Today I have re-thought my position on the second amendment.

[Atypical Liberal]

I can no longer look at these deaths as simply an acceptable consequence of the free access to firearms in our country.

If someone told me I could give up all my guns right now, and forever, to bring back those 20 children, I would do it.

So why would I not make a sacrifice to do something about the next 20?

I do not have all my thoughts collected yet. Mostly I am just very sad for the people, like me, with small children, 20 of them who are gone forever.

I do not know what the answer is.

But there must be a way to weed out these lunatics. There just must be. If it makes it more difficult for me to own a gun, I may have to live with that.

I've owned guns all my life. They are my biggest hobby, something I have done for 30 years, as my father and his before him and his before him.

Right now all I know is sadness.

[lastlib]

1. Thank you. You are more human than the NRAbots.

I had the same kind of epiphany when John Lennon was shot.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I changed my mind after Columbine.

enough is enough.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Anyone with a conscience must ask themselves: What are reasonable restrictions on liberty?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

87. Liberty?

What 'liberty' is there for the dead?

Elaborate and give a few examples.

[friendly_iconoclast]

112. Yeah, liberty. As in the Second Amendment.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Same Question

Where is the liberty for the dead?

[Glassunion]

4. Thank you for sharing.

I understand.

[earthside]

5. Me too.

I grew up in Wyoming around guns ... of course, they were hunting rifles, mostly sporting-type weapons in those days.

But I have thought up to now that even the proliferation of assault weapons with no other purpose than killing people were okay to protect the 2nd Amendment and the right to own 'reasonable' firearms. I'm changing, rethinking this position.

This enabling of mass slaughter with the easy availability of assault-type weaponry has got to stop.

Furthermore, maybe we've got to address the culture of violence in this country that encourages shoot 'em up video games and movies with massive amounts of gun violence, too.

It's not just the guns ... it is the acceptance of violence as entertainment that ma have to be seriously examined.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. It's the phenomenon of the 'mucker'-or worse, the Breiviks and McVeighs

(reference to John Brunner's Stand on Zanzibar)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

We should look at the means, of course- but also what motivates the perpetrators?

[gejohnston]

9. I get where you are coming from

we mostly had pistols and bolt actions, lever action or two.
"assault weapons" are legal for civilian use in most countries. From what I read of CT's AWB, it is actually stricter than Canada. The worst spree mass murders in the US or anyplace else were with bombs and gas cans. But not guns.
Frankly, knee jerk reactions about guns or video games distracts from the real issues. That is what the UK did.

One question worth asking is: why schools and shopping malls? The weapons vary from country to country and killer. Bombs, guns, knives, homemade flamethrowers in Japan, China, Korea, Canada, the US. But, shopping malls and schools are the most common targets.

[WestCoastLib]

10. That seems like a pretty simplistic question

Why Schools and Shopping Malls?

They are easy targets. Large concentrations of unsuspecting people packed into small areas. You can add Movie Theaters to that list

With schools, its usually a personal connection too. They are students, or know somebody at that place.

The "Why" those places isn't much of a deep issue to ponder, unless we think the solution is not to gather together in places. These people clearly intend to commit mass murder. You need the groups of people gathered together to make the "mass" part happen.

Seems like a simplistic question with a simple answer. I don't see how it helps.

[gejohnston]

14. mostly simply pointing out that

it is not a uniquely US problem. From some of the ones I looked at, there doesn't always seem to be a personal connection with the schools.
As for movie theaters, just the one. That one was motivated by a fantasy about The Joker.

While it seems like a simple question, but soccer games and concerts also have a lot of people in a small area.

[AllyCat]

106. It isn't unique to the US, but it happens more here than anywhere else in the world.

We have a real problem in this country and we can't even talk about it because the NRA provides well-funded distraction every time this comes up.

Concerts have weapons inspections and patdowns the last time I went to one.

Shoulder-to-shoulder seating at sporting events and concerts is very different from moving targets at a mall or school.

[gejohnston]

107. we have more people

more than any place in the world per capita? Maybe. Thing is, while almost everything that happens here makes news in much of the world. US media doesn't report what's happening outside of the US much. While Aurora made headlines in Canada, but did the Toronto shootout make headlines here? Did a school shooting in Finland in 2007 make headlines here? Not that I noticed. So, really can't base much on that. You may be correct, you may not be. I don't think anyone has taken the time to measure it accurately.

NRA funding distraction? They don't seem to be doing anything at the moment.

[AllyCat]

119. I'm sure they are on the Hill.

[Vietnameravet]

13. It doesnt do any good to have strick laws in one state if the others are lax.

[gejohnston]

15. kind of

since he couldn't go to a gun store to buy a gun in another state, esp. handguns. Of course, he could buy one from a private person. That was the case of Son of Sam (he bought it off some guy while visiting Texas) If the gun gets traced to that private person, he could go to federal prison just like the Texan that sold Son of Sam the revolver.

[Vietnameravet]

60. How about going to a gun show,..where its easy to buy anything..thanks to the NRA

[gejohnston]

67. still a federal crime, and most sellers are FFLs

at least the ones I have been to. All interstate sales without an FFL violates the Gun Control Act. All sales through FFLs go through background check and ID verification. If I buy a gun at a gun show in Arizona, I would be committing a federal felony. Don't thank the NRA, thank the commerce clause.

[Vietnameravet]

73. Well how come I see reports on TV

showing how easy it is to by guns at gun shows and did the NRA not move to block the gun show exemption?

[gejohnston]

75. MAIG video editing=James O' Keefe video editing

given the number of felons in MAIG's ranks, and the nastygrams Bloomburg to from the ATF from his bogus stings............ the TV reports are total bullshit, just like the Iraqi WMDs.
There is no such thing as a gun show exemption. All federal and state laws must be obeyed at gun shows.

[Auntie Bush]

85. Can't they buy a gun right then and there at the show?

How do they have an adequate background check so fast?

[gejohnston]

86. it works the same as a store

you put all of your personal information including SSN, DL#, place of birth etc. on an ATF form 4473. The dealer calls the FBI call center or the state police (and has to give his FFL number and a pin number to keep a private person from using it.) depending on the state, but they use the same databases. If you have a disqualifying issue, it will be NCIC or some other database. In places, like Michigan, that require purchase permits they use the same databases. It is the 21st century, all of that moves at the speed of light. NCIC has been around since the 1960s. The process is exactly the same as the old school five day check. Four and half of those days would be the form sitting in a stack, five minutes for the clerk to use the computer.
The problem comes when a private seller, be it gun show or classified ad, because the law prohibits me or you from using the NICS system. That is the "gun show loophole", A few states require you to have a licensed dealer broker it and do the background check. The commerce clause may have an issue with that. Private sellers who want to know who they do business with have a couple of ways around it:
some have a dealer that will do it voluntarily for them
sell only to someone with a CCW
consign it to an FFL.
A reasonable solution would be something like Michigan where the buyer goes to the cops to get a purchase permit or "clean bill of health" to give to the seller. It is redundant because if they buy from an FFL, they go through the same background check twice, but it would be good for private sellers.
Some gun shows have a designated FFLs to broker private sales.

[Auntie Bush]

99. Thanks for all that information. I feel better now.

[Clames]

88. I have bought two firearms from gun shows and both times I had to fill out a 4473...

...and have a background check performed. Completely bogus idea that gun shows are some sort of free-for-all bazaar where anyone can buy anything and walk away. There were armed police officers at every entrance and others where walking the floor.

[Auntie Bush]

98. That's good to hear...didn't know that.

[Eleanors38]

120. At big shows, LEOs pick up a felon or two using standard

I.D. methods, photos, who the suspect's "friend" is (usually a straw purchaser) and just watch; sometimes in the parking lot before a felon enters.

Some have advocated closing down gun shows (1A and 2A violations). Beyond the legalities, how would police pick up even this low-hanging fruit if shows metastasized into dozens of swap meets and the trunks of cars? This is why most veteran thugs know to avoid gun shows and all the cops fishing for bottom-feeders.

[Ikonoklast]

104. Go to just about any gun show in Ohio.

There are plenty of sales going on in the parking lot.

Lots of guys with trunks full of firearms of all types for sale, guys that pay to park but never go inside, selling to anyone with cash money.

Guys walking around with a slung rifle and a sign on their back advertising that rifle for sale, and more outside.

Perfectly legal, and the seller not only doesn't need to even ask you your name, they don't want to know it.

Lots of firearms that get into criminal's hands nationwide come from Ohio gun shows.

[Clames]

108. I'm sure you like to believe that.

And you're probably serious, but I've been to gun shows in multiple states with even the laxest of gun laws and have seen few if any such transactions. Most who take firearms to gun shows wind up selling or trading-in to a gun dealer (FFL holder) to pick up something they want more.

[Ikonoklast]

125. I'm sure you've been to every gun show there is.

And I'm also sure that you are wrong.

But keep hoping that what I posted is a lie, the Federal Government doesn't think so, as they are trying to get Ohio to tighten their gun show regulations.

Ohio is in the top ten states for straw sales in this nation, and as a source of firearms that end up in the hands of criminals.

[gejohnston]

110. funny,

I never see that in Wyoming or the gunshine state of Florida. Have to put up some pictures.

[Ikonoklast]

124. Guess you don't live in Ohio as I do, nor go to gun shows in Ohio, as I do.

Go to either the show held at the Cuyahoga County fairgrounds or Medina County fairgrounds that are held three/four times a year and you will see the exact same scenario I described, every. single. time.

Montgomery County was another one, but they got tagged and are starting to police who they sell to.

Ohio gun shows are a huge source of straw purchasers and firearms that find their way into criminal hands.

[gejohnston]

126. no I haven't but

if I'm ever there, I'll be sure to check it out. I will say, I went to one in Vallejo, California, some year ago. Let's just say it wreaked my image of California as a place of good country folk in the north and cool peace loving hippies in the south.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. Violates the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The feds can only make a law valid in a state if they can show that it somehow effects interstate commerce. Lots of FDR's law were shot down by then SCOTUS until he threatened to expand the number of justices and add favorable judges. If a sale is purely intrastate, the feds can't touch it. Some states have passed laws exempting firearms that are made in a state and sold in that same state from federal supervision. I don't think those laws have been tested yet.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Guns were all registered to his mother.

[gejohnston]

72. so I just found out

but as beat poet William Burroughs put it "After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."

[Vietnameravet]

74. Okay tell me what restrictions has the NRA ever been willing to accept on firearms

to prevent the wrong kinds of people from getting them?

I could be wrong but it seems to me there is damn little control over most of them..

[gejohnston]

77. They supported parts of the Gun Control Act,

NICS, and both of the federal gun laws in the 1930s. NRA and Brady supported Project Exile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

[JDPriestly]

24. If you want to hold a demonstration, you have to get a permit.

If you want to drive a car, you have to get a license. Driving a car is far more important in most people's lives than owning a gun. Cars and guns both can kill if not used properly.

We should implement licenses for gun ownership. At the very least, to get a license to own or handle a gun, a person should pass a written test.

In addition, we should make mental health care available for free, and also make medicines for psychiatric conditions available at no cost when prescribed for low income people.

[pscot]

47. Guns kill when used "properly"

Killing is their purpose. That's why they give them to soldiers.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Precisely!

Though some around here often confuse them with seatbelts and fire extinguishers.

[DrDan]

101. +1 - exactly right!

that is also why they are used for hunting.

Their purpose is to kill!

[TPaine7]

62. I could actually get onboard with basic competency licensing to own and to carry guns. But I don't

think this guy couldn't have passed.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Doesn't matter. They were available to him.

Registered to his mother, who probably bought the NRA propaganda that they might serve to protect her and her loved ones.
Are you suggesting testing all members of a gun owner's household? If not, then it would be pointless, as most other gun laws are. All the laws are placebos and don't mean squat. These events happen because guns are available and 4 or 5 million more become available every year.

This one could be the tipping point. America's Dunblane.

[TPaine7]

76. No, reports are now saying that he had a mental issue. His mother should have known that and taken

sufficient steps to keep him from getting them--up to and including not keeping them at home.

If she had only had one weapon at home, a CCW that was on her at all times, this could have been harder to pull off. If he was violent, which he probably was, she could have had him committed and maybe gotten help but for folks like Reagan cutting mental health care.

Access to guns by the unfit is the issue in this case. Keeping guns from them is a duty; that's the lesson from this, or at least one of them.

PS: I appreciate the civil, thoughtful post.

[Starboard Tack]

78. Good point!

Now, how do we do that? Scolding the mother, who paid a high price, accomplishes nothing.

[TPaine7]

79. She's dead, so I don't suggest a scolding.

Law: you are responsible to keep guns from unfit people, with a severe penalty if one of your guns is used in crime and you haven't taken legally mandated steps to keep guns from your insane or criminal family member,roommate, lover, etc.

[Starboard Tack]

81. How well is that law working?

[TPaine7]

82. It was a recommendation

You asked "Now, how do we do that?"

That was my answer.

[Lordquinton]

111. She's dead

that law won't mean a thing in this instance, so what do you propose instead?

[TPaine7]

117. There's nothing that can be done to rectify past tragedies, we can only affect the future nt

[YllwFvr]

100. he would have had access regardless nt

[Tumbulu]

115. Yes!!! Here here!!!!!

Thank you- I agree, and join you in working towards this goal.

[tblue]

23. Not sure how you weed out violence in video games and movies.

And we can't wait until then to get killing machines out of the hands of people who are or COULD BECOME a danger to self or others. And there is no one on this planet who can guarantee he or she won't ever go over the edge. Let alone keep their weapons out of dangerous hands. Your decent intentions do not outweigh others' need for safety and peace of mind.

[riqster]

7. The only reason I own a gun

Is to deal with rabid and feral animals that threaten my family and domestic critters.

It happens in the country from time to time. But that's it. Too many crazies and fools think they need lots of ordnance to be safe.

[donco]

8. Me too.

Whats left to be offered on the alter of gun rights...pre school.

[Vietnameravet]

11. Thanks for your thoughtful post.. and the others that are rethinking their positions

If there was only some way of keeping guns out of the hands of crackpots and criminals.....but there isn't.

I too grew up shooting as a hobby and once was a member of the NRA but that was many decades ago,,

Things have changed..the NRA is ruled by crazies and guns are causing just too much harm..Who the fuck needs an assault rifle?

I think only a total ban will do and if someone is caught with one then its mandatory jail time..eventually even criminals will find guns hard to get or just too risky to own..Not every one of them but enough to curb this senseless slaughter..especially incidents like this where crazy people get guns..

Even if the NRA would support some kind of program to track guns and keep them out of the hands of crazy people, that would be a start..but they don't ..They may say they do but then they allow for so many loopholes its meaningless..They want everyone to own a gun..just like in Pakistan or Lebanon or Afghanistan....and we see where that leads..

I dont buy the argument about guns protecting people,,.,for every person that protects himself with a gun, dozens of others are killed either by accident or deliberately and no gun is going to protect you from someone with a lead pipe that attacks you from behind by surprise..

Here is the truth...The gun industry and the NRA are not about liberty and protection...like they claim...They are all about making money..and they don't care how or what the consequences...like just about everything else in this sad and crumbling nation..

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Total bans only work in police states- look at Mexico, or Jamaica

How long has methamphetamine been illlegal? Decades.

Heroin has been illegal for nearly a century.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Not a Proponent BUT

...the difference is we would know the good guys and bad guys a lot easier.

[pscot]

48. Meth and heroin kill the user

Not twenty innocents at a time.

[marions ghost]

53. Australia is not a police state.

nt

[gejohnston]

55. Australia gun laws are not as strict as Mexico, Jamacia, or even

Chicago and DC.

[marions ghost]

61. Australia's gun laws = effective by these statistics:

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.0417
2009: 1.02
2008: 1.05
2007: 1.91
2006: 1.10
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

The rate of gun deaths per 100K is one/fiftieth the rate in the US.

[gejohnston]

69. check the murder rate

by any means. Brazil and South Africa have stricter laws than either, but make us look like Japan, what's your point?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html

[krispos42]

96. And if Australia banned green-painted cars, then...

...green-painted-related deaths would also drop.

[Vietnameravet]

59. So are you suggesting we legalize those drugs?

Of course some will always get guns and drugs but the harder it is to get guns the less likely they will be used in crimes..when they are freely available to anyone and everyone..this is the result...

[Eleanors38]

121. IMO, should have been done years ago. When you

"legalize," you gain some measure of control. Prohibition only brings to bear expensive and marginally effective LEOs. Alcohol (the closest analogy) was out of control, expensive, and destructive. Now, we have at least some effective controls.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

89. Gosh

Please point out how many kindergarteners have been killed and how many political assassinations have been done with heroin.

[CreekDog]

12. yours is a human reaction and a humane one

I too want to do something that works and that something does sound like it will be partially related to guns and access to guns.

[Starboard Tack]

17. And your post makes me rethink my opinion of you.

I think and hope that many more feel the same way. Something is seriously broken.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

18. Thank You for Your Humanity

I agree more needs to be done.

It starts with caring and I appreciate the fact you do.

[Zoeisright]

19. Good for you.

If only more people had your logical reasoning skills.

[colorado_ufo]

20. Your thoughtful post and your honor help elevate our hearts this very sad day.

[calimary]

22. To all gun-nuts: You've HAD your say. You've HAD YOUR WAY! And THIS is what results.

All I feel is anger, Atypical Liberal. Not as much sadness. All I feel is anger!!!!

I think it's long past time to push past all those "Second Amendment or Bust" folks whose power and clout and money keeps preventing us from doing something decisive about this.

I was talking to my husband about this. What about those laws that stiffen the penalties for bar-tenders and restaurants and other purveyors of alcohol - if somebody drinks too much on their premises and then goes out and does harm to others? Can we impose penalties like that for gun shop owners, gun show owners and organizers, the real estate interests and property owners who own the damn PARKING LOTS OUTSIDE THE GUN SHOWS, and the property on which the gun shows are held - where all kinds of wink-and-a-nod shit goes down and anybody can get any gun they want with nobody following any rules? How 'bout if THEY face penalties as well?

I'm tired of listening to the Second Amendment advocates. HOW MANY MASS SHOOTINGS ARE OKAY???????? HOW MANY?????? Every last one of those mass shootings and carnage crimes - IS ON THEIR HEADS AND ON THEIR IMMORTAL SOULS.

And I think it ought to be on the books so it's in the LAW.

Martin Bashir was just talking about how the laws are so strict in the UK - that firearms are NOT used to resolve conflict among civilians there. Some 60 firearm-related deaths per year over there? We have that much almost PER DAY in this country!!!!!!

[gejohnston]

26. only if they violate the law

If dealer violated any federal or state laws, then yes. Otherwise, no as it should be. If you do that, the same theory could apply to car dealerships, baseball bat makers (the most common weapon used in violent crime)
the bartenders violate dram shop laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop

[pscot]

51. When was the last time someone clubbed 20 kids to death

with a baseball bat. That is just a bullshit argument. The problem is guns, guns, guns. To damned many guns.

[gejohnston]

58. good question, but I'm sure the answer is not what either of us thinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29

[Atypical Liberal]

28. The problem is much more pervasive than gun show parking lots.

I don't think many criminals or crazy people go to gun shows to have clandestine deals in the parking lot.

It is much easier to just look in the classified ads of your local newspaper in the Sporting Goods section.

Private sales in general are a big loophole.

[Pachamama]

33. I cant even speak right now...

...i have been crying for hours. But I have had enough. Screw the NRA.

I own a gun. I am trained in use of firearms. But this country has to change its laws regarding gun control. It is too easy for people who are unstable to acquire guns. Extended magazine clips, assault rifles and other guns that cannot be used for hunting and are murder death weapons.

Im shaking right now. Innocent babies, killed in cold blood. Those that survived, watching their classmates and teachers slaughtered in front of their eyes and forever traumatized.


People with mental illness should be prohibited from being able to buy. There should be longer waiting periods. Assault rifles and other weapons like this and extended magazine clips need to be banned. Enough.

[oldbanjo]

41. The job of the police in the UK is to protect the people,

the police in this Country are ONLY required to protect the bad guy that he arrests. I am thru with the NRA, but it is because of the lies that they told in their Magazine about Obama during the election. I agree there needs to be some changes in the laws but I live in the country on a dirt road with woods all around me, I have my own shooting ranges here, I don't shoot much but I do shoot sometime. I do kill deer with an SKS which is considered an assault rifle, I do not use high capacity Magazines. If people had jobs that would allow one family member to stay home and raise their kids these things wouldn't happen. I'm 67 and retired, my wife stayed home and raised my daughter, today jobs don't pay that well.

[Flatpicker]

25. Nice thoughts

I don't know the answer, but agree there has to be a way.

The guns are out there. I'm not sure we can put that Genie back in the bottle.
Then with the advent of 3d Printers, Guns may never go away.

Would a better mental healthcare program help?

Looking at the incident in China today, I'm concerned that the problem is less the tool to accomplish it and more the hand wielding it.

[meegbear]

27. ...

[Politicub]

29. I don't know why but your post made me cry

It gives me a lot of hope that people can find common ground.

I grew up around guns, too. My dad likes to hunt. And he supports stronger gun control. Always has.

I don't think people like him need to feel threatened. People are sophisticated enough to develop workable policies.

[4_TN_TITANS]

30. Count me in too.

It's well worth some inconvenience to me.

[Gman]

31. The biggest problem is the people that won't even consider doing what you say

[denverbill]

32. I think guns and ammo need to be seriously restricted.

I understand people like target shooting and hunting. But for hunting you don't need 1000 rounds of ammo. When you get your hunting license, you should get a license for X number of bullets/shells, say 5 or 6. If you want to practice, you go to a shooting range. You can buy ammo there but have to account for whatever you use and can't take any out.

We can't keep crazy people away from weapons. We just have to restrict the amount of damage a crazy person can do easily. Sure they might be able to get 5 hunting licenses and save up for 30 bullets, but during the time it takes to amass a stockpile, at least there is a chance they may come to their senses.

I know farmers/ranchers may need weapons for varmint control, so there would need to be some exceptions.

Maybe just licensing ammo purchases would do it. You buy a license for 10 rounds a year for personal use, and you get no more unless you have a hunting license or are firing at a shooting range.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. I don't see that as workable.

I make my own ammunition at home. It's way cheaper than buying it at the store. I easily shoot 200 rounds at the shooting range each visit. That's like $100 in ammo for store-bought, and I can make it myself for $16.

I crank out 1000 rounds of ammo in a few hours, and routinely do. I like to have a large supply on hand so I can just grab some boxes and head to the range.

[denverbill]

45. Well my other suggestion would be single-shot weapons only. No clips, no pump shotguns.

That might slow you down on the shooting range, but it probably would have allowed many many of the victims to escape most recent mass shootings.

When the 2nd amendment was voted in, single shot weapons were all that they had.

[gejohnston]

46. they had repeaters too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
your suggestion would give us stricter gun laws than Canada. Come to think of it, CT's and NJ's laws on some semi automatic rifles are stricter than Canada's.

[denverbill]

56. I don't really have a problem having more restrictive laws than Canada.

No more sales of guns capable of shooting more than a single shot.

[Jenoch]

57. What are you going to do about

all the guns already in circulation that fire more than one shot?

[cstanleytech]

35. That would take an amendment of the constitution to revoke the 2nd amendment

or at least change it enough so as to ban certain weapons which will not be easy to accomplish.

[Harmony Blue]

36. Thank you

for your honest view.

[DonCoquixote]

37. I used to be a hot dog vendor

And I can tell you I still have memorized the regulations I had to comply with, yet these same damn unliscened "vendors" that were the villains of "fast and furious" do not have to comply with jack shit.

[wryter2000]

38. Good for you

It shouldn't come to you having to give up your guns, but we need good people like you to speak out.

[Hekate]

39. Bless you

I mean it.

[blackspade]

40. I with you.

This has to stop.

[apocalypsehow]

42. A heartfelt post. I don't have all the answers, either; but surely there is a way people of good

faith on both sides of this issue can reason together, do something about the matter where they can come to agreement, and agree to disagree about where they cannot.

Your post is a touching and very human one, and as you can see by your Rec count many DU'ers appreciate it.

Rec.

[marshall]

43. It's difficult to believe someone even sold this guy a gun

If it's true, as his brother says, that he has autism and some other "personality disorder," that ought to bar him from purchasing a gun, or at least a large caliber gun.

[Flatulo]

44. I'm with you today, brother. Time for very strong, historic action.

No more. Not in my name.

[Meandering1]

49. Getting rid of your guns won't likely help

In fact unless destroyed your guns may end up in dangerous hands if you sell or give them away.

A more effective response is to examine why some very small small percentage of men go ballistic and hurt or kill with guns. A man's natural condition is that of PROTECTING children. Even hardened felons in maximum security prisons will not harm kids. And in fact will beat and kill those that do. As prison statistics prove.

(I assume from the headlines that at least one of the shooters was a man. Is still too early to know the full details)

So instead we ought to look into what it is we do to our men that turns them into these monsters. Hint: Men make up 80% of the homeless, 90% of our prison population, 97% of job related deaths, 98% of the war dead and 80% of all suicides. So much for them being "privileged" just because they are men...

But we don't care much about men do we? They're useful when behaving well and criminals when not. Almost never thinking of them as HUMAN BEINGS. Manhood is earned. Men are human doings not beings. When men hurt or kill we point our fingers at them "there's a typical bad man". When women kill or maim? Watch for a man will get blamed for it. Or they get an exuse or free pass.

Andrea Yates had post partum depression. Lorena Bobbit was a media hero and nearly got her own television show. She was painted as a victim and not required to take any responsibility for her actions.

When the dust settles from this most recent massacre in CT we will likely find a troubled, desperate man who gave us much warning that he was going to explode. But instead of taking a look into what we did to him he'll just be denounced as yet ANOTHER "typically violent bad man".

Even Thomas Ball from NH who BURNED HIMSELF TO DEATH in protest on the steps of the Keane courthouse in an effort to draw light to the corruption of family court was blamed as a "bad man" for his ugly death.

How much mental emotional and physical PAIN would cause a man to seek relief by burning himself to death? Or to kill 20 kids as in CT. today? Ask and answer these questions and you just might be on the path to preventing them from happening again.

But eliminating guns from a person's own personal stock? Doesn't even account to a drop in the bucket.

It is a system out of control and I do not see either of the two major political parties doing crap to even look at the problem. Let alone fix it.

[blkbear]

50. New 2nd amendment rules :

New 2nd amendment rules:

1. All firearms must be registered:

Failure to register a firearm gets you a 1 year jail term for each firearm. No firearms are grandfathered, you must register even previously owned.

2. All sales of firearms require a background check:

Selling without a background check 1 year jail term for each firearm.

3. Possession of a firearm requires a bi-annual mental health check:

Failure to comply results in 1 year suspension of right to possess firearms.

4. Misdemeanor conviction including DUI and domestic violence results in 1 year suspension of possession rights.

5. Felony conviction excluding assault with a firearm results in 5 year suspension of possession rights.

6. Felony conviction of assault with a firearm results in lifetime revocation of possession.

[marions ghost]

52. It is good to see a gun owner

finally getting it, and willing to say so. Thank you.

It is far too easy to do this crime in America.

[Old and In the Way]

54. Either you get it or you don't.

You do.

[Recursion]

63. I'm doing some serious thinking too

I still doubt prohibition would work, but my first instinct is no longer to say so. It's been building for a few months; today crystallized it. Maybe I'll have a good idea in a few more months.

[TPaine7]

64. I understand. Solutions may not be pleasant, but they should at least work. nt

[Eleanors38]

65. I understand. I'm open to ideas on how to keep unstable You

folks from getting guns. How do we do this? How do we protect one's 5th Amendment rights? I have supported "universal NICS" as well.

[ellisonz]

66. Thank You For Reflecting On This!

You are way too smart to believe the gun sickness non-sense. There are things we can and should do to address this plague of senseless violence. I'm so tired of days like today. Help us change what goes on this country for the better.

[Kennah]

83. I don't know that it's so much an issue of weeding out lunatics

The economic disparity is greater here than almost anywhere else. The "everyone for himself" bullshit of the right collapses the safety nets, and those catch not only those who fall on hard times but those who suffer mental disability, which was likely the case with the shooter in Connecticut.

I agree with you in that if I thought it would bring an end to senseless violence like the murderous killing spree of children in school in Newtown, I would give up my guns. But I don't believe it would have any effect.

There may well be new gun laws, and perhaps even a return of the so-called assault weapon ban, but I don't foresee it changing anything. It could lead to another GOP political surge, but perhaps they've so marginalized themselves into lunacy that it won't.

The lines are clearly drawn. Plenty of bullshit talk on the right about "If only all the teachers were armed ..."

Having over a 100 hours of advanced firearms training, I suspect I'm far more capable of stopping a crazed killer on a shooting spree than the average range shooter. Although I have poked apart the armed teacher myth in the past, I just can't even think about it right now given the futility.

I don't foresee any solutions, just more tragedies. This one leaves me feeling numb and almost despondent.

This agnostic may turn to prayer.

[Spryguy]

90. BAN THEM

End the 2A by any means necessary, and go door to door seizing all guns if necessary! Eventually we'll get them off the street, and it will mostly be right wing douche bags that get inconvenienced by it in the first place. Anything that screws with Faux News watchers is ok in my playbook!

[gejohnston]

91. now I know how a Muslim feels reading Free Republic

Speaking as a gun owner and as someone who was raised with a Mormon parent (and the anti Mormon bigotry on the left during the election is no different the the anti Muslim bigotry on the right), I would like to see faux liberal bigots banished. It pissed me off then, it pisses me off now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. Be Careful

Good point about anti Mormon bigotry.

Be careful though. Some people think gun loving DU members are 'faux liberals.'

[Spryguy]

93. Yup!

Gun humpers have no place in our party. They need to end the right wing circle jerk called the Gungeon!

[gejohnston]

95. that include at least two

speakers at the DNC? Two of the most progressive governors one of them being Jerry Brown? About 30 percent of the rank and file?

[gejohnston]

94. and they are among the worst.

[morningfog]

133. Poor thing.

[gejohnston]

135. Bless your heart.

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. You're going to volunteer for the confiscation squads, I take it?

Or will you pull a Cheney/Romney and support it with lip service only?

[beevul]

118. Not a bit of it. He'll just rely on people with guns to get it done. N/T

[Howzit]

116. You can't un-invent gun. Here a guy shows how to make a sub-machine gun without sophisticated tools

Firing demo at 8 minute mark:

Various other home-made guns of different levels of sophistication shown here:

The problem is how and why guns are used, not their availability, because there is very little you can do about the latter - bans just create opportunity for smugglers, basement manufacturers and organized crime. Consider what happened during Prohibition and happens now with drugs crossing from Mexico.

[majake]

122. Repeal them all!

So, I take it that you are in favor of repealing the 4th Amendment also?

[Spryguy]

132. Only when it applies to death spewer owners and Republicans :)

[aikoaiko]

97. This mass shooting horrifies me too

But you've been around this block for a while as I have, and I can't think of a gun law that would have prevented this act (knowing what we know at this point).

Please understand I'm not saying that to stifle you or this discussion but I've been waiting to ask this in a serious thread with people who understand the issues.

As far as we know the mother legally owned these guns via federal and CT law with background checks.

The shooter was an adult and safe storage laws

Mag limits wouldn't have done much.

This wasnt aided by CCW or SYG laws.

I think you have to get to biometric devices in order to prevent this. But these are not well developed yet.



Maybe we'll learn more

[Shivering Jemmy]

102. How about this

if you have a personality disorder, or anyone with frequent access to your home has a personality disorder, you don't get to own guns.

[aikoaiko]

103. I'm fine with that given some due process

The thing about disqualifying or prohibiting someone who is dangerous is that it requires some due process.

Currently someone has to committed involuntarily before they are prohibited and that is not a trivial process but there is at least due process.

I could see temporary restraining orders leading to temp removal of firearms in all cases. Not sure if that happens or how effectively.

Do we know enough about the Sandy Hook school shooter to know that his family or others close to him thought he was dangerous or had a personality disorder?

[bossy22]

109. I don't agree with this specific proposal

because it is an infringement on a right due to no actions of the person trying to exercise the right

What I would suggest- a comprimise per se- a law that says if you have such a situation you mentioned above, that your guns must be locked up unless under your immediate control

[Skittles]

105. you are now a gun owner and not a gun nut

thank you

[Howzit]

123. Darrell Scott's daughter was the first killed at Columbine - His call for action can be seen here:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bldarrellscott.htm

Status: Transcription is authentic

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers." "The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field.

The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.

I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent."

"I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy-it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room.

Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. "I wrote a poem that expresses my feelings best. This was written way before I knew I would be speaking here today:"

Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"

You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

[Dems to Win]

127. Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

I just sent this to my (retiring) congresswoman:

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey:

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

It is irrational that we have a constitutional right to own a gun but not a car. A car has utility and purpose, transporting us to where we need to go, and occasionally tragically causing death. Guns have the sole purpose of causing death. They have no other utility.

Please, I beg of you, in your final days in Congress, make the most courageous stand of your life. Introduce a bill to amend the Constitution, striking the second amendment from the Bill of Rights. Take the one real, bold, sane action that will be a fitting memorial to the children and adults massacred in Newtown.

Only after the second amendment is repealed can we have meaningful regulation of guns, which rationally needs to be much stronger and more rigorous than the licensing and insurance requirements for cars, rather than far weaker as is currently the case. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Challenge your congressional colleagues to pass your bill and send the amendment to the states for ratification. Stand up to the bloodthirsty, moneyhungry NRA. Trust that in all states of our union, there are enough people who love children more than they love guns. Let us have a REAL, meaningful conversation about rights and guns and death.

Challenge your colleagues to exhibit as much courage as a kindergarten teacher or an elementary school principal.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now. It is obvious what we need to do to have any hope of preventing further Newtowns. No other response is proportional to this ongoing catastrophe.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

Respectfully,

[CountAllVotes]

128. You are a good person for doing this

And I should like to add, a far greater one than any of those out there thinking that their guns are going to solve their problems in life, be it a hobby, a possible tool to defend oneself, or what it really is, which is something that is not needed in the society we live in today.

When the 2nd amendment to the Constitution was written, such things and magazines holding multiple rounds of ammunition did not exist.

Killing children with assault rifles were impossible tasks being such weapons did not exist. This is NOT what the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is all about nor was it intended to be.

Other such horrific hate crimes seem to be so rampant in today's world. How shameful we have become. It is our responsibility to STOP this and STOP it now while we can and YES, NOW IS THE TIME if there ever was indeed "a time".

This is a new growing phenomena that is a direct result of a very sick sad world which segments of our society have found the need to morph into -- a type of societal thinking that a gun is a necessity, a society that doesn't mind lashing out at others for necessarily no good reason at all, a society that calls each other foul names on message boards because they couldn't do it looking at the person face to face. Ignorance is bliss or so they say.

I have a friend that bought a gun recently -- a elderly woman. She bought it because she is afraid that she might get assaulted when out shopping at the local mall which is not only stupid but dangerous, as this woman has a myriad of medical problems and is on a lot of drugs and then she flaunts this gun?

I think I'll take my chances personally and just keep on living best I can and continue to stay away from people that have guns. I've seen nothing but negative results by owning a "piece". Nope.

As for you, I commend your line of thinking and your ability and willingness to share it with others.

May the force be with you!

CountAllVotes

[ComplimentarySwine]

129. You seem like a good person, but I think that you're not looking at this correctly

Of course you would give up your guns to bring those 20 children back, but giving up your guns won't bring them back. Unless you or someone else was going to be using your guns to kill the next 20 children, giving them up won't stop that either. I don't plan on my guns ever being used for such a terrible purpose, therefor I don't see the value in giving them up.

[Dems to Win]

130. Nancy Lanza didn't plan on her guns being used to murder 20 kindergartners, but they were.

I won't shed a tear if your gun is used to kill you. It won't even make the news. It's a fairly common event.

If you don't want your guns to be used to kill children, melt them down. It's the only way to guarantee they won't be used for their intended purpose, to kill humans. Simple reality.

[ComplimentarySwine]

131. What if I melt them down...

...and then someone steals my car and kills a child with it? Should I melt that down too, along with my steak knives?

I'm not asking you to waste your tears on me. If someone breaks into the house, breaks into the gun locker, and then manages to shoot me with my own gun, so be it. If I melt down my guns, what's to keep them from breaking into my neighbor's and stealing their guns?

If they want a gun I imagine that they will get one, even if that means building one in their garage from a steel pipe and a screw.

[morningfog]

134. How many whose guns were used in mass shooting like this didn't

have plans for them to be used for such?

[ComplimentarySwine]

136. I don't know

It seems pretty evenly split between people using their own weapons for mass shootings and people using someone else's...