Type to search

National Gun Fever Shows No Sign Of Breaking

Memo Pad National News

National Gun Fever Shows No Sign Of Breaking


Apparently, there will be no ban on assault weapons.

Never mind that Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type rifle to rip apart the bodies of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT. Forget the fact that James E. Holmes, the alleged Aurora, CO, movie theater shooter, fired, among other weapons, an AR-15.

Nor does it seem to make any difference that Jared Loughner — the man who shot Gabby Giffords and killed six others, including a 9-year-old girl — used a high-capacity magazine that the Clinton-era assault-weapons ban rendered illegal. A high-capacity magazine also enabled the massacre committed by Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech.

The political climate has changed since the 1994 ban: Democrats have cowered before the gun lobby; the National Rifle Association has grown even more extreme; the U.S. Supreme Court has moved much further to the right. And, in the 20 years since Congress banned assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines, Americans have heard a steady drumbeat of pro-firearms rhetoric that fetishizes the Second Amendment. In other words, the climate around firearms has gotten crazier.

Even before the current debate over more restrictive gun laws began, most political observers knew it would be difficult to get Congress to stand up to the firearms lobby. So it’s no great surprise that Majority Leader Harry Reid, who runs from the shadow of the National Rifle Association, slammed the door on Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s effort to re-up the assault-weapons ban.

Still, I find myself once again wondering just how bad things have to get before the fever breaks — before the country comes to its senses on firearms. We’re in the throes of a kind of madness, a mass delusion that assigns to firearms the significance of religious totems.

Many critics of an assault-weapons ban note that it would not provide any magical cure-all for the mass shootings that have plagued us over the years since Columbine. That’s certainly true. But banning at least some assault-type weapons and the high-capacity magazines that feed them would be a step in the right direction. Why can’t we take that step?

Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1


  1. sigrid28 March 23, 2013

    The cause for limiting gun violence through federal law IS lost for now. However, localities and state legislatures are responding to the epidemic of gun deaths with new laws and enforcement of old ones. The NRA has not been able to stifle public discourse completely as it has in the past, though it has done its best to garble legitimate debate by injecting crazy ideas and double talk. At the same time, the gun and ammunition makers who fund the NRA have been flooding the market with more and “better” guns and ammunition. Fewer households may now have a gun than did before, but households of gun enthusiasts may be even more saturated, to continue the metaphor. There does seem to be, at the same time, the perception that a silent majority in favor of doing something effective to curtail gun violence is growing around the noisy minority of the NRA and its supporters.

    In the meantime, most Democrats and Republicans will be safer in their states and districts as the 2014 elections approach, because they will have gone on record as supporting the pro-NRA riders attached to this week’s bill that extends the CR beyond March 27th. If the president does not sign it before the 27th, the government will go unfunded, because the House and Senate will not be able to do a retake–they will be on their long spring vacations. We will all return refreshed from a somber lesson: nothing will change until the public forces elected officials to vote against the NRA.

    1. charleo1 March 23, 2013

      It’s maddening isn’t it? If guns kept us safe in our homes, why not require
      one, or two? Like smoke alarms! Checking the gun in our cars before heading
      out, would be like buckling up. And, we shouldn’t forget Junior, or Missy, here.
      There’s a heck of a lot of perverts out there! Something small, and light weight,
      for their backpack, or book bag, would make Chester think twice, before grabbing the next kid. It’s intoxicating. It’s one too many, Die Hard, sequels, and late night, Bronson movies. Where, the ordinary citizen is fed up with being bullied, and pushed around by criminals. And, it’s also the system. That seems incapable of locking away the truly evil, from decent folk, and their kids. That gun, that instrument, designed to do only one thing, to kill human beings. We buy, and bring into our homes. Statistics literally screaming at us, it is much more likely to kill a member of our family, than a bad guy. But it doesn’t feel that way. Our cars, that we lovingly wash, and pamper with gifts, and even think about as a member of our family, some of us do. Kills 30/40 thousand of us every year. It is the most dangerous machine we own, until we buy a hand gun. But the reason I think we continue to buy so many guns. Enough to arm every man, woman, and child old enough to hold one, is the sheer momentum of the proliferation of guns.
      And the fear, that well intentioned laws, will only serve to disarm the law abiding.
      Not necessarily the case. But one the NRA, and the gun lobby, are happy to

      1. sigrid28 March 23, 2013

        I think it is an inspired observation, that the proliferation of guns is a symptom of our failure to understand who the bad guy really is. Thanks to the NRA’s cynical campaign of paranoia (a ruse to sell guns and ammo) and a justice system that fills prisons with drug addicts turning them into criminals, firearms have become our equalizer of choice, and I mean equalizer in every sense of the term.

      2. sigrid28 March 23, 2013

        I ask you to bear with me. I want to respond to your sense that gun culture has taken a turn for the worse in our time.

        Last year, PBS featured an excellent biography of Harper Lee, that set me to rereading “To Kill A Mockingbird” (1960). It describes in semi- autobiographical detail the effects of a violent racial incident in 1936, in a town based on Lee’s hometown, Monroeville, Alabama. When a black man is falsely accused of a crime against a white woman, the young narrator’s father, attorney Atticus Finch, takes the case pro bono. One subplot involves Scout’s growing understanding of her father and his work. She is surprised to learn that he is a crack shot with a rifle, when county law enforcement enlists his expertise to bring down a rabid dog staggering through the emptied streets of their home town and terrifying the public.

        The memorable passage in Harper Lee’s novel brought to mind another famous scene in a world-class novel by a southern author, Zora Neale Hurston. In “Their Eyes Were Watching God” (1937), the heroine has the sickening experience of having to shoot her lover with a rifle in self-defense. He threatens her with a pistol after he’s gone mad from rabies, which he contracted saving her from a rabid dog during the flood caused by the breaching of Florida’s Lake Okeechobee in the hurricane of 1928. After the loneliness and horror of watching her beloved Tea Cake descend into madness, the crack of the rifle saves them both and symbolically restores sanity to their southern community, just as it does in “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

        Both women write eloquently of the deep South, depicting a time when guns brought order out of chaos, situations in which the crack of a rifle secured the peace of a community under threat of being overtaken by insanity and certain, miserable death. In the recent past, we as Americans have had to add to our terrible roster one and then another and another massacre by an insane gunman. It makes me heartsick to notice how the tables have turned so cruelly for the citizens of Aurora, Colorado, and Newtown, Connecticut–indeed, for us all. In our towns, rabid creatures are heavily armed and have us in their sites.

        1. charleo1 March 23, 2013

          Well, yes. I think that is exactly right. The genesis of much of our
          gun culture, began on the frontier. The gun over the hearth, providing
          both food, and protection to those early settlers. That also served
          to spread, in the minds of the Judeo-Christian missionaries, the word
          of their, “true,” God across a continent. The idea of God’s approval,
          as manifest destiny. Why else, would God see fit, they may have
          reasoned, to put the more powerful weapon in their hands. Instead
          of the, “indigenous, savage?” I had not thought of the mad dog scene,

          in, TKM, as a statement about the South, and it’s relationship to guns.
          But, it is actually a very logical reason for the author to choose to
          include it in the story. After I posted this morning, I thought I should
          have mentioned, that despite the objections by some to any form of gun control, I do see, with each incident, a growing desire, by ever greater numbers, the realization that there are things we should do, that a majority of us would agree with. The results of several major polls, shows, 80/90% of us think we should do a better background checks, and require them with all firearm sales. That we should register our guns. To help law enforcement catch criminals using
          guns. It’s madness to have to ask, how many more of our children
          must be shot to bits, before we say, enough, and mean it?
          Of course, I don’t know. But, I’m sorry to say, it looks like, we may need another mass killing, or two.

          1. sigrid28 March 23, 2013

            Though gun fever has not even begun to subside, there does seem to be within the American public a diffuse momentum building, which might coalesce eventually into support for some form of legislation to curb gun violence. The problem for politicians is that voters in favor of gun laws do not yet make gun legislation a voting priority, while those opposed to restrictions on gun use do vote first and foremost to protect the right to bear arms–with skillful prompting by the NRA. It’s part of gun fever, I guess. That is what makes the NRA riders attached to the CR bill passed by both parties this week in Congress so infuriating. While it may take term limits for lawmakers to be released from the stranglehold the NRA has on them at the federal level, elected officials in a few localities and state legislatures seem to have a greater amount of flexibility than their federal counterparts, and seem to be making good use of it. In the meantime, the NRA has had so much success in convincing gun owners–and potential owners–that the bad guy is around every corner, that they are starting to see him everywhere, whether he is there or not.

          2. charleo1 March 23, 2013

            An excellent point on the politics of gun control, that’s worth
            remembering. Democrats have not voted for the candidate,
            that voted for gun control. Around the election, other issues
            take precedent. But, the NRA sure makes it a point, aganist
            him/her, come election time. So, perhaps we progressives
            need to do something about that. Also, we know Republicans
            tend to be incapable of empathy. Just as Portman changed
            his policy on Gay Rights, only after his Son came out. Ronald
            Reagan only passed gun control, after his press secretary,
            Brady, was nearly killed in the Assassination attempt on
            his life. Just a thought.

    2. Dominick Vila March 24, 2013

      I suspect the words of sympathy to relatives of victims of gun violence have more to do with the need to calm our conscience for our inability to act like responsible adults, than expressing condolences to those mourning their immense losses. It is plain cynicism on steroids by the disciples of the anti-Christ.

  2. nobsartist March 23, 2013

    I believe that we have many issues more important that gun control.

    1. JOBS
    2. Investigation of Wall Street
    3. Money paid out to homeowners screwed by the mortgage industry
    4. using the Sherman Act to break up the energy industry
    5. Using the Sherman Act to break up the banks
    6. A national voting law
    7. A health care bill that is not a continuation of another failed republiCON rip off of America.
    8. Indictment of every politician that supported bush and his war policy.

    Guns are important to politicians because they are afraid that they will be the next victims.

    1. sigrid28 March 23, 2013

      When you say “Guns are important to politicians because they are afraid that they will be the next victims,” I assume you mean that supporting legislation to curtail gun violence will cause politicians to lose elections and not that they fear being assassinated because too many guns are in circulation. There can never be too many guns.

    2. whodatbob March 23, 2013

      You said it wel:-). But I’d bet you PO the single issue gun control people.

    3. Michael Kollmorgen March 23, 2013

      Yep, you’re right on the money.

      Solve these other problems and maybe the gun craze might just melt away. But, I doubt it, too much money being made by too many people who have a stake in those issues.

      It’s not the general public at large either. Well, I don’t know, there is a lot of hate, greed and misunderstanding lurking behind this all. It’s been building up since the Reagan years. I don’t see any of this abating anytime soon.

      Who knows, maybe it’s going to take quite a few more Colimbines and Mass Killings before people finally wake up.

      We should have done something about our Gun Crazed society long ago before these special interest groups got so powerful and we didn’t have all the problems we have today.

      Personally, I think it’s way too late to really do anything effectively about it. Even if we were to totally Ban ALL guns sales in the country, we still can’t get rid of all the guns that are in private possession now.

      It would take a major revision of the 2nd Amendment to even approach a solution. And, THAT ain’t gonna happen.

      Putting it bluntly, we’ve screwed ourselves!

    4. Jon Lester March 27, 2013

      And drone strikes that kill children and make terrorists out of bereaved parents.

  3. Hal Slater March 23, 2013

    Where can I join an organization for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? I don’t want a gun and I don’t trust anyone who does. What these mass killings show is that no one is immune from “losing it.” Anyone with a gun can become a bad guy with a gun. Especially the “enthusiasts”. We have tolerated their little hobby long enough, now it has gotten too dangerous. Each state should have the right to outlaw guns if the citizens want it.

    1. Mary Grills March 23, 2013

      Well you might want to move to afganistan!They have no second amendment,so no change needed there.Just ask the thousands on innocent woman and children that have been slaughtered ,.Or maybe ask the indian school children who , when our government confiscated all guns were slaughtered by our very own government.
      The second amendment was put there so we the people can protect ourselves from a government who can’t or won’t protect us.To protect ourselves from tyranny.
      Times are really changing,the economy has plunged,jobs are pretty much gone, food prices on the rise.Gas,oil,electric,taxes have sky rocketed.People are becomming desperate.I will get a permit to carry a gun to protect my self from those who wish to cause harm.I live in the country where at one time used to be a quiet,peaceful place.And now there have been home invasions,robberies and assaults in my quiet little corner of the world.And it is not going to get better.
      Instead of focusing on what gun I choose to own,how about focusing on prescription drugs that kill more than 100,000 people a year,and add to that the number of victims killed by those on perscriptions,be it by guns,cars,knives and fists or whatever means they wish.Its not the guns that kill people,its people killing people.

      1. Rocky Mac March 23, 2013

        To add to your post, the 2nd amendment purpose was to arm citizens to defend our country from the enemy. They were referring to France and England. Yes a gun needs a person to fire it to do harm. Sad that parents do not take responsibility and lock the guns or put them in a safe place. I am referring to the recent children who have accidentally shot themselves or a sibling. A responsible parent would not let this child behind the wheel of his car, why let them get hold of a weapon?

        1. CPAinNewYork March 23, 2013

          The genesis of the Second Amendment is history: tyrants have traditionally confiscated weapons from the people as a first step in ensuring their reign. An armed population is harder to intimidate.

          1. Joe Reynolds March 23, 2013

            And that is why the founding fathers wrote this Amendment and formed this country as a Republic. Forming a check and balance government was’t such a bad idea either.

          2. CPAinNewYork March 25, 2013

            I agree. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst political system….except for all the rest. A smart man who knew how to turn a phrase.

          3. rkief March 24, 2013

            Our government was set up so that grievances could be remedied without the use of force, but apparently, some gun owners and their gurus, like Mr. La Pierre, are too impatient or domineering to let the democratic processes work. Instead, they profit and have more power by trying (quite successfully, apparently) to convince their minions that the democratic process does not work – and hence, we must all fear, and fight against our own government. Of course it can”t work – if we are fighting against it. They seem to prefer anarchy, where every person, especially if armed, is his own law – and if that’s so – why do we need government at all? What good are sheriffs or police if they are outgunned and have no more authority than those they are supposed to protect?

          4. CPAinNewYork March 25, 2013

            The only way to take away the citizen’s right to own guns is to pass a Constitutional amendment that voids the Second Amendment.

          5. Michael Kollmorgen March 26, 2013

            The problem with the 2nd Amendment, as with the Constitution in general, is that it is antiquated, dated beyond its use.

            The Constitution, as it stands, is too simplistic for our time and needs. Please notice, I said needs, not want – big difference.

            Now, let’s throw in all other 50 state Constitutions along with their bodies of laws. Is there any wonder why we’re having so many problem?

          6. CPAinNewYork March 26, 2013

            I don’t wonder. We have a pluralistic society. Many different races, religions, creeds, whatever. We’ve acquired most, if not all of the world’s “diversity” and we’re having trouble handling it.

            “Keeping a lid” on the dissension that appears to come with “diversity” is proving to be increasingly difficult. For example, there’s very little tolerance for others’ point of view. Arguments, as illustrated by this website, seem to quickly degenerate into insults and name calling.

          7. Michael Kollmorgen March 26, 2013

            The only problem we’re having with diversity is that some people are bigoted, racist and ignorant to the fact that diversity is what made our country great.

            The vast majority of this is coming from the White Race. The White Race is becoming a minority race and we’re seeing a backlash from it.

            As long as we have these types of people in our society, especially the ignorant ones, we’re always going to have trouble.

          8. CPAinNewYork March 26, 2013

            Diversity is nice and it is fair and equitable, but it did not make our country powerful. Note that I didn’t say “great,” because “great” is too subjective.

            The things that made the United States powerful were:

            The open frontier with abundant natural resources, which offered opportunity to those strong and adventurous enough to seize it.

            Driven entrepreneurs like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Armour, Hill, Stanford and others of that ilk. Men who Theodore Roosevelt called the “malefactors of great wealth.” They are profiled in a History Channel series titled “The Men Who Built America.”

            The demise of our international competitors, e.g. England, France, Germany and Japan.

          9. Michael Kollmorgen March 26, 2013

            You are largely correct.

            However, if it weren’t for the Chinese, the Railroads out west probably wouldn’t have been built. The Irish helped build most of our Eastern Railway System. In fact, they are investigating a mass burial site related to the Irish Labor at this time.

            Yes, many of these Entrepreneurs certainly prospered. On the East Coast, they primarily used European Immigrants in the Sweat Shops. And, we all know what the “Entrepreneurs” profited on using slave labor down south.

            Yes, it took Entrepreneurs to have the vision, but it took Immigrants to do the back breaking work to achieve that vision.

            In essence, these Entrepreneurs milked society for every cent they could get. Believe me, they didn’t do it for humanitarian reasons. In most of these people’s histories, they were Brutal Monsters while they were climbing the economic ladder.

            They only time they were benevolent was when they were getting old and afraid of kicking off. They then gave to charities and foundations (mostly for tax writeoffs), by the millions. But, they made a 100 times that amount.

            The first Rockefeller, Carnegie, the rest you mentioned, probably made enough loot to sustain his family for the next 100 generations.

            This is the group that makes up the .5% of our society. They were and probably still are the true power brokers.

          10. Michael Kollmorgen March 26, 2013

            The NRA and other special interest groups also love to create all sorts of Conspiracy Theories too to scare the crap out of ignorant people.

            Nothing like a good Doomsday Theory. When it involves Guns and God, forget it, they’ve got some people hooked line and sinker.

            This, of course, works against our form of democracy and our system of justice. This is another reason those Bronson-type movies are so popular – they feed this type of mindset and fear.

          11. rkief March 26, 2013

            Well stated, Michael; I only regret not having the words show the Gun, God, and anti-Gay groups how they are being used to destroy representative government for the power and profits of Big Guns, Big Religion, Big Bigots and Big Bucks.

      2. Hal Slater March 26, 2013

        You sound like Timothy McVeigh. He was exercising his self-percieved right to redress grievances, too. I do not believe the 2nd amendment is to permit people to fight the government.

  4. latebloomingrandma March 23, 2013

    Gun violence is a public health issue. Since Newtown, over 3000 Americans have been killed by gun violence. To not regulate who and how we acquire these weapons is nonsensical. If this were a virus or infectious disease killing this many people, everyone would be ready to pounce on the president for doing nothing. The next time we have an outbreak of salmonella or a new strain of influenza and people are dropping over, we could just site the libertarian mantra–you are freeee–including free to be sick and die.
    Yes– I know cars kill many people each year. But cars have a primary purpose other than killing someone. Plus, you need a license to drive, must maintain your car in safe condition, follow traffic laws and have insurance.
    The second amendment does give us a “right”, but it also talks about “well-regulated”, indicating that some laws surrounding the ownership of dangerous weapons are reasonable to the safety of the state at large. .

    1. johninPCFL March 23, 2013

      How many of the 3000 killed woud have been saved by eliminating access to the weapons in the proposed ban? If the averages of the last several years are still true, fewer than 20. Worth saving? Absolutely. But the bills that were debated would have changed nothing for decades. The weapons in closets all over America would still be accessible for decades, meaning those 20 lives saved would average out to less than one per year.
      Want to make a dent in the 30,000 annual gun-related deaths? Background checks, straw-man buyer laws, and training requirements would lower gun-related fatalities IMMEDIATELY. Trying to ban a set of weapons that would have no measurable impact on gun-related deaths plays to the NRA srong side. If you win, they will collect data showing no measurable impact and beat Congress over the head with it until a repeal is enacted (or the ban sunsets again.) If they win, they have protected A2 from the onslaught of the “crazies”.

      1. No2GOP March 25, 2013

        Liability insurance requirements or homeowner’s insurance riders for those that purchase such weapons should also be required. If a gun owner can show proof of passing a competency test, or approved training class, much like the Motorcycle Safety Foundation training, then they receive a premium reduction.

        1. Michael Kollmorgen March 26, 2013

          I like the idea of a added-on extra Liability Insurance. The more powerful the weapon, the more bullets it holds, the higher the insurance rate would go.

          Actually, I’m surprised the Insurance Companies haven’t considered this long ago. They’ve just about thought of everything else.

  5. Ed March 23, 2013

    This congress is a waste of taxpayer m0oney!

  6. Mark Forsyth March 23, 2013

    If and when we actually have a tyrannical government that is intent on the complete destruction of democracy in this country,one of the first things it will attempt to do will be to remove firearms from private ownership.This process will start with referencing the membership roles of the NRA.How convenient!

    1. Rocky Mac March 23, 2013

      That is the fear factor that some extremist are using as an excuse to deny any regulations or more strict regulations. There are millions who own firearms in this country that are not on the NRA membership roles. A tyrannical govt would not have a chance in hell to take all our guns. Don’t lose any sleep over that. But keep the gun close by.

      1. Mark Forsyth March 23, 2013

        I have never lost any sleep over this bullshit any more than I have ever bought the tripe that the NRA is pushing.The only thing they have ever had since becoming political is the fear factor.I have never bought the argument and never feared that my guns would be taken.The NRA is not worth the powder it would take to blow them away.I have no use for them at all.

    2. Mary Grills March 23, 2013

      IF and WHEN??????We are a REPUBLIC….NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!I guarantee that IF you attempt to remove guns from private citizens,you will be the enemy our constitution talks about.Enemies,foreign and DOMESTIC!!!Is that what you are???? So…..GOOD LUCK with that!!

      1. Mark Forsyth March 23, 2013

        You could not not be more ignorant if you tried.I’ll make a deal with you.As long as you and the assholes you support don’t try to take my guns,I will leave you alone.Deal????

        1. Mary Grills March 23, 2013

          I may have gotten a little defensive on your democracy statement,but in no way would I support ANYONE trying to take away guns.I do not belong to the NRA!So I,m not sure what assholes you are talking about!I fully support the right to bear arms!After rereading your first comment here,I realized I missunderstood your comment.(one of the things IT will attempt to do is remove guns from private citizens……I read in my mind(one of the things( I )will attempt to remove guns…….).I’m really not ignorant…..I’m just friggen tired!! I am sorry,and promise not to read anymore today.By the way you can keep your gun!!!LOL…..please laugh!!

          1. Mark Forsyth March 23, 2013

            Mary, it may be me who needs to offer apologies. Along with being entirely fed up with the NRA, I often am strident in offering my comments and responses.I too have high regard for the right to bear arms but feel many people take it too far in their interpretations these days.I have never felt that the second amendment should exclude long thought and contemplation regarding the use of common sense.That is an ingredient that should be required for gun ownership.Also,I too can sometimes misread something or even read it correctly but misinterpret what I have read so I do understand your explanation about reading.I’m just a guy who enjoys a bit of hunting in the fall. I have lived in big cities and in the country where I am now and I just never have had the mindset that I or my guns or my right to own them was in danger.Please accept my apologies for the “ignorant” comment.I will honor your request to laugh and thank you for reminding me of the need to understand rather than insisting on being understood.Have a good evening.

  7. itsfun March 23, 2013

    What makes politicians think that criminals will obey any gun laws? It seems our politicians want to keep the crooks armed and screw honest citizens. If what this President and Congress have done wasn’t so sad, they would be the biggest laugh in the world. I should correct that, they are the biggest laugh in the world. Let criminals out of jail, close the white house to American citizens, and spend 1 million dollars for hotel rooms for Joe Biden. What a joke.

    1. Michael Kollmorgen March 23, 2013

      For just one example, lack of gun control in such countries like Pakistan is one of the reasons you can go to just about any of their versions of a Flea Market and get any weapon you can afford.

      Lack of gun control over there ain’t helping them from killing each other by the thousands, is it.

      1. Jon Lester March 29, 2013

        How many Americans shoot each other over religious factionalism?

  8. Wjhat if armed guards had of been in these schools as well as all the othe schools in the U.S. and just like the schools where Obama has his kids ? Do any of you really think that armed kids or what ever would dare attack then ? I know very well that gun violance is a public health issue ! But it is much more than that ! This congress woman wats her name
    has been trying to have guins banned since she was elected so what the hell is that about ?
    keeping guns with high capaticy mags away from us , we who follow the laws want keep them out of the hands of those who just don’t give a damn ! In Sweden where I live though I am an Amercian ,I can’t get a gun but everybody who does not follow laws sure as hell can and dóes ! besides knives kills people in Sweden ! ban knives too !

    1. Michael Kollmorgen March 26, 2013

      It would be nice if you would use a Spell Checker.

  9. lana ward March 23, 2013

    Criminals will always have guns. If you don’t have one, you’re a sitting duck. How is that gun ban working out in Chicago???

  10. Paul Zahn March 23, 2013

    What amazes me is people wanting to take guns away from Law abiding people but at the same time, grant Amnesty to Millions of Illegals, that are responsible for the murder of 4,700 Americans “every” year on average, many of them children. The gun bans in place at Sandy Hook did nothing to stop the murder of those children, but keeping Illegals from entering AND staying in this country would save MANY, MANY more children that another ban.

  11. nobsartist March 24, 2013

    The lack of jobs and oversight on the banking and energy cabal is the REAL public health issue.

    Obama solved those problems by signing the bush tax cut extension which gave him a big tax return. Now, since it is beginning to look like he is even more useless than the AWOL coke head that lied us into 2 wars, instead of jobs we have a gun problem.

    Instead of going after the banks, we have to debate abortion.

    Both parties need to be tarred and feathered.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.