I used to be for the death penalty, but it really doesn't work as a deterrent, costs more, and as someone else pointed out our system isn't always accurate. I do think it should be available, but used sparingly and only in cases where there's 100% certainty of guilt.

Ebay already disallows the sale of guns. It's been that way since I think 1999?

Illegal drugs are in fact already banned that's why they're illegal.

Mass is already close to that. Fine up to 2000 or/and up to a year in jail. Bars and restauraunts usually get a 3-6 day suspension of license for a first offense which means probably close to that 10K for a busy place. (And yet a person 18 and over can sell or serve alcohol- yes, we're kinda strange here)

Paid informants? Please lets not go down that road.

Steve B

That's the big question.

Western europe has a range of gun laws.

I worked for a machinist from Switzerland. One day we were talking about the differences between here and there.

One thing that amazed me was that all men able to serve a brief time in the military. I think 1-2 years. Followed by a long period of being considered a reserve. The guys on reserve, and remember this is nearly everyone is required to have their issued weapon available. That means a fully automatic machine gun in nearly every home. They don't have much in the way of problems, and I'm convinced it's a matter of training and attitude with the attitude aspect being more important.

Steve B

Yes, you do need the special license for anything beyond semi automatic (More than 1 shot for each trigger pull)
The background check to get that license is very detailed. I've heard it's equivalent to the background check done for FBI applicants.
The permit is also expensive, and the transfer tax at purchase is $200 on top of all other fees and taxes.
It's been that way since 1934.
And since then precisely 0 crimes have been comitted with legally owned machine guns.

"Assault weapons" are simply a class of semi automatic firearms defined by the government when they were banned between 1994 and 2004.
Most of the things that defined a weapon as an assault weapon were cosmetic.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

Many guns used for legitimate purposes would also qualify.
I'm pretty sure the old shotgun my friend let me use to try trap shooting has more than a 5 round magazine. I'm not sure because the rules of the sport require loading only one at a time so I've never used it any other way.

As far as being designed for military use goes, the M1 a rifle designed for the military in the 30's and used extensively into the 50's and even 60's by the US and still in service elsewhere is one of the most popular for marksmanship. They can be made very accurate.
They're also popular for hunting and look like any other rifle.

I don't own any guns, and likely never will. ADD and guns are not a great combination and I refuse to become the guy who forgets the gun in the couch and shoots himself in the backside(or worse)

But the good ones are impressive bits of mechanical design and machining. I wouldn't mind having one based on that alone even if I never used it.

Steve B

I would ask that everyone says a little prayer for the families of these babies as well as the families of all the other victims. This story has broke the heart of a nation.

That is so naive as to be childlike. Let us assume that you get your wish and guns are "banned" - what do you do with the ones already out there? Would you go door to door and round up the guns of those who have lawfully registered? That would be a wonderful way to instantly create an armed criminal class that is in possession of the many unregistered guns floating around the streets.

I do share your antipathy for hunting, but do not share your wish to ban it simply because you dislike it. Frankly, I find that kind of attitude disturbing at best - simply because you "feel" something is bad is not a legitimate reason to call for the imposition of your will on every other person in the country.

Your answer?

What specifically would you like my answer to?

I find it disturbing that a 20 year old has a glock, a high powered rifle, and another kind of pistol legally! Or they were legal guns! Where was the background check for this person done? The latest I had heard is there may have been a history of mentor illness. Authorities need to really crack down on weapons background checks!

[QUOTE=sdkammeyer;1062924...
So close to Christmas. Plans have been made, presents have been bought.

Sad.[/QUOTE]

I've been through this, though in a very different way, with presents being purchased and never opened. One of the saddest things I've ever experienced. Somehow those prettily wrapped boxes just symbolize the potential lost with that life. A piece of that sadness never goes away. I can't imagine what the circumstances of these deaths add to that. Beyond what I can comprehend.

Leon, I give you great credit for letting this thread run the way you have. I'm not here much, but clearly to me it is a good thing for a close knit bunch like you have to be able to "let it fly" when something like this occurs. I imagine it has helped some folks deal with it in some small way, me included. Thank you for that.

From what I understand, the guns were owned by the mother and not the 20 year old, unless reports have changed in recent hours. What the mother was doing with guns in the same house as a kid with mental problems is certainly a good question.

You have a point there. And if they were mom's, she should have known better. Very scary. Why would mom need those kind of weapons? Guess they ended up being her demise.

Oh, you know, how to fix that ugly massacre problem that seems to pop up now and then, what to do about big clips that haven't yet been sold, but will be, how to make sure that semi-automatic rifles (which can actually be made automatic in about 5 minutes with a paperclip) are used only when the bear you dont hit good the first time (from your armchair) or the boar with big tusks is coming at you, stuff like that.

You seem to have a real good idea about what won't work, so I'm just curious to know what the fix is. On this issue, I'm just like a dry sponge waiting to be drenched with your knowledge. Please enlighten me. Thank you in advance.

So dismissing the "Ban all guns!" opinion (which, given the number of guns out there, IS naive) somehow puts me on the side of no limits on guns whatsoever? Go ahead and argue with the giant straw man you just put up, because you certainly didn't address any of my points.

If you want to have a civil discussion without being a jerk, I'd welcome it, but there's no point in responding if you're just going to be a derisive a-hole.

My condolences and prayers go out to all of the families of the victims of this horrible tragedy, and everyone affected by it. It is a sad day for sure.

Sincerely, Clayton

as the Net 54 family we need to process and vent and say what we need to say. I do not want to talk about gun lawa or anything but my only question, if the gunman were still able to answer the question, is why pick on little truly innocent children. what did those children ever do to you?

Rich

Also why was the kid allowed into the school, don't they lock the doors and people have to get buzzed in.

This thing is terrible...yesterday everybody in the garage where i work stopped working too see the news at tv...yesterday was a verry sad day...

I think everyone one condoleance on the planet goes for all these familly...anyway for my part in quebec my condoleance is with all familly involved in this tragedy.

I will respect everyone that does not want to own a gun because they think they are bad. That is there right as a citizen of this country. I do have a problem when people want to stomp on my rights and other people rights!

As far as people that say that these type of killings are a US problem and Western Europe does not seem to have this problem then here you go.

Ryan, Michael Robert 1987 UK Killed 16
Borel, Eric 1995 France Killed 15
Leibacher, Friedrich 2001 Switzerland Killed 14
Dornier, Christian 1989 France Killed 14
Bird, Derrick 2010 UK Killed 12
Izquierdo, Antonio 1990 Spain Killed 9
Palić, Vinko 1993 Croatia Killed 9
Hamilton, Thomas Watt 1996 UK Killed 17
Steinhäuser, Robert 2002 Germany Killed 16
Kretschmer, Tim 2009 Germany Killed 15
Saari, Matti Juhani 2008 Finland Killed 10
Breivik, Anders Behring 2011 Norway Killed 75
Merah, Mohammed 2012 France Killed 7
Tates, Karst Roeland 2009 Netherlands Killed 7

And the list goes on.

I'd glady be in favor of legal guns if they were muskets. As it is, it's a system and industry that needs to be reformed and I'd be first in line for an all-out ban. "Responsible gun owner" is an oxymoron as even those supposed legal guns can still get in the hands of the deranged.

Impressive post by texxxx. There is no easy solution. Doesn't mean assault weapons shouldn't be banned. One thing I did notice is that these spate of killings in the US really started in 2009, after the economy went sour. Yes, we did have Vtech in 2007, but since 2009 began we have had nine or ten different shootings.

Most of the time, it is the same theme; the shooter is male, a loner, and socially isolated or disturbed. This suggests that the problem is technology is making us more and more isolated as human beings and that some people, particularly quiet, sensitive males, are having trouble managing the level of tension that comes with a struggling economy.

I just think that overall, the vibe has been more tense in this country the last few years. America and its communities need to come together in a warmer way and make sure that everyone feels included and valued as members of our society. And get the economy going again with government support that creates jobs and makes people feel hopeful in their future.

Being an elementary teacher it's going to be tough explaining how my students should feel safe after that horrible tragedy. Kids shouldn't have to worry about violence at school now.

I obviously have no answers. However, I am disheartened by the knee-jerk reaction of some to punish law-abiding citizens by depriving them of their Constitutional rights due to the actions, however heinous, of a few.

My prayers go out to those parents that they can somehow get beyond this and recover to the extent possible from what is, as any parent knows, the ultimate nightmare - the loss of a child.

I am sorry for your loss and your experience.

As far as the hunting thing goes..... I have never touched a gun in my life. I have no desire to. Call me ignorant, but I am VERY thankful for those who do hunt. Without population control on animals such as deer, the human death toll would be astronomical.

I live in a rural part of Northwest Ohio. Farmland and forest around here. I can walk out my back door on any given morning and see numerous deer frolicking in the fields around my house. As pretty and naturalistic as it is..... the simple fact is that without a hunting season every year the United States would be overrun by deer. There are a few human deaths around here every year stemming from a car hitting a deer on the highway. I'm a numbers guy, and I feel safe in saying that 10 times more deer around here would mean 10 times more traffic fatalities.

Don't get me wrong, I am an animal lover ..... but I am also a people lover.

Furthermore, I am a firm believer that "guns don't kill people... people kill people". If this psycho kid was hell-bent on breaking into a school and killing 30 people I'm with the belief that it would have happened with or without a gun. Using a sword probably would have taken longer, but the carnage probably would have been much more ugly ...... either way the death toll would be the same.

Ignorance is bliss. In this society of instant information sharing I am forced to think about the way of life 50-100 years ago. Although the media doesn't "glorify" these horrible tragedies, they sure spend enough time covering them. The days and days that the media spends covering these stories is bait for the sick-minded people who perceive this as glorifying. These deranged shooters MUST be thinking "If I am going to go out, I am going to go out in a blaze of glory with guns flaring and tons of media coverage". I am only in my late 30's so I can't speak much about life pre 1970's but how often did these things happen before then?

It seems that since the Columbine shooting, and the weeks of media coverage that followed, this crap has become commonplace.

CySeymour's second paragraph evokes a thought, not original, I have had for some time. I cannot prove it, but I cannot help but feel that an increase in the frequency of these horrid events stems somehow from a correlation between our mushrooming rate of digital connectivity and the isolation, paradoxically, it engenders in certain personality types. Social media makes it so much easier for extreme fringe elements to find each other.

There will be time later to debate the merits of finally making some real changes to gun laws and banning of certain weapons. Now is not the appropriate time.

All I know is that my heart broke last night when I talked to my father, and he told me what happened. I've been crying on and off ever since. And I know as bad as I feel right now, I know I'm going to just lose it when the names and pictures of the children that were killed are released. Knowing that these innocent little ones were just starting their lives just tears me up inside. And those wonderful teachers that were killed. These were good people. Teachers are heroes. They are underpaid and work long hours, but their impact in stimulating the minds of our young ones is immeasurable.

My heart goes out to the families who lost loved ones, and I pray that real changes are made so this doesn't happen again.

This is what I told my wife yesterday. I think a contributing factor to this, and these types of tragedy, might be the new age of lightening fast information transfer around the world.

As for this discussion, there won't be anything solved on this board, and it's almost like a political debate. We'll let it go a little longer but please keep the "privacy" board rules in mind. If you want to get into a heated argument you need to be well known or have your name by your posts. Since the debate is sort of generic that rule isn't being as strictly enforced but it's still there. Also, after a while longer I can see this thread potentially being locked, so we can get back to what the focus of the board is. We are all an internet family and I don't see some debate like this being the demise of civilization as we know it. I am still very sad for the families and friends involved in CT. It almost takes my breath away when I really think about it.

It's nowhere near that easy.

There used to be kits to replace parts, but those required the same license as the actual full auto. And at some point I don;t recall what year all the ones with relativley easy modifications were required to be reenginered so it wasn't easy.

Steve B

Ok one thing is certain this nation will never be in agreement on gun control this is a fact! So to argue over it is pointless to me.
In my opinion what resposible gun owners can and should do is always keep their firearms locked and secured. I know some will say they keep a gun unsecured and at the ready for home defense. I can actually understand that reason though I don`t necessarilly agree with it, but ask yourself do I need "all" my guns readilly accesible?
The details of this tragedy are starting to emerge and it sounds as if the weapons were the gunmans mothers, I am wondering how were they secured? Were they really his and in her name to keep it legal?
If it were me guns and ammo are locked and stored separatly and not easy to gain access to. If someone lives in your home who has mental issues remove the guns from your home why give someone who is not thinking clearly access to guns?If it was too difficult to get at the guns maybe this tragedy never happens! I feel gun owners can never be too carefull when it comes to securing weapons in the home it wont stop all of these psycopaths such as the killer in Aurora but it may have prevented this one!
I own one .22 rifle that I inherited from my father it`s old as the hills and I rarely have shot it. I keep it in my home with the bolt action removed,any bullitts are kept at one end of the house in a locked box the bolt acton in another location and the rifle itself in another only I know where they are located not my kids! Since it is my only firearm and I am not really into guns I do not have a gun cabinet to store it in but to actually use it will take a bit of doing in it`s current state it is about as deadly as a baseball bat which by the way is my preferred weapon of home protection!

My wife was a teacher then a little higher up in the school system for 37 years, and I am really glad she is now retired.

As to my feelings on guns:

You cant have a total ban on guns, but to me nobody needs an automatic anything. Guns for the public should be limited to 6-shots non-automatic. Maybe that would give some people time to escape while maniacs are trying to shoot them, if the maniacs dont have a ton of guns on them, they will have to keep reloading, and reloading should have to be one bullet at a time, not a clip. The guns we have a constitutional right to have was because back in those days you needed a civilian militia plus most people had to hunt for foods. Those are basically not valid reasons anymore except for the few who hunt for food. I also think that the founding fathers wouldnt want the whole population to have the incredible weapons we have developed. So have your guns, but have a 6-shooter that has to loaded one bullet at a time.

I share your feelings on this but they are not realistic. How do you remove all the guns out there already that do not fit your 6 shot limit? Maybe we should make all guns fire gumdrops? Thats not gonna happen either.
We really need to focus on keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals when the courts identify someone as unstable or violent any weopons they have registered need to be taken away! Gun owners need to stay proactive and keep guns and ammo under separate lock and key,if you can`t load it you can`t shoot it.
Gun owners need to ask themselves how would they feel if one of their guns were used and someone was killed with it! Take a look at how you keep your collections stored and see if security needs improving.We read about it all the time, a child plays with a gun shoots a friend or sibling,a stolen gun kills an innocent person ect ect ect there are too many different scenarios to list. I wouldnt want it on my conscience that I could have done something more to make sure my gun collection was as safe as it could be.

As most responsible gun owners know already gun education and safety with your children is very important as well!

For the most part everyone's ideas on how to solve the gun problem is based on personal feelings about what they believe is right. Unfortunately, this is not how the process works. And sometimes it helps to be objective and imagine what the other side on the issue is thinking.

Politics play a big part in this which is obviously a shame. President Obama never made gun control an issue during his first term because he was terrified of losing votes because of it; now that he's a lame duck I suspect this will change. It's sad that politics have such a huge impact on what is right and wrong on issues such as this -- the safety of our children; however, BHO is hardly the first president to be influenced by political concerns and I can't rightly blame him solely because of that. On the flip side, the Republicans are beholden to the NRA (and, of course, more non-NRA gun owners are Republicans as well) and God forbid the issue of gun control is even discussed for fear of losing votes or having that lobby after you.

No matter what is said on this or any other chat board, guns are not going away as they have in parts of Europe and Asia. Our country was built on guns -- they're not going away. However, I don't think it's so crazy for both sides to get together and recognize that there is a problem in this country with guns and the maniacs who are getting access to them and that something should be done. Getting rid of assault rifles is the usual first idea but assault rifles were not to blame in yesterday's massacre in CT. I still have yet to hear a cogent explanation on why such guns are permitted to be sold to private citizens but, again, making them unavailable to the average American will not end the recent spate of shootings. Until both sides of the issue sit down and discuss the matter honestly, without politics being in play, nothing will ever truly get accomplished.

Of course, more people are killed each year due to obesity and we're not clamoring for the removal of fast food chains from the landscape.

Jeff, assault rifles are very useful in hunting wild boar, your response is typical of an elitist New Yorker.

Think this proves the answer is banning hunting of wild boar. No assault rifles needed then. Problem solved.

Great post Jeff.

My only comment is I think the NRA is like the press (yes, I'm comparing the two) in that they put their emphasis on their rights over their responsibilities. And responsibilities go beyond what is covered by law.

What most people here don't realize is that wild hogs have become a huge problem in the south. They have caused more damage than Sandy did. Money speaking. The problem is so large that states don't even require hunting license to shoot them. You can actually kill them anyway you want to. Day or night. The prefered gun of choice is a AR because of the mods you can put on them. Nightvision,lazer pointers,etc. People also prefer the AR for the high number of rounds in the clips. More rounds more dead hogs. The hogs run in packs so killing as many as you can before they run off is the object.

wild hogs, really? Ban the nutjobs, not guns

Absolutely Steve, I'm with you. They should ban mass murder.

The news reports are now suggesting one of the weapons may have indeed been an assault rifle.

I'm on the side that believes there are far too many guns in circulation, and not enough gun laws in place. But I also realize even strict gun laws will not prevent some lunatic from getting a gun anyway and going on one of these rampages.

Nobody will get hurt by having stricter gun laws, you certainly won't have more shootings if it's tougher to buy a gun. And you might stop a few of these killers in their tracks.

But here is what pisses me off to no end: the intractable positions taken by that group of idiots known as the NRA. These are people who will never ever listen to others who might disagree with their rigid positions on gun ownership. These are people whose goal is to break any politician who dares to take them on and says there needs to be some changes in America. These are people who are deaf to everybody except their own.

Maybe it's time for President Obama, who no longer has to worry about reelection, to start challenging these guys. There is no room for any organization of any kind who refuses to make any changes whatsoever, even in the face of these mounting tragedies. There needs to be dialogue, and there needs to be some changes made on how gun sales are transacted.

No, it will not end gun violence. But it's a start and a step in the right direction. And responsible people will still be allowed to purchase and keep guns. There needs to be a much more rigorous background check on so many of these people who have a history of mental instability. Doing nothing and refusing to change will no longer work.

I think we all have the second amendment wrong.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

More on what the state's chief medical examiner told reporters minutes ago in Newtown: He said the "long weapon" was used in the shooting, and that the weapon caused all of the wounds that he knew of.

He didn't say what that weapon was, but a law enforcement source has previously said that the gunman was found dead with next to three guns: a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer.

The medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said he personally did postmortem examinations of seven victims' bodies.

“All the wounds that I know of at this point were caused by the one weapon,”

Have they said why the mother had these guns?

600 dollars of federal tax on each bullet.

Own all the guns you want.

...and Dorskind has another really bright idea with the concept of banning illegal drugs.

She was a gun enthusiast, apparently enjoying her Second Amendment rights.

That idiot (who i used to like) Mayor Bloomberg of New York has decreed no soda's over 16-oz in restaurants and other similar places. However you can still buy 5 large pizzas and eat them all in one sitting. What a jerk.

Garry Shandling: "Why doesn't the NRA get behind allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Because, nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people."

Oh to hell with the Constitution, lets just burn the piece of shit!

IF that ever happened, we the people would have less rights then.

There's precedence to amending it, sir.

Your $600 tax idea on each bullet would be struck down by any court as it is an excessive tax. Now, I could see an additional 15% tax per box of ammo but any suggestion such as a $ amount per round tax would go nowhere in Congress.

The courts actually take such an approach. The prosecutor, judge, etc., quite often speaks to the mentally ill person as if they are understanding everything as you or I would, then basically tells them to start acting normal.

"Oh, okay - now it all seems so simple", the mentally ill person (I'm sorry - I meant to say "the nut job") responds, and he begins behaving 'normal' and everyone is happy. If he doesn't, you simply punish him until he realizes that he's "a nut job". Only one problem with all of this: mental illness affects insight. The old saying that if you think you're crazy, you must not be, is completely true...and vice versa, if you are certain you are NOT crazy, you might be.

But carry on. 'Insight' is something the 'normal' people also are lacking.

Barry....
 

Great to see you posting:)

my friend....

But it made for a hilarious Chris Rock stand-up comedy bit.

Root of the problem
 

Stop and consider the following facts from various federal databases. Deaths per year from: tobacco use – 529,000; medical errors – 195,000; alcohol abuse – 1007, 400; firearm homicides – 11,493. Where is the mindless cry for the elimination of tobacco, alcohol, or hospitals?

The problem is not weapon based. The problem is human based. We live in a culture that does not value human life.

+1

We live in a world that desensatizes killing - almost glorifies it like it's no big deal. You watch it movies, see it in video games and hear it in music.

Even if the assault rifle ban were re-enacted, do you really believe it would stop events like this? I don't.

If the assault rifle ban were reinstated, some incidents would be stopped. Even if only one were thwarted it could save the life of somebody's loved one.

And make no mistake about it: if you think the gun laws should remain exactly as they are, you are now officially in the minority. The majority wants this issue to be addressed now, and whether gun lovers agree or disagree with possible new laws will not matter. There are going to be changes, it's only a matter of when and what they will be. The days of keeping the status quo will soon end.

How about this for an argument?

You want to know why there are more and more shootings? It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.

There's a huge difference between harming yourself and actively harming others - nobody can take a Marlboro Red and shoot up a school with it.

People are mentally ill in this country and they obviously are feeling like they're out of options. Being driven to kill random strangers and as many as you can at once is a pretty good indicator that these people feel ostracized from society and are now so angry with being the outcast that they are determined to kill society at large.

Mental illness does not make a person "evil." I'm so tired of seeing people like the shooter in Newtown and the Aurora shooter labeled "evil." They are mentally ill. If the country had a stable healthcare system that encouraged treatment rather than making healthcare so expensive that people seek it out only at extreme moments in their lives, and then are turned away as people who don't need help or "are just blowing off steam" I believe that these people could get the help they need.

I'm not making excuses for this kind of behavior. But it doesn't boil down to "good" people and "bad" people. And if you take a gun out of someone's hand you're putting something else in it. You need to find a way to keep them from wanting either if you're going to solve anything. Let's see mental health services encouraged. Let's make it easier to access mental health professionals. Let's stop labeling anyone who has special mental health needs "crazy." Let's stop making them feel like they aren't a part of our lives.

Barry,

I respectfully disagree. I believe these sickos would just find a hand gun, shotgun or other type of rifle (lever action, bolt action, etc) instead. I believe they're choosing assault rifles only because of their magazine capacity - to inflict as much damage as possible. An assault rifle ban would probably limit the amount of casualties, but would not stop the frequency of these types of events. No way! They'll find other types of guns.

Besides, from my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong), an assault rifle ban (as the last one) does not mean gun owners have to "give up" their assault rifles. It only stops future transactions. The ban does not make it illegal to own an assault rifle, it only makes it illegal to barter one - buy, sell or trade. In other words, an assault rifle ban will not get existing assault rifles off the streets.

It's putting a band aid on a broken arm. You can say you've done something to help. But you haven't fixed anything.

Second Ammendment: 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 above is the Second Ammendment. It was written at a time when the US had no standing army; state militias were the country's sole ground army. As such, it was necessary for people to be armed to protect the country from foreign intrusion. The right to bear arms appears to be linked to the need for a well regulated militia. Today, there is no such need. Therefore, the way I read it, there is no reason today for private citizens to be armed, and certainly not to own automatic weapons. Hopefully lawmakers and the courts will agree.

NO, Jay, the Supreme Court very recently rejected that interpretation.

I agree that the coverage is beyond excessive, and while it's impossible to know, it may well play into the next mentally ill person's mindset who plans one of these. I thought it was particularly inappropriate today that the media intruded on the funerals of these unfortunate victims.

The Supreme Court disagreed with the bolded statement above, and did so fairly recently. There is plenty of room to maneuver if you want to restrict the types of guns purchased and who can purchase them.

Interesting how you can twist the Second Amendment to make your point. Can I play too? Let's talk about the First Amendment - Separation of Church and State and the removing of prayer in public schools. If our forefathers thought that prayer in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment, don't you think they would have done something about it 1789 (when the First Amendment was ratified) rather than waiting nearly two hundred years until 1962 (when it was taken out of schools)? Certainly. So why let it go on for 200 years? But that's not what the First Amendment was about - it was to keep the State from setting up one religion like the Church of England. But Madalyn Murray O'Hair got her way by twisting the First Amendment to suit her needs. I don't see you complaining about that. Or is it okay to interpret the Bill of Rights the way you want to when it suits you?

Packs, that's not how their thinking works. First, they don't generally believe they are mentally ill, so they aren't angry over being 'out of options'. With young men, the first big manic break typically manifests itself as irrational anger, thus the violence. The irrational anger can certainly be directed at a person or people, and have some basis in their pre-break reality, but it is a product of the illness itself, not a response to our reaction to it.

Thanks for this well-thought out post. The response I always get when I present such an argument, is that "we can't fix everyone". No, we can't fix everyone, so we don't attempt to fix ANYONE? Hard to imagine where society would be if we took that approach to everything we do. But I do understand - people feel that our resources would be better spent somewhere else. I can't argue with that logic, as there's always a trade-off, and we might have some more wars coming up.

As I'm reading back through this thread, it reminds me of the same rhetoric as the Aurora thread - nothing new. Everyone has their opinion and nothing anybody says is going to change the way the other side feels. However, the post I quoted above really stood out to me. Is it true, or was Steve given false information? I decided to check to out for myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland

It's there in black and white. You can choose to read it or not. Doesn't this take the assault rifle blame out of the equation? Sure it does. Because if there are more assault rifles in the homes of the Swiss than the US, why don't they have these types of problems? I would like to see someone answer that!!!

Do you guys know over 16,000 children die everyday because of starvation, yet not one word is mentioned on the news.

I wouldn't say Jay is twisting it. it was a close S.Ct. vote and a very respectable argument was made concerning the Militia Clause.

David--not a game, just an attempt to diffuse a ridiculous argument. That argument costs countless lives while the First Ammendment arguments do not.

Peter--pity. Maybe a future Supreme Court will interpret it differently.

Brock--and your point is that we should ignore the guns because children are also starving?

Highly unlikely.

Peter, am I correct in saying that the Heller decision still allows for significant discretion regarding the regulation of types of guns sold as well as who can buy them? As I understand, there is a fair amount of flexibility so long as the law doesn't effectively disarm citizens as the DC laws were interpreted to do.

The second amendment as it applies to regular citizens is predicated on people's need to hunt in order to feed themselves. This is still true even today. I think guns have a place in America and I think there ARE still people who NEED a gun. If I choose to hunt rather than buy store bought food pumped full of hormones and who knows what else I should have the option to do so. So I don't think banning all guns is logical. But I do support a limitation on the kinds of guns you can buy.

Time place and manner restrictions have been upheld against First Amendment challenge even though the Amendment says Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech. I suspect the same is true in the Second Amendment context although I don't know the area that well. I personally thought the decision was wrong, and that the Second Amendment does need to be read with the Militia Clause as a limiting factor, but nobody asked me.

Where do you get that interpretation? The text says it's because a militia is necessary.

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.

not only that but the last assault rifle ban only stopped sales of assault rifles and the high capacity magazines produced after a certain date, all the rifles and magazines produced before that date were still legal to buy albeit at high prices due to supply and demand.

Also the ban didn't refer to the guns semi-automatic feature, as full automatic is already banned. It basically referred to the looks of the gun, the folding stock, the telescoping stock, a certain scope, the pistol grip, the bayonet mount, etc. it needed three of these characteristics to fall under the ban.

manufacturers just made these guns with 2 characteristics and it was still legal to sell. so an assault weapons ban was nothing more than a ban of "scary looking" guns. semi-automatic rifles (one pull, one shot) were still legal to buy and sell and regular semi-automatic hunting rifles that don't look as scary are still one pull, one shot, and they are just as lethal in the wrong hands.

We, the people must be armed to keep our government in their place. End of story. And please do not continue to confuse Automatic weapons with Semi-Automatic weapons.

If they come after our retirement accounts and the government in power is talking about it, it may come down to the use of guns to stop it.