Type to search

Under Current Laws, Mass Murder May As Well Be A Constitutional Right

Memo Pad

Under Current Laws, Mass Murder May As Well Be A Constitutional Right


Every time we have one of these increasingly frequent ritualized killing sprees here in the United States, we have essentially the same national conversation. And then nothing happens. Between the First and Second Amendments as currently understood, mass murder may as well be a constitutional right.

Arguments about guns have been worn so threadbare that people may as well be having them in their sleep. Observing friends bickering on Facebook, I wondered what was the point?

To start with, guns will never be banned entirely. Saying they should be only empowers crackpots. So shut up with that, alright?

The Second Amendment, however, consists of one twenty-six word sentence, two of which are “well-regulated.” Furthermore, it was written to protect a citizen’s right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading musket with an effective range of fewer than 50 yards.

I’m all for that. No limits.

However, the notion that it’d be an impediment to liberty to limit ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles with 100-shot magazines, or to make it harder to buy 6000 rounds of ammo online strikes me as not merely foolish, but downright childish.

So when I read about somebody like Dudley Brown, executive director of Rocky Mountain gun owners, telling reporters there’s no need to inconvenience “law-abiding sportsmen and target shooters [who]…can easily blow through 400 or 500 rounds in one vigorous day at a shooting range,” I just want to say: How about growing up?

Gene Lyons

Gene Lyons is a political columnist and author. Lyons writes a column for the Arkansas Times that is nationally syndicated by United Media. He was previously a general editor at Newsweek as wells an associate editor at Texas Monthly where he won a National Magazine Award in 1980. He contributes to Salon.com and has written for such magazines as Harper's, The New York Times Magazine, The New York Review of Books, Entertainment Weekly, Washington Monthly, The Nation, Esquire, and Slate. A graduate of Rutgers University with a Ph.D. in English from the University of Virginia, Lyons taught at the Universities of Massachusetts, Arkansas and Texas before becoming a full-time writer in 1976. A native of New Jersey, Lyons has lived in Arkansas with his wife Diane since 1972. The Lyons live on a cattle farm near Houston, Ark., with a half-dozen dogs, several cats, three horses, and a growing herd of Fleckvieh Simmental cows. Lyons has written several books including The Higher Illiteracy (University of Arkansas, 1988), Widow's Web (Simon & Schuster, 1993), Fools for Scandal (Franklin Square, 1996) as well as The Hunting Of The President: The 10 Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, which he co-authored with National Memo Editor-in-Chief Joe Conason.

  • 1


  1. Bill July 25, 2012

    You Idiots seem to forget….. GUN”S DON”T KILL…. Should we ban Cars?

    1. William Deutschlander July 25, 2012

      Do you really think you offered anything that inteligently will address the gun epidemic getting into the hands of lunatics?

      1. Henry Zielinski July 25, 2012

        Interesting observation…and original! Incidentally, while it is true that automobiles (through use or abuse) can and do contribute to many deaths and injuries worldwide, an automobile is not deemed to be an assault weapon nor is it “well regulated” in any way under the 2nd amendment. Considering the number of motor vehicles operated daily compared to the number toting assault weapons and .40 caliber handguns, MV’s seem to have a spectacularly fine record!

    2. sheckyb July 25, 2012

      Hey Stupid! People don’t get in cars with the intention of taking out as many people as possible. An insane person like the one in Aurora does and has access to all the fire power he needs. The US leads all other countries 80 fold in gun violence, why? because we’re the only country in the world with absurd gun laws, but don’t worry, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the Gun Lobby’s bitches. The right to buy an assault weapon and 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet or at a gun show won’t be changing anytime soon, so you can go out and kill as many people as you want with impunity.

      1. ralphkr July 25, 2012

        The US also leads all other industrialized countries in number of deaths by sharp object and by blunt force trauma. We can take pride that there are 3 things that the US is a true leader now and has been for many years. Could it be that we are just more violent than the current residents of the countries that our ancestors came from?

        1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

          facts, please

          1. ralphkr July 26, 2012

            Overall intentional homicide death rate 2010-2011 in the US has been from 4.7 to 4.8 while in Canada, Ireland, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Spain, Norway, Austria the rate has run from 0.56 to a high of 1.62 per 100,000 people. Canada is highest at 1.62. Japan the rate is 0.35 to .36 deaths per 100K. Our violent death rate is lower now than it was from 2000 to 2009 when was 5 to 5.7 per 100K. Just over half of the deaths are by firearms in the US
            By the way, most statistics quoted by anti-gun advocates include suicides (well over half of suicides in the US are by gun and, in some areas, over half of ALL gun deaths are suicides). In the US approximately 50% intentional deaths are by fire arms, 30% by sharp object, and 20% by blunt force trauma (after factoring out asphyxiation and poisons). According to statistics from DOJ, CDC, UN, etc. A major problem in comparing countries is that there is no uniform method of coding deaths and many times a suicide by firearm is reported the same as an intentional homicide (not much of a problem when looking at deaths caused by sharp object or blunt object as very few people would be able to club them self to death).

    3. Joseph Pedersen July 25, 2012

      How truly facetious. The purpose of a car is transport. The purpose of an assault weapon is to kill humans. Yet cars are far more regulated than assault weapons. Now, genius, who’s the idiot?

      1. tokoloshi27 July 25, 2012

        Joe; your comment is arguably factually incorrect. Cars are not more regulated than (fully automatic) assault weapons.

        Sorry to say you are not a genius nfc.

        1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

          Cars are regulated. I have to register mine. I had to prove I could drive it to get a license. I am not allowed to drive it into a crowded movie theater.

    4. sheckyb July 25, 2012

      Guns kill and Americans don’t care.

    5. Henry Zielinski July 25, 2012

      Bill, if you truly hold those who disagree with you to be “idiots” (I.Q. <26) why do you
      bother attempting to communicate with this segment of humanity?

    6. old_blu July 25, 2012

      @bill– I read that story twice, and I didn’t even read between the lines that anyone wanted to ban guns. (you are part of the problem if you think that, you create a fear that is not there.)

      1. jarheadgene July 25, 2012

        Same crowd that has Romney running against a “made up Obama” not the real Obama. GOP = Demigogues Rule.

    7. hilandar1000 July 25, 2012

      You seem to be trying to cloud the subject of this discussion again. Guns do kill — granted it USUALLY, but not always, involves a person who pulls the trigger. But if there were no guns, particularly the kind that have the capability of shooting multiple bullets in a very short time span, the killer would not be able to kill large numbers of people before being stopped. Guns are designed for killing — cars are not. To drive a car, people have to receive training, testing, periodic retesting, and abide by the laws. If they do not, they cannot legally drive a car. Drivers also must insure the cars so that, if someone is injured by a car, their medical bills will be paid. In addition, when a car is involved in an accident where people are injured or killed, the car is usually damaged beyond repair. The same is not true of guns. Let’s try to keep the discussion civil and on track, and try to come to acceptable compromises on this issue. The NRA at one time was an advocate of gun control, but has deteriorated into a pawn of the gun industry. Their purpose in recent years has been to disseminate unsupportable information which they call “statistics” — although the figures never add up. Add that to the paranoia — which is also unsupportable — but nevertheless they try to shove down the throats of their members, and you have a number of people who are unwilling to compromise in any way. It doesn’t make any sense — you say you are loyal patriots of our country, and yet, in the next breath, you say that you believe the government is trying to take away all guns so that the people will not be able to protect themselves AGAINST the government, which is governed by the constitution — for which you SAY you have the greatest respect. Another puzzling fact is that, although you are quick to refer to the constitution when you want to make a point that suits your purposes, you call anyone who disagrees with you an “idiot”. Did you ever read the part of the constitution which guarantees the right of freedom of speech?

    8. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      No one has ever said we have to ban all guns. Your argument is like saying we need to take all regulations off cars and allow people to use armored tanks on the highway. Some things are appropriate and some are not.

  2. F DV July 25, 2012

    If all guns of each and every kind were baned, outllawed, the same thing can will will still happen. Its not guns its people. Lets ban people? That won’t happen so rampage like this is gonna happen
    NO MATTER what. The antil gun morons want a simplistic solution which isn’t going to happen. They have a pretend mentality and want laws on top of laws that will do NOTHING> Guns are pretty much outlawed in Chicago. Thats the most shoot em up place on the planet, outside of
    the US War zones.

    1. YepThatTell July 25, 2012

      Your comment offers a rather “simplistic” argument against common-sense, needed regulation of automatic weapons that have no place on the open gun market or in anyone’s home. There is no simple solution to the nation’s violence epidemic… But outlawing automatic weapons and enforcing the law is one simple step in the right direction.

    2. SaneJane July 25, 2012

      You seem to be saying that since these rampages are going to happen anyway we need to make it as easy and convenient as possible for the perpetrator.

    3. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      It would be nice if it were possible to ban paranoid people.

  3. ddimas July 25, 2012

    The second amendment exists for two primary reasons.
    First to protect a citizenry that had just fought and won a guerrilla war against an overwhelming empire, and to insure that would be able to do so in the future.
    Second, to provide the states with a pool of armed and trained personnel as a counterbalance to the federal government.
    A distant third was the ability to shoot intruding bears, thieves, politicians, etc.

    1. jarheadgene July 25, 2012

      don’t forget lawyers…..oh yeah you said thieves and politicians….that kinda covers lawyers.

  4. William Deutschlander July 25, 2012

    As long as the warped minded morons in the NRA can hold members of Congress hostage, we will continue to see the lunacy fringe acting out their mental incompetency!

    1. Nino Bookman July 25, 2012

      So what is your solution to stopping mass murderers?

      1. Tom_D44 July 25, 2012

        Nino, do you really think that there is a solution that will actually prevent mass murders from ever happening again when:
        1. we have a culture that glamorizes violence though video games, movies and reality tv;
        2. we have parents who are less and less engaged in their children’s lives;
        3. we are becoming less and less a god fearing culture with the attacks on religion;
        4. we have redical islamic martyrs who think nothing of flying planes into buildings and killing thousands;

        Really. Mass murders will never stop as there have always been crazy people in this world and gun control is not the answer. It’s like trying to control the nation’s mosquito problems with a single fly swatter. Good luck.

        As to the one point of having to buy ammunition and guns by showing your face and an ID – Amen brother. Great idea.

    2. Joe Szpak July 25, 2012

      WOW William you are clueless how hard is it to understand that it is the person not the gun. The guy that wrote this is a moron that never read the 2nd amendment his argument holds no water since the first machine gun was invented before the constitution was even written so you can write anything he says off as rubbish

      1. awakenaustin July 25, 2012

        A multi-shot firearm is not a machine gun. A functional “machine” gun was not produced until the latter part of the 19th Century. This as you know was well after the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
        It is correct to say people kill people. It is also accurate to say, they prefer to do so with guns. A lot of people get killed with guns. There is a reason why the firearm is the primary weapon of the infantryman. If knives and swords and rocks and pillows and fountain pens and cross-bows and bows and spears were as easy, efficient and effective to use as firearms the infantryman would carry those, I suppose. There is a reason why they have firearms and a reason why people as a rule prefer to kill other people with firearms.
        It is simple straightforward nonsense to argue that the homicide rate would not drop dramatically if firearms suddenly ceased to exist. Yes people would still want to kill people and they would still find ways to kill people but they would find it much harder to do. Yeah, maybe a Kiowa indian in 1870 could put four arrows in the air and on target before the first one struck the target, but I bet you can’t. My 14 year-old can fill our living room with 10 9MM rnds in less than than 10 seconds.
        I don’t care what reason you offer to justify it, a handgun exists for only one purpose and that is to kill human beings. It is the purpose for which they were designed. Don’t talk to me about target shooting. Target shooting came long after handguns were developed. The fact that we have, after the fact, come up with recreational ways to use handguns does not undercut the reason they exist. I am sure some small percentage of people keep them only for sport/target shooting, but nearly everyone else in the world bought one for the purpose of killing people. If you bought it for self-defense, then you bought it to kill people.

        What always amazes me is the total lack of reasonable and rational thought on this matter. Apparently there are no justifiable limitations on gun ownership.
        You realize the gun control laws don’t prevent people from killing people with guns so we shouldn’t have any gun control laws argument is like saying – some people speed in their cars and kill people so let’s just end all speed limits in all circumstances since they are so obviously ineffective.

        1. totenkatz July 26, 2012

          How many people in Rwanda during the genocide were killed with handguns or any firearm? Blows your argument right out of the water.

          1. awakenaustin July 26, 2012

            We should arm the U.S. Army with machetes and big knives. Per your position, they are more deadly and effective. You ignore the fact that the people perpetrating the genocide came armed with firearms they used to kill and to control and depress the resistance from others they hacked with machetes.
            AK-47’s, mortars, RPGs and grenades were used as well as machetes. It was a genocide organized and promoted by a government. You really think this incident is an argument for no limitations of any kind on guns.
            Is your position that since people are going to come up with all kinds of bizarre, idiotic and appalling reasons to kill other people we should make it easy for them to do it? If someone somewhere is going to try to kill someone, why make them go to any trouble, lets insure they are able to get that automatic weapon down at the local “Guns Are Us” or “Something You Want to Kill – Then Buy From Us” or “If It Breathes We Got What You Need to Kill It”. If you think machetes are so effective, let me see you bag a deer with one. You know, a machete has the advantage of being cheaper and you don’t have to re-load. However, the range on it sucks.
            Wait, I haven’t heard the lame “self-defense” argument. “If everyone had had his own personal firearm, then this wouldn’t have happened” (or might not have happened or maybe we don’t know but the death toll might of possibly been lower or some such twaddle). The argument is predicated on the speaker’s over inflated sense of his own competence. It ignores the fact that even highly trained police officers and soldiers in times of high stress (i.e., being shot at or threatened with physical harm) have trouble getting their weapons out, training them, firing them and actually hitting the target.
            Really, I don’t much care if you own a firearm or 2 or 3 or 4, but please stop pretending they are as innocuous as a screwdriver and no more deadly, that handguns aren’t made solely for the purpose of killing people and that sportsmen need automatic weapons.
            Have a nice day.

        2. Mary Reilly July 27, 2012

          Thank you for your rational input to this discussion. It is greatly appreciated!

  5. cwalter711 July 25, 2012

    Bill, you idiot! The issue is to keep the gun out of the hands of a psychotic. And, tell me what did his victims die of, fright?

    1. middleclasstaxpayer July 25, 2012

      It’s impossible to regulate all items & substances that can cause harm. The Colorado guy was a PhD medical student bent on harming others. If he didn’t have a gun available, do you think he’s throw his hands up and say, “gee, I guess I’ll just go fishing.” He would simply find another way to do it, and possibly with more devastating results. What if he had carried in a gasoline cannnister or worse yet, a propane tank, and detonated it.?? It’s PEOPLE who commit these terrible crimes, not inanimate objects or substances. But, with “political correctness” in control, untill a nut harms someone (or himself), there is nothing anyone caan do to control him/her, unless they volunteer for help.

      1. SaneJane July 25, 2012

        I don’t think this guy had the mindset of a suicide bomber and probably did not want to burn or explode himself. His gas mask and armor would not protect him from fire or explosion. His vision of himself was not a timid impersonal killer, he sees himself as the larger than life, macho, killing machine. I don’t think any other method of killing would have served his ego as well. You probably enjoy target shooting, is there any other activity that would give you the same satisfaction? Would you get the same rush from building and exploding bombs, could you get off setting fire to some gasoline or blowing up a propane tank? Also, it is a bit harder to conceal a gasoline can or a propane tank.

        1. middleclasstaxpayer July 25, 2012

          Your points are well taken, but I don’t think he was trying to conceal anything he was doing: IE: Red Hair, Gas Mask, Body Armor, two rifles?? A can of gasoilne or a propane tank wouldn’t be any more odd, out-of-the-ordinary or alarming than his reported getup. And he is one of the very few of this type who did NOT kill himself after the atrocity.

      2. Dominick Vila July 25, 2012

        I rather face a man wielding a knife or a 2×4 than someone armed with a couple of semi-automatic weapons. If guns were not accessible to people like him most of the Colorado victims would be alive today.

      3. F R July 25, 2012

        Like Whitesnake sings in his song ‘why are you keep running around in circles like a dog without a bone?

  6. old_blu July 25, 2012

    I really like guns and I have alot of them. That being said I don’t think anyone is going to take them away from me, and the people who are afraid of that are the scary ones. I also think it is a good idea to make everyone buy their guns and ammo in person, not that it will stop the crazies But what if it did?
    Edit: As much as I like and use guns, I don’t have any assault rifles. (no need)

    1. SaneJane July 25, 2012

      I agree with you. I only have one gun now but my first husband and I collected guns almost like art. Except for a Luger and a family heirloom all were new and most were never fired. We enjoyed the workmanship of these pieces but did not use them. We did enjoy target shooting and used guns suitable for that purpose. No one is trying to take our guns away but some guns not be available to just anyone. No firearm or ammo should be sold except in person.

      1. old_blu July 25, 2012

        @Jane– You and me could be friends. very good comment. (i agree)

      2. tokoloshi27 July 25, 2012

        Jane; even though they are saying “assault weapons”, they can’t define them so they really are trying to take all your firearms away. It’s a short step to a disarmed population that is forced to accept ‘government’ defense of their right to exist.

        1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

          We seem to be a very paranoid nation. No president has ever tried to take people’s guns away unless they are felons. History shows that people can be controlled by fear so it is a common method of people like the NRA(organized gun nuts). They are not trying to take your guns away. No president ever has tried to take your guns away. They probably don’t have your telephone tapped. They are not tattooing invisible numbers on newborn babies. They don’t have black helicopters watching you day and night.

          1. totenkatz July 26, 2012

            True no black helicopters but they do have drones.

    2. montanabill July 25, 2012

      Much in common, old_blu. If crazies don’t have guns, they will use something else and a lot of common ordinary products can be used to make bombs. Gun laws didn’t stop the shooter in Norway, either. There is probably confusion in the mind of non-gun owners about “assault rifles”. An assault rifle can be used in either full automatic or semi-automatic. Without a special permit, you cannot buy a full automatic. The AR-15 commonly referred to as a assault rifle is feared because it looks mean. It is semi-automatic only. But semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic shotguns have been with us since the first M-1 in 1937. Many today are used by hunters. John Brown’s first semi-auto shotgun started production in 1900. Even AR-15’s are used for hunting. How about black powder single shooters? I can hit a steel buffalo at 1000 yards with my 1874 Sharps. The problem, as it has been from the beginning, is people.

      1. old_blu July 25, 2012

        I agree the “crazies” will find a way to kill their victims, and I’m sorry about that. I used to hunt when I was younger, and I used a model 94 32 never missed with that old rifle, and I have shot assault rifles and although fun to shoot, I still don’t see the need.

        Love that Sharps, BTW

    3. totenkatz July 26, 2012

      Tell that to the British and Aussies. They didn’t think anyone would take their guns away either….until they did.

  7. ivory69690 July 25, 2012

    isnt one tight the right to live ?

    1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

      ivory… not if you’re a baby in the mothers womb!

      Have a nice day!

      1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

        Obozo, the topic is gun control. This is like the house defeating 43 jobs bills and putting abortion on the floor 26 times.

  8. sheckyb July 25, 2012

    PS it’s far easier to get an assault weapon and ammo than it is to get a driver’s license.

    1. 4BusinessOnly July 25, 2012

      Go try and you will see it is not and if you do have a criminal back ground you will not get one.

      1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

        Mailorder houses and gun shows are selling guns without doing background checks.

        1. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

          I have bought guns in Tenn and Ga at gun shows, they have always done a background check. I have bought guns on mailorder – they always ship only to a local FFL which does the background check before they let you have the gun.
          Which mailorder houses and gunshows are not doing this??

          1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

            I watched a show on 60 minutes where they had people go to gun shows to see if they could get one without a background check. All four investigators were able to get guns. So, it is great that you were vetted in Tenn and Ga. Just now, I decided to check on websites to see if there was any up-to-date data on background checks. I found a site and this is the information I got by asking if there was anyplace I could buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. A lot of people were willing to help me. The advice I got was:
            Cash talks. Always use cash.
            Dealers are required to do background checks, so go to a table with a private individual selling guns. The private individual is not required to do background checks.

            So, either you were not trying to buy a gun where other people wouldn’t sell you one or you didn’t mind the background checks because you aren’t a criminal or you didn’t go to a private individual’s table.

          2. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

            I did not see it so cant confirm or deny it(ie private gun sales). I know most of the sellers there are dealers who do checks.
            I can give you some assurance, at least in Tenn, about we who have gun carry permits. You have to provide a miriad of ID paper work to the State. Submit to fingerprinting(which I understand is run thru the FBI). And other security checks. And you have to take a course in safe handling and physically qualify as to your shooting accuracy. And the instructors(usually police working on the side) have an opportunity to interact with you to see if you are a wacko. Not a sure thing but at least the opportunity to question, evaluate, even intevene, is present.
            That to say – if you or anyone is present with me or any gun permit holder in Tenn you should feel much safer. And if a few of us had been in that theater, maybe even just one, we might have been able to stop some of the slaughter. I have heard he did not have real body armor that is was just tactical gear. Either way he was not protected in the head area and was vunerable there. Those who say we could not have stopped him are just speculating and just trying to justify their agenda. Maybe we could not have but we would have had a chance anyway and might have saved many lives. If just one was saved it would have been worth the risk and effort.
            I and many others shoot defensive combat competitions every month and practice a lot, a lot more than the police even. All over the country. We practice continually for just these type scenarios. It is called IDPA. Check it out on UTube.
            And if everyone in the theater had been armed and defending themselves then he would not have been able to kill so many.
            As for restricting amounts of ammo available, I go thru 1,000 rounds or more a month practicing. Restricting guns and ammo will not stop the crazies or the gangs.
            It will just hurt those of us who want to help defend ourselves and others.
            If guns are the problem why dont we hear about attacks like this at gun clubs or even gun shows? Why is it mostly gun free zones, schools, theaters, etc?
            When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create/present defenseless targets for slaughter.

          3. old_blu July 25, 2012

            @DEFENDER– (nice name BTW) I think it is something like a lock on a gate, it only keeps the honest people out. In a dark theater alot of noise and alot of shooting I think if someone else had a gun in there more people would have died IMO. I’m not saying that maybe you could have done something that would have helped, but you are assuming that everyone is as good as you under pressure. I have a CWP also, but I don’t know if I could have determined the bad guy in that situation.

          4. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

            I can respect your opinion and perhaps you are right. But I/we would at least have had a chance to save perhaps many.
            There were what ? 100 in there and 70 were hit – how much worse can it get?
            Noise, shooting, gas, chaos, dark – I am not saying it would have been easy or clean and perfect. Just maybe, at least a chance at less death and destruction. Again if I/we could save one it would be worth the risk and effort. And send a message to some of the potential future nut jobs out there.

          5. old_blu July 25, 2012

            You have not changed my mind, but you did make me see a different perspective, and I do see where you are coming from. (i know if it was me or my family I would want a chance, even if small)

          6. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

            I know where you are coming from and you make a reasoned argument and I respect your position here.
            It would have been very challenging.
            And I dont claim I/we are better than the police or military “operators”(Seals, Special Forces, Delta, Sappers, Snipers, etc).
            We are not.
            But we practice this kind of thing all the time.
            Even more than the police.
            It is all “defensive” tactics and shooting.
            All kinds of shooting positions, while moving, using cover, laying down, weak hand only, strong hand only, running, on and on. Pouring Rain, Snow or shine. Moving targets side to side, up and down, swinging, spinning, disappearing, running,….,…. We practice using cover, extensively, to keep from being shot. We(some of us) can reload and back in battery in less than 1sec. Takes me about 2 sec. And being from the mountains I have been under fire before(shot at) more than once so I know what it is like. I/we know what the noise of an AR15 fired inside a room is like. So in my mind, if I am not killed before I can get to a covered firing position, I have a descent chance of stopping him.
            We seriously practice gun discipline and safety also. And practice NOT hitting non-threat targets(which we also have), hostages, etc – it is a serious penalty for us.
            Knowing my nature if I could not hit him with a shot I might have tried to rush him, if I thought I had a chance, take his gun away, kick the s–t out of him.
            But like you say – maybe not.
            But if there were just say 3 more IDPA or 3Gun people there, like me, than probably yes, we would get him. And not as likely to hit a non-threat target/person.
            And like you say if you are the father of the 1 daughter we do keep from being shot, how much is that worth? Worth allowing gun permit people into these zones – I think anyway. If the police cant be there.
            There are a lot of us around but we are not allowed to try to help as things stand now. In fact, many people(especially in here) think we are just paranoid, trigger happy, potential killers and a danger to society.
            I like the saying – 55 million people(gun owners) did NOT shoot their neighbor today.

          7. Maggie Croft July 26, 2012

            You evidentally are a smart and sane person. Not everyone carrying a gun is.

            If 20 people were carrying guns and started shooting in the direction of the pperp, bullets would have penetrated wwalls or richocheted. What about the
            people who happened to be btween the perp and the defending shooters?

            I remember them interviewing a witness at the shooting in Tuscon, AZ. He said he had been in the drugstore when he heard the shooting. He grabbed his gun, took the safety off and ran out. He saw a man holding a gun and aimed his gun at him. Someone yelled at him, “That is not the shooter.” He nearly shot the hero who took the shooter’s gun away from him.Adrenalin and fear can take away a person’s judgement.

        2. EARTHMAN1 July 25, 2012

          So what? You can buy ice cream without a background check or a government permit.

          The thing I can’t understand is you can murder your unborn baby without a background check or a government permit.

          50 to sixty million babies have been murdered by their mommies and their doctors without a government permit.

          How many Americans have been murdered by firearms in the same period?

    2. SaneJane July 25, 2012

      ….or voter ID.

    3. EARTHMAN1 July 25, 2012

      As it should be!

  9. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

    ummmmm…. Gene….. Mass Murder IS a Constitutional right according to the SCOTUS. It’s called “abortion”. 10’s of millions of the most defenseless of the defenseless have been murdered. When will you complain about that? crickets……. crickets………… crickets………

    Have nice day!

    1. Henry Zielinski July 25, 2012

      Let’s try to stay on topic…

    2. MikeCassidyAHS July 25, 2012

      Please provide your source of information for “10 of millions abortions”, just, please refer me to something which backs up your claim, simply, because I don’t believe it.

      1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012


        The Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand, claims that there have been more than 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade.

        Have a nice day!

        1. MikeCassidyAHS July 25, 2012

          How about in the past five years when it has become very unpopular, and girls are no longer ostersized as they were in the past for getting knocked up? That 5 million may be accurate since R vs. W but what is the current rate.

          1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

            Mike… not 5 million, 50 million. And that’s from the abortion on demand with no restrictions organization, Gutmacher. The other stats I’ve found are that there are about 3000 abortions per day in America.

            Sorry you don’t like it, but the truth is that many millions have been mass murdered at the hands of an abortionists scissors and scalpel.

            Have a nice day!

          2. MikeCassidyAHS July 25, 2012

            What is your source, one doesn’t write scientific papers without ‘footnotes’, what is your source, web page please.

          3. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

            Google: how many abortions since roe v wade. Too many choices to look at.

            Doesn’t matter. You support murder of innocent babies. I don’t. So to discredit me, you will cast dispersions on “sources” and make it an argument about that, not the issue at hand. This is classic useful idiot tactics. Too bad, not playing along.

            Have a nice day!

          4. MikeCassidyAHS July 25, 2012

            Too bad about the “idiot tactics”, you apparently have NO source for your claims, just the source, PLEASE, not what one’s little minds conjures up, Just your source of information, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE

          5. MikeCassidyAHS July 25, 2012

            I oppose abortion, even in cases of rape and insect, I also oppose capital punishment for the same reasons, Thy shall not kill

          6. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

            Mike, I stand corrected. My apologies for assuming you’re pro-baby killing.

            Re: source. I gave it to you. Cut and paste the search string into Google. You’ll get all the answers you want.

            Have a nice day!

          7. Maggie Croft July 26, 2012

            Does that mean if a grasshopper gets a woman pregnant, she cannot have an abortion?

    3. old_blu July 25, 2012

      Hey! bozo, shhh *whispering* the story was about guns not abortion.

      1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

        it’s my boy, blu! What’s up blu?

        uhhhhhh…. blu…. the headline of the article itself is “Mass Murder May As Well Be A Constitutional Right”. Clearly, while the details of the article are certainly about guns, the headline suggests a much more broad application of “Constitutional rights”, which makes it fair game to point out leftist hypocrisy on just such an issue.

        Thanks for your input, blu!

        Pssssst…… I’ll keep it quiet if you do.

        Have a nice day!

  10. LowellSchaller1946 July 25, 2012

    I am a hunter who owns a shotgun and bolt action hunting rifle. I fully agree with you that
    we have gone to far with the weapons we allow the general public to obtain. My son works in law enforcement, and I worry for his safety every day. In Michigan, lawmakers recently
    passed a bill to allow the general public to purchase and carry tasers. Where will this all end?

  11. Nick559 July 25, 2012

    What we really need is to register unstable people on psychological drugs and that medical professionals deem a threat to themselves and society. Their rights to and of privacy should not come before the rights of the public and victims like in Aurora. Put them into the FBI NICS database so they can’t buy weapons and the number of violent crimes with weapons will go down drastically.

    1. jarheadgene July 25, 2012

      Can we start with OBOZO Must GO?….just kidding, I am of the Ron Paul mindset on that one. Sorry Nick I totally disagree with you on MIND POLICE.

      1. Nick559 July 25, 2012

        I understand, it’s a hard pill to swallow. However, a career in law enforcement and studying why people commit mass murders like this keep coming up with some common elements. One is psychological care with medications and the other is documented violent tendencies. If we can keep someone from passing an FBI NICS background check because of a courts’ order of protection for domestic violence then then why shouldn’t someone who is diagnosed as unstable and prescribed psychological medications be treated any different. People would be shocked to know the percentage of those who commit heinous crimes like in Aurora who fall into that category. The criminal’s rights or those of an unstable person should not overshadow a victim’s.

        1. jarheadgene July 25, 2012

          The danger is in making presuppositions that someone will commit a crime before it happens, if it happens. We live in a supposedly free society with privacy laws. How would any of what you are saying be enforced? Supposedly this guy committed no previous crimes and no one knew he was going to “blow” like he did. So again, how does your suggestion get enforced?

  12. Verne_J_Hostan July 25, 2012

    The folks that support our current lax gunlaws aren’t likely to change their minds – its a position of belief, not reason. The facts are pretty clear; firearms dramatically increase the ability of someone to inflict harm on others, weapons such as assault rifles have no useful function whatsoever in non-military environments and proliferation of guns in general is tightly correlated with murder rates. The US has the distinction of topping the list of civilized countries in that rate. The rational majority of citizens in this country need to make themselves heard by the elected pols, and create consequences at the ballot box. Don’t bother trying to outshout the worshippers at the church of GunsForAll…

    1. Monte Smithson July 25, 2012

      I suppose the gun laws in Mexico has stopped the murders or are you thinking that Mexico is not a civilized country. The drug war down there (caused by the demand in the USA) makes the murder capital of the world AND gun ownership is Illegal!

      1. phantomoftheopera July 25, 2012

        and where do the mexicans get their weapons? the good ol’ usa! we not only allow our own citizens to be killed willy nilly, we export it to other countries.

      2. Newborn July 26, 2012

        So you compare to Mexico where people are fed up with murderers, your post is a real pity.

    2. Joe Szpak July 25, 2012

      Vern your facts are wrong please do not post facts that are wrong to confuse the issue.

    3. robrothman July 25, 2012

      The United States ranks 12th in deaths per thousand by firearms, not first. Mexico ranks 11th. Israel ranks 31st and most citizens own a firearm. There is no correlation between firearm ownership and the death rate. The problem is not law abiding citizens with guns, it is criminals with guns. No amount of gun control will stop criminals from possessing firearms. As the old bumpersticker says, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” Vern and all the other gun control advocates need to look for their solution elsewhere. You disarm the law abiding citizens and crime will go up.

    4. H8 Fools July 25, 2012

      Assault rifles have a purpose in hunting, target shooting, home defense and in survival situations. They also have a place in retaining the right of the people to rise up against the government should it exceed the limits placed on it by the framers of the constitution and begin to restrict the rights of the people. An armed populous is a free populous. I was an advocate of gun control before I read what the framers of our constitution had to say about private ownership of firearms. They were all very explicit in maintaining the right of the people to keep and own firearms – not nuclear warheads, not tanks and armored fighting vehicles: firearms. I don’t care that you would choose to defend you home with a pistol or a shot gun, I don’t care that you’d hunt with a bolt-action rifle: I choose to own assault rifles because I use them in those applications.

      We have the highest murder rates because we have a lot of African American and Hispanic gang-members who choose to bang it out with each other every night. The majority of murders go down inside “the hood,” and no cares about that because those neighborhoods refuse to make the necessary changes to stop the violence. It’s ironic, the gun control advocates only go on the war path for gun-restricting legislation when there is a mass-shooting of a bunch of white people in a white neighborhood. Even they don’t care about the day to day, gang-related murders happening in every major American city every night.

      By the way – those gang members aren’t buying those weapons legally. They get them from smugglers, they steal them, they get them off the black market so restricting the legal methods of purchasing and owning guns wouldn’t do anything to clamp down on this type of gun violence. Sure – if people weren’t armed, they wouldn’t be able to steal them however; as prohibition has demonstrated, making private ownership of firearms illegal would create a massive under-current in the black market to provide illegal buyers with their desired goods. It didn’t work with alcohol, doesn’t work with drugs and won’t work with guns – even if you restricted all of them.

      1. Newborn July 26, 2012

        Oh my! If you need an assault rifle for chasing unarmed animals you’re already a murderer. Assault rifles for defence of your home? You’re already in need of psy medication. All this bullsh***t.

        1. sjensen6022 July 26, 2012

          You are the one that needs to stop taking thier happy pills. If you use a AR15 style rfle for hunting, you are limited in most states to a 5 round magazine. A lot of the younger hunters use such rifles because it is what they used in the military. I carry everyday, everywhere, except where I work because they are not allowed in the building. I have used “assault style” to defend my home from the methies that use the park a block from my home to do thier drugs. And if you say I should just call the police, you are a fool. They don’t respond to any calls unless it is to the local coffee shop. So when you are the victim, don’t come whining to me.

          1. tonilaura July 26, 2012

            Why not whine to you if one is a victim? You are selfish in defending only your own.

          2. excavatoreddie July 26, 2012

            You’re right! Newborn thinks like a newborn, living in a fantasy world where everyone could be a law abiding citizen. What a naive idiot!!!

          3. David T. Archibold September 11, 2012

            “They don’t respond to any calls unless it is to the local coffee shop. So when you are the victim, don’t come whining to me.”

            Stupidest and largest exaggeration of a stereotype I’ve ever read.
            Fight with facts, not fiction.

      2. Mark Lang July 26, 2012

        I agreed with you right up to the point of racist crap that spewed out your mouth.

      3. tonilaura July 26, 2012

        Do you know the reason behind the Florida law of stand your ground? As I understand it, (I live in Florida), a man shot and killed an armed intruder in his home. There was a question of charging him for the death. Look at the George Zimmerman case. Attorney General Holder has made his position clear. He forced the state to bring second degree murder charges and holds his own charges of a hate crime over all heads if George Zimmerman is acquitted. George Zimmerman arrived at police headquarters in handcuff, as pictures showed. That is an arrest. A witness said he saw Zimmerman on the ground having his head banged again and again and calling for help. Now, I understand another witness has come forth saying the same. The district attorney decided no charges but Holder forced the issue. So a special prosecutor was appointed. She also did not want to press any charges. Again, Holder pushed hard. So maybe the answer is a better top enforcement official? Many more responsible voters?

      4. poppy66 July 27, 2012

        It was not gang members and illegal guns that was involved in the Aurora mass murders. It was a nut job that bought that ar15 assault rifle a pump action 12 gauge shotgun and two glock semi automatic hand guns and 6000 rounds of ammunition, LEGALLY. What asshole thinks this is OK. At least limit the rounds and magazines and maybe less people than 70 would have been hurt. Did you know, in Arizona, if your 18 years old and pass a 20 minute backround check, you can buy as many guns and unlimited amount of ammo as you want. Whats worse is, you can take those newly purchased assault rifles and resell them or give them away after you leave the store. This is all legal in the state of Arizona. No law was broken. This was precisely what happened in the so called”Fast and Furious” debacle. A man on food stamps walked in to a gun store purchased 50 AK47 assault rifles for $50,000.00 cash. took them out of the store and loaded them in the trunk of someone elses car in the stores parking lot. When the ATF requested a warrant to arrest the perps, they were told by the prosecuter that no law was broken. One of those guns was used to kill that poor border agent. This has been documented and researched over a 6 month investigation.
        Any body that thinks this is ok, is NUTS. Where is the common sense with these right wing law makers? Are they that beholding to the NRA? You cant defend this with the second amendment. When that was written the most powerful weapon was a single shot mussel loader, with a maximum range of about 50 yards.
        As for your bone head argument that, alot of African American and hispanic gang members choose to bang it out. That, that is the majority of murders, is ludicris. Do you remember the Virginia Tech. shootings. That was not gang members, nor was the Colorado mass murders gang members, or Columbine high school. And the list goes on. So take your head out of your ass, and stop trying to defend these ridiculous gun laws. Who the hell hunts with an AK47 with a 100 round magazine. There would’nt be anything left that you shoot. Give me a break.

      5. David T. Archibold September 11, 2012

        Funny, because near outright bans on firearms works across most of the western world.
        And you can’t really compare it to drugs and alcohol. Its like comparing a hammer to a hotdog.
        Also, “We have the highest murder rates because we have a lot of African American and Hispanic gang-members”

        No sign of bigotry there….

    5. Martin Jay Guthrie July 26, 2012

      I like the point you make about ASSAULT WEAPONS.MY weapons have never assulted anyone,Thats like calling a match a flame thrower.So yes im a christian too,Thou shalt not kill,unless you break into my house.you must live in one of the Big city’s,like DC,Newyork,Chicago,LA,Dallas-FT Worth,thats why the Crimanals RUn those city’s,Its safe for them too do so.

    6. tonilaura July 26, 2012

      We want so desperately to believe in law and order. And yet, too many are blindsided by arrogant Obama and Holder. Both have successfully bypassed Congress, as for the US Supreme Court, the less said the better. Shades of Oliver Wendall Holmes! I want to out shout the minorities and not just the guns for all! This is a government of the people and for the people. We have allowed, allowed, the minorities to take hold of bleeding hearts and force their wishes on the majority. The election of Obama, was not due to the 95% vote of the blacks, it was due to all eligible voters not exercising their responsibility and voting. Too many said, “too much trouble, one vote doesn’t make a difference”. For those who do not by their own volition vote, excuse them permanently. Boy, would they scream!

    7. Wayne Garner July 27, 2012

      Assault rifles are not for me. I grew up with a single shot 22 rifle.. I/we took great pride in our marksmanship… If my friends caught me with an assault rifle, I would never hear the end of it… Surely a hunter can’t take pride in his hunting skills if he needs a gun the will fire five times without reloading… 100 times? Naaaa!..

  13. MikeCassidyAHS July 25, 2012

    Simply put, THERE WILL NEVER BE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION OF GUN CONTROL in this country until the electorate gets totally fed up with guns and insist that politicians to do something. Why should any politician do anything in this day and age when ‘RIGHT WING’ political groups can target and kill your political career? This country regrettably will need many more O K Carole shoot outs before there is an uprising; PERIOID.
    Mike Cassidy
    Utica, Md.

    1. EARTHMAN1 July 25, 2012

      Mike, get your head out of your a** your brain is dying from lack of oxygen.

      BTW, who’s O K Carole, is he a rap artist?

      1. MikeCassidyAHS July 26, 2012

        EARTHMAN1, go F yourself, spelling aside, you know exactly what I was talking about, a$$hole

        1. EARTHMAN1 July 26, 2012

          Nah… that’s what you spend your time doing on your mommie’s couch.

          For me, I’ll just keep my .357 handy in case a group of serial masterbators try to assault me.

  14. Nick559 July 25, 2012

    What we really need is to register unstable people on psychological drugs and that medical professionals deem a threat to themselves and society. Their rights to and of privacy should not come before the rights of the public and victims like in Aurora. Put them into the FBI NICS database so they can’t buy weapons and the number of violent crimes with weapons will go down.

  15. Anita McMillen July 25, 2012

    Sounds great. How do we change the laws?

  16. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

    These mass slaughters are occuring more often in your “gun free” zones(Schools, movies, etc) Think I see a trend here. You want to disarm the good guys while the bad guys will always have a gun and sometimes an assault weapon. Why do you want us to be defensless and subject to this type murder? You and your gun ban cohorts are as much responsible for these mass murders as anyone when you disarm us and leave us defensless like rats in a barrel. The last and best hope of stopping these people is self defense on the scene. Now days there are many private citizens(The Good Guys) who are highly trained to the point they can actually shoot better than the police even much better than the average GI(Check out IDPA). They will only shoot in self defense and have a descent chance of stopping this murder. You call it “dorky” we call it self defense, even defending you dorks if need be. At least we might have been able to stop him but with your gun bans we have no chance whatsoever and get shot like fish in a “gun free” barrel.

    As for single shot only – I think the drafters were actually thinking “equal force” for self defense and not limiting the public to be subject to mass murder. That really makes sense – limit us(the good guys) to single shot while the bad guys “will” have auto weapons.

    I think your intentions are good but your solutions are killing us.

    1. SaneJane July 25, 2012

      Will you “good guys” wear your body armor to the movie? Don’t forget your family, put some armor on them too. Personally, I don’t want a society where I have to strap on a gun whenever I leave my home. If there was a killer virus present in our environment do you think it would be better for everyone to wear a bulky mask forever or should we try to develop a vaccine to stop it?

      1. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

        I feel your angst and share it. Just disagree on how to stop it.
        I dont want to have to carry a gun everywhere either, but neither do I wnat to be shot down like a rat in a barrel, or my family, or even you shot down.
        The bad guys will always have access to weapons – history shows us that.
        I grew up in the mountains where eveyone carried a gun but no-one got shot.
        Detente or a known strong defense “can work”. Not Ideal, but Seems a better solution than unarmed people being murdered with no chance to defend themselves.
        As for assault weapons, I want one for my home when the gangs come here with assault rifles, and the police are nowhere to be found, I dont want to face them with a single shot gun(I need at least “equal force”). Especially if we have a National disaster of some kind.
        As for home defense, the motto is, When your life depends on seconds, the police are only minutes away.
        It is a burden, aggrivation, and huge responsibility having to carry a gun but there are people out there who will kill you for $10. Since I am quite old now I cant run, or fight hand-to-hand like I once could.
        I am IDPA competition trained and can shoot better than most police and there are many and increasingly more like me.
        I sure dont want to shoot anyone but will defend my-self and family, and police and even good people like you if need be. Is that not a better solution (for now anyway) than disarming me/us, knowing the bad guys “will” be armed?
        If everyone could be disarmed, Iwould be ok with that. But Chicago, Norway and history says that just isn’t working.
        And apparently most of the country agrees with me and that is why gun bans are not popular and why the politicians wont move further on it.

  17. howa4x July 25, 2012

    The NRA thinks that even imposing any sane limits on guns is an erosin of the right to own one. This is why they fight every attempt to limit gun ownership. But I think there is an explanation of why law biding people want to buy Ak-47’s or some other assualt rifle. Every one sees crime on TV every day or they read about it in the papers. Every time you see the police in an after the incident mode investigating what happend. The reality is they can’t prevent it, so it becomes a catch 22 type situation. Lax gun laws allow most people to buy guns so the population is armed. Even street gangs have access to these military type weapons. So now average people feel the need to protect themselves because everyone else, even the bad guys have them, and we are in a sort of citizens arms race. Add into that the crazy militia theories about the UN having Black helicopters that will one day invade us, and racist theories and books like the turner diaries and we have a witches brew. Now anyone with a conspiracy theory or a paranoid fantasy, can act them out in public wiht a gun. Politicians know this is a hot button issue and either support mass ownership of guns or avoid the subject altogether. So to you all out there get used to mass shootings. They happen with chiling routine, and involve kids with guns shooting classmates, or mentally unstable people getting automatic weapons and shooting up colleges like Va tech or politicians they don’t agree with like Ronal Reagan, or Gabby Giffords or an attempt at Gerald Ford, or the killing of JFK.
    I live in a state where automatic weapons were banned 20 yrs ago, and there is no right to carry. Just getting caught with having one is a long prison sentence so I’m never afraid to go to a movie or have my kids in college. Funny it’s not even an issue anymore and the NRA has tried to overtun the ban but always fails. Why? Because the people like it and feel safe, and the politicians on both sides don’t even bring it up. Good luck to the rest of you.

  18. bruce222 July 25, 2012

    This essay is right on. Thirty or forty years ago the NRA was a responsible organization focused on gun safety; my son got training in how to handle a rifle from them when he was a Boy Scout. Since then they have been taken over by fanatics who care nothing about saving lives; the one and only goal of the NRA is to ensure that the gun manufacturers, gun dealers, and ammunition companies maximize their profits.

    1. stsintl July 25, 2012

      ABC commentator reported that there are nine times the number of gun dealers in US than the McDonalds. And, we see McDonalds everywhere. This is the ugly face of Neo-Capitalism, where “Social Responsibility” has been replaced with “Greed to maximize personal wealth”.

      1. tokoloshi27 July 25, 2012

        stsintl; even accepting the ABC numbers, you should be aware that there are many more ‘grades’ of dealer licenses than you might imagine.

      2. Tom_D44 July 25, 2012

        This is classic liberal thinking. This is not the ugly face of Neo-Capitalism, and there is no expectation in our system that companies must model their businesses in keeping with social responsibility when talking about profitability. This is classic supply and demand. If there is a market, then businesses will form and serve the market. If there aren’t enough people buying guns to support these businesses they will go away. Obviously, people want to buy and own guns and the business community has grown with that demand. What is the problem with that and how is that an example of greed? There are regulations which law abiding citizens have to comply with, in order to complete their purchases and those are all in place and enforced.

        I don’t see your point.

        1. stsintl July 25, 2012

          All crime syndicates, drug cartels, prostitution businesses, and gambling casinos also operate on the same Neo-Capitalist principles of supply and demand and maximization of personal wealth with no regards to social responsibility. If you want to learn about Classic Capitalism, go back in history and you will find Capitalists like Henry Ford and George Westinghouse who built the largest and strongest middle class envy of the world. Here is a quote from George Westinghouse :”My ambition is to give as many persons as possible an opportunity to earn money by their own efforts, and this has been the reason why I have tried to build up corporations which are large employers of labor, and to pay living wages, larger than even other manufacturers pay, or than the open labor market necessitates.” Now we are witnessing the Wall-Mart effect which has destroyed the US economy while creating a hand full of self centered greedy multi-billionaires.

          1. Tom_D44 July 25, 2012

            stsintl – I do understand what you are saying. But I disagree with your blanket use of the term Neo-Capitalists with respect to thriving businessess. And, unlike the examples you presented, selling guns is not illegal like selling sex or drugs. These dealers are all small businesses and they are everywhere because there is a demand for their products. I don’t believe they are overcharging for their products as the shear number of them would provide competition enough to keep prices in check. So what you don’t like is that they are selling a product you don’t like and so you deem them to be socially irresponsible. I don’t like cigarettes and I see them as a danger to people, but I’m not going to demonize all the mini-mart store owners as greedy Neo-Capitalists because they sell them. They have the right to sell legal products for whatever they can get for them – and if they get wealthy from it then that is great for them. If I choose not to go into that business because I think it is wrong to sell those products then that would be my choice. This is freedom my friend.

            What you are talking about are the principles of morality, integrity, honesty and goodwill which will be different from individual to individual. You can not legislate morality. There will be good businessmen and bad ones and consequently there will be good and bad businesses under whosever leadership. We as consumers get to choose who we deal with. But to think that we should expect businesses to conduct themselves under some code of social responsibility is unrealistic. It will never happen on it’s own and trying to create laws to force people to do this will never work.

          2. stsintl July 26, 2012

            Yes, I agree, social responsibility cannot be legislated. What is legal and illegal is decided by a bunch of individuals elected through a corrupt political system. In classic capitalism, maximization of ROI was constrained by social responsibility towards the customers, the employees, the suppliers of goods and services, and the environment. All of this has disappeared in Neo-Capitalism. When an investment banker takes home $5 billion dollars as one year’s compensation and doesn’t want to pay fair share of taxes, because he owns the legislative branch of the government, there is something wrong.
            A socially responsible ammunition dealer would have questioned an individual buying 6000 rounds to be delivered to an apartment.

      3. totenkatz July 26, 2012

        You believe ABC news!

  19. stsintl July 25, 2012

    You say, “Wouldn’t we be better off if the news media covered these atrocities the way they cover drunk drivers who run off the highway and die at 3 AM? That is, with a brief paragraph on page 3B.” Then, why does this article carry a picture of the alleged mass murderer? This should have been published with the picture of the AMC theater, if a picture was really needed.

    1. tokoloshi27 July 25, 2012

      stsintl; agreed. The 24 hour coverage for the last five days is the real incentive for the wackjobs AND the media (so that may be redundant). No pictures are necessary of the wacker nor publication of their name, bury them in the story of the (disarmed) victims. That’s the story, not him.

  20. highpckts July 25, 2012

    NRA!!! Enough said.

  21. Jcarroll Barnhill July 25, 2012


    1. old_blu July 25, 2012

      I read every word on these pages except the ones in full caps, I have a wife to yell at me I don’t need you to. (take your caps off)

    2. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

      JB… welcome to this sea of leftist insanity called “The Memo”. You will invite vitriol and hatred from the mass of leftist nutjobs and useful idiots that swim around in here. Keep throwing the haymakers, though, and remember … Obozo Must Go!

      Have a nice day!

      1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

        Do you think we ought to go to a one-party political system? Since I am trying to understand what part hatred plays in violence in this country, would you be willing to answer the questions I put to yelling out of control Jcarroll Barnhill?

        1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

          Maggie… just remember that corporations are people, too.

          Have a nice day!

    3. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      Why are you yelling? It doesn’t make you more credible. The rumors that Holmes was connected to the Occupy groups or the teaparty were discounted as nothing more than rumors. Have you ever sought help and medication for your over-the-top anger? Just so I can understand people, like you, were you raised in an alcholic home? an abusive home? What is the highest grade in school you finished? Have you always been paranoid? Do you have any close long term friends?

  22. ARepublicanNorthlandGrad July 25, 2012

    Agree that the founding fathers meant “equal Force” and not to limit us to single shot muskets for eternity. Still do not see a need for us all to have assess to anti tank weapons. One of the problems not addressed in the article is the defintion of an assault weapon. Clinton proposed making my remington Nylon 66 illegal because it had a 10 round clip. I used it for squirrels and rabbits. Would a single shot have worked, yes, but being as it is a .22 it hardly fit the definition of a assault rifle. As for ordering whiskey over the internet, you can order wine in some states. Indiana has a law where you have to sign a list when you buy any ammo that will fit a handgun. Theres not limit and I not aware if anyone looks at it, so I don’t know what good it is.
    I think it should be remembered most of us that own firearms are not killing our neighbors.

  23. middleclasstaxpayer July 25, 2012

    You have a short memory…years ago a madman set fire to a crowded niteclub in The Phillipines, killing OVER 200 innocent souls. No guns, just gasoline.

  24. Peter Brown July 25, 2012

    Who or what this killer is and what he was thinking is irrelevant unless you are willing to declare that anyone wanting to own a gun is psychotic, should be tested and denied his dildo if any signs of mental illness appear. The clear and obvious fact is that America is no longer infested with dangerous animals, terrifying natives or surrounded by countries bigger than we are intent on invading us. In most cases nowadays it is clear that America is that dangerous invasive force we so fear and in thatvein I would posit that America having bootstrapped itself into the 21st century should leave behind those archaic laws that no longer serve.

    We allowed slaves and women the right to vote, we repealed a law that removed our right to alcohol and now we need to repeal the second amendment which is only there to allow adolescent insufficients the right to fondle their dildos.

  25. Rolland Blodgett July 25, 2012

    An oversight by all…. This country and others will never get rid of violence, violent behavior, thievery, lying, Political intrudence, all the negatives our society falls ill to.
    Most of the % of murders by weapons happens in the poor section of cities, black on black crime.
    some stats:
    one person killed every 39 minutes by a drunk driver.
    Everyday 36 people die and nearly 700 are injured due to accidents caused by drunk drivers.
    Nearly half of all fatalities are caused due to drunk driving.
    in 2007, alcohol related deaths were 15,387, which is approximately 37% of death in the US

    Homicides with firearms 12,129
    suicide by firearms 17,348
    Accidental firearm deaths 721
    Justifiable shootings by law enforcement on criminals 5000
    (please, look these facts up yourself, don’t take anyones word for facts, YOUneed to verify)

    A question to ask is: what % of the population would be saved from gun violence if weapons were banned? and, what % would be killed at the same time from illegal gotten weapons by criminals?

    It seems there is more attention brought on by the number of people killed in one incident, pertaining to guns, which is the reason for these types of discussions and the passions shown.

    You can hypothesize of reasons why these tragedies happen, blaming them on desensitization of ones empathy towards a fellow man brought on by all the violent movies, video games, media; the political correctness which has led to the bizarreness of todays theater of events. All sorts of conjectures.

    Banning weapons would have an effect, possibly an adverse one, banning alcohol would have an effect, a large adverse effect.

    Not getting into Religion…. If all would follow the Ten Commandments, there would be no problem, Period.

    1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

      Rolland… great post. Well laid out. Expect to get the wrath of leftist nutjobs and useful idiots brought down on you because of 2 reasons:

      1) Your post makes perfect common sense, and
      2) You mentioned those “evil” 10 Commandments, which they despise

      Ignore the riff raff, and keep fighting the good fight.

      Have a nice day!

      1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

        There are certain angry (or afraid) people who resort to name-calling. I won der how many criminals are created by growing up in homes filled with angry rhetoric. I wonder how many children are taught to hate anyone who is not of their religion or political party.

        1. EARTHMAN1 July 25, 2012

          Maggie Croft said, “I wonder how many children are taught to hate anyone who is not of their religion or political party.”

          Answer: Offhand I would say at least 99% of all Muslim kids. Then there’s the 95% of young Muslimas (girls) who have their clitoris cut away. Then there’s 600 or 700 million adult Muslima (women) who are classified as slaves to Muslims (adult males) and are considered domestic animals domestic animals in the Qur’an.

          Now explain to me why Americans don’t need automatic weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo to defend against such people?

          Oh, the military (government) will protect us?

          No, they won’t! Obama just gave the Muslim Brotherhood $1,500,000,000.00 of our money. The Musliom Brotherhood has vowed to destroy us from the inside:

          The published Ikhwan (Brotherhood) objective: “The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”…

          Maggie, educate yourself then go out and buy some automatic weapons and plenty of ammo.

          1. Maggie Croft July 26, 2012

            You would think a country that is predominately Christian would not have any violence, wouldn’t you?

          2. Maggie Croft July 26, 2012

            Education is a wonderful thing. I won’t need to go buy myself automatic weapons and ammon because:
            1. I am not paranoid.
            2. I am educated.
            3. I am more afraid of nuts than Muslims.

          3. EARTHMAN1 July 26, 2012

            Education can be a wonderful thing, but it should never be confused with being programmed with nonsense.

            “Paranoia” describes “irrational fear of non-existent danger.”

            Being wary and fearful of Muslims is not irrational. The danger is real.

            If you were properly educated you would know that Muslims worship a mass murderer, rapist, misogynist, slaver, liar, thief, plunderer, Muhammad, and his alter ego, Allah.

            According to the Qur’an, Muhammad is the “perfect man.”

            If you are not a Muslim they are compelled to enslave you, and murder you if you don’t surrender to Islam. It’s all in their unholy “holy book” the Qur’an.

            If you were truly afraid of “nuts,” Muslims would have to top the list.

            So I believe you lied and are simply terminally ignorant.

    2. Robert Downer July 25, 2012

      Other then shoving religion down the throats of those the do not want it…Or of those of a diffirant faith. And BTW this latest wackjob was brought up with the 10 commandments and didn’t the pedifile priests have the 10 commandments,cause they really showed a moral compass….

      1. Rolland Blodgett July 26, 2012

        Aside from not understanding the english written word ( not getting into religion) the downer refers to “shoving religion down the throats of those (the?) do not want it” C’mon, nobody is shoving anything down anyones throat except possibly those that misinterpret what they read. I’ll reiterate, ” if all would follow the ten Commandments, there would be no problem”. Now Mr. Downer, whether you realize it or not, you follow some of those Commandments! I suppose you could call yourself a wackjob, now couldn’t you. No need for you to spin since it’s quit evident you really are not the brightest bulb in the pack.

  26. F R July 25, 2012

    By your factious anger and your willfulness to insult the voices of reason on this blog, Do you honestly believe that you should own a gun?

    1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      I don’t.

  27. Norm Hinderliter July 25, 2012

    I wish that the media would pay attention to an obvious, and factual TRUTH. GUNS DONT KILL! It is the PERSON, the HUMAN BEING, BEHIND the TRIGGER, who does the killing. A gun, of any type, has NO free will, and cannot fire itself. It takes the PERSON, behind the sight, to aim, and pull the trigger. A gun has NO life, of its own, and could not care less if it is never fired. It is the USERS, the gun OPERATORS, the person BEHIND the TRIGGER, who operate the device, and cause the blood-shed. WHY do people find this so impossible to understand? Guns are NOT the problem, here. People are the problem. Mentally disturbed, or not. GUNS DONT KILL! PEOPLE KILL!!!!

    1. fel121 July 25, 2012

      Look genius we know the person is a friggin’ whack job, the point is you precious gun gives these people the ability to kill on a mass scale in seconds, unlike the knife or the bat, and a fertilizer bomb take for more knowledge, time and work to execute than grabbing a gun and jumping in your car, trying to make the false equivalency between the two show you to be either disingenuous or just effing stupid.
      Please inform us of which it is so we can decide how to deal with your future comments.

    2. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      If I happen to find a recipe for building a small atomic bomb in my garage, it won’t be the bomb that kills people. Do you think the bomb should be outlawed for the general public?

      The real problem here is paranoid people with guns. Canada has twice as many guns per person per capita than the United States. The United States has 10 times more gun violence.

  28. Nick559 July 25, 2012

    People get into arguments, an order of protection is filed and granted. The order is reported and the person the order is against can’t pass a background check. If someone is under psychiatric care and prescribed medication with violent tendencies, why should that be any different?

  29. Richie T July 25, 2012

    How many people could a person take out with a hundred round semi automatic assault gun before a person carrying a pistol, if they’re not already down, could take them out, They’re both guns, should they both be legal?
    I fully support the 2nd Amendment, but it’s getting pushed to far.
    This is a perfect example of what’s happening because of that attitude.

  30. Christine Jennings July 25, 2012

    The problem is not the gun. The problem is the person behind the gun.

    If they don’t have guns, they will find something else to terrorize with, like IED’s, knives, even fertilizer. Are we going to ban these things too?

    We need to teach others that guns. or any other weapon for that matter, are fro defense and not offense, except in certain military situations in war.

    Criminals will always have guns. Gun restrictions just keep law abiding citizens from having them to defend themselves, their loved ones, heloping their neighbors and protecting their own personal property.

    Gun control leads to tyranny and domination of those without guns by those who have them. Our founding fathers knew this well and wanted to be sure the average citizen would always be able to have them. That’s why it is part of the Constitution.

    Just enforce the present gun control laws.

    Guerrilla warfare may be no match for the big guns of war on the open battle field, but is was very effective in the American Revolution and in those wars such as the Vietnam War.

    1. fel121 July 25, 2012

      Look genius we know the person is a friggin’ whack job, the point is you precious gun gives these people the ability to kill on a mass scale in seconds, unlike the knife or the bat, and a fertilizer bomb take for more knowledge, time and work to execute than grabbing a gun and jumping in your car, trying to make the false equivalency between the two show you to be either disingenuous or just effing stupid.
      Please inform us of which it is so we can decide how to deal with your future comments.

  31. Christine Jennings July 25, 2012

    I see you have censored my free speech.

  32. Jerpell July 25, 2012

    Hmm…12,500 people murdered from gun violence yearly in this country, the country panics for more gun rules and regulation!
    Hmm…49,000 people killed from violent car crashes yearly in this country and not even a whisper!

    1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      We do have to register our cars and be able to prove we can drive in order to get a license to drive.

      1. Jerpell July 25, 2012

        Your right and still hundreds of thousands are still killed with motor vehicles….
        You think more regulation of firearms will help, I doubt it!
        Vehicle accidents kill way more than firearms do!

        1. Maggie Croft July 26, 2012

          Not as many at one time.

          1. Jerpell July 26, 2012

            There was just an incident in Texas in which a pickup truck carring 23 people in it, got into an accident and I think 14 or 15 people were killed!…just sayin…..

  33. Melvin Chatman July 25, 2012

    I talked to a Guy one day who owned several Assault Rifles and a ton of ammo.
    This was back in 08, and, if certain things happened by the first of 09, he was “prepared” to take HIS Country back.
    I now look @ Google Maps to see if some Aliens had come in the night and stole America from the face of the Earth (STRANGE!)
    Certain folks out there are equipping themselves with ARs, AKs, Grenades, 50cals, 9mms, and building Bunkers – for WHAT?
    James Holmes is just the “Tip of The Iceburg” – What happened?

  34. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

    I grew up with guns. My husband added to the collection I recieved from my father. My cousin has one of the largest gun collections in the world. My brothers, and I, were taught to shoot a gun as soon as we could hold up a 22. My father, my brothers, my cousin, and my sons respect guns as tools. None of us are gun nuts who are obsessed with guns. Canada has more guns per capita than the United States. They have 1/10th the violent gun deaths. The guns aren’t the problem. The nuts are. The paranoid who has guns around because he is afraid is one of the problems. If I had to face an angry person with a gun or a scared person, I would take the angry person. Maybe I could talk him down. The NRA is organized gun nuts who think the world would be safer if everyone in the mall was carrying an AK-47.

    For your information: No president, Democrat or Republican, has tried to take people’s guns away from them. That is a fear tactic used by the NRA (organized gun nuts).

  35. chill1957 July 25, 2012

    Still more people are killed each year by drunk drivers than nuts with guns, I’m saying we’ve got bigger problems in this country than gun control, hell even doctors kill more with malpractice than idiots with guns, you’ve heard this before and I’m saying it again, GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!!

  36. Nino Bookman July 25, 2012

    The most horrific mass murders have been done with bombs and explosives. They are banned and require licenses and permits to own and handle – still they are available to those who want to do harm to innocent people. A myriad of other means to kill are available to criminals besides guns. There are numerous gun laws on the books that if applied properly would avert much of the criminal activity by gun offenders…but lawyers and courts circumvent these laws in a variety of ways. Only law abiding citizens respect and adhere to the gun laws anyway…criminals do not. An assualt weapon is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle designed to look like what the military uses. The only gun law that would work to avert criminal use of them, is if everyone in the world handed in his weapon and all guns in the World destroyed – a utopic notion at best – it isn’t going to happen. So more gun laws won’t accomplish a mass murder free World. As it is, I have had numerous strong arm burglaries close to my home and I deserve the right to protect myself and my famliy in my home by lethal force if necessary. Taking my guns from me, imposing more useless laws and making every gun owner out to be a criminal is wrong and a hysterical reaction to a admittedly senseless crime by a mad man. I want to defend my right to have a weapon so I can respond to violence of the criminal if necessary. Stop this hallucination that more gun laws is going to prevent murder – it just isn’t true. Murderers are with us since time began and they aren’t going away anytime soon.

  37. Betta July 25, 2012

    More gun laws will NOT help! You are talking about disarming the law abiding citizens against the criminal element, who will ALWAYS be able to get guns. Present laws do not deter criminals and never will.

    Verne – you are correct about “proliferation of guns in general is tightly correlated with murder rates.” Yes, crimes involving guns are down where the criminal knows anybody could be packing. These mass murders happen where guns are not allowed. Not so at shooting ranges, etc, where everybody has a gun. Get the picture?

    If you were hell bent on a shooting spree, where are you likely to commit this crime? You would do it at a place where you know NOBODY else has a gun to shoot back and take your ass out.

  38. Bill Butler July 25, 2012

    It is called a constitutional amendment. If you want tougher gun laws change the constitution. Good luck with that. Thank God for that!

    In 1776 the weapons and firearms of the time were of sufficient action as to repel the best Army and Navy in the world, the British. That devil of a renegade, a terrorist of his day, a traitor to the Crown, George Washington used the people to raise a militia of Citizens of the Crown to send the King’s troops running and establish a Republic called the United States of America. The purpose of the second amendment was and is not about hunting for food. It was and is to ensure the people continue to hold the power required when the Republic is threatened to be overthrown by any enemy, foreign or Domestic. It is the people who have the power, not the Government although our Government seems to think they hold the power over us. Our Military forces are the people and just like any other people pushed to the brink they will understand what the oath of enlistment had them swear to. Together with a well regulated Militia of a citizen Military already armed to defend against today’s modern military in like force. William Deutschlander, um let’s see, Bill German Land? Right we need the Germans to be telling us how to run the country. Verne_J_Hostan, it seems you are not very educated about the existing Gun laws. Please learn about them before you start talking about we need more. Educate yourself.

    People who use guns to kill people are prosecuted just like people who drive drunk and kill far more people per year than guns do. Children are molested and killed by monsters and are prosecuted. People who use guns to kill people illegally are prosecuted. Insane people in Florida at the time of the crime are sentenced to a mental health establishment until deemed sane and then stand trial for their crime. I do not own assault weapons or firearms. I do own pistols, revolvers, and have the ammo for them all. I keep about 100 rounds of each because the range I go to charges more for ammo than the Chinese outlet store, Walmart, and I go to a range to target shoot at a minimum of once per month. I am a 100% disabled Vietnam Veteran and do pretty good from a chair. In Daytona Beach Florida a few months back a friend of mine aslo a 100% disabled Vietnam Vet was attacked in his home by four, all under 17 years of age, 5.9 to 6.3 tall and all about 180 pounds. He is a frail man of about 100 pounds max. But the Glock in his hand leveled the playing field. He did not suffer injuries, they did. How sad it would have been had he been killed. They had the firepower to do it with them, each firearm illegally obtained, under 18 years of age each one. So what new gun law do we need to pass to ensure guns do not get to these poor little children that have been misguided by dysfunctional families and social services?

    Tell you what, if you feel there should be no guns in public hands that is your right. Want a constitutional change then start a movement to do so. The “Brady bunch” hasn’t had much luck in that department, have they? Or you could just move to Bloomberg City, formally called New York, where at least the Mayor will agree with you as you lay in you coffin from being killed by a unarmed crack head that hit you in the back of the head with a baseball bat. So hurry out and have all baseball bats outlawed. Unreal. Americans protect themselves, others don’t. What are you going to do? Tell the Perp’s of the world that you will pray for them as kill you, rape your lady, torture your children, and steal all you have. Remember this, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

  39. EDWARD July 25, 2012

    Reference to the Second Amendment giving a right to individuals calls for reminding people
    that it was not the case for 217 years until the Supreme Court ruling in 2008; a 5-4 decision.
    Court cases and a plurality of legal scholars over the years have come down on the amendment giving a right to states to have their own military if desired ( militias ). Every sentence has a subject and a predicate. The Amendment’s sentence has as the subject the
    security of the state. The predicate to achieve the subject is having a well regulated militia.
    Too bad Scalia et al have such a poor command of language. Hopefully the amendment will
    be revisited and, as we now have standing military, completely eradicated.

  40. patrioticallymoderate July 25, 2012

    Oozies and automatic rifles – Yes, that for sure is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they adopted the Second Amendment.

    This gun debate has nothing to do with guns. It is about people that don’t like people that have guns because they don’t like their attitude, they don’t like their politics, etc. All this talk about guns is just politics – radical right wing politics – and it is tearing our country apart.

  41. OldEagleEars July 25, 2012

    A few points the commentator forgot to include: that scary 100-round magazine the shooter used FAILED (as most of them do) after only a few shots; the shooter was NOT wearing body armor as reported, but was wearing a “tactical” vest and knee pads that will hardly slow down a bullet, much less repel it (be sure of your target before you take shots at it – basic knowledge all responsible marksmen know); it is a safe bet that the shooter had no room in his fantasy for anyone shooting BACK at him and the “Gun Free” nature of the environment confirmed that. But had a reasonably trained civilian with a legal firearm returned fire (as they are legally and morally permitted to do), there is every reason to expect that this deviation from his fantasy could well have caused the shooter to cease his murderous rampage and might well have either wounded or killed him. That is not a “NRA delusion” but a high-probability scenario! Being shot at the first time in your life is a remarkably focusing event (as I learned in Vietnam) and the video games he played did not have that reality in their programming. Also the definition of “assault-weapon” seems to be quite inexact with the gun-ignorant basing it on appearance rather than any commonly acknowledged official category. I can easily attach enough brackets, rails sights and hand-grips to a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun to make it an “assault rifle” in the eyes of most of the media and probably the author of this essay. Yes, the framers of the constitution were familiar only with single-shot, flintlock, black powder weapons that took thirty-seconds for a trained marksman to reload, but you can bet that visionaries like Franklin and Jefferson, and soldiers like Washington and Lee, would have welcomed the chance to equip their army and their population with modern arms to aid in their defense.
    Is it the availability of firearms that allow these massacres to take place? No, that is “blaming the tool and not the fool” as an old friend would say. Had the madman (and yes he is!) taken a Ford Crown Victoria to the parking lot of that theater and driven at high speed into the same crowd of people as they waited outside for admission, the probability of an equal, or greater amount of death and injury certainly exists. In such a scenario would there be a cry for the banning of Crown Victorias? (Yes, I’m aware that they are no longer in production but they exist in huge numbers in our country still) Should they be banned as “tactical-vehicles” since many police departments still use them? The analogy is far from foolish.
    The law-abiding, sober, and sane will never misuse weapons as this young man did and yet some want to punish them for his sins. This fellow was intelligent enough that he would have devised a method of mass-murder if no weapon more lethal than a butter knife were available. A large part of the responsibility for this event must be placed on a society that insured that all the members of that audience were potential victims of this one man’s rage by indiscriminately denying them the means to protect themselves.
    I have no wish to see guns in the hands of criminals, fools or madmen but that is precisely what anti-firearm legislation guarantees. I own, use and carry firearms both as a hobby and as protection for my self, family and home (since there are no cops sitting in my driveway 24/7), and I forbid you or anyone else to make me and mine a potential victim just to satisfy your personal sense of social morality. I did not carry a weapon in war to give you the right to tell me I can’t carry one at home.

  42. tedcmd2003 July 25, 2012

    And the highest murder rates are where guns are outlawed already – Chicago, Washington DC. The problem lies in the perpetrator, not the vehicle. Holmes could have done as much or more damage with a firebomb. So ban gasoline? Matches? How about you recognize that it is the individual’s responsibility to provide their own safety and security? If that means carrying a concealed weapon for you or me, I’m OK with that. Putting up a NO Guns sign should make the business owner liable when someone like Holmes, recognizes a soft target, and creates a tragedy and the lawful gun owners had to leave their weapon in their cars.

  43. D July 25, 2012

    The only people that would be affected by stiffer gun laws would be law abiding citizens. Any person who really wants to do unlawful things isn’t going to be stopped my gun laws. They will just break into your house & steal yours or break into stores or armorys.

  44. Joe Szpak July 25, 2012

    Gene you are a typical anti gun nut, you have no facts so you go on the attack. OK Sparky tell me one law you would create to be sure this never happened again, come now you can surely think of one can you not. Yea thought so pal. Tell me to grow up because I have a hobby I like and listen up jackass 6000 rounds is nothing to go through on a weekend of shooting with friends. You should keep your mouth shut if you don’t know what you are talking about

  45. EARTHMAN1 July 25, 2012

    Mass murder IS a “legal” right. The weapons are medical tools in the hands of a doctor. The universal scene of the crime is a woman’s uterus and the victim is always an unborn child.

    The rationale is always the same: A woman has the right to defend herself from an 18 year responsibility by the result of her enjoying a romp in the sack.

    50+ million children have been murdered by their mothers and their mother’s doctors. If children were conceived with a tiny 44 magnum in their little hands, their psychotic mothers and their deranged doctors would not reach up there and crush the little baby’s head. They’d eat a large slug instead.

    People can get all emotional over the horror of people being shot by a crazed gunman while sitting in their theater seats, but where is the rational and emotional outrage against 50 million – or even one child – being stalked and murdered by their own mothers while lying comfortably in her womb?

    You crazies really do make me sick!

    1. tonilaura July 25, 2012

      A very dear relative just had her fourth miscarriage. My heart bleeds for her. I’ve had my own, and it is no fun. For the women who play and discard the results, due to thier careless ways, in my mind, are criminals.

  46. bcarreiro July 25, 2012

    when someone inteads to hurt another human being, they will find the means to do so. We should have limit restrictions on these weapons and their ammo, unless you are military or law enforcement. we will see this again and again if nothing has changed.

  47. phantomoftheopera July 25, 2012

    can someone explain to me the point of rapid-fire automatic or semi-automatic weapons? other than killing people, what use are they? and, if they are deemed protected under the 2nd amendment, why not atomic bombs in the hands of the citizenry?

    1. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

      What use are they(assault rifle)?
      How about self defense?
      How about saving “my” life?
      Or do you want to deny me that too?
      I guess you think the police can get here in time to save me and my family.
      The police are there to clean up the mess and put the bad guys in jail, the ones that survive anyway. But not to defend me. Otherwise they would be in my drive way 24hrs. I am responsible for the defense of myself and my family. Arent you?

      Maybe you dont face any threats where you are and the police are sitting on your doorstep 24hr a day. In which case I could see why you dont see the need for any assault rifles.

      But not all of us are as fortunate and safe as you.

      I need one for equal force to what will be coming at me when they come. And they will be coming. When they do, they will have AK 47’s(Russian), the choice weapon of the hoodlums, gangs, and other bad guys. Large volume of fire with a heavy bullet. To hell with accuracy and collateral damage and innocents killed. What do they care. They just spray a whole area dont care who they hit.

      I dont want to have to face them with a single shot 22. I need equal force.

      My last encounter I had to fight off 4 pick up loads with only a pistol so dont say I am just paranoid. I know what I am dealing with. Fortunately for me they were chicken sh–t’s and left after they got some return fire.

      An AR15(American) is equal force. A much smaller bullet but much more accurate. Less collateral damage.

      I wont be taking mine downtown though, or the school, or theater or to their houses.

      It will be here just for my defense.

      Why do you have a problem with that?

      It is not going to hurt anyone who is not trying to kill me.

      But without it I, and my family will be killed.

      You say I am paranoid.
      I say I am a realist.
      Come live here for a while then see what you say.

      As for atomic bombs – weapons of mass destruction are a totally different matter.
      A poor, invalid comparison.

      1. CharlieW July 26, 2012

        Having a bigger or faster shooting weapon DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER WARRIOR. Let’s talk about that single shot 22, I have one, it shoots 22 long rimfire ammo it is far more accurate than an AK47 and has 3 times the range. I can defend myself with it. If you came after me with your AK47 or AR15, you’d never get within shooting distance .

        In your post you stated;
        “My last encounter I had to fight off 4 pick up loads with only a pistol so dont say I am just paranoid. I know what I am dealing with. Fortunately for me they were chicken sh–t’s and left after they got some return fire.”

        I have lived in some of the most violent places imaginable, and I find that your statement is often the case. You will find that a lot of these people you fear so much, want no part of an opponent that fights back.

        The little man can fight back and defend himself, remember the story of David and Goliath, David only had a sling shot.

  48. DennisRL July 25, 2012

    What the article is saying: ak-47 assault refiles are only needed by the military and police and no one else. What gun advicates hear: They want to take away all of my guns! Logic and reason seem to go out the window when it comes to gun rights. What it boils down to is that it’s the logical and moral thing to do to outlaw these assault rifles. Will it prevent this type of thing from happening? Probably not. But if this individual had to do this cowardly deed with only a shotgun and a couple of hand guns, would the toll have been as bad?

  49. David J. Parker July 25, 2012

    As a canadian who grew up in Britain I think your country has a case of collective insanity. It seems to have reached the point where rational, humane and sane conversation on gun use has been chucked out with your brains. Try and think like life mattered, guns are for one reason – killing. If you still think they should be unregulated when loonies can get one just like a new toothbrush then you are as crazy as the rest.

    1. Maggie Croft July 25, 2012

      David, I have been wondering the same thing about my country, only, it makes me sad. Through radical groups, the country has been taught to fear, mistrust and hate people with different view points. One infamous dictator used hate and fear to usurp the democracy in his country. I didn’t think it could ever happen here. Now, I hear the hateful, angry rhetoric and I fear that it can happen.

    2. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

      David… the good thing about the US Constitution is that it allows even foreigners like you to have your freedom of speech, unlike in Canada where conservative speakers are routinely shut down and threatened with jail if they talk. But we Americans actually like our freedoms and liberty, and according to our 2nd Ammendment, we have the right to bear arms. Not just for a militia, but specifically “the people”. That means that most of us are NOT willing to trade our freedoms and liberties for the phony perception of security to stop incidents which have ocurred throughout human history and will continue so long as humas exist. The only people that have guns when they are outlawed are the criminals, whom, by definition, do not care what the laws are. So, if you like your Canadian approach to guns, by all means, stay there. But the vast majority of us Americans have our way too. And we’re not changing!

      Have a nice day!

      PS> Corporations are people too

      1. H8 Fools July 25, 2012

        Corporations are not people – we can’t throw them in prison, they don’t meet the agreed upon standards for “life” as defined by the medical profession, they don’t age and die. They are a business model that’s run amok in a country whose government is wholly influenced by private money. In other countries, they describe that kind of influence as: corruption. Here, it’s “campaign contributions.” The only way we are going to start to fix the systemic problems in this country is to end corruption and the only way to do that is to mandate public elections for all governmental positions. Equal money to each party and let the best ideas win – that’s what democracy is all about.

        1. ObozoMustGo July 25, 2012

          Hater…. that’s not what the Supreme Court said. Sorry. Corporations are people with common interests and goals who share a legal status. They are free to participate in political speech just like you are.

          And your utopia vision of democracy with equal money to each party is NOT what democracy is all about. Besides, we do NOT have a democracy. Sorry. We have a representative republic. They are different, thank God! And in our election process, the candidate with the best ideas tends to get the most money. But even then, money does not mean majority of votes at the polls. Under your scenario, which other countries (like commie countries) have, you’re expecting the foxes to be the ones guarding the hen house. How do you trust politicians to enact laws that would lead to their removal? Of course they wouldn’t. Don’t be a fool. The best was is a totally free market of ideas and money. No restrictions. Then everone is treated equally under the law.

          Have a nice day!

          1. CharlieW July 26, 2012

            You’ve made a couple of thoughtless statements here;
            “the candidate with the best ideas tends to get the most money. ” that should read,the candidate that can fool the most people tends to get the most money.
            “The best was is a totally free market of ideas and money. No restrictions. Then everone is treated equally under the law.”
            This has never existed, nowhere

      2. CharlieW July 26, 2012

        The major problem with your essay is no one in America has proposed, nor will guns ever be “outlawed”

    3. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

      Well that certainly settles it. You Canadians and especially Brits are so perfect.
      I have heard of a Brit called Tarrelton(Check our your/our Revolutionary War history) who murdered Americans(including women and children) at will and was one reason why we wanted be be separate from you Brits.
      Come down here and live where I do, see the gangs, the home invasions, the murders then I might listen to your opinion. Until then you should stick to Canadian policies and problems. As we say down here – “You dont have any skin in this game” so your experience and thus opinion matters little here. ps A gun can also be a life saver. Also as they say here – until you have lived it down here in the trenches with us your opionion dont mean much here.

  50. H8 Fools July 25, 2012

    Mass-murder is not, of course, legal. What is constitutional and legal is the right of the public to own, purchase and use firearms in a responsible way. I seriously doubt many of you, after someone ran over 50 people with a truck, would try and ban trucks. Well, that’s exactly what you’re advocating for here. The problem with all of this is just the plain fact that gun control doesn’t work – it doesn’t keep weapons out of the hands of those who would use them in an irresponsible way.

    Look at Norway – they totally restrict firearms, they have some of the most “liberal” laws on guns but that didn’t stop Anders Brevvik (or however you spell his name) from committing the largest mass-murder in modern history: 77 people killed and over 150 wounded. The fact is, this is a human issue – not a gun issue. Guns are like computers, the effect they have, the good or bad they do to society is totally dependent upon the person using them.

    It’s “easy” to go after the guns because the human part is more difficult to confront. It’s difficult to come up with an effective method of identifying people who will commit heinous acts of wanton murder and violence against society. No one has figured it out – that’s what you gun control advocates should devote your efforts to instead of trying to confiscate my legally owned and purchased assault rifles.

    Where the government can improve upon the law concerning firearms is to update the background check system. They need to update the complete infrastructure and computerize the whole thing so background checks can be sent in and completed with the click of a button. That way, sales made at gun-shows could be brought under the same regulation that all other sales are in gun stores. Crazy people and felons have no business using, owning or purchasing firearms – you’ll have no argument for me there, just don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Responsible people who obey the law and use firearms in a responsible way should have every right to purchase, buy, bear and use firearms in a legal way. Their rights need to be upheld and protected because the second amendment was the “framers” checks and balances to government limiting the first amendment. The second amendment is there as a last resort for the people should the government try to restrict or eliminate the first amendment.

    Think about it, what would you do if the Government restricted public demonstration, imposed martial law and eliminated free speech? What are you going to do? Protest? These ideas are called crazy by snobs who forget our history – at the date when these amendments were written, the people had risen up against a tyrannical king, thrown off the influence of a foreign super-power, defeated a full-scale occupation and installed self-governance.

    The framers saw fit to protect the people from their own government by leaving the populace armed with the ability to foment a new “revolution” (see: election) every four years and rise up against it if the people could no longer petition it for grievance. If you go back and read some of the thoughts of Franklin, Adams, Washington and Madison – they address these very scenarios when discussing the need for the second amendment. So maybe my ideas are crazy – but they are the same one’s the framers of the constitution had when they were writing the bill of rights.


    Mathew Lengyel

    1. William H. Burke, Jr. July 25, 2012

      What the hell are you going to do with your legally owned and purchased assault rifles?
      I own a Smith and Wesson 686 revolver for home protection, and it can fire 6 357 magnum rounds. I think this type of firearm should be legal. But a semi-automatic
      assault rifle? For what? Are you a member of the Navy Seals who killed Bin Laden?
      This type of gun should be banned except for the police and the military. Period.

      1. DEFENDER88 July 25, 2012

        The gangs down town have AK47 assault rifles. Your revolver(while better than nothing) will be way out gunned if they come to your house.

        1. CharlieW July 26, 2012

          It is the man, not the weapon. I know some “Professionals” that could take out your gang-bangers and their AK47’s with a knife.

          1. DEFENDER88 July 26, 2012

            Good for you. And good for them.
            Are they going to be here when I need them?
            I think not. Nor the police either.
            The police “might” get here in time to mark off and bag my body.
            Assuming we still have police at that time.
            There were no police in New Orleans after Katrina.
            I am an old man who cant move like I used too.
            And I am not going to leave my house to the bangers.
            It will be do or die here for me when they come.
            So, I need an equalizer.
            I do however know gun tactics and can operate a weapon efficiently and shoot accurately even when being shot at.
            And a AR would at least give me a chance.
            I still have determination, guts and nerve but not the physical abilities I once had.
            The difference, and justification here is I will only have it here and not out gang banging with it.
            I should have the right to defend myself with at least equal force.
            And not left to their mercy because “you” dont like assault rifles.
            And I dont have the skills of “your” professionals.
            Prove to me that they will not be coming here for me, not ever. Or the police will always be here, at my house, for me and I will downgrade to a pistol.
            Frankly, I am not that fond of assault rifles either. And would not have one if I did not “need” one.
            “My” use of one(defensive only) would, however, be fully justified if I ever had to use it.

  51. H8 Fools July 25, 2012

    Here’s the bottom line: as prohibition has demonstrated, making private ownership of firearms illegal would create a massive under-current in the black market to provide illegal buyers with their desired goods (smuggled or zip guns).

    It didn’t work with alcohol, doesn’t work with drugs and won’t work with guns – even if you restricted all of them.

  52. debra gogan July 25, 2012

    you no he killed the people not the guns hang the muders and save money and tack out the trash to many bleeding harts want to save everyone but dont really want to spank the bad well cant just say dont do that it dont work

  53. waltervhughes July 25, 2012

    This is all B. S. : after 30 years of violent movies and video games, what do you expect? Someone is going to act out the drama like it is still the movie or game. It’s O.K. if our military mass murders people in other countries, thousands upon thousands, or brings down the towers. All New Yorkers know that was an inside job. The CIA goes to other countries and murders politicians we don’t like….of course, all of above aren’t “real people” like the those in the theater, right?

  54. Newborn July 26, 2012

    In U.S. unfortunately it is constitutionally right to mass murder, until people realize that the times have changed. Guns i.e. a hand driven revolver was maybe acceptable for founders when society was undefended and without organized police forces. Today it’s no more the case. But when Americans will be be able to stop NRA bullying? Maybe until they’ll be the universal joke even by Chinese who already laugh at cowboys.

  55. Dan Thrasher July 26, 2012

    I do not want my rights infringed upon. I own assault rifles, auto pistols and thousands of rounds of ammo. That’s my right. I am ready to defend myself against anything. If people don’t like our gun laws, how about they move to Mexico. One of the toughest gun control laws in the world and also one of the highest gun murder rates in the world. We have constitutional protection and we will not give up our guns. Also, you cannot purchase guns online and have them shipped to you. Doesn’t work that way.

    1. CharlieW July 26, 2012

      You watch too many Rambo movies, you’re not and never will be him.

    2. Maggie Croft July 26, 2012

      When the coming natural disasters happen, you can use your assault rifles against the tsunamis or the calderas.

  56. Michael Byerly July 26, 2012

    OK, I may be mixing situations , but here goes….
    Besides the “crazies” most killings by guns are over jealousy,
    bigotry, and the biggest reason in my opinion…fighting over
    the sale-production-distribution-addiction to ILLEGAL DRUGS!

    Stop this idiotic, expensive, futile war on drugs in America TODAY!
    Use the money to educate, rehabilitate, and treat addicts.

    The Aurora massacre was a racially diverse crowd. The killer was white,
    and insane!

    What I’m talking about is going on in every American city! If these drugs had NO
    street value, the people killing over them would have no reason for it.

    NO, it won’t stop all killing, but I think it would reduce the amount of GUN deaths
    drastically, all without ever changing ANY gun laws!

    Do this first, then we can work on the many other reasons folks want to kill
    one another. Boy do I miss the late 60’s and 70’s….PEACE!

  57. CharlieW July 26, 2012

    No Politician has ever proposed an outright ban on guns, to say this is an attempt to play on the fears of the uninformed. I think that all Military style weapons should be well and strictly regulated. I own and use regularly many firearms , I hunt and target shoot avidly. Yet I have absolutely no use for military style firearms, since I have no plans to hunt or kill people. Nor have I ran into any violence that my 357, 6 cylinder, magnum revolver couldn’t handle, I don’t need a machine gun Show me a person with a lot of Military style firearms and I’ll show you a Rambo wannabe.

  58. Obomber July 26, 2012


  59. NutCutter July 26, 2012

    I guess the weapons they are getting in Mexico from South America and Asia don’t count in your hate America rant.

  60. Mark Lang July 26, 2012

    The gun did not kill those people, the idiot who owned it did. If it were not a gun it would have been something else. Stop trying to promote U.N. rule in AMERICA!

  61. totenkatz July 26, 2012

    Oh give it a break!

  62. Robert July 26, 2012

    Could not have said it better. Thank You

  63. ridemybroom July 26, 2012

    I have said over and over and over so blantantly its ok to own a gun in America and why not…i think every person in this country has that right…and why shouldnt they….they need to protect themselves somehow… BUT….whats not ok is to have the ammo for it…this country should get it together and blow up all this high powered ammo then they couldnt stock their weapons with killing bullets…and i would place a high fine for anyone caught ordering if you can find it…that time will come when there will be no ammo and anyone caught with it should be fined…its is your constitutional right to own a gun…but not the ammo…i say confiscate all the ammo …if you are a gun owner then your house should be searched from top to bottom…this way we know everyone will be safe (maybe)…..store all the ammo in ft knox so the police and armed services will be the only people who can get at it…then should someone try to kill you with his weapon give him/her the death penalty…it would then be an automatic sentence…why go through all this when you can ban the ammo…!!!…the time has come America !

  64. Hillbilly July 26, 2012

    In regards to the 2nd amendment, since the founders of this country only had flintlock rifles, 1 shot pistols and cannons this is what gun owners of today should be allowed to have legally: a flintlock rifle would equal a 30 aught 6 rifle, a one shot pistol equals a 6 shooter and there is no equal for cannons because we still have cannons used by the military. A flintlock could also equal a single shot shotgun. No ammo could be bought on line, it has to be bought in person, no body protectors like the Aurora shooter had can be bought on line and only can be sold to law enforcement or the military in person. As for semi automatic weapons that can be turned into automotic weapons with a few adjustments should not be sold at all. If you can’t shoot a duck, a pleasant or a deer so on with a rifle you aren’t much of a marksman to start with.

  65. Walter July 26, 2012

    Strict gun control laws will not stop crazy people from killing some one if they set their mind to do it. Keeping these sick people from having the opportunity to kill poeple is what is needed.
    The ignorant gun ban dolts just can’t understand that simple fact.

  66. EARTHMAN1 July 26, 2012

    I see you’re ignorant of Christianity as well.

    This is not about Christianity. There is nothing in the New Testament where Christ orders his followers to kill all those who refuse to believe in him and worship him.

    The Qur’an and Hadiths are full of the commands by Allah and Muhammad for all Muslims to kill all unbelievers wherever they are found.

    It is Muslims who have been obedient to the Qur’an by slaughtering innocents to advance the cause of Islam for 1400 years.

    Murder, suicide, rape, sodomy, misogyny, slavery, racism, bestiality, robbery, extortion and unending deception is what Islam is all about.

    The Qur’an commands every detail of a Muslim’s life. Read the Qur’an. Read what Muhammad commanded his followers to do. Read about Muhammad sodomizing his six year old wife, Aisha. Read about Muhammad slaughtering and looting Christians and Jews. Read about Muhammad making the women, girls, and wives and children of 900 Jews watch as their men, husbands and boys were being beheaded. Read about how Muhammad selected the most beautiful Jewish woman and made her watch as he beheaded her husband. Read how Muhammad serially raped her. Read how she refused to convert to Islam and died as Muhammad’s captive.

    Show us where Christ did any of these things.

    It’s not about Christianity. It’s about Islam and our corrupted government.

    1. tonilaura July 26, 2012

      Well, you are most knowledgable about Muslin life, certainly more then me but then, I am an imperfect Christian, trying to live a life granted to me by God. I do none of things you point out as a muslin’s way of life. But I am a sinner. I rarely turn the other check. I do not rob or murder. I do not believe I have jealous thoughts of what others have, good or bad, money or not, power or none. I do believe in justice for all. I deplore the weakness of some who administrate the laws of the country. I do vote for who I believe is sincere and will put the good of the country and the protection of the people first. I do believe we are in great danger of being divided because people insisted on a prefix before American. I do believe Obama and Holder are trying to divide to conquer. i do believe there are enough good people with the responsibility to look, access and vote but too many who will not. it seems to be a question of “my one vote won’t matter”but it will. A poem, Old Ironsides comes to mind,” AY, tear her tattered ensign down, Long has it waved on high. And many a heart has danced to see that banner in the sky, Beneath it rung the battle shout, And burst the cannon’s roar,- The meteor of the ocean air Shall sweep the clouds no more” This is only the first verse and it is of the UUS Constitution. It was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., father of a great US Supreme Court Justice and a man who knew the horrors of the War between the States first hand.My father gave me his books of poems before I even entered school. How quick we are to forget. Because we have forgetten or just maybe those who came in recent years doesn’t want to know, we are on the road to division.. George Washington, a wise man beyond his time, said to avoid ” foreign antanglements” and I beleive he meant business is business but stay out of their politics. I will leave you with another poem from my favorite author,”The Last Leaf” last verse “And if I should live to be The last leaf upon the tree In The spring, Let them smile as I do now, At the old forsaken bough Where I cling”. Both Holmes were lawyers, both remarkable men.

  67. EDWARD July 26, 2012

    All of the comments go back and forth endlessly without pointing to solid scientific
    evidence of having strong regulations on gun ownership, types of weapons, ammunition and so on. In 2010 more than 31000 Americans were killed with firearms ( the last year for which I have figures) ; that’s more than 10 Sept. ll’s in one year! Yet we spend hundreds of billions on homeland security, much of which creates inconvenience and inhibits freedoms.
    So, it’s OK to see thousands of Americans killed to uphold warped views of freedoms, but
    god forbid we don’t want to see any of us killed by a foreigner!!. Comparisons with other societies is always fraught with difficulty : demographic differences,etc. Nonetheless, a
    very similar nation is Canada. It is an immigrant, pluralistic, confederation, as we are.
    Canadians own firearms. Indeed, a greater percentage of the population hunts than do in
    the US. There is no constitutional right, which is a pointless right in my opinion, ,,raising
    all types of issues that, amongst other things, leads to fractiousness.
    Canada has stricter gun laws than we do, but ownership is not forbidden to the law-abiding,
    competent, responsible citizenry. Canada’s rate of gun violence is less than a fifth of
    ours. Extrapolation would give us a US death rate from firearms of about 6,000 per year
    instead of over 30,000 and, following Canada’s example, we’d still have considerable
    freedom; One might argue even more.

  68. AllenS July 26, 2012

    banning guns is not the answer but making it harder for people with a mental condition is there has never been a case were banning guns solved the problem the criminals are going to get guns regardless of weather we ban guns or not it just puts the innocent in more trouble to were we can not defend our selves then the only ones with guns will be the criminals. right now the criminals have more rights then the citizens do if the citizens could have to right to protact their own lives and property then the crimes would not be as bad look at london england they have gun bans their police can not carry guns and their crime rate is 10 times more then the U.S. so that should tell you banning guns will not and never will work .

  69. Robert P. Robertson July 26, 2012

    There is no reason whatever for any individual, let alone criminals or the mentslly ill, to own an assault rifle in a civilian capacity. These weapons are designed for war, mass destruction, and nothing more. Gun aficinadfos know that owning these guns are no more than ego-tripping, something that makes them feel powerful in their powerless lives. They are not really for hunting or for patriots bearing arms in case of tyranny, they are for war. The youth killing one another on the streets across America are using these weapons and are buying them from gun-runners, police, or stealing them from gun aficiandos. You have to wonder about the mentality of an individual who would get-off at the sight of a massively destructive assault weapon. They should be banned and restricted primarily to the military. Even the police should not be able to own an assault type weapon unless it is being attacked wityh assault type weapons. Loopholes for the possession of them should be eliminated so that they would never find their way into the public for use by some idiot whose life is so worthless that they feel killing a mass of people would make them feel better.

  70. totenkatz July 27, 2012

    You been to Rwanda? I have back in February so maybe I know better what happen there better then you do. I bow hunt and sometimes the bow doesn’t kill the deer and I had to finish it off with, wait….okay not a machete but will my big hunting knife, that’s the reason its call a hunting knife. But it cleans big fish too. So heck I don’t even need a hunting or semi auto rifle to put food on my table. How do you get meat for your family? So you were in the military and a police man. You must have been since you understand how stress under fire can slow your ability to draw your weapon. Or does it? I never been a cop but I’ve been in enough hairy situations during my 20 years in the Army to understand the stress of combat and believe you me. I got damn good getting my weapon draw if and when necessary. Here it comes, guns don’t kill people bullets do :-), or for that fact cars, knives, rocks, IEDs, bombs, missiles, rockets, arrows, spears, etc, etc, etc.

  71. RodgerMitchell July 27, 2012

    Question: If the authors of the Constitution wanted everyone to have guns, why didn’t didn’t they simply write: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why did they feel the need to reference “a well regulated Militia”?

    Anyway, the solution is to enact a law that reads: “If a gun of any type and/or ammunition for that gun, is used in the commission of a felony, the manufacturer, distributor, importer and/or supplier of that gun and/or ammunition, shall be liable, civilly and criminally, in equal measure with the perpetrator of the felony.”

  72. FromWestla July 27, 2012

    I am a Vietnam era, former U. S. Army officer who has taken a solemn oath ” to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic”. While I completely understand the misguided reasoning of those who want to violate the 2nd Amendment because they are frightened by the threat of unexpected, unmindful misuse of firearms by a hand full of mentally ill, and/or disenchanted lunatics, I want to remind them of what was said many years ago by a guy would once lived in my hometown of Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin is credited with not only being one of the most prolific geniuses this country has ever produced but he was known for his understated brilliance in political matters.

    Ben Franklin’s wisdom should be passed down through the ages to all thinking Americans. He said, “Any group of people who are willing to relinquish their rights in the name of safety, deserve to have neither”.

    The right to bear arms was a central theme for the founding fathers. They knew way back then that over time, governments may become so completely repressive of We, the People, that they wanted the government to always be concerned that if it fails to properly govern in a way that benefits We, the People, that the people not only have a right to overthrow the government, but also retain the right to maintain armaments that enable them to do so.

    There has never been a time in human history when citizens had no danger to be concerned with. Danger is and always will be a fact of life. The only life forms that are completely shielded from danger are caged birds. The of course are not exposed to danger… but then again, THEY ARE NOT FREE, EITHER.

    Freedom is a choice that we all must continue to make. As a free man, I choose freedom over absolute safety! What about you?

  73. Mary Reilly July 27, 2012

    I have never been a gun lover of any kind. However I respect the right to bear arms. Sadly that right has been severly misinterpreted. I don’t think our forefathers had assault rifles and other such weapons in mind when they said we have the right to bear arms. Come on people….where is the common sense we need to change this and make this a safer country to live in?

  74. SA Tom July 28, 2012

    The right to keep and bear arms goes beyond hunting and having a small handgun. People have the right to defend themselves against enemies with big guns, too. There are plenty of laws that put the Colorado murderer behind bars without creating additional gun laws.

  75. Ramelli July 28, 2012

    Using your same logic, we could say that ‘freedeom of speech’ was fine when there were no mass communication networks, twitter, and cell phones, etc. Shall we take away everyone’s freedom of speach because of the few that abuse the system. No, a thousands times no! And further, since we have so many illegally voters, maybe its time we done away with voting altogether.
    Maybe we should put everyone through a physylogical test to see if they qualify to vote, talk, and tote.
    The truth of the matter is, if more people toted, this idiot would not have been able to have gone duck hunting in the theator. Just think how different it would have been if a person in the group would have been carrying a weapon, then after few round, the shooter would have been dropped.
    That is why those few ‘words’ mean so much. I know for sure that if you had been in that crowd
    you would have been ‘glad’ to have a weapon to defend yourself with.
    What headlines we would have been reading the next day. greenhorn gun toter saved the whole crowd. As you said, if animals toted, there would be a different story about the hunt.

  76. Fran July 29, 2012

    What scares me the most, about this “nutty” James Holmes, who murdered so many good people..since he was seeing a “shrink”…he will probably get away with murder…that is a horrible thought..they better put him in an institution for the rest of his life..so, he will not be a threat to anyone any more..he knew just what he was doing…he is an actor on top of it all..what a pity…just sit back and see what happens to him

  77. jud July 29, 2012

    its about time to change the law about guns,i know that we have the right to bear arms but..what if they will be specific to put that we are allowed only one gun per person and its about time to have scanner in public places not only in airports….

  78. CQC August 16, 2012

    I’m not an American but it seems to me that the concept behind the 2nd amendment isn’t so much about owning a “firearm” but the right to protect one’s individual and collective rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A considerable time seemed to be spent on finding ways to prevent the government from overstepping it’s boundaries. It is the overthrow of British rule that drove the authors to create the Declaration of Independence.

    ” The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

    A pretty clear statement of the problem.

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The 2nd amendment doesn’t appear here to be looking to arm the citizenry for the purpose of hunting or sustenance, but to meet the threat posed by any threat to the security of a free State. We’re not talking about defense against rabbits here. We are talking about defending against tyranny et al. That means the firearmtechnology is not tied to the 1776 concept of weapons available but whatever might be required to maintain a “well regulated Militia.”

    No discussion on preventing the bearer of arms from advancing their firearms via changing technology appears evident anywhere. If the oppressor has a bunch of tanks, the legitimate defenders of a free state have to have weaponry to overcome that armament. Single shot hunting rifles are not going to fit the bill. No pun intended.

    How far is too far? Should the bearer of these arms be tied to a Militia? I’m not so sure. The way I read the amendment, it separates the the “well regulated Militia” and “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” with punctuation that does not tie these two concepts together. The algebraic statement “if A then B” does not appear to apply here.

    But then again, what do I know? I’m not an American, mathematician, lawyer or grammar professor.

    As my very old and wise Japanese Karate master said when he was introduced to me after he had graded me for my black belt:

    “Ah, an interested beginner”.

    I reiterate, what do I know?

  79. P. Chris Marschner January 21, 2013

    Most firearm murders occur with small caliber handguns that are easily concealed.

    You stated “The Second Amendment, however, consists of one twenty-six word sentence, two of which are “well-regulated.” Furthermore, it was written to protect a citizen’s right to own a single-shot, muzzle-loading musket with an effective range of fewer than 50 yards.

    Would this reasoning apply to the other amendments, such that freedom of speech only applies when only those within earshot can hear it? Does freedom of the press mean only that which is printed using mechanical means without electricity? If it did someone could suppress your ability to express your point of view in the age of the Internet. One has to assume that the framers used language that would reflect technological advances.

    Text of the Second Amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    You highlighted two words “well regulated”. You did not define the term “arms” . You imputed a definition that it meant rifles and sidearms. However, “arms” can be expanded to include a variety of weapons: guns that fire shells with spent uranium casings to permit penetration of heavy armor, automatic weapons, Hellfire missles etc. I have no problems with the term “well regulated” and citizens are prohibited from owning military weaponry. The fact of the matter remains that less than 1% of all murders in the US are due to long rifles of any sort. (source: FBI Statistics). Thus, we have adequate regulations. Erosion of liberties do not occur with a single shot. Our liberties are eroded over time by a thousand cuts. Each time we impose an ill considered but “common sense” solution that imposes a restriction on people who have done nothing wrong we lose freedom.

    Given that the US Government did not possess any arms of any higher technology than its citizens during the framing of the Constitution, then it could also be interpreted that the citizen’s right to bear arms could mean arms equivalent to that of the government. Our society has deemed that modern weapons of war are excluded in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, because AR 15 style semi-automatic rifles that use a 7.62mm or .223 caliber ammunition have been legal to own, then it stands to reason that such weapons are not deemed to be modern weapons of war. Banning them today because they were used in recent spate of violence against innocent persons is merely a knee jerk reaction to try to control individual behavior and is inconsistent with the fact that most killings result from handguns with magazines with fewer shells.

    If, AR15’s are considered offensive weapons of war designed to mow down numerous human targets, why then do police departments have them? The police do not use firearms as offensive weapons yet, why then do they need AR 15 style rifles. Why do they (the police) need high capacity magazines for a single shooter? Obviously, there are bad guys out there with higher firepower. That’s why they have them. But are we as citizens not more threatened by the same bad guys when they think we are unarmed?

    I do not own any weapons but I find the argument that AR 15’s only purpose is to inflict carnage on human subjects at odds with the fact that these “assault style” rifles are used by civilian authorities for “public safety” purposes. If police departments feel that they need such type weapons for defensive purposes then I have to believe that a need exists for the average citizen to maintain such a weapon for personal security. The police rarely interrupt a crime of violence in the making so it is warranted that a citizen have what he or she deems appropriate to meet whatever threat that may present itself.

    It is not completely unthinkable that we as free society may need to possess the means to meet a threat to our way of life. We have an open and free society that allows freedom of movement, protection from governmental intrusion, and many other privacy elements that can be exploited by those that wish to inflict carnage and terror on the public for the purpose imposing their ideology on us. Is the threat imminent? No. Is it possible? Yes. Are there groups that openly acknowledge that they have such a goal? Yes. Just as Loughner, et al, kept the conspiracy secret, so do these groups. Without an armed citizenry, we put at risk the civilian control of police and military forces on our own shores.

    Perhaps if we focused on crime control and not gun control we might stop more senseless killings. When gun control advocates focus their attention on increasing sentences such as 25 year prison terms with no time off for good behavior and no parole for those convicted of using any firearm in the commission of a crime then I will be more willing to support their ideas.


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.