CT school-Newtown CT

[SasoriSoren]

If you are a nut you will kill, but you wouldn't be able to do so at the pace of a hundred rounds in a short space of time if you didn't have a gun, and other people have the ability to defend themselves. I don't mind people owning hunting rifles or handguns for their homes, but this guy had an assault weapon. This is where I draw the line. No one outside the military has any use for an assault weapon.

But the current interpretation of the Second Amendment, and the shifting of public focus from "Gun Control" to "Constitutional Freedoms" thanks to careful right wing manipulation of how the subject is approached, makes it impossible to change this law.

But how many more men, women and children need to die before we do something?

With this interpretation of the Second Amendment we as a nation cannot restrict who you can sell firearms to, in Michigan, the SCOTUS ruling was used to overturn the use of background checks before firearm sales. We cannot pass a law to make it harder to obtain weapons thanks to the SCOTUS. We can't even create a government subsidized licensing process, which would be free for the citizens, so they could be licensed and tested before owning a firearm.

There is only one thing we can do, amend the constitution so that way we can. Like I said before, I don't have a problem with responsible people owning guns. I know how to shoot guns myself just in case a situation arrives where I need to shoot one, but this open to all policy doesn't work when the world has sociopaths in it.

[sheep2001]

I don't have a problem with responsible people owning guns.

Most people aren't born socio/psychopaths.  Some kind of breakdown occurs.  2 of my school friends had mental breakdowns - not the kind where you would go on a killing spree, but both required hospitalization.  Both happened in their late 20's early 30's.  Responsible gun owners can go on a killing spree just as easily as a sociopath who subsequently acquires a gun.  Thankfully living in Europe it's harder to obtain guns here (Although i am in rural France, and most farmers are hunters and are therefore gun owners).  The gun problem in the US is never going to improve, as too many lobbyist think it's your right to own a gun.  The only way to improve the situation is to take that right away.

I cannot begin to imagine what those poor families are now going through, all the more poignant for it being the holiday season, as they will be reminded of these vile events every year at this time.

[palmer6strings]

I  a gun owner. I will always continue to own guns. And it is our right to own guns. I will own a class 3 weapon if i want and its none of anyones bisiness if i do so. if you say i should be able to own a gun maybe i should say you shouldnt be able to speak freely. It's not my fault that kid decided to kill. If we didn't have guns, it would have been something else he killed with. (a modified nail gun, knives, bombs...) so would you then say we arnt allowed to own a nail gun? Or kitchen utensils?

This is a real bad situation yes, and I feel bad for all the families and such. But seriously. It's not the freaking guns. It's the dumb ass people. I'm extremely tired of people saying I shouldn't be able to own a gun. Because if my right gets taken away. They should have thier right taken away.
Also if our gun rights get taken away, the government is going to become way more powerful then they already are which is way to much in the first place.

[n64gamer4ever]

Also if our gun rights get taken away, the government is going to become way more powerful then they already are which is way to much in the first place.

Exactly. We've been guaranteed the right to gun ownership because our founders knew, because of the tyranny that they fought from, that as a last resort we would need it should our government grow to the point of being a group of tyrants. For those that are international to want to say we should look at our gun laws, I say look where we would be had our citizens not had guns back in 1776. We would still be under the British Crown, and have never been the greatest experiment of Liberty. Unless you are from the US, and understand why the Revolution was fought, you really don't know what true Liberty and freedom is all about. Unfortunately our liberties have been eroded over time, by both the Left and the Right. But, the right to bear arms is not in the Constitution so that we will all be free to hunt game and have food. It's to keep the government in check. If you take guns away, and you take EVERY right that we have away.

[redsox2012]

I live in CT, and I have a 5 year old son who goes to Kindergarten.  It's tough to comprehend what happened.

were in CT if you dont mind me asking???

Berlin

[wiggy]

Palmer, nobody claimed that the murders were the fault of guns (at least not as I understood it). Rather its the ability that a gun has to cause such rapid, massive devastation when compared to almost anything else.  

There's a reason why we don't hear about nail gun school murders; it would be extremely difficult to kill a mass of people with one for so many reasons. Same with bombs. Hard to obtain, hard to make, hard to implement, etc. And anything else besides a firearm.

I have a LOT of friends that are into and own many guns. Personally, I think handguns should be outlawed. There's absolutely no need for any civilian to own one other than to defend themselves from someone else who also has one. The 2nd ammendment wasn't intended to give people access to automatic weapons. It was intended to help the people of a then infant nation hunt and protec themselves at a time when such a thing was absolutely necessary (I.e. no social services such as a police force).  


@arseen - I wasn't at all citing anything you said. Just generally speaking

[SasoriSoren]

Palmer, nobody claimed that the murders were the fault of guns (at least not as I understood it). Rather its the ability that a gun has to cause such rapid, massive devastation when compared to almost anything else.  

There's a reason why we don't hear about nail gun school murders; it would be extremely difficult to kill a mass of people with one for so many reasons. Same with bombs. Hard to obtain, hard to make, hard to implement, etc. And anything else besides a firearm.

I have a LOT of friends that are into and own many guns. Personally, I think handguns should be outlawed. There's absolutely no need for any civilian to own one other than to defend themselves from someone else who also has one. The 2nd ammendment wasn't intended to give people access to automatic weapons. It was intended to help the people of a then infant nation hunt and protec themselves at a time when such a thing was absolutely necessary (I.e. no social services such as a police force).  


@arseen - I wasn't at all citing anything you said. Just generally speaking

Bingo. The Second Amendment even says it is the right of the militia to own firearms, not every citizen. That militia is now or national armed forces (which did not exist at the time of the constitution) and national guard.

Assault weapons are meaningless and serve no purpose for a civilian to have them. And you are all worried about government control. Do you honestly think if the government decided to have martial law in the USA that your one pesky assault weapon is going to do anything? They have airplanes that will destroy your house before you even know what is going on. The government already has the control, thinking otherwise is deluded.

[n64gamer4ever]

Bingo. The Second Amendment even says it is the right of the militia to own firearms, not every citizen. That militia is now or national armed forces (which did not exist at the time of the constitution) and national guard.

Assault weapons are meaningless and serve no purpose for a civilian to have them. And you are all worried about government control. Do you honestly think if the government decided to have martial law in the USA that your one pesky assault weapon is going to do anything? They have airplanes that will destroy your house before you even know what is going on. The government already has the control, thinking otherwise is deluded.

Quick debunk of that. Standing armies aren't even supposed to exist in the US. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

2nd amendment is for the citizens to protect their liberties, and it's not so we will have food lol. Here's a nice little piece about it.

Gun control laws do the exact OPPOSITE, like DC for example. Isn't it the murder capital of the country? Check out their gun laws. So yeah, let's ban handguns since that works really well in DC.

[wiggy]

DC comparison holds no water.

Let's not pretend that there are fewer guns in DC than anywhere else. And before you argue that the guns which ARE there were illegally obtained, let me remind you that there needs to be legally obtainable handguns available BEFORE their serial numbers are removed.

[n64gamer4ever]

DC comparison holds no water.

Let's not pretend that there are fewer guns in DC than anywhere else. And before you argue that the guns which ARE there were illegally obtained, let me remind you that there needs to be legally obtainable handguns available BEFORE their serial numbers are removed.

What about Chicago? No water either?

I'm not pretending there are fewer guns. The argument is that by banning guns to citizens, there is more murder, because of lack of ability to self protect, or protect others.

If I'm not mistaken, the shooting in CO was actually in a gun-free zone. Logically, by no one being allowed to have a gun, he was allowed to take out whomever he wanted with no threat of being shot and killed himself. Gun laws keep guns out of ordinary law abiding citizens hands, not those that are bent on doing something bad.

It's the same with drug laws. Laws that are passed always do the opposite of their intention. It's called unintended consequences. Anytime government gets involved in trying to prevent something, it's ALWAYS worse. Look at welfare. Meant to help the poor, instead it creates generations that expect a hand out and don't want to do better for themselves.

let me remind you that there needs to be legally obtainable handguns available BEFORE their serial numbers are removed.

Have you purchased a handgun lately?

[wiggy]

Why are you arguing over what areas are "gun free" and not?  There's no such thing in this country.

There are SO many studies which show that civilian gun owners almost never use their weapons in any effective protective means. In fact, more home owners are killed by their own guns when there's an intruder than those who are able to effectively decent themselves.

Your logic is terribly faulty. You cite that civilians who can't defend themselves against other civilians with handguns is an argument for handguns. If they weren't any handguns available to anyone then their would be no need to defend against them. 


Obviously I haven't purchased a gun lately, so please get to your point.

[redsox2012]

"It's the same with drug laws. Laws that are passed always do the opposite of their intention. It's called unintended consequences."

Just as the right to bear arms has unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, our gun laws are like medicines whose side effects are worse than the ailment that they cure.  Many people believe that citizens must be armed to prevent the government from "taking over".  What's worse - the government imposing martial law on the people, or innocent children being massacred?  I'd vote to save the children and take my chances with the government.  No fate, even the loss of some freedom, is worth the price of children's deaths.

Some say that the 2nd amendment exists for citizens to protect their liberties.  Well, guns are legal (always have been), and our children are still being slaughtered.  Who is protecting them?


EDIT - This entire post is mine except for the first line I quoted from a previous comment - I messed up the "quote" function

[sheep2001]

And how does a gun so called  free state make any difference when you can legally buy one in a neighbouring state?  It needs to be a national blanket ban to have any impact, and probably takes a generation at the very least to filter through.  There would still be gang related gun crime, as hardened criminals would still trade in weaponry, but your average emo sociopath wouldn't get his hands on them.

I don't expect any pro gun people to agree with any such sentiment, but perhaps a glance at gun death statistics across the US compared with say the whole of western Europe would be any eye opener.  no? Didn't think so!

[wiggy]

That's exactly what I'm driving at. There's no such thing as a so-called "gun free" zone. It's like banning sand in Arizona. So what?  There's sand in every neighboring state, so it's bound to find its way back in.

[n64gamer4ever]

Bans sure have a great history of working. Look at alcohol prohibition, worked well. Drug prohibition, that is one that is really working well. The fact is, banning something does not get rid of problems. Drugs are banned, yet people have easy access to it. Heck, your neighbor may be dealing right now.

Banning guns only keeps them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. When I say something about a gun-free zone, it's the law abiding citizens that are gun free. They have no means to protect themselves.

Whenever they do ban guns, those that want them WILL get them. Just as a drug user gets what he wants.

Let's say someone decides they want to slaughter 20 people and drive a car through a crowd. Should we ban all cars? It was, afterall, used as a weapon.

And as far as giving up freedom to save some lives, wtf. Maybe we should allow warrantless searches of all houses on random basis. This way, you would be more safe because they might find something in your neighborhood that is unsafe.

You all are thinking emotionally, and that's exactly why our freedoms get shredded. Do you really think that guy would have been able to kill 20 kids if the teachers were armed and trained? If you say yes to that, there is no hope for this nation.