Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

We can now be confident that last week’s massacre of 26 women and children at an elementary school in Newtown, CT, will not be swept under the carpet like so many mass shootings of the past.

President Barack Obama said Dec. 19 that he would act “without delay” after hearing from Vice President Joe Biden’s task force in January. We’ll probably spend much of the winter and spring debating Obama’s anti-violence proposal.

The question now is what the president — and the rest of us — can do to make sure that the National Rifle Association doesn’t once again intimidate enough members of Congress to gut the bill. The only answer is to build a smarter, more effective movement for common-sense gun laws than we have today, which means lots of meetings, marches, TV ads, door knocks and social- media campaigns.

Only the technology of movement-building has changed. Abolitionism, women’s suffrage, civil rights, conservation — every great stride forward in U.S. history has come from ordinary people defying the odds and bringing organized pressure to bear on politicians.

Any movement starts with its core legislative agenda. In this case, that means:

— Banning all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for everyone except the military.

— Requiring instant background checks on all gun purchases, including those at gun shows and online.

— Providing law enforcement full access to all state and local databases on felons and the mentally ill.

— Making illegal gun trafficking a felony.

Until now, the NRA has disgraced itself by blocking each of these no-brainer reforms, mostly by putting tens of millions of dollars behind its lies. The best thing Obama did in his news conference was his attempt to drive a wedge between NRA members, most of whom favor reasonable gun-safety laws, and their hardline officers and board of directors.

With the NRA’s news conference on Dec. 21, we’re about to see if its tardy response to the Newtown shootings plays with the public. I have my doubts. Once a bully is exposed in harsh daylight, it can be harder to instill fear again.

To break the NRA’s stranglehold, reformers need to shake off the hangdog fatalism of the past. Former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell often points out that he won three statewide elections against the gun lobby in a state that is second only to Texas in NRA membership.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The National Memo
  • Wayne LaPeierre from the NRA is on LIVE TV right now.

    His suggesstion to stop gun violence in schools is to arm the teachers.

    Man has he missed the point.

    This isn’t about responsible gun owners or assault weapons or safety training. It’s about keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy people.

    So considering that the NRA is just throwing crap out then I have to say that banning ALL guns from our society is the only way to stop the violence.

    If the gun owners of America think that more guns are the answer to this problem well they’re wrong & although it make take ten years to get all the guns from the legal owners they’re going to get them plain & simple.

    If you’re not going to be part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.

    Don’t go giving NRA memberhips as XMAS Gifts because the NRA is about to go away.

    • MrStoneheep

      I don’t think they’ll care a lot about those Christmas gift memeberships, though you can bet there will be a lot a large number. Big endowment time, too. As for memberships, the rolls are increasing at a rate of over 8000 per DAY since the catastrophy, and do keep in mind, those are NEW memberships/ Those figures have NEVER been seen before, so, I’d say whatever it is the far left looney’s are doing, Wayne and the Boys are loving it. Best advertisement they have.
      If you’d really like to have something to rail about, with an open mind (if you can possibly do that) try reading More Guns -Less Crime. Very thorough analysis of the overall and quite an eye opener.

  • sigrid28

    With respect to drawing down the enormous number of guns now responsible for a high level of gun violence in the U.S., there might be a lesson to taken from, of all places, China. In 1958, as one of the first initiatives of the Great Leap Forward (1958-62), Mao Tse Tung instituted the Four Pests Campaign, meant to rid China of mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows. The power of multitudes to upset the ecological balance by eliminating sparrows had the deleterious effect of bringing on a plague of locusts and, some say, the Great Chinese Famine that followed. Once bed bugs replaced sparrows among the four pests, health was improved throughout a society that worked locally and for purely altruistic purposes.

    • RobertCHastings

      As we have done for generations in this country when confronted with a product that is determined to be harmful to the individual members of society, we tax it and control it. In order to pay the huge expenses that would be incurred by the NRA’s call for armed security in all schools, is it not reasonable to tax those who make the security necessary in the first place? Since taxes of cigarettes skyrocketed just a few years ago, those who can least afford tobacco and its ensuing health risks have reduced their use of it. Since the thirties when alcohol once again became a legal commodity, its control and taxation have led to a huge reduction in its abuse. I feel certain the same would be true were we to pursue a similar policy toward guns. Tax those who feel they muct have them, in order to cover the huge costs of nationwide security as well as medical costs resulting from the use of guns.

      • sigrid28

        This is an excellent idea, backed by solid evidence of its workability. Another use for these revenues would be to run a nationwide gun buy-back program and put the latest and most powerful computer identification programs to work creating an airtight gun registry.

        While we are at it, we could remove the laws NRA passed that now prohibit gunshot victims from bringing suits against the very rich companies and retailers that supply civilians with weapons systems designed for the exclusive use of the military. Communities devastated by such killings as those in Newtown last week–and individuals senselessly gunned down every weekend on our cities’ streets–would have ample cause to create class action suits that would not only begin to compensate victims’ families, who can never be made whole, but bring irresponsible weapons manufacturers and retailers to their knees. And not a minute too soon. Decent Americans have been brought to their knees all week and everyday as a result of the gun violence armed by these corporations that support the NRA and its lobbyists.

        • MrStoneheep

          So, when a drunk driver kills a child or anyone else, let’s sue the car maker, and let’s double down and sue the maker of the booze, huh? Slippery slope you’re recommending. BTW: The suing of the gun manufacturers WAS attempted and was soundly defeated in the courts.

          • patuxant

            You make arguments that have been heard before. It is not the infringement of the right to bear arms that is a problem; it is the issue of the caliber of the types of weapons we are looking at. What is the rationale for having weapons that can kill a multitude of people instantly unless you are in the military? Please get a handle on the problem. Even most NRA members don’t agree with the ‘god’ of guns, LaPierre.

          • MrStoneheep

            Sir patuxant: I don’t know how or why you came from that direction. Nothing in the text of my response or the one I was responding to had an iota of discorse involving calibers, but if you insist on going there, OK. I want to respond to your last statement first, then I’ll come back to the ignorance. Be careful using words you cannot back up, like “most” NRA members don’t agree with Wayne. I, for one, don’t on some issues but on others, I do. I watched his speech yesterday and cringed with a few of the statements, but on the whole, I agreed. The point is that unless you are one of the present Board Members, you’ve no clue WHAT the “most” does or does not agree with him about. Join, become a Life Member, then you too can vote and go to the Annual Meetings and ask all the questions you want. Until then, don’t presume to know what ANY of us feel, let alone, “most”.

            Back to the “caliber”, this could be a different meaning to you than to me. When I’m speaking of a weapon and caliber is mentioned, I’m thinking of the diameter of the bore of the barrel on the piece. You may be using the word “caliber” in lieu of style or type weapon. Neither is pertinent, however. One because a .223 Remington is anything BUT powerful. Now a .458 Winchester Magnum – THAT’S powerful! The other use of the word caliber also isn’t appropriate, only because an AR 15 is NOT a military weapon in that form. Were it a Military Assault Weapon, it would be full auto, not semi-auto, and would have a different designation. To all: if you want intelligent conversation, learn what is and is NOT an assault weapon, exactly how long it would take to drop and replace an emptied clip (magazine), and what the existing laws DO require of gun sales today, rather than some untrue spouted incorrect exaggerations I’m reading here. Then, learn how to discuss the topics rationally without the venom and realizing that none of us has ALL of the perfect answers. None !!

          • english_teacher

            Sorry but I don’t think we have to become experts in order to know that a semi-automatic weapon with an extra-large clip is the problem that needs to be controlled.

          • MrStoneheep

            No, you don’t, but you probably should learn some basics if you are really going to make a rational decision as to the end result. To do less fosters irresponsibility, exactly what the ‘grabbers’ would like. I don’t personally have need or desire for what you mention, but at the same time, I will know what they will and won’t do before I lend to a conversation as to cause and effect of them. Also, I’ll do so with temperance, something a bit lacking from most on here. This is in no way meant towards or about you. Your’s is a very valid point stated well and humanely.

          • amarquez647

            MrStoneheep I am a retired educator and mechanical designer. I can tell you intimate details of structures, internal combustion engines, gun turrets. The only thing the user wants from the engines I designed is that it does the job they need. When I speak with other designers, we get excited about design details. It is obvious that you are a true enthusiast, and I believe that you are a responsible sportsman. What I believe English_teacher and I are saying is that unrestricted availability of weapons that can kill twenty children and six adults, leaving multiple impacts wounds in a matter of minutes, by a man who is hardly an adult is a tragedy. In China a man who sought the world was going to end went through a grade school and stabbed 22 children and 1 adult, not a single fatality. Any weapon that can kill many people in a matter of minutes should be illegal. I enjoy target practice and at one time was a hunter.

          • MrStoneheep

            You just described my Remington 1100 using 00Buckshot in the 5 rounds in can hold. Same is true of my 870 Remington Wingmaster, or any other shotgun. In the police variety of either, they are called Riot Guns with a black stock w/ a pistol style handgrip and an elongated tubular magazine. Neither of these were EVER put out by Remington until asked to do so by the US Army, circa 1965 – Viet Nam. Go to your local Walmart. You can buy them right there and they look to the untrained eye exactly like a “supposed” assault weapon. Another place to see one is standing up in front of the seat of police
            car, though some carry them lying down in front of the seat.

            I have said often, I have no need or desire for either the ‘supposed’ assault type weapons or the high capacity magazines. I use my long guns for recreational purposes only, and a revolver for in home night stand readiness. (yes Mom’s, when the grandkids are coming, the revolver heads for the safe along with ALL other firearms in the house) My point is very simply, how do we ‘define’ in order to have a good basis to set up whatever restrictions we would like see imposed. As you said, you’re the designer. How do YOU propose to define for the purpose of the Statute, because as you should know, will need be done? There’s the rub !

            China incident? Doesn’t relate. Yes, I’ve seen a few
            of the posters use that as a means to justify, but first, it’s irrelavant and, second, it’s not pertinent.
            The fact is 26 innocent people are now tragically dead. That is sad, but let’s find a GOOD solution for a change. That’s what Wayne was saying and what this all began from.

            Both sides seem to want to pick and choose what they will or won’t use or allow others to use in their argument, and this we need stop too. You may want to take a look at another thread within this discussion;
            the ex-Marine just released from the Mexican jail.

          • old_blu

            You sound like a responsible gun owner, I consider myself the same. So why aren’t you advocating everyone be responsible gun owners? Instead you argue whether somone knows what kind of gun they are talking about.

            I mean who cares? I don’t need high capacity magazines or guns that will shoot 60 rounds a minute, and it sounds like you agree with that.

          • sigrid28

            The NRA and its supporters sure have you where they want you.

          • MrStoneheep

            Do you have problems understanding what you read? I’m an NRA Life Member because I want to be. Do I agree with everything the NRA’s principals spout? No, I don’t but for the most part, I do, AND I happen to believe in what they stood for 100+ years ago and still do today. To always villianize the NRA is counter productive to the greater good as well. They have done many good things and will continue to, regardless what the far left intentionally and incorrectly portrays them to be and do.I find the far left to be much more worrisome, if for no other reason than to msee and hear them continue with their attitude of “my way is the only way”.
            You didn’t answer the “caliber” question.

        • amarquez647

          At the same time, require licensing after completing a course in gun safety. In addition, require completion of a psychological questionnaire designed to root out individual who are not stable or have a cavalier attitude.

          • MrStoneheep

            I’m not an attorney. Licensing might meet a Constitutional challenge. The course in Gun Safety; Great idea! I received mine in my Junior High School in NW Iowa, but more years ago than I care to remember. Took place at the National Guard Armory. Part two was my freshman year of high school. Psychological questionaires I’ve a problem with. The reviewer’s attitudes could taint the test. Too much conjecture. Have you listened to any of the reports from the news folks that this person in Ct had attempted to buy his own but was turned down? He stole and used his mother’s because he couldn’t buy his own. Why was he turned down? Was it age? I don’t know the laws there. The real shame is that there WERE indicators here and no one did anything about them. Same can be said in Colorado -at BOTH incidents. Same in Arizona. Here is our problem, and I agree that it’s a cavalier attitude – of ALL of us for NOT getting more involved sooner. Is there no Baker Act anymore?

      • Nationwide security does not have to cost anything. All it requires if for honest people to be trained and armed. Each school should have a few teachers, janitors, principles, etc., who are armed. They would be much better at assessing threats then police would be. We don’t want another Rodney King situation, only at a school. Armed police are some of the people I trust the least.

        • 113121

          I don’t trust anyone with a gun. This idea is idiotic.

      • Firearms are not harmful. Almost all firearm uses are defensive, and by intimidating criminals, they prevent the injuries that would otherwise have happened. Remove the firearms, and how do you propose to prevent the rape of night duty nurses, the looting of Korean grocery stores in LA, etc.?
        Criminals do not need weapons because they can be big and strong. It is the rest of us who need weapons in order to be safe and free.

    • Foolish. Places like Switzerland and Israel have proven that universal weapons ownership is always much safer than firearms restriction. Think about how many hundreds of thousands of schools there are in this country, and over life of this country, how few incidents there have ever been. The cycle for any one school is an incident about every 10,000 years. And for this we need new laws? I don’t think so. This is a very old problem. There will always be crimes at schools. And in the past, what teachers and staff did was to quietly ensure someone was armed, in order to provide faster response. These proposed laws won’t do that. They won’t help schools be safer at all. And they won’t reduce the weapons availability to those intent on doing harm. It is always going to be easy to find high tech ways of causing harm. We live in such a high tech society, violence is impossible to restrict. The best you can do is provide defensive weapons.

      • MrStoneheep

        And neither of those two countries have “Gun Free Zones”. I mean, really now, talk about putting a target on your back !!! Have any of the mental midgets that are really believing all this rhetoric they are spewing given any thought to why in Aurora, of the seven theaters within Aurora, that spineless schmuck chose that particular theater? Could it be possibly that it was the ONLY one of the seven that is so designated, a “Gun Free Zone”, by owner choice in this case and by law in Ct.

        • 113121

          I really doubt you would get a gun in Switzerland. You have to be sane.

          • MrStoneheep

            I assume you are speaking of ME as being “not” sane. See, the exact problem I’ve been talking about. Good exchange of ideas – – – – – – without this type of rhetoric is an impossibility with the far left, but very typical of the extremism the far left enjoys.”If you don’t automatically agree with us, you’re not sane.” Where or what do people like you evolve from?

  • The only problem with some of the points above is in order to pass both Houses, the bill will have to have an exemption for those weapons already owned. Otherwise, confiscation will not go down easy.
    I am a vet and I don’t see any reason why anyone not in the military or law enforcement would need a weapon capable of having more than a half-dozen rounds in the magazine. I also can find no justification for civilian purchase of armor-piercing ammunition.

    • The justification is easy. It is “equal under the law”. As soon as you prevent average citizens from doing something reserved for the elite, it is the end of equality, freedom, and the classless society. Then we become the privileged and the denied. Do you really think the wealthy are not going to have body guards with these weapons? How about the Korean grocers in the LA riots? What is to stop another Holocaust?

    • oldtack

      This is simple deduction for us and the majority of the world. But, in Congress this same logical thought would become as complicated as Einstein’s E=MC2 .

      This problem could be rectified if only we could keep Congress out of the solution process.

    • RobertCHastings

      Now is the time to strike, while the pain is near unbearable, and while that last, small body is barely in its grave. Too often we rage our anguish, only to end up beating ourselves sensless to no avail. Every legislator around the country who has a problem with gun control should be confronted by his constituents with pictures, graphic pictures of those grisly murders of 20 innocents and their six heroic mentors. Hopefully Biden’s task force acts quickly, with reasonable suggestions that can be supported by the majority.

      • MrStoneheep

        Yes, as Rahm so well stated, “Never let a good catastrophy go to waste.” Let’s just take a look at Rahm’s city, our President’s home, and the home of the toughest gun ownership laws in the country, then see if what the NRA suggests does or does not have merit. What you WON’T see on the far left news: and yes, it’s fact checked:

        Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year with strongest gun laws in country – media silent

        19 December 2012
        Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the state’s media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in a city run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light?

        18 YEARS OLD- 15
        17 YEARS OLD- 16
        16 YEARS OLD- 16
        15 YEARS OLD- 6
        14 YEARS OLD- 4
        13 YEARS OLD- 2
        12 YEARS OLD- 1
        7 YEARS OLD- 1
        6 YEARS OLD- 1

        446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far This Year
        18 year old- 110
        17 year old- 99
        16 year old- 89
        15 year old- 62
        14 year old- 39
        13 year old- 21
        12 year old- 10
        11 year old- 2
        10 year old- 3
        9 year old- 1
        7 year old- 3
        6 year old- 2
        5 year old- 1
        4 year old- 1
        3 year old- 1
        1 year old- 2

        So why isn’t this news worthy?

        The leadership in Illinois
        President: Barack Hussein Obama
        Senator: Dick Durbin
        House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.
        Governor: Pat Quinn
        House leader: Mike Madigan
        Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)
        Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

        What I’m attempting to point out here, Mr Hastings, is that “striking quickly” is exactly the problem of the past; passsing do nothing feel good laws that don’t curb gun violence, doesn’t even slow it down. Yes, we need good meaningful dialogue with solid forward looking results that will actually do something to quell the problem. Turning a blind eye to the sanctuary given by the medical profession of the insane is a start, arming folks inside the schools and making it known is another, and if there truly needs be an assault type “looking” weapon ban and large cap magazine, so be it.
        History proves knee jerk will just give more of the same bad laws and we’ll be having this same discussion in the not too distant future.

        • RobertCHastings

          Then what is your solution? I do not advocate just passing anything that will pass, but enacting meaningful laws that will keep firearms out of the hands of those that would do harm to others. Hopefully you have been watching the response to the NRA suggestion of arming teachers. The vast majority of teachers will NOT arm themselves, even if it means carrying a weapon MAY mean saving a life. Are meaningful gun laws in place in Chicago? Apparently not! What controls would you place on gun ownership and proliferation that would effectively prevent another Newtown, for, unless something is done, another one will occur, and it will most likely occur within the next twelve months.
          Guns MUST be registered, and that includes taking a fired bullet and cartridge and getting the characteristics of the gun; easy sources of guns MUST be shut down, especially those that don’t even require background checks; there should at least be a registry of all gun owners; there should be a registry of all people who for whatever reason are mentally or emotionally unfit to even have access to a gun (like the Newtown shooter); weapons that can be used or modified to shoot many rounds rapidly should be banned, as well as high-volume clips, and any guns that have been found to have been modified shoot rapidly or high numbers of round should be confiscated. Some of these ideas are already law, in various places around the country, but it is easy, if one really wants a gun, to find one. I should not be so easy. North Carolina, like many other states, adds on seven years to a sentence if the crime was committed with a gun it doesn’t sound like much, but it is a step.
          If you can suggest something that will move the discussion forward, please do so. Not much is to be gained by complaining about the violence ALL large cities are experiencing, and blaming Chicago’s gun violence on the conservatives’ favorite target is, at the very least, counterproductive. These issues have been around much longer than Obama or Rahm Emanuel. Have you seen the movie “Lawless”? Let’s return to the good old days, when nobody ever got shot.

    • atc333

      Obviously, too much Faux News:

      That’s easy.

      1.” The confiscation of bondholders assets at GM and Chrysler.” Unfortunately, that is how a banruptcy works. Obviously, you were not paying attention during the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 80s, in which the Fed did the same thing with Pioneer, and its creditors and mortgage holders.

      2) “Not enforcing US laws from DOMA”. The Administration has made the determination that Act is unconstitutional.

      3) _ Not enforcing drug laws” Be specific, provide examples on this, as well as election intimidation. The only election intimidation most of us saw was that of the Right Wingers with their signs threatening jail for immigrants who became citizens and dared consider actually voting, Certain Red States activities in voter suppression, Voter ID laws, and of course Florida with its cutting of early voting days resulting in 8 hour waits in line to vote becasue of deliberately understaffed and equipped voting districts, with the obviously vain hope the Democrats would give up and go home.

      4) “Imprisoning americans indefinitely with out charges”. Seems to me GWB II was the one who implemented the term “enemy combatant” which triggered the imprisonment without charge. Thank GWB II’s “Patriot Act” for that one, along with “surveillance of emails and electronic communications without a subpoena” Your GOP gave the Executive that power during GWB II’s Administration, which is a tool left over from GWB II’s failed Adminsitration.

      5)” Misappropriation of federal funds from green energy projects in foreign countries to rebuilding mosques” Bring on the Federal Charges, where is the Radical Right when you need them. Sounds like a major crime the GOP is turning a blind eye to. How about some documentation?

      6) ” If your worried about gerrymandering than you should be requesting a redo of all the black and Hispanic districts.” You have ignored the many dog boned districts created by your GOP legislatures, which at one time were clearly illegal, and discussed at length in High School Civics Classes. Examples please?

      7) ” you also are discounting all the illegals and dead that voted in 2012. In Philly and Chicago as an example they had hundreds of counties that had MORE votes than people who were registered or lived there” Proof please. So why hasn’t the GOP’s Big Money Donors bellied up to the bar to file voter fraud cases in those counties?
      8) “Is it strange that 1 rifle has shown up at a few mass murders?? Isn’t it strange that planned parenthood who receives tax payers $$ is allowed to murder 500,000 babies a year would be a much more important question.?” Typical Republican tactic when you have no answer. Instead, you have attempted to change the subject, as the Bushmaster is the weapon of choice.

      9) As far as Planned Parenthood, you are really off base. Planned Parenthood does not generally do Abortions, but is in most cases a referral service. The few exceptions have been to save the life of the mother. Typical Right Wing claim. As it is, many of us would be much more impressed with your passion to save lives, if you and other antiabortion activists would seek to create and fund a nationwide fund for the support, medical care, and education of all children who are born to a woman who is forced to bear the child which you believe they should be forced to have by outlawing all abortions. Put your money where your mouth is. Demand your GOP Legislators create a Federal and State Fund, paid for by taxes and contributions to support all unwanted children which you require to be born, yet you do not want to assume the responsiblity of supporting thought “entitlements” While you are at it, why not seek to require sex education, and contraceptives to be available to all citizens, which would be much cheaper than the continued funding of aid to dependent children.
      10) Should there be a outlawing of assault weapons?? “All the polls show that the vast majority of the American voters are opposed to such a measure. they seem to understand the 2nd amendment much better than the left wing nuts” Actually, is is not a “vast majority”, but about 56%. But then if that is a vast majority to you, then Obama won with a “Vast Majority”. As it is, most of us “Left Wing Nuts” understand that Constitutional Rights have reasonable limits. American’s don’t need assault weapons and 30 round clips to protect their homes, just as they do not have the right to stand up in a crowed theater and yell “Fire”, despite the existence of “Freedom of Speech” being protected under our Constitution.

  • atc333

    The amazing thing about the NRA is that it is willing to have to public forfeit is freedom of speech rights, put limits on content of video games, movies, books, comics, as well as turn our schools into armed camps with “Armed volunteers” patrolling our elementary schools, just to name a few of their “solutions” for this nation’s mass murder problems, all to avoid ending private ownership of assault weapons, and high capacity magazines.

    Simply pathetic.

    • That is foolish because schools have always had threats in the past, which have always been met by teachers and janitors being armed. Just kept quiet. In some schools I went to, teachers were armed just to prevent being robbed. The insanity is believing new repressive laws are going to actually end criminal possession of these weapons and magazines. The proposed legislation will not at all make schools any safer. In fact, it will make is even more appealing for the disturbed to get their 15 minutes of fame with firearm crimes.

      • Wow, even I’m not so arrogant as to claim to be ‘always right’. (grin)
        Seriously, can you provide evidence that armed teachers and janitors were widespread? Or that arming teachers would provide better results than usual (depending on the study, you are 4 to 15 times more likely to be shot if you have a gun)? Keep in mind we (I) don’t care about stories, there are stories on all sides. We need numbers. For example – did you know that the number of Americans killed by guns is estimated to exceed automobile fatalities in 2 years? Show me that arming kindergarten teachers will make them, and the kids safer!

        Or consider Australia. After a massive killing spree in, if memory serves ’96 they put severe restrictions on gun ownership, and it worked. Gunshot deaths plummeted as did the total murder rate. No big increase in knife wielders inflicting death happened.

        I’m not suggesting that we need to outlaw guns yet, but we need to consider all options, evaluate them based on evidence and make a rational decision. This isn’t a one-sided attempt to take your guns away, your 2nd amendment rights are stomping on our right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. If you, or your supporters can’t come up with a solution backed by evidence your rights will be curtailed so ours are not. I would rather that not happen, so get busy!

      • “…which have always been met by teachers and janitors being armed.”
        I don’t know what school you went to, but I have never seen any armed teachers or janitors in any school I or my three children went to. It sounds like the only insanity is in the fantasy land that you and other gun nuts inhabit. Do you realize that there was an armed officer on the Columbine campus? That didn’t save the kids that died there. There also were armed law enforcement at the Arizona mall shooting where a child was killed. None of the “solutions” proposed by the NRA have any basis in reality. It’s about time for the lot of you to take responsibility for your hobby.

      • Exactly, and keep in mind that the school was a gun free zone. That is the result of not having guns, only criminals have them and you can’t help those in need.

    • alumahead

      They only had a week to think it through.

    • MrStoneheep

      Have watched the Wayne speech twice. Cannot find anywhere within it where he is advocating censorship. Yes, he points them out as ’causes’ with the “cause and effect’ argument, but does NOT go to the point of asking for censorship. Do you not know the printed word is a BIG DEAL to the NRA? Without the 1st, the NRA could not hardly exist.

      • stcroixcarp

        What the NRA is proposing is an armed takeover of public education. The right wing has been undermining public education for years. Now they are saying that they will provide armed “security guards” for all schools in the country and it won’t cost local school districts anything. But once the NRA Storm Troopers get into the schools, how do we get them out?

        • MrStoneheep

          Oh brother !! Well, to see the good side of a VERY stupid post, it’s nice to see not ALL the conspiracy theorists are on the far right.

        • 113121

          Well, stcroixcarp, the answer to that is more guns! The PTA bake committee will bring in missile launchers.

          • MrStoneheep

            And the other tactic of the far left; “When I have nothing of value to add and no good point to make, I’ll reduce to the rediculous.”

    • onedonewong

      The NRA’s position is protect by the constitution. Movies and video games aren’t

      • atc333

        But they are. Why do you think xxx rated movies are being made and sold, as well as Video Games with content many would deem unacceptable?

        The NRA’s position is extreme, as evidenced by its press conference, and some of the claims made.

        The Second 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.”

        Back when this Amendment was passed, the US relied upon citizen soldiers for its defense, most who brought their own weapons to the fight. Hence the term “well regulated Militia”. We did not have a full blown Army Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and spend as much money on defense as the next ten nations combined. Back then there were no State, County, and Local Police, FBI, CIA, and Federal Marshals,. Back then, rifles were fired once, and reloaded, no semiautomatic weapons firing 30 rounds in under 6 seconds, as fast as you could pull the trigger, or even the first Gatling Gun. Our Nation’s defense relied upon its Citizen Soldiers to function. Today it is different. No hunters, and home defense buffs need a 30 round magazines and automatic weapons to properly protect their homes or families. 10 rounds in the clip, and another 10 rounds in your PJ’s pocket should be enough. Likewise, the deer and other game are not shooting back.

        Like it or not, it is time to limit magazines to 10 Rounds, and remove assault weapons from sale to the Public.

        • amarquez647

          Most comments I have read are simplistic and asinine. Logic tells you that the more guns the more people will be hurt or killed by them. Those who use the second amendment as an argument for owning automatic weapons as a deterrent to the excesses of the federal government are fomenting insurrection. I believe that that is ilegal.
          As you said the second amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm. unfortunately the supreme court ruled that this right is unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes. The original writers of the constitution intended for people to bear arms under the discipline of a militia sanction by the state. The country at that time did not have a standing army and depended on state militias. As you have stated.
          Each States has its own militia known as the National Guard. Therefore, all other militias are suspect. Some are groups of bigoted men who call themselves patriots and then preach sedition. The necessity for a militia is inexistent and in fact a danger to the people. I see private militias and vigilantes as domestic terrorist.

          • MrStoneheep

            I’ve not see even ONE of the pro gun folks on here state they feel we should be able to own automatic weapons. See Mr Marquez,
            therein lies a MAJOR part of the problem, the uneducated (which you are not part of judging by other posts), definition. There is an immense difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. The automatic weapons are NOT part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. They were illegalized much earlier, and with a clear cut defining of design. The year was 1932.

        • onedonewong

          You quote the words but fail to understand the history. The founders adopted the 2nd amendment from the British constitution that considered gun ownership a Right and that gun ownership was the key to keeping all the other rights. The SC understood the history and ruled that gun ownership an inalienable right just as the founders intended
          The commas placement intended purpose was to separate the 2 thoughts.Back then there was no income tax no welfare and crazies were institutionalised was libs that threw away the keys and placed weapons in their hands

          • atc333

            Then how do you explain how in England only the Bobbies had firearms, and for some strange reason their rate of gun violence is much, much lower than ours? If the Founding Fathers could have forseen the current carnage and the existence of assault type of weapons, they would have phrased that Amendment differently.

          • onedonewong

            Its lower because they have a homogeneous society.
            You right if the founders could have seen the current administration and the shredding of the constitution they would have eliminated a standing military and said take him down

          • atc333

            Obviously, you have forgotten the efforts of the Bush II Administrations?
            Please list the specifics of the shredding of the Constitution as accomplished by Obama?

            I for one am particularly fond of the GOP expertise in gerrymandering, (a million less popular votes, yet they still kept control of the house), voter suppression though false emails as to voting dates, and places, Voter ID laws, and the very nice bill boards attempting to intimidate legitimate voters of other than WASP linage. Despite that, they still lost.

            Isn’t is strange how the Bushmaster keep showing up as the weapon of choice in these recent shootings. One thing that has resulted from all this publicity is that the prices of the assault weapons in gun shops have now doubled since the Sandy Hook Massacre as people run to get theirs before any changes in the law.

            Should there be an outlawing of assault weapons, 30 round + clips, or devices which convert the weapon to almost full automatic operation, such would have to be accompanied with a fair buyback program over a period of time, with severe civil penalties if violated after the amnesty period elapsed.

          • onedonewong

            That’s easy. The confiscation of bondholders assets at GM and Chrysler
            Not enforcing US laws from DOMA, drug laws election intimidation
            imprisoning americans indefinitely with out charges
            surveillance of emails and electronic communications without a subpoena
            misappropriation of federal funds from green energy projects in foreign countries to rebuilding mosques
            If your worried about gerrymandering than you should be requesting a redo of all the black and Hispanic districts. you also are discounting all the illegals and dead that voted in 2012. In Philly and Chicago as an example they had hundreds of counties that had MORE votes than people who were registered or lived there.
            Is it strange that 1 rifle has shown up at a few mass murders?? Isn’t it strange that planned parenthood who receives tax payers $$ is allowed to murder 500,000 babies a year would be a much more important question.
            Should there be a outlawing of assault weapons?? All the polls show that the vast majority of the American voters are opposed to such a measure. they seem to understand the 2nd amendment much better than the left wing nuts

        • 88oldbob

          Define an assault weapon so I will understand where you’re coming from. I’ve owned a 11oo 12 ga.Rem. shotgun for many years, with which, I’ve hunted and shot Blue Rocks, it’s semi automatic, so I guess, by your assessment, it should be classified as an ASSAULT WEAPON ? I’m sure there are AUTOMATIC weapons present in our currently free society, however, the law, for the most part, does not allow AUTOMATIC weapons to be owned by the general public. If you can REMOVE all the criminals who are living in every City in the United States, and all their illegally obtained firearms, you might make a little bit of sense in your disarmament theory. In the mean time, the mostly “Left Wing” attempt at logic, where personal firearm ownership is concerned, is a “Do Gooders” misguided nightmare.

          • atc333

            Not correct. Your shotgun is not an assault weapon.. It is a long gun, one with which you cannot squeeze off 30 rounds in less than 6 seconds.

            I am not in favor of “disarmament” as you call it. However, in Sandy Hook, each of the 20 children killed was hit multiple times. That is the work of an assault weapon with a 30 round clip, doing exactly what was done at Sandy Hook. AR 15s, and 16s, AK 47s, all would qualify as an assault weapon. Why do you need them to hunt or defend your home?

            Removing the criminals is not the entire solution. Strange,up until the actual crime, the shooter was not a “Criminal”, but a very disturbed individual who had easy access to an assault weapon, and 30 round clips. You saw the results. We need to limit access to the specific types of weapons which cause such massive death and distraction in so little time, identify and treat those individuals who are suffering from illness, as well as remove violent criminals from the streets.

          • MrStoneheep

            Mr atc333, I defy you to shoot 30 rounds from an Ar 15 semi-auto in 6 seconds, in fact, I’d bet you can’t do THREE (3) rounds in 6 seconds. I shoot about 5000 rounds a year and KNOW I cannot do so.
            I do agree with you on the “Criminal” arguement. That is what we, on this side, are all pointing out. We need define the term AND we need ID the feeble minded doing this crap, too, and quit “mommy coddling” them with the doctor/patient rulings. OK, if the doc wants to accept the responsibility for the actions of his mentally impaired,
            then allow his charges to go about their daily lives at all of our peril. Make the Doctor understand that and you’ll see a change in their attitudes.

          • 88oldbob

            To:atc333- – -First, I defy you to attempt to squeeze off 30 rounds in 6 seconds with any “semi-automatic” weapon currently on the scene. Of course, that is not the main issue. The fact that you would restrict the number of rounds a magazine or clip could hold, is reason enough, to doubt the rationale of your thinking. You might as well suggest that all automobiles be mechanically restricted to a maximum speed of 50 mph, and that that would stop all accidents. Regardless of your, or my, thinking on this subject, the “Nut Cases” all around us that will continue to kill our citizens without regard for method or civility. 88oldbob
            —– Original Message —–
            From: Disqus
            To: [email protected]
            Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 9:58 AM
            Subject: [thenationalmemo] Re: To Get Better Gun Control, Don’t Use The Phrase

            atc333 wrote, in response to 88oldbob:

            Not correct. Your shotgun is not an assault weapon.. It is a long gun, one with which you cannot squeeze off 30 rounds in less than 6 seconds.
            I am not in favor of “disarmament” as you call it. However, in Sandy Hook, each of the 20 children killed was hit multiple times. That is the work of an assault weapon with a 30 round clip, doing exactly what was done at Sandy Hook. AR 15s, and 16s, AK 47s, all would qualify as an assault weapon. Why do you need them to hunt or defend your home?
            Removing the criminals is not the entire solution. Strange,up until the actual crime, the shooter was not a “Criminal”, but a very disturbed individual who had easy access to an assault weapon, and 30 round clips. You saw the results. We need to limit access to the specific types of weapons which cause such massive death and distraction in so little time, identify and treat those individuals who are suffering from illness, as well as remove violent criminals from the streets.

            Link to comment

          • atc333


            But I can, all I have to do is pick up the latest bump grip, that turns my Bush master into the almost equivalent of a full automatic mode version. Even according to their own site, it is capable of 40 rounds per minute “effective” meaning accurate. It is set up, (without using the accessory “Bump Grip” )to fire as fast as the trigger can be squeezed. Add the “Bump Grip”, which uses the weapon’s physical recoil to accuate the trigger, to radically increase its rate of fir, and it will attain that rate of fire very close to full auto versions.

            Why do you need this type of killing machine? How does it make you safer?.

      • oldtack

        How do you explain your paranoia? We’re not talking about disarming the public. We are talking about assault weapons and magazines larger than 10 rounds. I have 5 weapons and many of my acquaintances have a multiplicity of weapons -but- none have assault weapons or massive canisters.
        Do you have an overpowering fear?

        • onedonewong

          With the 2 village idiots in the WH you bet I have an over powering fear. Barak and Holder have already decided to implement new gun laws WITHOUT congress. If you have guns you better be afraid, this guy has ZERO respect for the constitution

          • oldtack

            Really? Where did you obtain this information? Is it authentic? Can you divulge your source so I may examine these documented facts personally? To “know” this you have to have a source and surely you will be willing to share that source with the rest of us on this forum will you not?

          • onedonewong

            I read it today on 5 different web sites. That they started down this road after the Gabby Gifford shooting and only stopped due to the election. Come January Barak fully plans his own limitations on guns and gun rights.

          • oldtack

            You read it on five different web sites? And it is true? If you continue the Web search you can find five web sites that disprove. If you put your faith in web sites then you are a very gullible individual. Web sites for TRUTH?

          • onedonewong

            If you don’t think that is baraks agenda your a fool. He has constantly walked all over the constitution since he’s been president

    • Tell me why would ending what the media calls assault rifles and large clips from the hands of legal gun owners who don’t abuse them or use them to commit crimes will have any effect upon criminal use of these guns? If you want gun control, make sure criminals don’t get them, or you accomplish nothing.

  • larryincamden

    In order to infringe on the RIGHT to keep and Bear firearms the US Constitution has to be amended to allow said infringement outside of that action the Constitution still says that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.
    That statement makes every law that infringes on that right is unconstitutional.
    Anyone that has sworn to uphold the Constitution of the US Constitution and has allowed laws under the Constitution that infringe on that RIGHT is commiting treason.
    If you can not understand that you are an idiot and if you ignoer it you are aiding and abetting treason.
    Think about that.

    • RobertCHastings

      Taxing gun ownership is NOT unconstitutional, and would be a simple way to bring owners and manufacturers to the discussion. The costs to our society of gun violence is staggering, not just in immediate, visible results, but in the ultimate loss of potential for those who are killed. Maybe a drug dealer may not make a valuable contribution (although one cannot say even that with certainty), but the loss of 20 third graders in Newtown, CT is a shameful waste of potential. Those kids could have become doctors, teachers, Nobelists, parents, anything they could have wished for, and now they will be nothing except memories, shared only by those few who knew them.

  • beadwarrior

    Time for “Safety is the Issue” super PACs. I haven’t contributed direct money to national politics (local yes) in years. I will do it in a heartbeat if we can get a national movement going, funded by anti-violence super PACs.

    • Weapons have always been the only way to create safety. Before there were easy weapons, it was just the big, strong, and brutal who got their way with everyone. It is firearms that protect the night duty nurses, prevents rapes, stops LA looting, etc. Weapons are the equalizer for us all. Reducing weapons only makes us more vulnerable to those who already are intent on violence, and they either don’t need weapons, can steal or smuggle them, or can make their own. In a high tech society, it is impossible to prevent anyone from making sufficient weapons to cause mass murder. The best we can try to do is defend ourselves sufficiently. And it is only the threat of defensive weapons that prevent crimes.

      • alumahead

        Your moniker is a perfect fit.

        Your argument makes as much sense as fucking to protect virginity.

        • amarquez647

          I concur. There are so many pendejos.

      • oldtack

        You remind me of one of my Donut Stop “friends”. He built an 8 foot tall fence completely around his property then nailed slats over the cracks between the boards then put three different locks on each gate. He owns 43 guns. He has a concealed gun permit and carries a fully loaded pistol on his person even every waking hour absorbed with the fear that someone will attack him. I am more “scared” of this kook than I am of the element on the street. Oh yes Country needs another million or so of people like you and my donut friend Charlie.

  • ObozoMustGo

    Typical leftist freak tactics: don’t call something what it is, but make up a new, more comfy sounding word or phrase to hide what your true intentions are. In this case, complete gun control. How about call it what it is? How about be truthful? I know, I know…. lying and deceit are OK when it’s for ‘The Cause’, isn’t it?

    You leftist freaks couldn’t give a damn about those children who were executed that day, and you know it. If you gave a damn about kids being murdered, you wouldn’t be so militant about supporting the murder of children in the womb. But of course you don’t give a damn about them either. The only thing that matters to you animals is your leftist freak cause for increased governmental control over society and the pursuit of some utopia through the perfection of mankind by legislation. That’s it. There is nothing else. And if a bunch of kiddies in a CT school have to be executed for you to advance your agenda, then so be it. If you were honest at all, you would admit that I am correct. But then, if you were honest, no one would support your ideas. Which brings us right back to this article claiming you need to have a better phrase to sell gun control.

    Merry Christmas!

    “The man of system . . . is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. . . .” —Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1759

    • sigrid28

      What would you hate if you couldn’t hate liberals? What would you do if you couldn’t be consumed by hate? Not one article in the National Memo, not one person who posts on its comment threads, is keeping you from doing that thing you would do if hatred of liberals, xenophobia, misogyny, and other forms of intolerance did not occupy your thoughts. You could meet with other people who think as you do, bring a dish to pass, and plan the next meeting, maybe a Christmas party. You could go shopping or go out to eat with friends, maybe give a local restaurant a little business to support an entrepreneur. You could watch Fox News or read the Wall Street Journal, front to back. You could listen to far-right hosts on the radio, while cleaning your gun. Any one of these activities should have more satisfactions than making a fool of yourself before people who will never agree with you and who cannot be convinced to validate your way of life. Why not live and let live?

      • MrStoneheep

        Oh I don’t know sigrid, of the two, ObozoMust Go is the one telling the truth while you prove him right with your verbage here. You, as most of the far leftt does, live in a vacuum created by your inability to even consider the possibility the other side might have a valid point or two themselves.

        For starters, you may want to consider learning the differences between what is truly an “assault weapon” and what merely LOOKS LIKE an “assault weapon”. It’s vast, believe me, but the Far Left would have us believing they are one in the same. They are not.

        Before you even start, I’m a left of center Obama voting Democrat that is today thinking I may have voted incorrectly with his continued refusal to address the over spending of our Government. The systems asked for in the article are in place and have been in many forms since 1968. Which party signed the original Gun Control Act? Do you even know or would you rather just ignore REAL facts
        and create your own?

        • sigrid28

          If I decided to research the topic of gun control, I would be able to do so to a fare-thee-well without ever consulting individuals like you and Mr. OMG, who are locked in a far-right information loop multi-billionaires have designed to secure enough GOP votes to keep themselves in power, so they can load up their tax-free bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Only a party that will not be governed by fact-checkers could come up with the ludicrous term “REAL facts.” It suits them to keep you and those like you as dumb as a buck of rocks, MrStoneheep.

          Research outside the GOP bubble reveals the “facts.” If you ever get bored with repeating Republican and NRA talking points, or trying to convince people you don’t like that you are right, you could do research, too.

          Which brings us back to the subject: what can OMG and guys like him find to do besides hate liberals and people who are not like himself?

          • MrStoneheep

            OMG? Took me a minute to think of who you are talking about, and OH, MY!!! You DO get passionate, don’t you! Well, since you are on this intellectual self destruct mission, I would have earlier suggested you read other of my posts and you would have not stuck your foot into that bucket. Sigrid, I said before and just for you, one more time. I’m a left of center Obama voter that feels I may have made a mistake there since he seems hell bent on NOT cutting spending. I am guilty of being an NRA Member, but just so
            I’m not feeling left out, some of my rationally thinking countrymen that call themselves Democrats and Republicans chose to join me by becoming members, too. We now know you’re in the crowd of “my way is the only way”, but not all of us
            pea brained Democrats are. My fault, however. I know better than to have a battle of wits with the handicapped.

          • sigrid28

            You would not use the term “handicapped” as an insult if you knew the lifetime benefits of loving and protecting an individual with a disability, as I do.

            I will never understand people who set themselves up to be trolls on a comment thread. Why not find something worthwhile to do instead? Go shopping at Menards or Lowes or Home Depot. Clean your guns, count your ammo. Go to a movie. Eat in a restaurant. Act like a troll in a bar or some place where everybody knows your name. Oh, wait. That might be dangerous.

            Don’t you ever get tired of hating so much and then being so afraid?

          • MrStoneheep

            Congratulations!! You just won An All Expenses Paid Trip to ……….(drum roll) AutoDelete File.

      • ObozoMustGo

        siggie… I don’t hate liberals. I’m a liberal in the libertarian sense of the word. I do hate leftist freak ideology, however. Not sure exactly where you stand, but you’re probably one of those liberty and freedom hating leftist freaks who believes in the primacy of government and its ability, albeit false, to control every aspect of life through legislation. To eliminate all perceived inequality. Right? If so, it’s your ideas I despise, not you. Your mind is diseased if you think like that. There is hope for you, however. But you must be open to learning and reasoning, not just feeling things based on jealousy and envy. I recommend you read a book called “The Secret Knowledge” by David Mamet. He was a former leftist/liberal that woke up. He’s also a famous playwrite and movie director. Give it a shot. It’s very funny, also. You will like it. I promise.

        Oh.. one other point…. you ask “why not live and let live?”. My response is that I 100% agree with you. Where I suspect we diverge from one another is on the matter of who pays for you to live how you wish to live. You see, when nearly 50% of what I earn is taken from me by leftist politicians empowered by voters like you, you are not letting me live how I want. Instead, I am enslaved 50% of the time. What exactly is “live and let live” about that?

        Merry Christmas!

        “There is all the difference in the world, however, between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent — William Graham Sumner’s famous example of B and C decided what D shall do for A. The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged — but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty. The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty.” – Milton Friedman

  • I must respectfully disagree with everything in the above article and with most of the reader’s comments as well.

    The horrific tragedy in Newton, Ct has certainly struck a chord with us all. Our sympathy and compassion for those affected demonstrates all that is good about America.

    However; that does not obviate the need to respond rationally to our emotional turmoil. None of the gun/ammo ban concepts offered up will have any impact on the causes of the violence; but the erosion of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms will have an impact on your ability to exercise a right that is fundamental to all free men. It will guarantee that the American government becomes more powerful and less respectful of the collective (the American citizens). There are already are a plethora of gun regulations in place limiting our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It already is a felony to enage in illegal gun trafficking. It already is illegal to own armor-piercing ammunition. The previous so-called Clinton “assault weapons” legislation had ZERO impact on violent crime and murders, period. Everyone of you who is jumping on the bandwagon to further limit your own personal rights should take a history lesson. Look at what happens when individuals subjugate themselves to government. “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. These are the facts.

    • MrStoneheep

      Well put and quite true in all aspects.

  • howa4x

    We should debate child saftey and talk about the most effective way to acomplish that. We need to change the focus from getting assualt weapons off the streets where we failed last time with horrible results at Waco and Ruby Ridge to limiting the magazines and ammo. Background checks have to be instituted where ever guns are sold. If a gun show is coming to an area then they should get the word out that a gun will not be sold unless the person has a signed form from the police department of the town they reside in and that the seller keeps that info for 5 yrs. Let the police do the background checks.. In order to get a driver’s license you need to show 3 forms of ID why should you be able to buy a weapon with none, that is negligence on the part of the NRA and supporters in Congress. We cannot continue to have buying a gun the easiest thing we can do. The blood of every shooting is on the feet of the NRA and their supporters

  • arlanhp

    The 2nd amendment to our excelent constitution, probably met a real need in the country when it was written. That was over two hundred years ago. It is now obsolete and needs to be removed. Our supreme courts have made it clear, ( read “2nd amendment in wicopedia.) It is clear we will have to have a public uprising , and recind the obsolete amendment before we can expect good laws on a major problem. New gun laws will and should be different in large city’s than in safe hunting areas of the country.
    We sure don’t need to follow the insanity of the N R A and put a armed “George Zimmerman” on each school. Even if the N R A volenters to pay for them it would be a form of insanity we should not need to put up with.

  • Sun Tran

    Since some congressmen may get some benefits from NRA lobby and they will find some way to help NRA ,ignore public’s aspiration.Gun control is a very important matter.Therefor, Let the people to make decision through referendum. .If The people stand up, they can solve any problem and no forces can prevent their decision to express their aspiration.

  • It says “banning for everyone except the military”, and there you have it. These light and rapid firing weapons are still always going to be made, so then all this proposed legislation is going to do is to disadvantage normal honest citizens. It will disarm the Korean grocers of LA, end the whole idea of local militia or citizens soldier, and create an elite of the military and criminals who don’t care about law. What is to stop something like another Holocaust? Is anyone foolish enough to believe governments, which have always become corrupt and need to be fought in the past, will somehow miraculously become perfect from now on? After criminals, our main threat to our freedom IS the military, and this legislation ensures that only both these threats will be the only ones armed.

  • An originalist sort of twist on firearms regulation would be to legislatively regress the technology. For instance, there is talk about banning high capacity magazines; I would suggest banning magazines altogether; make it law that a gun can have one or two barrels and must not be able to hold more than one round per barrel. If that does not slow down rates of fire enough to prevent Newtown style massacres, then tax cartridges at five dollars per round but do not tax cap-and ball ammunition at all.

    If a would-be mass murderer is limited to firing two shots and then has to take the time to reload a cap-and-ball weapon (20 seconds for a well-drilled nineteenth century soldier), there will be lots of time for all but two of his intended victims to either jump him or run away. Result, no more massacres.

  • So then every time a crime is committed against a person who was prevented from being armed, they should be able to sue YOU!
    Weapons don’t cause crimes, but prevent them.

  • Do you think President Obama would rather send his children to a school that had armed guards. or a school with no one armed, but a law “banning” weapons?
    The best soultion would be for all schools to have several teachers or other personal trained & armed, and ALL teachers and personal to have strong pepper spray. This would be very low cost and create many, many sources of protection.

  • How do you expect to keep weapons out of the hands of “crazy people”?
    Laws are not going to do that, because there already are the strictest laws against murder, and that certainly did not stop them. How are you going to stop “crazy people” from stealing, smuggling, making, or otherwise getting the means of causing violence? Even if no firearms existed in the entire world, they could still use vehicles, flammables, toxins, etc. There is no way to prevent access to deadly materials in this society. Those “crazy people” just need better public health care that would identify and take care of them before they try to commit violence.

  • How is banning all firearms going to make our society safer? Criminals are not going to obey those new laws any more than they would obey the stricter laws they already intentionally break.
    All that would do is greatly increase crime and violence, because then there would be no defensive threat.
    Not only that, but by disarming the average citizen, it would put an end to the whole concept of equality under the law, the ideal of the citizen soldier, the belief that the government is by and of the people.
    What you suggest is going back to the aristocracy and the elite ruling over us once again. You would go back to women being unable to prevent rapes, shop owners being unable to prevent thefts, and minorities being unable to prevent Holocausts.

  • 2008 quote by Joe Biden. If Obama wants to ban my weapons, he will have a problem with my Beretta.” What phonies you Liberals are, no principles, just what feels good at the moment.

    • MrStoneheep

      Thank you. I remember that now that you’ve reminded me. early onn during the primaries, was it not? Siccum’ Joe !! Yeah, sure.

  • According to the NRA the solution to the problem is mor guns. They want to see every school as a armed camp. That is going to be a great learning enviroment for our children. I hope the politicians stand up to them. But I believe it’s going to be the same argument over again ” guns don’t kill people, people kill people” hello, the american public must demand that our representatives put a end to this madness. No parent should have to be afraid to send their children off to school.

  • alumahead

    Why not call it the Firearms Reform Anti-Butchery Act.

  • It seems that when more people own guns, the number of people killed by guns increases.

    • MrStoneheep

      Nancy, perhaps that is because they now ADVERTISE where the guns ARE NOT. The “Gun Free Zones”. Some (schools) are so by mandate w/i the law and others,
      like the movie theater in Aurora, by required signage in the front of the business.

  • onedonewong

    They should just call it the bill to prevent nut jobs and mooooslims from buying guns. Anyone who is taking drugs or seeing a psychologist for mental heath issues needs to be banned from ever owning a gun. Enough with the politically correct nonsense

    • MrStoneheep

      They are supposed to be NOW, and were supposed to have been years and years ago, all the way back to the beginning of the BG check. Their doctors hide behind the doctor/patient cloud, so the mentally impaired don’t get put on the No Buy with the NCIC. Let me pose a question here; Regarding the Ex-Marine released yesterday from the Mexican jail – should he be allowed to carry any firearm in the USA at this time or when we was arrested in Mexico? Also, when thinking it through, was/is the firearm he was arrested with an antique firearm by definiton within our existing gunlaws as was/is being reported by the media? I do know he was a combat veteran Marine (as am I), but does this give him any extra rights over all other US citizens? No, it does not. The other two questions are serious and need answered. (for those unfamiliar, antique firearms by definition of “antique” within the statues are exempt from the Gun Control Act, as are
      “primitive arms”, powder guns)

      • onedonewong

        The x marine? depends if we are discussing the same case, was this the guy to declared a shot gun and the federalies arrested him any way?? If that’s the one OF COURSE he should be allowed to carry a gun he did NOTHING wrong

        • MrStoneheep

          Being a Marine myself, (there are no ex-marines -sorry Cpl. I boo-booed)
          Are we not picking and choosing if we elect to not include PTSD into a
          category of being mentally challenged? I wasn’t speaking of what the Mexican authorities did or did not do, I’m speaking of the existing gun laws here in the US. He did what US officials told him to do when he crossed, but what of when here? Was he legally carrying then? I don’t have the answer, but I’m intereted in the group opinion, and where do we draw the line with regards to the mental capacities? Either way could be that slippery slope again.

  • leedaily

    – Banning all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines for everyone except the military.

    – Requiring instant background checks on all gun purchases, including those at gun shows and online.

    – Providing law enforcement full access to all state and local databases on felons and the mentally ill.

    – Making illegal gun trafficking a felony.

    I can go along with theses except the first. The second amendment was not about hunting. It was about protection. Last resort protection from bad guys in and out of government.

    You same people will sacrifice our young people by sending them off to war so you can have cheep oil, or other cheep crap. Don’t be such hypocrites.

    This piece of crap that shot up the school in Conn. probably would have used something else to do his killing if his mother had not be as careless as she was. From accounts in the media he was smart enough to design a bomb, use a vehicle, even a shotgun would have been as devestating.

    The problem with most of the anti gun people is they have no understanding of firearms. When they talk about assault rifles they have no idea what they are talking about. They also seem to be naive to really bad people in the world. The also seem to be under this illusion that another Nazi type regiem could never exist. Maybe the need to0 take a trip through the Holocaust Museum to see what can happen to an unarmend civilian population.

  • problemwpeople

    having read most of the comments from this subject it frustrates me that this tragic insidence is being used to further peoples beleif that we are not responsible enuogh to make the right decisions for ourselves and that we as a society are not willing to take responsiblity for our actions. where in this debate has it been bruoght up that this mother( of the shooter) knew that her son had mental issues and then decided to buy,own guns , in apparently unlocked storage , and take him to the range to target shoot , knowing he was unstable. what kind of decision making goes into that process. why is no body talking about civil suits against the family that raised this truobled,but responsible boy . we as people make decisions that we have to accept the consequecnes for don’t we .if i run you over in my car is the car manufacturer responsible? to blame the gun makers for these types of crimes is like blaming a snake for being bad when it bites you, the snake is just a snake and the gun is just a gun, it’s how i behave with either of them that determines the outcome.

    do we as a people really think that it’s up to the government to keep us safe from ourselves. have you ever seen the government enact legilation that fairly and broadly applies to all and that doesn’t leave loop holes or get screwed up. look at how the government works together on the fiscal cliff or any problem and tell me you think republicans/democrates will get much of anything right.

    this country is in a mess because people don’t want to take responsiblity for their actions.

    • MrStoneheep

      Sir, I’m humiliated. I wish had said that, and as eloquently as you did, Mr troublewpeople.

    • oldtack

      I like this article. It makes sense. Are you sure you are on the right forum?

  • Eleanor

    I just don’t see why the person should be able to sue the maker or retailer of guns, if they have followed the law to the letter when they sold the gun, Remember the guy in Newtown did not buy the guns, he stole them. Why should the retailer be responsible because some nutcase stole a weapon and killed someone??? Makes about as much sense as a patient sue a doctor for “making her sterile” after explaining all aspects of a total hysterectomy, and she signed the consent, verbally consented to the doctor she understool what was entailed in the operation. Neither makes sense to me. Sue the killer all for that, but most of them are “broke”, or deranged people, so that is a lost cause. Money won’t bring back those murdered, but could serve to help pay for all the medical a shooting vivtim has.



    “A rose by another other name is still a rose.” Likewise, control of firearms by any other other name is still gun control.

    But, that should extend beyond a ban of the sale of these killing devices to also include the purchase of an expensive permit in order to possess one of them. If the permit is not purchased, the gun must be turned over or put out of commission. Kind of like the recent clunker automobile buy back ” to rid the streets of these dysfunctional vehicles (read that assault rifles now).”

  • sleeprn01

    I agree with Mr. Alter that “gun control” can be a very derisive term. I think that the current level of gun violence should be treated as a public health issue. If there were a virus that was killing 15-20 people per day in our country, congress and the public would be demanding that the CDC and the NIH do something about it. We already know what one of the main causes of violence is, we know the vector (what carries the causative agent), and there has been plenty of epidemiology done on the disease (violence). Mr. Alter has listed 4 possible treatments for this disease know as gun violence.

  • William Pyle

    Gun control is a bunch of bull crap.It’s not the gun manufacters , gun dealers fault it’s the ones who purchase the guns.The lady who’s son did all the shooting it’s her fault for not having her guns locked up in the first place.You can buy a car run people over out shopping.Who’s fault the car maker or the car dealer no it’s the one who’s driving it.Same way you can take all the guns away & the nuts, criminals will use what they can get there hands on knifes, baseball bats ect. You can make a bomb out of house hole chemicals.Are they going to ban them if so everybody going to be alful bad stinky.Can’t have people running around stinking or naked.The people who are up in arms are nothing but a bunch of crazed lunatics out on a witch hunt.There like a bunch of cattle on a stampede follow the others over the cliff.People need to come too there right minds.Hellooooo!!!! America wake up it’s the criminals who at fault!! We need to punish them to the fullest amount of time or put them to death.They don’t mess around in other countrys if they take a life they die.Stop the crying about capital punish death.You think the criminal cares about you.No way they don’t loose a nights sleep over anybody but them selfs.If giving another chance they would do it all over again.People guns have been around for hundreds of years.It’s just that they gotten better & better.Some people enjoy going out shooting at the range – trap shooting – hunting.But it’s there responsibility to lock them up afterwards like the lady of the crazed son should have done even she was a target shooter.Don’t make wrong mistakes in blaming other good ones for the faults of the stupid ones. REMEMBER TO LOCK YOUR GUNS UP WHEN NOT IN USE. THE LIFE YOU SAVE MIGHT BE SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY OR EVEN YOURS. GOD BLESS USE ALL WE SURELY NEED IT BAD. If you don’t like what I print to say K M F A

    • leedaily

      People forget 6 million people died in Germany in the 1940s because they had no way to defend themselves. If anyone thinks it could not happen today they are dumber than a bag of hammers and should live in lala land. I guess they do already in their own minds.
      If the anti-gun people want to confiscate guns .. ain’t happenin’. They want to have a serious dialog on keeping guns away from scum bags like tha last one and ideas to keep our schools safe then we’re getting somewhere.
      Also I might add that our criminal justice system is so concerned with petty drug crimes that they let out the violent ones to make room for the pot offenders. Mentally ill are allowed to roam about freely. They go off their meds or don’t take them and look out.
      We have children being abused which creats monsters. The courts end up putting them back with the parent to be injured more, killed or turned into a monster. They do this so that the child can be brought up in it’s own culture, with it’s birth parent or what ever dumba## excuse they can think up.
      Got off on a tangent but this is not just about gun control. These dots do connect.

  • thebunt

    From the Melbourne, Australia AGE newspaper (under the heading ‘What we can, and should, say to a grieving Anerica’.

    The first part of the column remembers that during the Civil War years, being passioantely opposed to slavery was an obsessive, psychologically unhealty state and the freedom of slave owners was seen as being under attack. And today, if you are NOT passionately opposed to slavery, what sort of human being are you? And comparisons are made to the gun issue.

    The column ends: What can Australians say to Americans? We can say that there are other realities out there beside your own. How the world is for you is not how it has to be. We live in a different way and sincerely believe it is better. We respect you greatly as a nation but fear you are trapped in a mytholoogy that devfoures it’s adherents and, inevitably, their children.

    There, I have done my part as an Aussie who has friends and relatives in America.

  • thebunt

    Have you ever wondered why citizens of other developed countries don’t feel they need guns to protect themselves? What makes America so different? Could it be the Constitution, which allows people to protest at the funerals of men killed in war, rich men and groups spending unlimited funds to influence an election, and gives someonepermission to kill someone else, simply because they are scared of them?

    What if the Constitution was lost and another one had to be rewritten from scratch, to reflect today’s times. How much would it look like the old one?

  • thebunt

    Go door to door. Offer to buy back any guns at a realistic price. Then if someone can identify someone who still has a gun, that gun is collected AND the realistic price is given to the person who reported the gun, not the owner.

  • panicalep

    Why not require all gun owners to have third party liability insurance similar to what we require of auto drivers before they sit behind the wheel? Cars are a lot less lethal than guns. We would get away from “gun control” and Second Amendment Rights and get down to insurance companies vetting eligible owners. I am sure they would do a damn good job before issuing a policy and weed out the lunatics among us.

    It is simple enough of a solution to be understood by all Americans, especially those who own and drive cars, that alone however would not be enough for all of our politicians, the NRA, lobbyists, and a few others who feared losing their power and control over the rest of the fed-up American citizens.

    Our Founding Fathers never intended our citizens to have free access to automatic assault weapons with high capacity clips when they enacted our Second Amendment. The real reason was that the initial armed confrontation that led to our Revolutionary War began at Lexington in 1775, when British soldiers were on their way there to disarm our colonists of their guns.

    Lights in North Church and Paul Revere notified our colonists of the impending danger then. Right now we need a light from Washington, DC and a vote by our politicians to notify our citizens of impending danger if we do do something to not stop the impending danger of further massacres in our great country.

  • jpalmer5

    They should also provide a provision that NO weapon be sold without a “trigger-lock”, whether sold commercially, at gun shows, or by individuals. Kind of like a seat belt. It will definitely help for those who use them!

  • Why not have a national database on those purchasing weapons & ammo so it would raise red flags to law enforcement that someone is hoarding lots of guns & ammo to potentially engage in a mass shooting? I know gun owners will freak out but the fears of the paranoid few shouldn’t be driving public policy. We’ve let their values run the show for decades and all its produced is 1.5 million dead Americans and 60+ mass shootings.

  • “state laws allowing concealed weapons are a menace”

    There is absolutely no evidence to support that ridiculous claim.

  • MrStoneheep

    To old_blu: Why do I make defining the piece such a critical part? Without, we continue to get worthless “feel good” laws passed that do absolutely nothing to curb gun violence. Definition is necessary to eliminate the misconceptions and incorrect statements about guns. Look at just one professed (confessed?) target shooter and ex-hunter, amarquez647, that used the phrase
    “automatic weapons” when he was actually talking about semio-autos. Now, we are hearing from NBC News it may be questionable if the perp even HAD the AR 15 inside the school with him inside the school. The ME stated the day of the incident the children he viewed were all shot multiple times with a .223. Really? A little quick to have THAT forensic evidence. (to my knowledge, there is no handgun that is chambered for the .223 Rem, unless possibly Thompson Center makes a barrel for their single shot) Then the State Police Lt. states there were three guns in the school, which he now says four guns inside the school, and ALL are handguns. The rifle is then shown being removed from the trunk of the car and it’s dead dark night time – well after the actual incident. Then, on here, someone adds they cannot fire 60 rounds from a 1100 Remington in 60 seconds as you can with an Ar 15. With four 1100’s, I’ll get pretty close to that number, but the perp used semi-auto handguns, another I do not use. When there are four semi-auto hand guns involved, the answer changes vastly. 60? Easily. Accuracy may be a problem, but that close, this isn’t a big concern of the perp. From what’s going on now, maybe we SHOULD stand back and let it cool for a bit and see what truly and truthfully comes from the investigations. Then, when we have all the FACTS, react, and with truthful information without all of our knowledge provided by
    TV shows and Rambo movies.
    The other part of your post is the better part. Yes, I’m responsible. I have gun safes. Here lies a big problem there however. A woman who feels her son is falling off the edge, but rather than talk about it, she should have done something about it. No, she takes him to the gun range. From what I’ve seen of her home on the news, she wasn’t penniless, and she sure wasn’t using any good thought process in her actions. Will taking the semi automatic rifles away from the American public solve the problem? If so, I’d even GIVE the two I own (shotguns – not rifles), but I know it won’t because it didn’t before, and it won’t again. From 1994 to 2004, did it stop the violence with the then “assault weapon ban” or the hich capacity magazine ban, or the stamp on all guns sold in that period? Not at all.

  • If you have never encountered Road Rage.

    If you have never encountered a heated argument between friends, family members, co-workers or even complete strangers.


    However, if you have ever seen any of these take place, you should have the mental capacity to understand that nearly EVERYONE is capable of doing things that under normal conditions would SEEM irrational.

    Why is there so much debate over limiting semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles, 30 round, (or more), magazines, etc.


  • Wouldlike

    Our politician would love taking every one’s guns away, they would love to control all of the unarmed people in the United States, then they could really make slaves of all of us. If every body can’t see how they take care of us, with this financial mess we are in, you better wake up and start thinking for yourself.

    • oldtack


      Have you personally contacted your elected Politicians from the State in which you reside. You can broach this to them in person or by email or a personal letter. “Our Politician…” indicates this is the desire of all 635 + elected officials in Washington. Have you checked this with all of them? Is this statement your personal opinion or is it truth backed by documentation? If it is truth with documentation then you may want to share the source with the rest of us on the forum.

  • liestopper

    I agree with some of the statements made in the article. I have always believed that closing sales online should have been done a long time ago and closing loopholes at guns shows. But FULL ban on assault rifles will never work…as proven during the Clinton years. What should be done is a hardline background check on anyone wanting to purchase a military style semi-auto. I lot of people I know including myself have them but we go to shooting ranges to shoot . Your trying to take my right away to do that with a firearm that people are labeling bad guns. With the latest request for a harsh gun ban, retail stores have sold out of ammo, rifles and pistols. Does that not worry you that such gun control language has done the opposite of what is needed. In the last week there has been more guns sold than needed. People are buying that never owned guns before. I am a pro-gun person but that scares me a little is knowing that there has been an increase of sales and it will only get worse when congress brings measures to ban certain guns and magazines. There are people now that are stocking up on ammo because they feel that will be next so to make a few feel safe you in turn just cause an increase in the sales of the so called bad guns…If there was a stricter background check on this particular firearm…there would be less purchases of it and close online sales. To buy a gun now all you have to do is fill out a 4473 and do a NICS check and in a matter of a few minutes you can be approved to buy it. If there was a stricter check for military style semi-autos like looking into your background for mental, criminal checks like they do when a person is applying for a job with the FBI or any other federal law enforcement , I feel the average person will think twice about going through that trouble to buy one. Only people that know they are clean and truly want the firearm will go through the process, a process that should take days and not minutes to do.. I will never tell someone that they do not have the right to protect themselves especially when they live in an area where the police take so long to respond and for people that just go to the range with their firearms but there needs to be a more strict check on this type of weapon and not an out right ban….If there is a ban what do you do with the ones that are already purchased??????

    • oldtack

      Criminals are always going to find avenues for purchasing what they need. The psychos and weirdos are always going to find some means to wreak their havoc even if they have to break in and steal a weapon.
      A total gun ban is impractical and given the millions of guns in the private sector it would be an almost impossible endeavor both physically and legally.

      I agree with a lot of your statements – it delves around control of purchase practices.
      Hopefully our Congress will use some of these common sense approaches to rectifying this situation rather than yielding to knee-jerk reactions.
      This is a good post.


    The second amendment defends the first amendment.


    What a joke, Eric Holder, aka Mr. Fast and Furious, present in the mist of gun control.


    Biden, “to keep you in chains” will need to take your guns away.


    If the state department can’t defend Benghazi, don’t disarm those of us who protect and defend our homes.

  • No gun ban!! We need a Criminal ban! A Liberal ban! Round up all the crooks in Washington and ban them to prison.

    • oldtack

      Note that you are from Georgia and you are a friend of Eyma Lyer. That figures. You sound like two peas from the same pod.

  • Byron

    When you say you want the police to have access to a database of the mentally ill, how do you define mentally ill, or what qualifies to be placed in the mental ill database? What roles would the police have? Seems to me this opens up a huge opportunity for abuse. Could you be on the list for having taken and anti depression medicine? Or be labeled maladjusted for protesting the crimes of the sociopathic 1%? Will the mentally ill need to kept under police surveillance? Shall we have a new War on the Mentally Ill? That seems like a typical approach for us. Or perhaps we should get the church involved as well. I hear they are really good with demonic possession. I suppose in a police state there are only police solutions, however if we are a society of compassion and cooperation we make sure the weak, handicapped, and helpless are cared for in a safe and nurturing manner and not placed on a watch list like the next wave of terrorists.

    • leedaily

      I agree that this could be a slipery slope. I know a lot of cops most of them are good but a significant like to abuse power. I would say a data base for violent offenders would be good.

  • oldtack

    Give us a Break!!
    Better than that – give us factual proof. Quit surfing the Web for truth – you won’t find it. All you find is other’s speculations and beliefs. Exercise your power of inductive reasoning and seek out the truth. Persevere and you will find it.

  • This write up is fantastic, educative and very enlightening. I pray that the wherewithal shall be provided and the boldness and the courage to forge ahead. One warning for the NRA and its backers: if those children were their own children, would they still be adamant in the effort of the present Obama Administration to control the use of gun. Let us think twice.