By E. J. Dionne

The Miracle On Guns

February 24, 2013 8:00 pm Category: Memo Pad 132 Comments A+ / A-
The Miracle On Guns

WASHINGTON — A not-so-small miracle is unfolding before our eyes. After nearly two decades in which established opinion insisted that it would never again be possible to pass sensible regulations of firearms, the unthinkable is on the verge of happening.

This week, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to announce plans to start marking up gun bills to send to the Senate floor, proposals that will include ideas put before the country by President Obama and Vice President Biden. The president’s agenda, in turn, was inspired by advocates and legislators, mayors and police chiefs, who have been working quietly in the wilderness for years.

Told over and over again that members of both parties were forever destined to do the National Rifle Association’s bidding, these supporters of thoroughly moderate and reasonable weapons measures never gave up and never surrendered. Their time has come.

Behind the miracle, of course, lies the profound tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the loss of “26 beautiful lives,” as Lynn McDonnell, mother of 7-year-old Grace McDonnell, one of those beautiful lives, put it at a conference in Connecticut last week.

But sad as it is to say, many other lives had been lost before in mass shootings and Congress and the president just went about their business. Why was Newtown the last straw?

There was, above all, the sheer horror of all those children killed. You sensed that something snapped that day in the minds of millions of Americans. At that moment, they were done with powerlessness and inertia.

The change in the president’s political situation mattered, too. Unfortunately, he had been unwilling before the 2012 election to speak out boldly on guns. The Newtown killings galvanized him.

The fact that he and Biden have refused to let the issue fade away has also made a difference. Once it became clear that neither they nor anyone else on the side of gun sanity would be intimidated by the NRA, the bullies were revealed for what they are and their punch was shown to be far less formidable than their threats.

Suddenly, Americans in large numbers (and the media, too) started noticing how extreme, even wacky, the rhetoric of the gun manufacturers’ lobby has become. Their talk about representing the “real America” was exposed as a fraud: “Real” Americans don’t resist pragmatic solutions to the problems of mass violence.

Oh, yes, and it was also finally noticed that a majority of Americans doesn’t own guns, that gun ownership has dropped over time, and that this real majority does not want to be forced to live in a world in which everyone is terrorized into buying a weapon.

The hollowness of the arm-everyone crowd’s “arguments” has been laid out for all to see. Why, pray, would law-abiding gun owners have any problem with universal background checks? Why does anyone need those big gun magazines? Should the desire of a small minority of Americans to own them really trump the safety of everyone else, including schoolchildren? Why should we allow “straw purchasers” of guns to flout the purpose of gun laws? What could possibly be wrong with laws against gun trafficking? To ask such questions is to answer them.

There is a distance to go. Astonishingly, there may not be the votes to enact an assault weapons ban that once won broad bipartisan support. The NRA still seems to have the clout to persuade senators from rural states that prohibiting the sale of such instruments of large-scale killing would be a basic threat to American liberties.

And if the Senate does approve a robust package of gun bills (with or without the assault weapons ban), will House Speaker John Boehner be pressured into bottling them up and preventing a vote?

Here is where suburban Republicans will be put to the test. Already, some in their ranks, including Reps. Peter King and Michael Grimm of New York and Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, have spoken for action. The message needs to be sent from the nation’s bedroom communities: A GOP under the control of the NRA is not an acceptable option for moms and dads who want their kids protected from violence. Tax cuts don’t matter if your kids aren’t safe.

It is amazing what can happen when an empty ideology is confronted by an insistent band of problem solvers — and when political fear gives way to a fierce determination.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is [email protected].

© 2013, Washington Post Writers Group

AP Photo: Jessica Hill

The Miracle On Guns Reviewed by on . WASHINGTON -- A not-so-small miracle is unfolding before our eyes. After nearly two decades in which established opinion insisted that it would never again be p WASHINGTON -- A not-so-small miracle is unfolding before our eyes. After nearly two decades in which established opinion insisted that it would never again be p Rating:

More by E. J. Dionne

Moderate Thunder Out Of Kansas

Why the Tea Party may be in for a big surprise on election night.

Read more...

The Secrets Behind 2014

Four reasons that Democrats could survive on election day.

Read more...

Ebola, Pandering And Courage

What a Massachusetts House race can teach us about our shallow midterm campaigns.

Read more...

Tags

Comments

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

    Incredibly, progress is being obstructed by a few senators who think it is inappropriate or unconstitutional to inform the authorities of private gun transactions. Most of the massacres committed in years past were carried out by people who did not buy the guns they used, that used relatives’ guns, or who bought them illegally. Why would anybody object to the seller of a gun informing the authorities of who and when he/she sold a lethal weapon to? The Constitution talks about a “well regulated” militia, it says nothing about wholesale transactions to people who are not fit to own a BB gun, let alone a semi-automatic weapon.

    • http://www.facebook.com/richard.stewart.9047506 Richard Stewart

      Exactly! If it’s not in the Constitution, the Feds don’t have the authority to deal with this.

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

        The Second Amendment grants us the right to bear arms to form a “well regulated” militia. Private transactions undermine and are inconsistent with our constitutional rights. Therefore, the Federal and State and local governments have the right to expect notification of such transactions. The goal is not to infringe on our rights, but to implement common sense laws that allow us to reduce violent crime. Admittedly, it is unlikely that goal will be accomplished, considering the widespread availability and ownership of lethal weapons in America, but anything that helps save, even a single life, is worth pursuing.

        • middleclasstaxpayer

          “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
          ——-~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/EPDE2Q43TALL2WU7DKJO7W5QH4 James

            That is right wing propaganda. There was no 1935 Weapons Act and Hitler never said those words.

          • idamag

            James, I did study Hitler. There were gun laws, but the only restrictions were for certain segments of the society. I have visited Germany and know people, from there, I correspond with. Germans have always been gun people. A lot of them are avid hunters. Using lies and propaganda has been become a right-wing trait.

          • jarheadgene

            Where did you find such law and such a quote? The only way you can really know what was on HITLER’s mind and agenda is if you asked Prescott Bush(G.W.’s Grandad) as his bank was bankrolling the NAZI party until J.Edgar Hoover squashed it. KEEP believing the lies of the BUSH Crime family and see where it gets us….OH Wait…..SEE where it has gotten us already.

          • old_blu

            You do know that’s a lie right? The only weapons act of Germany I could find in the 30’s (other than right winged retoric) was in 1938 and it didn’t even apply to long guns.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Better look further. Hitler took the same position…to “help protect society”…even though the German nation was one of the most highly advanced in the world at the time, they fell for his purported “goal” and we all know the end result.
            “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”
            ——–~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany

          • old_blu

            Alright I did some more research and it’s still propaganda that you are falling for it this is something I found, and I found many more of the same.

            ” This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

            “The quote has been widely reproduced in blog posts and opinion columns about gun control, but it’s “a fraud and was likely never uttered,” according to Harcourt. “This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date often given [1935] has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been any need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect,” researchers at the useful website GunCite”

            I suspect you are not going to change your mind no matter what but it’s still a lie, and you are spreading it juat as Fox News is too.

          • neeceoooo

            That is what I like to see, facts.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            OK, here’s a fact you can’t refute….Hitler confiscated ALL weapons in Germany & also Austria, then TOOK OVER these two countries and commenced the Holacaust, murdering 6 million Jews, Gypsies, Catholics & Protestants. It all started the same way, Registration of arms, then Confiscation, so no one could defend themselves against the Nazis or their policies…NO ONE!

          • idamag

            I have been studying hitler and nazi Germany since before blogs. It is funny, I read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and parts of hitler’s own book, Mein Kampf and didn’t see that quote anywhere.

          • idamag

            And your source is?

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Are you trying to say the Holacaust NEVER happened????? That 6 Million souls were NEVER murdered by Hitler??? Do you think they had ANY WAY to defend themselves but did not???

          • idamag

            I probablly know more about the Holocaust than you do. Yes it happened. Just because I ask for your sources does not mean I question the Holocaust, but then, that kind of reasoning is typical for people like you. I have read almost every book available about hitler and the Holocaust and I never saw that quote or read where he took guns away from the general populice. He did ban guns for several people. Anytime politicians and special interest groups use nazis or the Holocaust to punctuate their causes, they are disrespecting the horror the vicimes went through. It is petty and mean..

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            Wake up! EVERYONE is Germany during Hitler’s rule was disarmed, except of course for his SS troops & his loyal Nazi supporters. Why do you think there was so very little resistence (until Americans invaded) and the resultant slaughter of 6 Million souls?????? It all started with “well-meaning” Nazi “programs” to ” protect citizens & the children,” just like today’s obama drivel! And OF COURSE there is little “documented” discourse from the period, unlike today with the internet. Germany was devastated by the war and its aftermath. That fact doesn’t negate any surviving quotes, no matter how hard to verify & research.

          • idamag

            There a lot of supposed quotes in blogs.

          • Reddiaperbaby

            These jerks love to make up shit…and once it gets out there all the other idiots repeat it. What a pitiful bunch of morons.

          • old_blu

            Yeah, they spew their verbal vomit just like they have good sense, and then tell another lie to try and cover the last one.

          • Reddiaperbaby

            Pathetic…

            Sent from my iPad

          • neeceoooo

            I smell something, I think your diaper needs to be changed.

          • Reddiaperbaby

            Yes, it was a response to the previous post…sorry if that wasn’t clear.

          • Reddiaperbaby

            That was an answer to old blu’s post about the vomiting of lies.

            Sent from my iPad

          • idamag

            I have studied nazi germany and hitler for years. I don’t think that is an accurate quote. Hitler did not take guns away from the general population. He made it illegal for Jews, Gypsies, etc to have guns.

        • ralphkr

          Excuse me, Dominick, how do private transactions undermine and are inconsistent with our constitutional rights? I fail to find anything in the Constitution limiting business transactions between individuals. If private transactions are unconstitutional then just consider how many are undermining the Constitution every weekend with their yard/garage sales.

          I certainly agree that we can pass all sorts of laws but those who want a fire arm shall have one. Consider Australia (with no defenders of guns) where it is almost impossible for ANYONE to legally have a fire arm and yet there are many guns available to those who wish to use one for various nefarious activities. Here in the US they get them for free by stealing one from a policeman or, better yet, breaking into a military armory (National Guard ones are very vulnerable).

          • idamag

            ralph, Every law that has been made is broken. By your reasoning, if they are going to break a law, then don’t have a law. Let’s repeal all the laws and act like a bunch of unruly, unschooled kids.

          • ralphkr

            No, idamag, what I am saying is that any one who expects ANY gun law to accomplish anything other than screwing up law abiding citizens is living in a dream world. I remember seeing those big billboards in California many decades ago “Use a Gun. Go To Jail!” and, guess what… no one using a gun to commit a crime seemed to be going to jail for a longer term than those who committed the same crime with no weapon at all. Like most laws pertaining to guns they were selectively enforced.

          • neeceoooo

            It is the same dream world that you are living in when you think that staffing every school with an armed guard will cut down on taking the lives of our innocent children. Are we supposed to put an armed guard in the mall or a movie theater?

            As the article indicates, law abiding citizens want this kind of regulations in gun control.

          • ralphkr

            Actually, needeoooo, I would be more afraid of the armed school guards shooting up the place than of some random stranger showing up. The problem is that most mass shootings have been done by what would still be legally owned guns being used by a people who would still be able to legally acquire guns but have snapped or by people who can put their hands on a gun legally owned by someone else (relative or friend). The oversized magazines is just a handy target. The only difference between using a 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is that in the length of time it takes to fire 30 rounds with the large magazine (which is more apt to jam than the smaller one) I can fire 25 rounds with 10 round mags (unless the weapon is on full auto).

            Really, the problem is not how many guns there are in the US but the fact that our citizens are just more prone to violence than our ancestors in the old country. We are not only first in the class for killing with firearms but also number one with sharp objects or with blunt objects.

          • neeceoooo

            I agree with your response in that putting an armed guard in each school is not the answer and you are right, we do live in a violent society that believes shooting the bad guy is the answer.

            The answer is actually more complicated than that; our mental health facilities were all shut down and the mentally ill were placed on the streets.

            Violence is a way of life in individual homes in movies, songs and games so it does make us less appalled at violent death.

            High power weapons and clips are readily available without any check as to the purchaser. The difference in a 30 magazine clip and a 10 clip would be the number of deaths that are taken out with each one.

          • ralphkr

            Well, neeceoooo, we can blame the shutting down of mental health facilities on an unholy alliance of Conservatives and Liberals. The liberals saw the utterly appalling conditions (true snake pits) that apparently normal people (get along fine while medicated) were being subjected to and the conservatives saw a way to save lots of tax dollars. The premise was great: release all the “normal” patients to become local outpatients to keep controlling their illness and they can get jobs and live normal lives. Unfortunately, many of those same people will quickly stop taking medications if they are given a choice plus there was absolutely no funding for the local clinics.

            Violence is definitely a way of life. Consider that while working on our farm and, later, a couple hundred miles west on a ranch I learned that only children fought with fists while real men used guns or, lacking ammo or gun, would settle things with a knife (but the general attitude was that a gun was much more honorable than a knife). I have to agree as I have been shot (small caliber pistol) and that was not nearly as painful as when I was sliced up by a young man upset that we had jailed his mother, father, brother, & sister. Had a warrant on the brother and the rest of the family was not going to take it sitting down (the fellow who knifed me wasn’t home at the time and didn’t get to me until I was off duty that night).

            The thing that I have noticed is that people with full automatic weapons tend to spray bullets every where as if they had a water hose while those of us with semi-automatic weapons tend to aim which effectively makes the weapon far more lethal than a sub-machine gun. For instance: at one time I had two men with seemingly unlimited ammo firing at me with WW2 German sub-machine guns. Hint: when someone announces over his bull horn that he is a trained sniper with his modified rifle it is advisable to do what he says, especially when he is a half mile away. They fired a couple hundred rounds at me (didn’t even hit my car) and I fired my bolt action rifle twice. The State Trooper they had had pinned down before I got there would buy me lunch every time he saw me after that.

          • DEFENDER88

            Find my posting in here about School Shootings Facts and Solutions and let me know what you think.

          • ralphkr

            I had already read it and have previously read articles proposing the same reasoning. I tend to agree that the drugging of students by schools has gotten completely out of hand. OK, the schools usually do not actually administer the drugs but they tend to lay down the law to either drug your kid or he can’t go to school here. One of my distant relatives claims that 85% of the children in her daughter’s fifth grade class are doped up. When I went to school a student was punished when he acted up but now the schools have discovered what mental facilities have known for decades: keep the inmates (students) zonked out on drugs and you have no disciplinary problems…just problems waking them up to go to the next classroom or home.

          • DEFENDER88

            omit

          • idamag

            Absolutely!

          • idamag

            One thing you got right is the danger stems from violent citizens and thinking. How have we produced such a society? It could be the John Wayne wannabes or violent movies and games. Those might be contributing factors.

            Putting more firepower in the hands of violent people is like letting a three-year-old play with a knife. We take the knife away. We don’t leave the knives out where the child can get them.

          • ralphkr

            You might appreciate the excellent post by DEFENDER88 which points out how many of these mass killings are performed by young men on prescription drugs. Of course, that isn’t new as I remember the very efficient job done by Whitman (Valium) who killed 14 and wounded 32 from the Texas Tower, Austin, TX, in 1966. Hard to blame that on violent computer games although some of those games do train you to double tap your target (first round to center mass & second to the head) just as FBI trained their agents and the military also uses some of those games to train their personnel.

            A good comparison is the US and Australia. Our early history is much the same although Australia takes pride in the fact that it started as a place where England placed their prison overflow while the US claims that everyone came here in search of freedom while completely ignoring the fact that prior to 1775 three-quarters of the people coming to the US were not coming here of their free-will (convicts, indentured servants, slaves). Oh, yeah, both countries had the policy of slaughtering the native population and seizing their land.

            Back in the 1940s guns were very common in both countries. When it appeared that the Japanese were about to invade their country Australian citizens quickly gathered with their weapons to help defend their country. Today the Australians look at those who like guns with suspicion and the majority of articles are extremely anti-gun. Australia also went over the top with gun control in the 1990s (thereby showing that NRA’s stupid fears can come true) with the banning of semi-automatic weapons, pump shotguns, and only allowing people to have a weapon of any sort if they are target shooters. They must not only have taken training before being allowed to have a weapon but they must take part in a minimum number of matches per year. They must meet stringent storage conditions and the police are allowed to search their house at anytime without a warrant. By the way, BB guns and Air Rifles are included as controlled weapons and self-defense is not considered a valid reason to have a weapon. Admittedly, the violent death rate has come down in Australia since the great buy back and regulation of weapons but it has not come down as much as the violent death rate has dropped in the US with NO stringent regulation.

            Consider that both Australia and the US are nations of immigrants, both bastions of citizen freedoms, both with citizens with a reputation of self-expression and independent thought, and both exposed to the same violent forms of entertainment it is exceedingly strange that US citizens are so much more violent than Australia’s citizens. In Australia the people are no more violent than the citizens of the countries from whence they came while in the US we are much more violent than the people living in the countries from whence we came. Must be the water.

            Your example of keeping knives away from children seems to be very sensible but completely ignores the fact that we are not talking about 3 year-olds but teenagers and older. I agree that guns makes it easier to kill people but I recognize that until we can get Captain Picard and the Enterprise to orbit Earth and beam up every gun that evil people shall always be able to have guns. Laws shall only make it harder for good people to have guns and easier for evil people to prey upon them.

          • DEFENDER88

            What dream world are you in?
            You dont live down here in Dog Patch USA do you. Gated, protected community?

            Communities all over the country are looking for ways to put Armed Security in schools. Parents are demanding it.

            As for other *Gun Free Zones* – If I am ever shot and killed in one where no Armed security is provided, I will surely sue them for negligent homicide(ok, my family may have to).

            Malls, theaters etc – you dont have to provide armed security – just let permitted carriers carry there and dont advertise it as a Gun Free Killing Zone.

          • neeceoooo

            No, I do not live in a protected gated community and I do live in dog patch USA, a very red state but it still does not change my thinking. Fear is not something that I let alter my thinking nor do I let it alter my daily activities.

            Parents are not necessarily demanding it; they just want to know that when they send their children to school they will be safe. Having a guard does not guarantee this; remember there are many doors at any one school. The second part is the cost, our schools can’t even afford to pay teachers what they are worth and you want to add additional persons along with his weapon. Might I remind you, they had an armed guard at Columbine but that did not insure safety of those children.

            So your solution to malls and theaters is to allow anyone to carry whatever he wants and the good guy will shoot the bad guy. (Now that is a dream world) If you think this will work, you are more deranged than I thought. In some cases the bad guy is never known for sure and we would hope that an innocent person does not get shot because he is running to the exit.

          • DEFENDER88

            Nothing is a guarantee, there are no 100% solutions in this.
            Can you guarantee me there will be no more school shootings if assault rifles or all guns are banned?

            And NO I did not say let *anyone* carry what ever they want.
            I said let *permitted* carriers carry there.
            And there would likely be more than one, around here anyway.
            Permitted carriers go through roughly the same checks as police.
            And have gun safety, handling, shooting etc training. In this state anyway.

            A permitted carrier stopped the shooting in the Oregon mall a couple months ago.
            He drew down on the perp but did not shoot since the perp was too close to a hostage. But when the perp saw he had a gun pointing at him, he killed himself.
            So the concealed carry guy *did stop the killing* but did not even have to fire.
            But since only 2-3 were killed it was only one day news.

            There are many stories every month of conceal carry people stopping crime it just is not news. I get them in the Concealed Carry Magazine issued every month. They also forward rules, regs, training etc on what you have the right and duty to do and even *more importantly* what you DO NOT have the right and duty to do ie what you should and should not do. Actually shooting, especially in public, is the absolute last thing that should be done and then should be life and death without chance of collateral damage to others.

            I personally dont carry a gun when I am out, too much trouble and too much responsibility and liability and dont go to Gun Free Zones. Also I am pretty good at hand-to-hand. At one time I would have been willing to put my life on the line for others in a Gun Free Zone to protect others and stop the killing but after seeing in here the hatred for gun owners have changed my mind. I would likely be sued even if I did stop the killing. What I think your thanks would be. No thanks.

            I must say though If I was in a school of young kids and armed and an active shooter came in, Iwould have to take action – law suits be damed.

            And no, I dont have a hero complex, I am too old 65 to worry about that.
            My friends know who I am by now and what I will do for them and not likely to sue me for trying to save their life.

            ps I am fully permitted, highly trained, shoot competitively, train at times with cops, SWAT and Special Forces people in tactical shooting, house clearing, street scenarios, etc. I even carry self defense insurance.

            I now defend myself and my home only, I dont plan to sue myself.
            So you are safe from me.
            Unless you try to break in my house.
            Even then I would expect a lawsuit for defending myself.
            All gun owners are always wrong, right?

          • neeceoooo

            You know, we could go on forever with what if’s and you’re right, their are no guarantees but if we can take a 30 round clip from the hands of a shooter, he will not succeed in killing as many as he planned at the start of the rampage.

            I am happy that you are trained, skilled, licensed and you do not live you life as if I, personally, am out to take away your lifestyle. But the bottom line is, there are no guarantees in anything.

          • plc97477

            also having an armed weapon in the schools is just asking for accidents. having children around armed guns is the stupidest idea ever.

          • idamag

            That is not what neeceooo said.

          • old_blu

            So what you are saying is if everyone on the Las Vegas Blvd. last week end would have had a gun that would have made sure no one died. (now that sounds silly?)

          • DEFENDER88

            Nothing is going to be 100%.
            So if we ban all assault rifles or even all guns this week we can be sure no one else will die?

          • old_blu

            Exactly nothing is going to be 100% but I do know the status quo is not working either.

          • DEFENDER88

            Agree – the status quo is not working.
            Find my posting in here on School Killing Causes and Solutions
            It is from research I did on the problem.
            Includes facts and figures.
            Let me know what you think.
            Its a bit long but it is a complex subject.

          • plc97477

            no we can’t be sure no one will ever be shot again but we can make it a little bit more difficult .make it harder for people to be shot

          • idamag

            And it will cut down the numbers.

          • idamag

            Like, joe arpio, in Arizona, give them gun safety training and take them out to the gun range and then turn them loose in our schools. Time featured an article written by a seasoned policeman, He said when adrenalin kicks in, many times the brain kicks out. These schools are in urban areas and an escited person’s bullet could kill anyone close by or penetrate the wall of a house.

          • plc97477

            most parent want their children to be safe without guns to cause accidents in the school buildings

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/IQNV5NV2RS7A7XMJKYHLRBZZ5A Betta

            “It is the same dream world that you are living in when you think that staffing every school with an armed guard will cut down on taking the lives of our innocent children.”

            You are the one living in a dream world. Do you know that in Israel all teachers are armed to the teeth? Do you know that mass killings of school children do not happen there BECAUSE the teachers are armed? Get a clue and stop listening to that rot obama keeps telling you.

          • idamag

            You found that out when you were visiting in Israel?

          • neeceoooo

            If you think that the conditions in Israel represent what you think is good, then go live there and see how you like it.

          • idamag

            We are the government. If there are problems, we need to fix them. We have a bunch of anti-government nuts out there who are arming themselves against us. That looks like treason to me.

            As for letting states handle this legislation – it is the state governments that cannot be trusted. Look back to the Jim Crow laws, the lynchings, cross burnings, voter suppression that flourished in the deep south and tell me states should make the rules.

            In this backward state we send embarrassments to Boise. Why? Rural states vote Republican. Any Republican, no matter how low their IQ is can get elected. Especially those from the backwoods.

            We even had one who gave a rally at the neo nazi compound and accepted a sizeable donation from them. She co-sponsored a bill to take public lands out of the hands of the state and federal government.

            We have one, now, who said the way we were treating insurance companies put the insurance companies in the same predicament as the Holocaust victims going to the ovens on the trains.

            We don’t have the smarts to make state governments in charge.

          • elw

            ralphkr, government regulates dangerous substances, medications, activities and many other things which include private transactions. Your reasoning is silly and makes little sense.

          • ralphkr

            Well, elw, I do wish you would pay attention in class. The subject was the Constitution and not laws passed by various governments. I defy you to find anything in the Constitution that pertains to private transactions and the closest thing is that there shall be no taxes nor duty on articles passing from one state to another but that pertains to governments and not to individuals.

          • elw

            No you show me any place in the constitution that says that private transactions are not subject to the laws of the land. They are not mentioned because they have no special rights and are subject to reasonable regulation.

          • ralphkr

            You just proved my point, elw. As I pointed out in my first post “how do private transactions undermine and are inconsistent with our constitutional rights?” (per Dominick Vila) and you have just verified that there is NO mention in the Constitution. If an action is not mentioned in the Constitution then there is no way that said action can undermine the Constitution. That would be as if driving below the lowest speed allowed or above the speed limit undermines the Constitution. It may undermine obeying a law or regulation but it is not an unconstitutional act.

          • elw

            No one ever said that, your point is as worthless as your mind.

          • ralphkr

            This string started with my reply to Dominick Vila’s post that contained the statement:
            The Second Amendment grants us the right to bear arms to form a “well regulated” militia. Private transactions undermine and are inconsistent with our constitutional rights.

            As usual, elw, you have completely forgotten to engage your brain before typing and just keep yapping about that of which you have proven to have no knowledge.

          • idamag

            Ralph, the original Constitution did not have voting rights for women. Slavery was not outlawed in the original constitution. The Constitution was made to be amended.

          • DEFENDER88

            Ralph – You are an old hand like me and have lived thru more than others in here.

            Let me know what you think about my theory on the school
            killings below.

            Its long but had to be.

            Since the Sandy Hook school tragedy jump started all the gun talk and some in here say they like facts, I did some research on School Shootings and Assault Rifles.
            Here is what I found. Refute it if you can – if I am wrong I want to know.
            Stopping the killing is what I think we should concentrate on.
            But not just blindly ban guns or other things that will not work to actually reduce the killing.

            SCHOOL KILLINGS
            CAUSAL FACTORS AND SOLUTIONS

            Back when I was in HS (61-65) school massacres were very rare to non-existent.

            What has changed since then?

            For one thing, in the 60’s, 70’s & 80’s if you acted bad enough to have to be “drugged” you were put away where you could not hurt anyone else. See the record below.

            Now, starting in the 90’s, these young men are self medicated at home with these new designer anti-depressants(cheaper and a more “progressive” concept than institutions).

            The “unintended consequence was/is” they go crazy, head to school and shoot everyone in sight.

            On top of that we got so “Progressive” we felt we did not need Armed Security in Gun Free Zones. Another good Progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

            I submit, the combination of those 2 major changes(especially the drug problem) is a major contributing factor to the killings that are now increasing in severity.

            Most of the killing is being done by young white men on an anti-depressant.
            They are typically “gifted” students but have trouble relating to others and get diagnosed with some form of depression, given a subscription and sent home with it.
            And now we all know what happens then.
            They spend a lot of time planning and practicing how they are going to kill everyone.
            Playing violent video war games getting de-sensitized to killing, ie without remorse, steel guns from their parents, go somewhere to practice. Kill their parents, then go to school. Just another day going to school.
            Note: Typically they spend 6mo to 2yr planning their killing spree.

            Common links to all these are:
            1) Young male 16-23 yr old
            2) Diagnosed with depression and prescribed new-age anti-depressants
            3) Use pistols and shotguns mostly
            4) Prior planning

            I started seeing this trend and putting forward this theory a while back but have not gotten many in here to listen because they are concentrating so hard on assault rifles and the NRA to listen to anything else that may be the actual *cause* of the killing.
            So I looked up the record of some of the killings and the drug they were on and the weapons used. Note also NONE of the below were done with an assault rifle.

            I have been arguing that the assault rifle is not the real problem.
            But get called every name in the book for even thinking such a thing.
            I do think some stricter rules etc should be in place to keep them out of people hands who should not have them but not ban them since they are used extensively in sport for hunting and self defense – in spite of what is said in here. ie the “rifle” is not the problem. Rifle crime is a small fraction of gun crime in the US(look it up).

            My point is so much effort is being spent on banning assault rifles and the NRA that people are missing the real root problems.
            And thus real workable solutions.
            Note the dramatic change in school shootings from the 1980’s to the 1990’s.
            That is about the time we emptied all the asylums, institutions etc.
            And started medicating people at home.
            Also note, all these done with pistols and shotguns, not assault rifles.

            Assault Rifles – Rifles are now coming into favor with the killers. I think because most of the new War Video games give a menu for weapons at the start and the top one is usually AR15. That is what most play the game with and get used to.
            But pistols will and have proven as above do just as much killing – the root/causal problem is not the gun type.

            Video Games – Adam Lanza played these games constantly day and night.

            “Universal” Back Ground Checks – Most gun owners see this as the next step to “National” Registration and confiscation.
            A Federally *standardized system* but run by the states might be a good compromise and would likely get actual support from gun owners maybe even the NRA.

            Simplified solution set:
            1) Provide Armed security in schools
            2) Controls on issue of anti-depressants and users
            3) Enhance gun safety training/security for all parents
            4) Enhanced back ground checks/controls(psych test, +) but not national registry ie confiscation
            4) Some control on video games?

            THE RECORD/FACTS:

            School – Diagnosis – Drug – Weapon – Killer/Age -# Killed
            ——– ———— ————– ————— ———– ——-
            1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun -Male /17 12 killed
            2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun -Male /16 9 killed
            2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol -Male /23 32 killed
            2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun -Male /27 5 killed
            2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol -Male /17 15 killed

            # of School Shootings in USA
            1960’s 1
            1970’s 5
            1980’s 3
            1990’s 15
            2000’s 19
            2010’s 5 (so far)

          • ralphkr

            You have done some excellent research, DEFENDER88, but did leave out one small detail. The majority of the people doing these killings are not the ones you would expect. Instead of the killers being members of the “oppressed” they are usually members of the privileged middle class which makes no sense at all. You are correct that decades ago someone who had to be drugged was also locked up but you missed the fact that now we are drugging CHILDREN as a means of controlling them. A relative of mine wrote that the majority of children in her kid’s school were drugged at the request of the school. When we were young someone who did not obey the rules was punished or otherwise given motivation to properly channel their energy. Now those who act up or are high-spirited are drugged. Today’s schools are following the example of the old mental institutions and current nursing homes: inmates/students are much easier to deal with when they are drugged to the gills.

            You are correct that assault rifles are not the problem but people are the problem. The politicians realize that it is so much easier to ban an ugly rifle than to try and change the actions of the most violent industrialized society on earth. By the way, the most efficient mass killer in my opinion was in 1946 when a man took his WW2 trophy Luger and killed 9 people by firing 9 times. You might also like to look at 1966 when Whitman (Valium) put his Marine Corps training to use as he killed 14 and wounded 32 from the Texas Tower, Austin, TX ( I imagine this is on the list of ‘school shootings’ since the Tower was part of the University of Texas but I personally think Whitman merely chose this as a great sniper perch).

        • DEFENDER88

          I am not a constitutional lawyer or student even, so I could be wrong but I understand one of the purposes of the Supreme Court is to interpret what the Constitution really says, ie the real meaning of disputed sections. I also understand the court interpreted/decided(not long ago)(dont remember the case) the 2nd Amendment to mean that *individuals* have the right to own and bear arms. Not just a militia.

          *I* have been an advocate of “universal” back ground checks. But I have been admonished by my gun owing peers not to be so trusting of the Fed Govt. That such a system is but the first step and would morf into eventual universal gun registration leading to confiscation. The true ultimate goal of the “progressive” movement and current administration. They say.

          And I know, from other sources, that has been discussed within the current administration.

          So I am now very leery.

          How could I think the Fed would be so deceptive, deceitful, and downright stupid? – I present to you the current congress and their capacity to F–k up a bowling ball.

          That is why many who would otherwise be for it are against it.
          And that is why the NRA is against it.

          A reasonable compromise, seems to me, might be a universal check system based on a Federal Standard but run by the States.
          The states already have the makings of a *system* in place(it is how permits, sales, etc are done now with FBI help etc) and they could do it without creating another Fed Govt monster.

          So, most gun owners are for more controls but leery of the *Feds* being able to do it properly.

          • old_blu

            I’m replying to your post below, I did read what you wrote below and I don’t disagree with you. I have heard that theory someplace else also, I think if anyone was going to pay for a study on something that would be worth looking into.

          • idamag

            The Federak Government is not a “they” that is out there to do harm to the country. We are the federal government. If there are thing wong in Washington, it is our job to fix. There are people who hate athority of any kind. Anti government people are not doing anything positive for our country.

          • neeceoooo

            Do they think that it will just fix itself?

        • elw

          Second Amendment also grants the right of government to regulate dangerous and unusual weapons. The right of government to regulate guns has been upheld by the Supreme Court several times. Whether the gun lobby likes it or not guns can be regulated and they will be. I agree with Dominick, just because a law is not perfect does not mean that the lives it saves should be thrown away by not trying a new approach.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/IQNV5NV2RS7A7XMJKYHLRBZZ5A Betta

          Implement common sense laws? What planet have you been living on? There are laws on the books ALREADY that are not being enforced. How many freaking laws do you need?

          You will NOT stop criminals from getting guns no matter how many laws are forced down our throats. Your idiot illegal alien Kenyan messiah thinks he can throw executive order laws together to prevent it. Just like the war on drugs, it will be an epic fail as are the rest of his FAILED marxist policies that do NOT work.

          The only day I am looking forward to is when this LIAR FRAUD and all those complicit with him, including his wife, are put behind bars where they belong.

          • old_blu

            I hope you seen what a nice job our first lady did at the awards last night. What a pretty lady huh?

          • idamag

            Smart, too, which is more than I can say for Betta

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/EGAAZPJYNYDFTEAU2CBDHJF5M4 Roz

        The first amendment has its limits, hate talk, yelling fire in a crowded room or inciting a riot. Why do you think the second amendment should be without common sense limits?

        • whodatbob

          The 2nd amendment has limitations as does the 1st. But as usual divent mines always find ways around the limitations. A more reasonable approach is to seek ways to prevent people from skirting existing limitations not wasting time enacting new rules that can be skirted.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

        The Constitution only says that your right to bear a gun (arms) shall not be infringed. Nothing, Absolutely nothing in that phrase, remotely implies that it also grants you or anyone else the right to own WHATEVER GUN you choose.
        Wake up and stop being a demented puppet controlled by the NRA!!!!

        • idamag

          no one has ever advocated the removal of all guns. That is a scare tactic used by NRA and some people scare so easy.

          • DEFENDER88

            I am in a gun club with 2,000 other gun owners. And assure you none of them scares easily. And the fear of removal of all guns is not coming from the NRA. And I have seen it advocated in here often enough. But more largely it is coming from things like the Feinstein Bill now being considered that has a confiscation component in it. And it(confiscation) is also being considered by the current administration. I dont think they are dumb enough to try it but it is under consideration. But it is not coming from the NRA – well they may be saying it, but the average gun owner does not heal to the NRA. The average owner is a reflection of our society – Teachers, lawyers, DR’s, carpenters, you name it.

          • neeceoooo

            Of course you are not scared, you have a gun on your hip. I, however, do not and it scares the hell out of me to be forced to sit next to someone in a restaurant who is packing a gun or to sit on a bus traveling downtown and see someone carrying the gun.

          • DEFENDER88

            And you call us paranoid.

            That is now the 2nd time you have twisted and mis-quoted me to suit your own pruposes. Please dont do that.
            NO – as I said before, I do not carry my gun in public anymore.
            I “could” carry it, open even, almost anywhere in this state and 30 others but dont.
            I am pretty good at hand to hand also and if it is less than 3 I will likely prevail unless they(attackers) have a gun.
            Even though I can out-shoot 98% of police in speed and accuracy, I dont want to get sued for saving your life and by other people like you. Which is what I think would happen if I had to shoot an attacker, even a mass killer. Since I have no Hero complex. I dont need that kind of trouble.
            I would have at one time but not now. Not knowing the hatred you people have for even legal, honest gun owners trying to do the right things.
            So – again – you have nothing to fear from me and my gun unless you attack me in my car or at home. Even then my training would tell me to try 1st to avoid or escape a confrontation if possible. My training tells me to 1st look for avenues of escape and for potential buddies of the attacker who may be lurking elswhere. Again, using a gun is an absolute last resort life and death thing for me to even unholster it.
            And most *permited* conceal carry people are similarly trained, in this state anyway.

        • whodatbob

          Since you brought it up. Militia implies State Troops not Federal Army. Maybe every State has a need to know which of there citizians own guns but the Federal Government does not have that need nor rihgt to know.

          Most States do not allow open carry. Now all States must allow conceal carry. To carry concealed legally a person must have a permit. A background check is one of the requirments to get a permit.

          Back at you. Wake up become informed and stop being a demented puppet of the anti gun nuts!!!

          I agree the NRA is a bit radical and I am not a member!

          • ralphkr

            Correct, whodatbob. The 2nd Amendment states “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” and in the Constitution itself it gives the Feds the power take over said militias to be used to put down insurrections, combat invading foreign powers, etc. Originally every man up to the age of 45 was to have a weapon that he could use in case of combat and this was because George Washington feared that the British would attempt to retake the US and we had a very small standing army so this was our first “ready reserves.” Now the uber-patriotic uber-conservatives have turned the 2nd Amendment on its head from the original intention of ensuring the power of the central government to now being touted as a defense AGAINST our federal government.

      • jointerjohn

        Correction! If it is not PROHIBITED by the Constitution, our elected federal government can address it.

      • idamag

        Richard, I would suggest that you study the Constitution. A good place to start is with the arguments, in Congress, while they were trying to pass a constitution. You will find that the states could not agree on the constitution. Then Thomas Jefferson drafted what we have today. They said they would put the basic structure in place and amend it as needed. It was made to be amended. The Bill of Rights guarantees us certain rights that cannot be changed. The first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech is the first time it was amended.

        There are many laws that were not originally in the constitution.

    • whodatbob

      You are right! But you mentioned the fly in the ointment, “Most of the massacres committed in years past were carried out by people who did not buy the guns they used, that used relatives’ guns, or who bought them illegally.” The black market will still exist, illegal gun sales. The same irresponsible people will still lend guns out. As a gun owner I believe some regulations are needed. 1) All sales need to be registered, but who prevents aomeone from trading a guns for something. 2) Background checks, how do we know what will set someone off after a background check was passed. It all seems like window dressing. NRA looks foolish fighting the wondow dressing. Maybe that is part of the plan.
      Oh. I am not a member of the NRA.

    • http://www.facebook.com/spookpekes2 LaRae Bailey

      because then like canada they know exactly who has them, how many, and exactly where to go get them.. and they did and do.. just like germany

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Myers/100001512942781 Jim Myers

    It’s about time.

    No, it is not. It is WAY past time.

  • stcroixcarp

    The NRA arms murderers and domestic terrorists.

  • old_blu

    Everytime a gun is sold there should be a back ground check done and everytime a gun is used in a crime there should be a way to track that gun back to the owner and how it got into the hands of that perp.

    If you can’t keep them locked up and secured you shouldn’t own them.

    • neeceoooo

      You’re right, we should be able to track our guns like we track a car. If a gun is given to someone else, that should be reported. If a gun is stolen, it should be reported.

    • idamag

      Old-Blu, obviously, you are a thinking person. It would make law enforcment’s job easier if they could have a way to track guns used in a crime. I register my car and I also have regulations on it. It doesn’t make my life worse.

    • whodatbob

      I agree! Great thought. Problem is criminals file serial numbers off the guns rendering the those guns untracable.

      • idamag

        nuts run red lights all the time, too, so let’s take out all the traffic signals.

        • whodatbob

          Not a good comparison! Totally different situation, Polce have a gun without an identifyable mark, serial number. How is this gun tracible? Can not be traced.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

            The same goes for cars, but do we stop putting VIN numbers on cars because theives file them off so Car FAX can’t track them anymore and VIN numbers used to verify the registration of a car??? Get real – you’re argument is full of holes.

      • plc97477

        yes criminals can file guns. but having guns registered will make legal owners take better care of who gets hold of it. they are less apt to “loan” it to a friend they don’t trust

        • neeceoooo

          Or leave it in an unlocked car if only for a few minutes.

      • idamag

        There have been cases where they were able to read serial numbers that were filed off.

  • latebloomingrandma

    Why is the 2nd amendment perceived by some to be sancrosanct against any restrictions? The first amendment has limits. We still hav e lots of pornography, but there are restrictions in children seeing it or being exploited in the making. We have libel laws regarding free speech. And lots of “controversy” over church and state. The 8th amendment outlaws cruel and unusual punishment, yet we still have states who dole out capital punishment without apparent conscience (Texas) and many prisoners are subjected to long periods of solitary confinement. So—what’s wrong with some limits on unfettered access to guns, since most people don’t belong to a militia? Citizens don’t go around with scarlet letters on their bodies to indicate mental illness, or criminal, or guy with bad temper. Maybe background checks will just keep guns from some of them, instead of the current process of waiting until the tragedy occurs, then locking them up.

  • ralphkr

    I just read a news item about a 11 year old girl who heard two men breaking down the front door of her house in the afternoon, ran to her father’s bedroom, retrieved his shotgun, ran back to the head of the stairs and fired once, killing the first armed intruder coming up the stairs, fired the second time and injured the second intruder who bled out after he ran outdoors. OK, the little girl was somewhat out of the ordinary as she had been a competitive skeet shooter for over 2 years but it is not unusual for youngsters in rural areas of the US to use fire arms at an early age (I started hunting pheasants with a single shot hand gun when I was 6).

    Then I started thinking about what would have happened if the US had sensible fire arm laws. First, at her tender age the little girl would not have gone on trial for murder but would be institutionalized for having committed multiple murders (no foster home would accept such a dangerous child). Her father would have gone to prison for having committed numerous felonies. Not storing a firearm in a locked safe, no safety lock on each firearm, having an unattended loaded firearm, having an unsecured firearm in a house containing a juvenile, having ammunition in the same area as a firearm, and I am sure that he would also be convicted of manslaughter for having caused the death of two men.

    Although I dread the thought of having firearms anywhere untrained individuals (no matter what age or sex) can access them I also feel that a properly and safely secured fire arm is just another way of saying that I am merely storing the weapon until someone can break in and steal it because it is not humanly possible to open a safe, remove the gun lock, go to and unlock the ammo locker, and load the weapon in time to defend oneself after you hear them breaking into the house. Shucks, people with those armored safe rooms are often unable to get into them before they are caught and running to a safe room is a lot faster than gathering up weapon and ammo.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/HGC4BGWVYXV76PHZBPSPOOU5GA Independent1

      I’ve seen some nonsense posts on The National Memo, but yours tops the list. Unadulterated nonsense from start to finish.

      • ralphkr

        I gather, Independent1, that you feel that it is a great idea to allow untrained people full access to guns or is it that you think that you have the speed of Flash and could rush to the gunsafe, work the combination & open it, remove a weapon & unlock the weapon’s lock, go to another room to unlock the ammo safe and load a weapon in less time than it would take an intruder to go reach you. Dream on. By the way, recommended safe storage of weapons consists of a lock disabling the weapon, weapon in a gunsafe bolted to the building, and ammunition in a locked container (bolted to the building) in another room. Or is it that you do not feel that paragraph two would be how the law would be enforced. If the latter is your feeling then you have absolutely no concept of how the US judicial system works if you do not have the wealth to purchase a top notch lawyer and the judge.

      • whodatbob

        Independent1, can’t accept the truth, can ya!

    • old_blu

      How many times has that happened to you? And let me tell you something, I don’t know if you will ever be able to not be afraid after reading your story, but going through life not afraid is a lot better than being scared all the time, I own many weapons and they are very secured.

      • idamag

        These people who are so scared they have to have WMDs die every day. I will only die once. My motto is: If tomorrow is the my last day of life, I don’t want to waste today being afraid.

      • ralphkr

        Well, old_blu, I have never had my home broken into while I was in it and I must say that the majority of the time that I had to deal with break-ins was when someone would come home, discover someone had broken in while they were gone (hot burglaries were unheard of in my area in the 1950s…probably because every place had guns), and called the Sheriff to have me come out and file a report and see if I could figure out who did it. Sigh, no CSI back in those days.

      • whodatbob

        I read the samse story ralphkr related and thought why was the gun not locked up. My take on his post is that he is telling what the goal of the anti-gun zealots. Like you my weapons are secured. ralphkr is attempting to the anti-gun extremist think about possible unintended consequnces.

        • ralphkr

          Well, whodatbob, I would like to make one slight correction to your post and change “possible” to “PROBABLE” unintended consequences.

          • old_blu

            I wish you wouldn’t have changed that word because it’s not probable it never has happened to me and I don’t think it will.

            I keep my guns in a safe with trigger locks on them, someone would have to work very hard to use my guns to kill someone.

          • ralphkr

            Ah, but old_blu, I am sure that if proper safe storage of firearms were the law of the land that what I suggested would happen to that little girl and her father would be all too probable, in fact, practically a sure thing unless they were extremely wealthy and politically powerful.

          • old_blu

            Do I think that we could enforce laws to make people secure their guns, of course not, but if a gun used in a crime is traced back to someone that let it get taken, (like a parent) maybe we could hold them at least partially responsible.

            I live in the NW and every year I am very surprised how many kids are shot because they got a hold of their dads gun and it was loaded and unlocked, these are young kids. I remember one where a police officer ran into a store and his kid shot his sister with a pistol that was in the glove box. (anyone who don’t secure their weapon should be held accountable for it.)

          • plc97477

            we can make them want to keep them secured easily by having them registered. If a gun could be traced back to the owner they will want to keep it more carefully. I am sure they would not want to know what their gun was being used for

          • neeceoooo

            Very good point, all we are asking for is registering the guns which will make the owner accountable.

        • old_blu

          I also read that story and I am very happy that the little girl knew what to do and got it done, but that is not what usually happens, she was a very well practiced skeet shooter. I do know the status quo is not working and maybe nothing else will help at all, but we must at least try. (for everyones sake)

          • whodatbob

            No disagreement by me. But we must be careful of slippery slopes. I do not any legislation proposed by anti-gun Zealots pushed through nor any reasonable legislation blocked gun Nuts. WE needsound legislation that can and will be enforced.

          • plc97477

            for every story about some one being saved by a gun there are a bunch about accidents that kill family members. how about the father that heard a sound at night and grabbed his gun and shot killing his daughter.

      • idamag

        No, your fairy tale is a bunch of _____

    • idamag

      What a bunch of ______!

      • ralphkr

        I glad to see that you finally agree with me, idamag!

    • whodatbob

      ralphkr, Great post!

  • ObozoMustGo

    Gun control is not about controlling guns… it’s about controling people. You leftist freaks out there are always trying to tell everyone else what they can and cannot do. Why don’t you just live your lives the way you want, and leave everyone else alone?

    Here’s a former Secret Service agent discussion people control:
    youtube(dot)com/watch?v=R8WLXhahw_A&feature=player_embedded

    Have a nice day!

    “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason, Founding Father known as the Father of the Bill of Rights.

    The Second Amendment: “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 [violated].”

    According to Federal Statute Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311 (a), all males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are either citizens of the United States or have declared their intent to become citizens are members of the “unorganized” or reserve militia.

    • plc97477

      yeah we tell everyone what they can or can not do such as marry the one they love and have a medically needed operation

  • old_blu

    I really don’t need to refutte because no one has ever proposed to take our weapons away, so just more right wing propaganda.

  • DEFENDER88

    Since the Sandy Hook school tragedy jump started all the gun talk and some in here say they like facts, I did some research on School Shootings and Assault Rifles.
    Here is what I found. Refute it if you can – if I am wrong I want to know.
    Stopping the killing is what I think we should concentrate on.
    But not just blindly ban guns or other things that will not work to actually reduce the killing.

    SCHOOL KILLINGS
    CAUSAL FACTORS AND SOLUTIONS

    Back when I was in HS (61-65) school massacres were very rare to non-existent.

    What has changed since then?

    For one thing, in the 60’s, 70’s & 80’s if you acted bad enough to have to be “drugged” you were put away where you could not hurt anyone else. See the record below.

    Now, starting in the 90’s, these young men are self medicated at home with these new designer anti-depressants(cheaper and a more “progressive” concept than institutions).

    The “unintended consequence was/is” they go crazy, head to school and shoot everyone in sight.

    On top of that we got so “Progressive” we felt we did not need Armed Security in Gun Free Zones. Another good Progressive idea gone horribly wrong.

    I submit, the combination of those 2 major changes(especially the drug problem) is a major contributing factor to the killings that are now increasing in severity.

    Most of the killing is being done by young white men on an anti-depressant.
    They are typically “gifted” students but have trouble relating to others and get diagnosed with some form of depression, given a subscription and sent home with it.
    And now we all know what happens then.
    They spend a lot of time planning and practicing how they are going to kill everyone.
    Playing violent video war games getting de-sensitized to killing, ie without remorse, steel guns from their parents, go somewhere to practice. Kill their parents, then go to school. Just another day going to school.
    Note: Typically they spend 6mo to 2yr planning their killing spree.

    Common links to all these are:
    1) Young male 16-23 yr old
    2) Diagnosed with depression and prescribed new-age anti-depressants
    3) Use pistols and shotguns mostly
    4) Prior planning

    I started seeing this trend and putting forward this theory a while back but have not gotten many in here to listen because they are concentrating so hard on assault rifles and the NRA to listen to anything else that may be the actual *cause* of the killing.
    So I looked up the record of some of the killings and the drug they were on and the weapons used. Note also NONE of the below were done with an assault rifle.

    I have been arguing that the assault rifle is not the real problem.
    But get called every name in the book for even thinking such a thing.
    I do think some stricter rules etc should be in place to keep them out of people hands who should not have them but not ban them since they are used extensively in sport for hunting and self defense – in spite of what is said in here. ie the “rifle” is not the problem. Rifle crime is a small fraction of gun crime in the US(look it up).

    My point is so much effort is being spent on banning assault rifles and the NRA that people are missing the real root problems.
    And thus real workable solutions.
    Note the dramatic change in school shootings from the 1980’s to the 1990’s.
    That is about the time we emptied all the asylums, institutions etc.
    And started medicating people at home.
    Also note, all these done with pistols and shotguns, not assault rifles.

    Assault Rifles – Rifles are now coming into favor with the killers. I think because most of the new War Video games give a menu for weapons at the start and the top one is usually AR15. That is what most play the game with and get used to.
    But pistols will and have proven as above do just as much killing – the root/causal problem is not the gun type.

    Video Games – Adam Lanza played these games constantly day and night.

    “Universal” Back Ground Checks – Most gun owners see this as the next step to “National” Registration and confiscation.
    A Federally *standardized system* but run by the states might be a good compromise and would likely get actual support from gun owners maybe even the NRA.

    Simplified solution set:
    1) Provide Armed security in schools
    2) Controls on issue of anti-depressants and users
    3) Enhance gun safety training/security for all parents
    4) Enhanced back ground checks/controls(psych test, +) but not national registry ie confiscation
    4) Some control on video games?

    THE RECORD/FACTS:

    School Diagnosis Drug Weapon Killer/Age Killed
    ——– ———— ————– ————— ———– ——-
    1999 Columbine Depression Zoloft, Luvox Pistol/Shotgun Male 17 12
    2005 Red Lake Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 16 9
    2007 VT Depression Prozac Pistol Male 23 32
    2008 N. Ill Depression Prozac Pistol/Shotgun Male 27 5
    2009 Germany Depression ukn Pistol Male 17 15

    # of School Shootings in USA
    1960’s 1
    1970’s 5
    1980’s 3
    1990’s 15
    2000’s 19
    2010’s 5 (so far)

  • old_blu

    You are right about that of course it’s not going to be fool proof and I realize that, but at least it’s a start. And good morning to you my friend.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IQNV5NV2RS7A7XMJKYHLRBZZ5A Betta

    “Their talk about representing the “real America” was exposed as a fraud:”

    And your messiah has been identified as a fraud, LIAR, ID theft FELON, murderer and the list goes on.

    ““Real” Americans don’t resist pragmatic solutions to the problems of mass violence.’

    “Real” Americans, as you put it, resist tyranny. We will not allow our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to be usurped. You can take that to the bank!

    We all know you all like your freebies paid for by American tax payers. However, you will need to bend over because your illegal Kenyan messiah is coming with his F*CK pole. You see, your food stamps, checks and free medical care is about to come to an end. Your illegal alien Kenyan messiah has forsaken you, LIED to you and has thrown you under the bus. How’s it feel to be betrayed? Don’t feel it yet? You will and sooner than you think.

    You never will be able to say you weren’t warned.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/5UJAV2WHSCEZAS53GMI6HQYADU Valerie A

    Controlling the using of hig capacity mags is going to have zero effect on criminals or gun murders. Arguing about banning such mags and assault rifles makes the argument unreasonable. Hog capacity mags and assault rifles have only one advantage, that sis fire supremacy. If you have a flintlock you have fire supremacy over unarmed victims. It is a moot point, yet we continue to argue about them.

  • mikeopks

    if it was a requirement to show your registration to purchase ammo, It whould have been more difficult for these things to happen. Many of them would not have been able to puchase the ammo as they are not registered gun owners.

  • Rick2101

    Too many gun owners talk of rights, but very little on responsibilities. Everyone seems to agree, at some point, that a gun in the wrong hands is the problem. The second amendment:
    “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.”
    Some argue that “well regulated” does not mean the same today as it did at the time of the founding fathers. For example according to Brian T. Halonen, “well regulated” meant something was in “proper working order”. If that is the case then today’s’ gun owners must be, according the 2nd Amendment, in “proper working order” to be protected by the constitution. Does anyone believe that gun owners who allow either by direct action or through negligence are “functioning as expected”, when their guns are used to commit crimes? Gun owners are not “well regulated”, “in proper working order”, or “functioning as expected” when their guns are used to commit crimes, unless we “expect” gun owners to somehow lose their guns, either though negligence or theft. The safekeeping of all guns is the direct responsibility of all gun owners.

    I also believe that some gun owners do not take the responsibility to safeguard their guns seriously enough. Regardless of how the gun owner failed to keep his or her guns out of the wrong hands, it is in my opinion they share in the responsibility of any crimes that are committed with their unsecured/lost/stolen guns.

    Perhaps the insurance industry could offer “Gun Insurance”. If a gun owner’s gun were used in a crime, the insurance company would pay all damages. The insurance industry, since they hate claims, would then come up working strategies so gun owners would actually be “functioning as expected” and safeguard their weapons.

    Simply hold gun owners responsible for their guns, I believe that would be a good start.

    • plc97477

      they would have more incentive if the gun was registered to them and could be traced to them. And for the idiot earlier, why would a criminal need to file the no. off a gun that didn’t belong to him

  • adriancrutch

    When it’s your kids! Then you’ll be crying! End of story!

  • http://mohammeddressup.com/ I Zheet M’Drawz

    Bumper Sticker! Bumper Sticker!

    More Bumper Stickers…more stupid NRA slogans…love it or leave it, my country right or wrong, outlaw guns and only crimanls will have guns.

    There, that settles the argument, oh wait! My favorite, you can have my gun when you can pry it from my cold dead hands!

    Yeah I like that one a lot.

    Meanwhile, the anti-gunners are writting Law that is going to shock and awe the gun owners. Quite frankly, the lip service paid to the NRA is just that, lip service. They’re a small vocal minority of uneducated sheep who, if everyone of them voted against you wouldn’t make a dent.

    SO ‘they’ who are writting the Law could care less about the NRA.

scroll to top