O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[yanks12025]

I think we all have the second amendment wrong.


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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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,”

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

[murcerfan]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Have they said why the mother had these guns?

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

[dabigyankeeman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

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.

[bigwinnerx]

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."

[Texxxx]

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

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

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.

[bigwinnerx]

There's precedence to amending it, sir.

[Vintageismygame]

Originally Posted by murcerfan

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.

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

wild hogs, really? Ban the nutjobs, not guns

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.

[mrvster]

Great to see you posting

my friend....

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

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.

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

[Canoeswamp]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Canoeswamp

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.

[barrysloate]

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.

[conor912]

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.

[Gecklund311]

Originally Posted by Canoeswamp

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.

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.

[packs]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

If the assault rifle ban were reinstated, some incidents would be stopped.

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.

[packs]

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.

[oldjudge]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by conor912

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.

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.

[Gecklund311]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by 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

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!!!

[yanks12025]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

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.

[oldjudge]

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

Highly unlikely.

[Gecklund311]

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.

[packs]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gecklund311

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

The second amendment as it applies to regular citizens is predicated on people's need to hunt in order to feed themselves.

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.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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.

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.

[Vintageismygame]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

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.

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

If they come after our retirement accounts and the Dems are talking about it, it may come down to the use of guns to stop it.

The gun debate isn't necessarily party affiliated (though I realize it is a little bit). If this thread goes into a political debate (Republican vs Democrat) the thread will be closed.

[Texxxx]

Sorry Leon, I will reword it.

[Bpm0014]

"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."


Probably the most ubiquitous, lamest, dumbest argument of the NRA. Even if you had to keep the government "in their place" (laughable), your "assault rifles" would be no match for the superior firepower of our military (fighter jets, helicopters, missiles, bombs, etc.). Just ask Iraq during Desert Storm.... And an FYI, I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, just not in the NRA.

[Vintageismygame]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

"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."


Probably the most ubiquitous, lamest, dumbest argument of the NRA. Even if you had to keep the government "in their place" (laughable), your "assault rifles" would be no match for the superior firepower of our military (fighter jets, helicopters, missiles, bombs, etc.). Just ask Iraq during Desert Storm.... And an FYI, I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, just not in the NRA.

The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

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.

Sorry Texxxx, edited for being "over the top".

Enjoy your weapons,

Matt Hall

[oldjudge]

The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government.


That color is the sun in your world?

[bigwinnerx]

So, it's not only foreign governments its our own government you guys need to protect us from. Now I feel so much better. Yep.

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government.


That color is the sun in your world?

I'll have to agree with that. A strong military is what has keep our country safe from invasion.

Mathew H.
For the record I only own a couple of shotguns for hunting. I am very passionate about the way people in this country are trying to change the constitution because of what they want. There are parts of the constitution that I would love to change but I would NEVER try to force my opinions on to other people.

This has probably gone far enough. We will never be able to change each others mind as to how we feel and I am going to get out of the conversation. I will be glad to defend your right to your opinion. That is your constitutional right.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Vintageismygame

The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government.

Don't even think about it, Washington!!

[Bpm0014]

"The number of weapons in the arms of private citizens is the number 1 reason why we have not been invaded, whether it be a foreign or domestic government."


"Hmmm, maybe we should withdraw our nuclear missles from Cuba. Do you know how many citizens are armed over there???" -Kruschev 1962

"Will someone set up a meeting with Reagan ASAP? Maybe we should re-think this arms race. I heard many of the citizens are armed over there..." - Gorbachev 1984