes I have watched Fox News and I was amazed at how far from the truth they are in their reporting.
            I have found getting the story from multiple sources to be the best way to get at the truth.
            There news outlets that are credible and reliable. It’s just that Fox isn’t one of them.

          • lana ward

            Can you please tell me what you watch, I will check it out

          • TheSkalawag929

            I read a lot. The National Memo, Huffington Post, Slate, Politico, Red State, Human Events and the Washington Post are some publications I read but there are three programs I watch and they are All In with Chris Hayes, The Rachel Maddow Show and the Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC.

          • lana ward

            Human Events and Red State are good, but the rest—now I see why you think the way you do

          • TheSkalawag929

            Which way do you see me thinking?

          • lana ward

            Over the left cliff

          • TheSkalawag929

            As opposed to down in the right gorge.

          • lana ward

            The MSM just started reporting on the monster “dr.” Kermit Gosnell about 3 days ago. Fox has been reporting on it for weeks, and I saw it on my sites. What took ALL of the MSM so long to report on this major story??

          • Dana Es

            Lana, I don’t watch FOX, yet weeks ago I read about Kermit and how upset some pro-choice groups were about the horrible things he did, not only because his actions were bad, but also because they knew some people would try to use it against them, even though they had nothing to do with it.

          • lana ward

            CBS, NBC ,CNN,MSNBC, all major News channels did not report on this for weeks!!! Fox reported on it from the start. Why wouldn’t major networks report on this important story??????;…….

          • Dana Es

            I’m glad you can’t believe the flag deal because IT ISN’T TRUE! And there are many more news sources than FOX and MSM — try PBS or some of the neutral broadcast channels or publications.

          • lana ward

            Type in, “Citizens can’t fly the flag “, see for yourself. Even some store owners are told to take down the flag

          • lana ward

            There are so many things Obama is doing to destroy the economy, but the latest thing is his budget. Type in, Limit on what you can save-Obamas’ budget. Even the Dems hate his budget, some are calling him the enemy

          • TheSkalawag929

            I don’t like everything in Obama’s budget but it’s a darn site better than what Ryan and the republicans want to pass.

          • plc97477

            Or complete falsehoods.

          • TheSkalawag929

            What is it that you see as possible complete falsehoods?

          • lana ward

            Type in, Citizens can’t fly the flag–that will take you to afew of them!!!!

          • TheSkalawag929

            The Marine couldn’t fly the flag because he didn’t have a permit for the flag pole.

            The elderly woman in NJ not being able to fly the flag is a bogus reason and will probably be overruled.

            I’m not saying that there aren’t stupid instances where people and local government agencies don’t screw up. What I am saying is that they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

          • Landsende

            Lana, HOA’s are the ones denying homeowners flying their flags because of covenants the homeowner agreed to when he bought the house. Both republicans and democrats live in these subdivisions. Personally I have no problem with someone flying the flag on their property but if they are allowed to violate the covenants then it would be impossible to enforce the other covenants that protect the value of your property such as junk cars parked in the yard. The solution would be before buying a property make sure what you can and cannot do according to the HOA’s covenants and if you disagree buy somewhere else.

          • lana ward

            Why would any REAL American not allow our flag to fly?? And it is happening more and more. And why would any REAL American Judge go along with such an Anti-American rule?? They wouldn’t!! There are communists all through our Gov., even in the WH, all of them taking away our freedoms one at a time

          • Bull Lana, I live in a built up nice area in Ohio and fly my flag everyday when the weather permits. No one has ask me to take it down. Never heard of such a thing.

          • lana ward

            Type in, Citizens told they can’t fly the flag

          • plc97477

            Your problem is believing anything on fox (fake) news.

          • lana ward

            Type in, “Citizens told they can’t fly our flag”, see for yourself, smartness

          • lana ward

            Fox has been reporting on the butcher Kermit Gosnell for weeks. MSM finally reported on it 4 days ago.

          • Dana Es

            Lana, I can sit here and look out my window and watch the neighbor’s flag waving in the breeze. I can take a short ride and see even more flags flying high. I do NOT know a single person who wants to fly the U.S. flag on their own property who hasn’t been able to do it.

        • stcroixcarp

          No party demonizes Christmas and Easter. The so-called war on Christmas, Easter and the American flag is a hoax created by Fox News anchors. It is a propaganda point. I am surprised that you still fall for it.

          • lana ward

            The MSM won’t tell you anything. OMG I can’t believe what a disgrace they are. Ask your Congressman if this isn’t true, maybe you’ll believe him. This is pitiful!!

          • lana ward

            The MSM decided they better mention about the monster Dr Kermit Gosnell, what 3 days ago?? Fox has been reporting it for weeks and wondered what was going on with the MSM and why they weren’t mentioning it. They do this with alot of stories–they don’t want the Dems to know. Ptiful!! CALL your Congressman, I’m sure he would tell you the truth!!!

  • The final outcome of the latest gun control efforts is far from certain. There are enough far right politicians in the House of Representative to turn this legislation into a worthless piece of paper. It would not surprise me if the only thing they agree on is stricter backfearground checks, while assault weapons and high capacity magazines continue to be sold to whomever has enough cash to pay for them.

    We have so many people consumed by fear and intolerance in our society that realistic gun control laws are little more than a mirage. The NRA has managed to change the goal of the ongoing gun control effort into a violation of the Second Amendment and a nefarious attempt by government to impose tyranny on our innocent populace. Their rhetoric, and hyperbole, is designed to exploit the ignorance and the innermost fears of those who see enemies everywhere they look and who cannot tolerate social changes from the status quo that has prevailed since we became a Republic.

    • TheSkalawag929

      It should be pointed out that there are enough fearful Democrats in both houses to help the Republicans maintain the status quo.

      • That is true. Democrats from red states or red districts have no choice but to embrace traditional “conservative” causes or they become endanger species.
        Another fascinating part of issues such as gun control and immigration reform is that once the GOP decides to go along, they immediately claim ownership for what they previously rejected, and they do it quite successfully. Much of what we hear in the news about these two issues is centered on what Republicans, such as Marco Rubio, are doing to solve things that should have been addressed decades ago. Not surprisingly, they also know that unless they support popular issues their political careers are over.

        • TheSkalawag929

          Democrats from red states or red districts only have no choice if their main objective is to remain in office. A Democrat in office doing the wrong things for the country is just as bad as a Republican doing the same thing.

          I think it is better to be a one term politician who does what’s best for the country rather than a long term politician looking out for his or her own best interest.

          What is even more fascinating is how Democrats let Republicans get away with hi-jacking their ideas.

          • I couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, where greed often trumps principle.

          • TheSkalawag929

            Agreed.

  • Eleanore Whitaker

    The gun control bill is like every other piece of legislation the GOP determined had to pass their stamp of approval. Anyone sick to death of GOP male bullies turning our government into their little playpen of right wing extremism?

    This gun control bills allows private owners of guns to sell their guns without any record of the sale. So when Big Daddah down in Hokum Yokumville sells his gun to his 20 year old son and then they get into a battle over Sonny’s lack of having a job…Sonny now has the opportunity to go Adam Lanza on another 20 kids.

    We do not need millions more guns manufactured in the US. We control the amount of dangerous substances manufactured…why not guns? Or is it that the Big 4 Gun Manufacturers in TN, MO, NC and VA are pumping moolah into their confederate state politicians?

    In many states, the cost to obtain a liquor license or taxi license is in the 6-figure range. Why are gun dealers getting off with cheapo licenses to sell online, offline and at gun shows? If they want to sell, they have to pay a steeper price for those huge profits they are earning.

    • RobertCHastings

      Along with the license, as for the privilege to operate a motor vehicle, should also come the responsibility to purchase and maintain liability insurance. This would provide a boon to the insurance companies who simply are not making enough money off health insurance, and it would provide cover for the NRA as the product they push would, once again, be deemed safe.

      • Independent1

        Considering there are around 75-100,000 shootings a year that end up injuring people, forcing gun owners to buy special gun owner insurance sounds like a great idea. Actually, back in 1994, accoding to a NYtimes article, there were 134,345 gunshot woulds requiring treatment that ended up costing 2.3 billion dollars in medical claims. (I’m not sure how much in the way of liability)

        • RobertCHastings

          While the cost in medical treatment is a large number in itself, according to the JAMA the cost in lost work is at least 20 times that.

          • Norma Dillard

            just before I saw the check of $5993, I didn’t believe that…my… friends brother was like actualie making money parttime from there pretty old laptop.. there neighbour had bean doing this for under 13 months and as of now paid the dept on their cottage and bought a great new Cadillac. this is where I went, kep2.comCHECK IT OUT

    • onedonewong

      That constitution sure is a pesky thing isn’t it

      • Dana Es

        The Constitution allows for reasonable regulation, in spite of what some people choose to believe.

        • onedonewong

          Hmmm can you enlighten me on where that might be in the constitution. My copy has no such passage

  • montanabill

    A call to reason? Here’s a reason: the bill under consideration would not have prevented Newtown. It would not have prevented any of the recent tragedies caused by mentally disturbed individuals. Obama’s dog and pony show purposefully omitted one of the parents who has rightly called for working on the real problem. Why was that? It is the same old tactic this administration has used from day one: use a crisis, real or created, to get more government created. Doesn’t matter that everything done in this manner in the past has been a disaster because he uses his own created disasters to demand more government to fix them. And the gullible nod approvingly.

    • JohnRNC

      You are correct. This bill does not address any of the core issues that made the recent massacres at Newtown & Aurora possible. As long as the NRA is allowed to keep pouring money into the pockets of our congressmen & senators, we will have neither meaningful debate nor effective law regarding firearms. What we WILL get is more massacres and probably some shootouts in malls, theaters and schools where all the amateurs who are “packing heat” will try to be heroes and the body will go up with all those caught in the crossfire.

      The fact that is has taken this much effort and wrangling just to allow a debate is an insult to the families and victims of these massacres.

      • lana ward

        No law will stop thugs from murdering. They will always have guns no matter what. The only thing that will stop the murdering, is God changing peoples hearts, and most people aren’t willing for that to happen

      • It is, indeed, unlikely that the proposed background check reform would have prevented the tragedies in Aurora, Virginia Tech, the Sikh Temple, Sandy Hook, Arizona and so many other places, but if it prevents one from taking place that, in itself, is a victory. What is unforgiveable is to do nothing.
        Our problem involves the availability of guns for anyone with enough money to purchase one, and since the likelihood of disarming America is slim to none, we might as well accept gun violence as an integral part of life in the USA. Let’s all go to the nearest gun show, pawn shop, or store; let’s buy as many weapons as we can, and let’s finish the job by building bunkers so that we can fight each other.

      • montanabill

        The people responsible for tragedies are not ‘amateurs packing heat’. They are mental cases with too little attention in our society. Their lack of sufficient treatment facilities and access to weapons is why we these incidents. All the new laws and regulations will do nothing more than restrict more American freedoms without doing one single thing to stop the next mental case from staging another tragedy, with or without guns.

        • JohnRNC

          I was referring to the NRA notion that guns in the hands of “responsible citizens” can stop massacres like Newtown & Aurora. My opinion is that more shooting in these types of situations will only create more casualties – innocents caught in the crossfire.

          • TheSkalawag929

            The right-wing’s reply will be if they had guns then they probably would not have been victims.

            The country is obese with guns. We need to go on a gun reduction diet. Maybe then we get rid of some of those unsightly pounds of gun violence.

          • montanabill

            I cannot argue that innocents might be caught in a crossfire between a criminal and someone trying to stop them. No more than you can argue that that innocent might not be gunned down by the criminal if no one tried to stop them. This is considerable evidence to show that criminals do not persist when facing an equal challenge.

        • TheSkalawag929

          The lack of attention and treatment facilities can, I think, be traced directly to an unwillingness to pay for it.

          How do you curb their access to weapons other than through laws and regulations? The very things that YOU and the right-wing are against.

          You are very good at pointing out short comings but not so good on solutions.

          The only thing doing nothing does is to encourage more of the same behavior.

          • montanabill

            If laws and regulations worked, Chicago would be a safe city. There are a great many towns and cities in this country where people openly carry guns without anyone so much as raising an eyebrow, much less fearing that person. Once you can prove that laws and regulations actually have an effect, you will get our attention. Otherwise, you are simply creating more costly bureaucracy and placing restrictions on the millions of people who would never consider turning their guns on a person not threatening them.

          • TheSkalawag929

            bill you were born to late. The time that you desire passed by more than 150 years ago.

            I wish there was some way that I could transport you back to yesteryear. That’s where you and your way of thinking belong.

          • montanabill

            You need to get out in fly-over land a little more. There is still an America out here.

          • TheSkalawag929

            I know there is.

            The problem with “fly-over land” for me is “acceptance”. I’m not sure that you guys out there are ready to accept me passing through enjoying for the moment what you take for granted as a way of life.

            I see myself as one of the Lewis & Clark expedition. I’m not looking to change anything. I just want to enjoy what I find how I find it.

            You know “easterners”. Some of them want to force their way of life on everybody. That’s not me.

            Personally I want to experience the differences OUR great country has to offer without changing it. For me uniformity is the ENEMY of experience.

          • montanabill

            Try us. Fact is, I live in several areas of the country including the metropolitan East. But I grew up and still have a home out where there are no fences and friendly little towns. In the west, we have noted that most people who arrive from either coast say they wanted to ‘get away’. Then, they promptly start trying to change things to be more like where they came from. Odd situation.

        • Dana Es

          The biggest problem with that way of thinking is there is often no way to tell the difference between the slightly-odd person who may kill a bunch of people and the one who will be a great artist or an unremarkable neighbor. The mentally ill do not arrive on earth with a badge proclaiming their illness and frequently there just isn’t a definite way to know beforehand who’s dangerous and who isn’t.

          • montanabill

            For most of those involved in recent episodes, there were warnings. Most of us don’t like to admit someone close might have a problem, so the natural tendency is think light of such warnings. Most will never come to anything, but if there is the slightest indicator, such persons should be closely monitored and not allowed to be around weapons of any kind.

    • Well the “dog and Pony” show, as you so disrespectfullu call it, is at least a start to reign in all the gun nuts! If it needs changed, so be it, but at least it’s a start!

      • lana ward

        Only God in peoples hearts will stop the murdering, and I’m sure that isn’t going to happen. Any gun law is a waste of time

        • JDavidS

          Wrong, lana… A brain in their head might do the trick.

          • lana ward

            The brain is there, it’s just full of evil, as is the heart

          • plc97477

            S/he wouldn’t know about that.

        • TheSkalawag929

          If the only thing that will help is God changing people’s hearts and you’re sure that that won’t happen, then you right-wingers only solution is to do nothing.Good. Why don’t you do that? Go somewhere and sit in the corner with your gun and your bible and DO NOTHING.
          Get out of the way of those of us that want to at least try to do something.

          • lana ward

            Nothing else will work. Thugs will always have guns and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it!! Confiscate all the guns, thugs will still have them and I know you know that. You’re not that stupid

          • TheSkalawag929

            So your answer is to not even try to make it more difficult for the thugs and criminals to get guns.
            By making it more difficult for criminals and thugs to get guns it’s like shining a light into the dark places that they by their guns.
            By shining a light into the dark places that thugs and criminals get there guns it makes them easier to see.
            If you can see the criminals and thugs you can catch them.
            If you catch the catch the criminals and thugs you can put them in jail.
            If the criminals and thugs are in jail they can’t commit crimes against society.
            See how that works?
            But if we do nothing as you suggest the criminals and thug will just keep on buying guns and committing crimes.
            Which do you prefer?

          • lana ward

            I prefer everyone carry a gun and shoot the thug before he shoots you. These thugs are breaking into peoples houses all the time. What if you don’t have a gun??–and they do? They will always have guns no matter what laws are put in place

          • TheSkalawag929

            lana I have a feeling that one day we will be reading about you going to jail after having shot someone because you thought they were a thug and it turns out that they weren’t.

            This isn’t the wild west and you aren’t Annie Oakley.

          • lana ward

            If you are breaking into my house, you’re a thug. Just the other night a home owner shot and killed two of four thugs that broke into his house. Police found and arrested the other two

      • montanabill

        It was a ‘dog and pony show’. He had no room for those parents who lost children in Newtown who didn’t agree with him.

    • TheSkalawag929

      What would you propose? More guns won’t prevent the next Newtown or other tragedy. As a matter of fact I think that more guns would only make another massacre more likely.

      • JohnRNC

        Short of repealing the second amendment here’s my idea of a compromise:

        Anyone who owns a firearm should be subject to licensing and renewal
        requirements (just like driving a car). You go to the range, you have
        to show your license. Registration renewal should be no longer than the renewal period for a driving license (not longer than 4 years). And the renewal process should include an updated background check and psychological screening to retain gun licenses.

        Cars are not intended to kill people and yet the ownership and operation of motor vehicles is regulated and tracked by law enforcement because of their potential to kill if operated improperly or by an incompetent driver. Guns ARE designed to kill people and yet, due largely to their protected status in the Bill of Rights, the regulation and tracking of gun owners is minimal by comparison.

        • TheSkalawag929

          I agree with you 100%.

      • montanabill

        Depends on who has the guns.

        • TheSkalawag929

          bill suppose you are traveling across Montana as a white settler going west and a group of Chippewa-Cree confront you. Even though you have superior weapons, what determines who is right?

          • montanabill

            Most likely, I would be glad to see them as opposed to Blackfeet or Crow at the time. I don’t think hostilities would have occurred.

        • TheSkalawag929

          bill is seems to me that according to white people throughout history, if they, “white people”, have superior firepower that is all that matters. But if white folks are on the short end of the firepower debate then all of a sudden the rules need to be changed.

          What’s up with that?

          • montanabill

            I don’t think I interjected color, unless you think all criminals are non-white. Could that be the color of your glasses?

    • elw

      Your message is no more than twisted words and thoughts from an alternative shadow reality. But that is OK, because your type of message is what help more progressives win in the last election. Keep up the good work.

  • If Wayne LaPierre really wants to show some guts, he needs to take the talk where it will show what he really believes.

    He needs to face the parents of a slain child. Look them in the eye.

    And tell them, “IT SUCKS THAT YOUR KID GOT BLOWN AWAY BY SOME WHACK JOB.

    BUT, HEY, THAT’s JUST THE
    PRICE THAT YOU GOTTA PAY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ANY NUT CASE THAT HAS ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY A SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLE AND A FEW SEMI-AUTOMATIC HAND GUNS. OH, AND MAYBE A DOZEN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES WITH A FEW HUNDRED ROUNDS OF AMMO.

    Besides, we all gotta make sacrifices, right?

    My money is on him taking the cowards way out. HE WILL NEVER HAVE ENOUGH GUTS TO FACE THOSE PARENTS WITH THAT MESSAGE!

    • onedonewong

      Right after you and your fellow libs look the 1,000,000 dead babies in the eye and tell them that murder is OK

  • Reason or not we should engage the NRA and the gun apologists on their own territory and not on the grounds they choose to maneuver. To start with someone should introduce legislation to repeal the second amendment to the constitution, not because it stands a rat’s chance of passing but because we can and it will shift the battle into a new territory. We should ask the NRA and the gun apologists how many more human sacrifices they require to start being reasonable.
    Remember that weapons manufacturers and defense budgets are also sacred cows, so let’s start slaughtering the cows by dipping strongly into their pens by culling that herd instinct. Would it be possible to endorse the concept that education is more important than invading innocent countries? How about a program that links disarmement to class rooms? Instead of the JFK High School, let’s call it the USS Enterprise, and scrap the carrier of that name, use the money for a better purpose? For every dead teenager make the NRA, the bought politicians, the gun sales stores and others living off the dead pay a slaughter tax.

    • tdm3624

      I’m not sure if I follow, but I am curious, do you believe every individual has a right to self-defense, Second Amendment or not? If they do, should they not have the right to possess the same weapons that those who would deprive them of their life/liberty/property currently own?

      • I love you, the perfect example of how silly the whole debate has become. If you, like we decide to defend ourselves and ours, then the only correct way to do it is to evaluate the attacker. If he has no weapons, then Judo will suffice, unless he knows Karate, so you have to learn Karate to counter his more dangerous technology. So you get a bat and he gets a sword, from sword we get bows which lead to arbalettes, then ballistas, to firearms. Now we are in that wonderful world that leads to Sandy Hook and over a million dead since 1968. Of course, if you call the NRA and talk to them you will rapidly learn that the biggest monster under their bed is not the nasty illegal immigrant toting a Glock, no to them it’s the Federal Governement that is intent on enslaving them. So there you are, facing the full might of the Federal army locked and loaded with nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, drones and other weapons that you can only wet dream about. And the bastards in those anti gun lobbies are only allowing you a puny 10 rounds to stop the tanks coming to your door. Is that fair? Is that even acceptable?
        Obviously the only solution is to provide every citizen with an anthrax bomb or another non discriminating bio weapon, because we must maintain our right, as individuals, to defend ourselves from ALL comers. THat is the only reasonable approach and twenty little dead children have NO right to infringe on my Federally mandated right to bear arms? Nor should those little bastards have any say in the matter because the second guaranteed the Lanza family the right to arm themselves and ensured that the Lanza kid was allowed to terminate his mother, six adults and twenty little babies in defense of his single right to own a weapon.

        • tdm3624

          Are you proposing that Americans not be allowed to own semi-auto firearms and high capacity magazines even though drug dealers and criminals have access to them through the black market? How do I defend myself and property with a single shot shotgun when the criminal has a modern semi-auto?

          In response to your last paragraph, the Second Amendment does not give someone the right to terminate the lives of innocent people. It simply gives individuals the right to own and operate firearms in self-defense. A person can choose to use that right in a lawful manner or choose to abuse it. Unfortunately for the victims in Newtown, a mentally deranged criminal chose to abuse it.

          • Barbara Morgan

            Criminals have these guns that you mentioned because they have stolen them from legal gun owners or even bought them from legal gun owner or had a third party buy the gun for them. Criminals have access to these guns by just breaking into homes or doing a gang home invansion where no matter how many guns you own you are going to lose the battle and proably your live. Do you have a killer instict? If you don’t, no matter how many semi-auto or any other guns you have they won’t do you any good but could get you killed.When the 2nd amendment was written the weapons of the day were flintlock long guns, one shot pistols, swords and tohawks not guns that can cut a person to pieces in a short amount of time.So if the 2nd amendment is your argument for having semi auto, you lose. Read the Federal papers written by James Madison in regards to the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment,and see that you and many others are wrong in the way you read the 2nd amendment.

          • Again your solution is brilliant, steadfastly do nothing because criminals have guns. If we strangle the pipeline by not allowing guns into the system, and we further urge the law abiding owners to register their weapons, then we can start to get a handle on the problem. But I agree with you, a couple of massacres every other month will ensure the continued paranoia, keep the gun toters fearful enough that someone will be coming for their guns and ensure coninued sales for centories to come thereby justifying the millions that lobbyists for the gun nuts to maintain their votes. By the way, if you are such a well read lawyer you are aware that the second was a lobby to ensure that gun makers of America would have their own territory? Oh and the second does not mention individuals only militia, and if you call the NRA about a militia in your zip code area you will be amazed at how thay react, try it 800 392 8683.

          • Independent1

            Barbara, what’s important on the 2nd Amendment is how the Supreme Court interprets it; and here’s their interpretation from a decision they handed down in 2008:

            In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

          • tdm3624

            I agree that when the Second Amendment was written the weapons of the day were flintlock long guns, one shot pistols, swords and tomahawks, etc. In comparison, when the First Amendment was written, the ability to express oneself consisted of parchment paper, quill pens, ink, and a printing press, not social media and electronic networks that can spread an opinion world wide in a few seconds. There is no way the writers could have foreseen the how much more powerful the written word would be in 2013, just as there is no way they could have foreseen how much more powerful firearms would be. If we as a society decide to limit firearms based on what the colonists had in the late 1700s, then we should also limit ourselves to First Amendment issues as practiced back then as well.

          • I am proposing that we could get off the national paranoia of defending ourselves aginst them with whatever means we can afford and get on the “there is entirely too much business fostered violence around and maybe in a more perfect world we would not have to bury twenty babies in closed caskets because your semi automatic made hamburger out of them bandwagon”. Most countries do not have the liberal license to kill laws that the second has fostered and somehow they seem to move along quite happily. Those are the same countries that do not attack innocent countries to increase the business of making and using weapons. You are right the second does not give the right to terminate lives it provides them with the opportunity, a very subtle difference that seven year olds cannot discern.

          • RobertCHastings

            Perhaps I am not reading the same Second Amendment that you are, but I seem to have misplaced the part that says anything about “self defense”. I can understand the part about a “well regulated Militia”, but self-defense simply isn’t there, which makes it an entirely different ballgame, doesn’t it?

          • Independent1

            Robert, a 2008 SCOTUS decision says that self defense is one right given you by the 2dnd Amendment. Here’s their decision:

            In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it
            “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with
            service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
            such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

          • RobertCHastings

            While the Supremes may have upheld existing gun control legislation, their construction of the Second Amendment is just that, a construct. The conservative Justices are NOT constructionists (except in those cases when it suits their conservatives agenda, like this case and like Bush v Gore), they are, purportedly, literalists, and generally are highly critical of anyone that attempts to legislate from the Bench, which is what they have done. I assume you have read the Second Amendment, in its entirety. There is no mention,either direct or implied, ragarding self defense.

          • Independent1

            You’re right that there is no reference directly, but my sense is that when Madison wrote the Amendment, that he was thinking that his countrymen at the time needed to bear arms, so as he states in the amendment, that they could form militas. Form milias should they be needed to ward off another attack from a foreign government, as there was no federal standing army (as they were needed in Lexington when the British first attacked). And, that his fellow countrymen needed arms at the time, to protect themselves against individual mauraders, such as bandits , Indians, etc., because there were few if any law enforcement people in the country at the time.

            It’s curous to me why Madison wrote the Amendment with such ambiguity, especially after he had poked fun at a paranoid faction at the Constutional Convention (which it appears included Jefferson) who were paranoid about the federal government overruling the states (he did that in the summation of his Federalist No. 46 paper). So as far as I can see, he didn’t write the 2nd Amendment with a concern about the potential for government tyranny as so many gun lovers and the NRA like to push. My only guess is, that neither he, nor anyone else of that time, could have ever dreamed just how far the right to bear arms, and even how expansive the term ARMs would become, in future years.

          • RobertCHastings

            Sounds pretty good to me, regardless of what Madison might have had as guidance in writing the Second Amendment. There is NO DIRECT reference to self defense in the Second Amendment, which is precisely why it is difficult to understand why the conservative -literalist – justices gave any interpretation to it that required reading something into it that does not exist. We have no way of actually learning precisely what Madison intended to imply, if he intended to imply anything. We have his letters and his notes, which are extensive about many things,and we still have the Federalist papers and other publications of the era. However, unless there is something specifically stated in the Second Amendment (which there isn’t) regarding self-defense, it amounts to gross hypocrisy on the part of the Supreme Court to assume what the Founding Fathers may have implied. After all, the conservatives on the Court (who constituted the majority opinion) are literalists, not constructionists.

          • tdm3624

            I should have written my post above more clearly, I apologize for the confusion. What I meant in my first paragraph was that self-defense is a right that everyone has- every person, in every nation; I would even go so far as to say every living thing. I think the Second Amendment “implies” self defense, but, even if it doesn’t, we still have the right to defend ourselves.

          • RobertCHastings

            I have not looked, but it is probably included in Eleanor Roosevelt’s Declaration of Human Rights given to the United Nations over fifty years ago. However, there have to be some limitations, especially when some, like George Zimmerman, take it into their own hands, leading to the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin. I find it puzzling that someone can be prosecuted for shooting an intruder in a home invasion, which is the case in many jurisdictions. I find Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law equally puzzling. Yes, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families,and our property, but not uequivocally and unconditionally.

          • plc97477

            If you are a good enough shot 10 rounds should do it if not 100 won’t help.

        • Independent1

          A 2008 SCOTUS decsion says self-defense is one reason for owning a gun but no one has the right to own any gun they want:

          In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled hat the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it
          “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with
          service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
          such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] but also stated that “the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

      • Independent1

        Can we settle this argument – a 2008 SCOTUS decision says you do not have the right to own the same weapon as someone who may be attacking you:

        In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled
        that the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right” and that it
        “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with
        service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes,
        such as self-defense within the home”[9][10] but also stated that “the right is not
        unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
        manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”. They also clarified that many
        longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the
        Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

        • tdm3624

          Independent 1, here is the rest of the text following your quote -“For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”

          My opinion is that modern semi-auto rifles are guns that are “in common use at the time”. They are not “unusual weapons”.

    • onedonewong

      I’m all for that as long as the right to an abortion is also eliminated. Its a lopsided scale when comparing abortion murders to gun deaths

  • tdm3624

    “Gun reform is not a “cultural issue” – I think it is. People who grow up and are comfortable around guns (usually in a rural or small town setting) tend to see them as a part of normal life and less of a threat than people who grow up and see guns being used in a criminal manner all the time (urban setting).

  • Those who doubt the Bill of Rights doesn’t extend to Gun ownership don”t have the common sense to understand the Bill of Rights refers to rights “of the People” not the powers of the Government. You may think that selling out the Constitution is in our best interest, but need I remind you a hell of a lot more than 20 gave their lives to “protect and defend” it from all enemies both domestic and foreign. Take a good look at the sham bill now being debated, there isn’t a thing contained there that would prevent another Sandy Hook. This week 4 more were killed and another 21 people wounded in Chicago, you know the former home city of “The Annointed One”. Yet everything he has proposed along with the totally feeble minded Joe Biden will not even address the killing of young balck kids and innocent bystanders in inner cities.
    So, ballyhoo his “common sense” crap and listen to the “Sandy Hook Lobbyists” but they have all become Political Pawns doing the dirty work for Obama in blaming every evil on Republicans. I’ll keep all my guns, ammo and 30 round magazines and sit and watch you all sell out your country. Hope you are proud of the tyrant you all sing Kum Baya to. Just mindless sheep.
    When it all goes to shit, don’t knock on my door, you definately won’t like the response.

    • Dana Es

      My, my, my. So you’re a paranoid hater of Democrats. And that proves what?

  • angelsinca

    It bothered me a lot when Obama brought the Sandy Hook parents on AF1 to DC. It seemed that they were being used as political dressing for his anti-gun agenda. With all due repect to the parents that lost children, it was a sickening, shameless display.

    • Dana Es

      The parents wanted to be there. The majority of them also hoped that the proposed logic pertaining to guns would be accepted.