I want to be able to buy my next gun at Wawa and 7-11~~~~~!!!!

Lets move forward, not backwards.

If one of those teachers owned a gun less kids would have died.

We need more guns folks.

I think I will go order another gun tonight.

The guns used in that attack had been purchased long before there was a ban on assault weapons. The perpetrators of that attack did not own those weapons. Their parents were the owners. Long time gun enthusiasts.

Michele, and it wouldn't have mattered even if assault weapons weren't used. Assault weapons have been used, illegally regardless of a ban. My point stands that it won't make a difference. If it's not assault weapons, it'll be something else because the root of the issue is not being addressed.

I have been blaming my poor spelling on those dam pens and pencils for years...with little luck! This year I am blaming the Eagle's inability to win at football on the football. I mean come on, have you seen it? It's not even round. Can't be the players or coaches fault. It has to be that dam ball.

The assault weapons ban you speak of did not apply to gun show sales or private person to person sales.

Do you know why Wal-Mart pulled them from the web site? Because they understand the simple thinking and tunnel vision of the uninformed American public and like any smart business, they will begin to separate themselves from that which has become the evil symbol of violence. I don't blame them one bit, but I think it's a shame.
The M-16 was not only used in Vietnam. Generations of it have been used since.
I know a few people who own the Bushmaster. None of them have even threatened to kill another human being. There are tens of thousands more like them. Conversely, you can barely count on one hand how many time this weapon has been used to harm the innocent. Yet, we see IT as the root of the evil rather than the sick mind responsible. It's sad.
Again, there was an assault weapons ban in place when the Columbine Massacre took place.

Anyone who thinks a .22 caliber gun such as the ar15 is an assault weapon are the same people who would look at a Prius with a fancy paint job and fancy rims and say "Wow, look at that sports car, who needs a car that goes that fast?"
In other words..ignorant people.

Okay Joe, and when it ceases to prevent a thing, the blood will be on YOUR hands for failing to address the real issue. But if it makes you sleep better at night knowing that innocent people are killed with home made bombs instead of assault weapons, then I guess you're a winner, right?

That fact you think YOU'RE the only one horrifed by what happened to those kids and that you dare go on to imply that responsible, gun owning, citizens like myself should feel responsible is nothing short of sickening.

Grow the EFF up, do your homework and realize that gun control is not the issue; it does not affect gun crime, and there are other, more difficult things to consider and address here.

Thanks, Spooner. I heard that, too, this morning. Let us hope that the AR-15 -- as well as all other assault-style weapons -- becomes a pariah.

...you gotta remember that there's political ties. The owners, Cerberus Capitol and probably secret backers, who could be some of our fine upstanding past or present political leaders don't want their names connected with the gun...You do remember President George Bush?

Thanks, again. It is a good thing that they don't want their names connected to an assault-style weapon.

FN Five-Seven Pistol. He's being charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; he may face additional charges at court-martial. If he is convicted, he could be given the death penalty.

See, that bothers me. What business is it of YOURS to tell me what I need or don't need. Just because you don't understand the reason, doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because a handful of psychos have chosen a particular tool, shouldn't be grounds for making that tool illegal. That IS NOT addressing the issue! Because after this, it'll be the next thing, until you start preaching that hunters get their meat from the super market. Guns, no matter the type, is not the issue.

There is no legitimate reason for a car that goes 200 mph in a country that has a max speed limit of 75 mph, whats next

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Agree Jarhead...Radical Muslims killed more people in one day then all of the mass murders in the US combined yet we don't hear anyone bitching to out law Islam ..or 737's for that matter!

One of the first things that Hitler did was take away the people's firearms.

I agree but you cant argue with morons

Nice try. Why is it when a Libby is challeneged they immediately resort to deflection and mockery? And you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning important legislation? You don't deserve to be taken seriously!

Jarhead, when and only when Bloomberg, and every other politico, actor and others of the elite antigun movement give up their armed security details and live like the rest of us, then maybe i'll listen to their arguments

Not only their armed security details - but they all have carry permits as well - issued by judges and sheriffs that will not give law abiding citizens the same right that they give themselves and all of the famous people they want a picture with or a campaign contribution from.

Exactly - A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened.

It would be far more effective to lock up crazy people ("autistic" "aspergers" "spectrums") than it would be to ban assault rifles.

Sal, your comment about those with autism and Aspberger's is out of line. Autism is not a mental illness. There are millions of people who have been diagnosed as autistic who are not threats in any way.

Thank you for adding no, zero, none, nadda to the debate. Oh except to prove my point about liberals.

Joe, thank you. I'm glad that you are reasonable afterall. I'll chock some of your other comments to the heat of passion.

I agree that it's a handfull of psycho's, but I don't think they're ruining our country (unless we're talking about politicians). No handfull of people could ruin us.

I think you don't like guns, but to say there are "enough of them" is your opinion and should remain only an opinion.

I'm not saying that I will ever own an assault weapon. I will own a semi-automatic pistol and a shotgun but, these will be for personal use without any danger to society, I assure you. I also assure you there are millions like me.

My fear is that we're punishing the law abiding while not correcting the problem, or even addressing it.

An FBI background check, while a great idea, was about 10k a pop the last I heard (about 10+ years ago). If they can find a way to make it affordable to folks like me, I'd be all for it. What I don't want, is the Australian system where I need to list a reason for owning a gun where target practice or even home protection is not the answer.

Exaclty ! A hand full of psychos that we now stick into school with normal kids at the expense of the normal kids edcuations! We used to put them in marlboro nut house. Now they go to marlboro HS. Great idea.

Exactly - A lengthy study by Mother Jones magazine found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” New York Times columnist David Brooks and Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson have both suggested that the ACLU-inspired laws that make it so difficult to intervene and identify potentially dangerous people should be loosened.

It would be far more effective to lock up crazy people ("autistic" "aspergers" "spectrums") than it would be to ban assault rifles.

Joe, Thomas Jefferson had access to more than just a muskett and he was smart enough, certainly smart enough, to understand that weapons would evolve.

Really ? When did he tell you that ?

You don't think the guy was smart enough to realize guns in the future would be more advanced then guns of his day ?

PS- muskets were the military style gun of the day when he wrote that.

This is to easy.

Perhaps Jefferson could forsee that weapons would evolve but I seriously doubt he ever pictured semi-automatic weapons anymore then he could conceive of a cannonball evolving into the weapons we have today that can obliterate half the world.

Well, he did live until within 20 years of the invention of the Gatling gun. Regardless, he was only the writer. An entire congress agreed to our Bill of Rights and I'd imagine it'd be assumed US Citizens be armed with weapons of the time going forward.

YO..Vinny, Joey, Tony...u's hear da gonna outlaw ice picks and lamp cords..bah fungoo. see how stupid the knee jerk reaction to ban guns is?

Wrong. Assault Weapons are not always the weapon of choice for mass murder. Some have used pistols, hunting rifles, box cutter and Ryder Trucks full of explosives.

Oh, I guess those kids would have taken him down before he could reload his 9mm.

Half the mass killings in the last 30 years involved no rifle.

But why let the facts stand the way.

Now that you mention it, this was for a security clearence. However, I believe the same check for new recruits, conducted by the FBI was about 10K as well. I guess it depends on how deep they go. Does the FBI go door-to-door for your checks, talking to family, friends and neighbors?

There is an extensive body of First Amendment jurisprudence, including at the Supreme Court. Hardly a term passes -- certainly in more modern times, in any event -- where a case directly or indirectly implicating the First Amendment has not been heard. Often several such cases are decided in a term. The First Amendment case law is thus fairly well developed. (Of course, there will always be more cases in that regard, as in every area of the law.)

On the other hand, there have been only a very small handful of cases over the centuries where the Supreme Court considered the parameters of the Second Amendment. In large measure, that circumstance prompted my comment that you reference. However, you used a different sense than I intended by your recasting. I intended that, in my opinion, any new gun legislation should be made retroactive -- unlike the 1994 assault-weapons ban -- even if that required reasonable compensation be paid to owners. This would at least provide the power to deal with the offending guns already in circulation. I am uncertain of all the potential constitutional issues in that regard, and I won't speculate here, having not had occasion to research the issue.

Steve wrote: "I intended that any new gun legislation be made retroactive, unlike the 1994 assault-weapons ban. I am uncertain of all the potential constitutional issues in that regard, and i won't speculate here, having not had occasion to research the issue."

So then you automatically make criminals out of folks who are, at this very moment, law abiding citizens. And what impact do you suppose this will have on the criminal element? I'm gonna go ahead and guess none.

No. Such retroactivity doesn't turn a law-abiding citizen necessarily into a criminal. There would still be a so-called "mens rea" requirement respecting criminal intent, as for virtually all criminal offenses.

A person knowingly in possession of a banned weapon would be given a reasonable amount of time and notice to turn in the weapon to authorities. A person having no knowledge of possession would have no criminal liability. The main point of making the law retroactive would be to give government the power to seize banned weapons, even in a civil action or as a 4th degree misdemeanor or mere regulatory violation (such as seizing a car or contraband). It also would permit an additional indictment count against anyone using such a banned weapon in the commission of a crime.

Steve, so you then strip the law abiding gun owner of his property and you think that's okay? I don't. You're reasoning and suggestions scare the hell out of me. I am a US Born citizen, gun owner, honorable veteran with no criminal record. Again, there are millions like me.

Thanks for that last comment. We just came full circle. I am definitely NOT looking to run afoul of the Second Amendment, nor any other part of the constitution. However, as between reaching the limits of the Second Amendment and personal-property rights of gun owners on one hand, and the potential increase in safety of our children on the other, I come down on the latter. By the way, I, too, am a US-born citizen, gun owner (pump-action shot gun for home defense and rabid animals), and honorable veteran (retired officer) with no criminal record.

Steve, that's good to know. That carries a lot of weight with me. However, I take offense to any thought that I don't also want our children to be safe. With that said, I'll take you back to the fact, that gun control does not work, would not have prevented this tragedy and is not the issue with these murders.

So we will just have to agree to disagree here. By the way, for what it's worth, I have not heard a word about retroactivity being considered in any new gun-control laws. They would likely be hard enough to get through Congress, even without retroactivity, which could well be a deal breaker. But I was presenting my own legal and policy views.

Well, even though we're on opposite sides, I enjoyed the debate. I hope our leaders bring us to a solution that makes us both happy, but more importantly, address the real issue of making us and our children safe; what ever that may be,

Thank you for your service.

Roger that. And thank you for your service. Out.

Steve- in Australia when they banned the possession of assault weapons, they offered to pay the owners what they paid for them plus 10%. They were able to get the weapons out of the hands of the public. Don't know if that can be politically accomplished here?

No, we don't defend guns...guns defend us. POINT!
So, seriously, what we need is some hard evidence that gun control laws as they exist have ever done one thing to stop violence. On the other hand, I'm sure we could find many instances where, but for a gun, violence would have ensued.
Fact: All the gun control laws in the world would not have changed the outcome of Newtown where the incident in question occurred in a "gun free zone." On the other hand, if someone, anyone, would have been armed the outcome might have been quite different.

Whether different gun-control laws would have helped in Newtown is besides the point. Any new laws would be looking to future behaviors and situations.

And if any other civilians had been armed during the Newtown massacre, the outcome might just as well have been far worse. Friendly fire by even trained soldiers and police in a stressful situation is a huge problem (one I studied professionally for some time). In any event, as I stated above, gun control is not the only appropriate response to prevailing national violence.

Enlighten us on your study of friendly fire, please. I do know it is as old as war its self, but I do not share your thoughts that a single armed citizen in that school could have altered the outcome. Unless he/she be a coward. I'm not advocating arming teachers, but say for arguments sake that the brave Miss Soto had been armed and trained. No question in my mind, the death toll would have been less than 27. Anyway, perhaps that's a discussion for another day.

My studies regarding friendly fire were all classified. However, there have been recent studies -- I believe in New York City -- of well-trained police officers who fired their weapons in the line of duty. A substantial number of fired rounds (maybe most, but I don't recall the exact percentage) missed their mark by a wide margin. And friendly fire police incidents during stressful incidents are often in the newspapers (after all the ballistics have been performed).

I can recall one incident of friendly fire by an NYPD officer in the last several years. As far as military though, I'm really only familiar with friendly fire coming from aircraft or artillery and would say those two elements make up the vast majority of military friendly fire since WWII. Yes, I'm aware of the Pat Tillman case. Anything else has been intentional.

We're getting off topic here. You blame certain guns for these massacres and are also against carry/conceal for the commen citizen.

I am for exploring an alternate path this time because I've studied and reported on the failings of gun control in the past (during college). When I say alternate path, I mean reexamining these events and focusing on the perpetrator. The FBI employs profilers who are very good at what they do. Certainly they can put together a more thorough report of these folks (inlcuding the McVeigh types) and perhaps make the application process for arms for affective. Let me summarize; you'll be hard pressed to get me to buy into any BS, feel good gun law and that's for two reasons. 1). I know they don't work. 2). The focus on guns of the perpetrator is misguided. I'm tired of going down this road. I'm beyond sick of the senseless murder. I'm aware that banning a type of gun is not the answer.

After the assault weapons band was instituted in 1994, the Urban Institute did a study three years later to determine whether or not the ban had any impact. There conclusion was that there was not much that changed...

...We were unable to detect any reduction to date in two types of gun murders that are thought to be closely associated with assault weapons, those with multiple victims in a single incident and those producing multiple bullet wounds per victim.

http://www.urban.org/publications/406797.html

...this was also borne out by the National Institute of Justice study conducted in 2003, p.91

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

Depends on the extent of the check. That, or the Department of the Navy lied. I'm more inclined to believe them however.

Security clearances needed to work in classified locations run around 10k.

Coming to collect arms of the law abiding tax paying citizen, many believe, is precisely why we stand by to protect our right to be armed. What you mock as deep in history can more easily be achieved in an unarmed society. More entitlements and less firearms = total dependence on the government = destruction of a country.

1941 - The American government rounded up US citizens and stuck them in detention camps based on appearance and national origins alone.

Don't think it could happen again ?

Call me nuts. But if the SH hit the fan you'd be the one walking in line like a good little sheep to your new pen. Not me.

@mtwnres If American government becomes Tyrannical like you said in 1941, you think you will bring out your gun and fight? Good luck. I guess you need to buy more guns to be ready for that day. :)

None of those affected the Bill of Rights. Prohibition: The model for failure of big government, which is what you're advocating. I'm shocked you would even mention that fiasco.

@Just my thoughts - I have just enough. I'll wave as they march you off.

You missed the point. Amendments to the constitutions have never, in 220+ years, ever altered the Bill of Rights. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you really need to educate yourself a bit more on our Constitution. I admit, I'm rusty myself, but the Bill of Rights is basic stuff here. The Bill of Rights will NEVER be changed as long as we are a free society.

I didn't say it can't. I said it won't as long as we are a free society.

The entire Bill of Rights was written at that time. You don't get to cherry pick what you don't like 200 years later my friend.

The second amendment had nothing to do with Hessians and I'd like to see any quote that makes it seem so. The arming of the citizens was to protect such from overbearing government as evidenced by the war the founders had just executed.
Here's Noah Webster commenting on the Second Amendment:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
I guess that settles what Noah Webster thought about it.

@Stop complaining, which of the first 10 amendments (AKA The Bill of Rights) has been omitted in the last 220 years? Name one!

Likewise, when you making a spelling mistake, you should throw out the pencil or pen and move forward with confidence that you have solved the issue.

And abortion laws stop the killing of innocent, unborn human beings...oh wait, that's not right.
Brilliant argument "Just my thoughts;" did you think that up all by yourself or were any of those the thoughts of someone else?

How do we combat germs on our hands? We wash them.

How do we treat guns in our hands????

Steve, how were they addressed? Are you talking about here on the patch, or in Washington?

How do we treat guns in our hands????

Treat every weapon as if it was loaded...

You are insane. 70+ years ago, a like minded person embraced the National Socialist Party in Germany.

Why not register all knives in your house as well as all tools? They can be used to kill.

Based on what and how you write I'd suggest you're probably closer to losing your mind then any of your neighbors. Maybe they should be warned about you.

Quite interesting replies. But the fact remain especially after Newtown killing that even legally owned weapons can be misused by members of the family.

And most of the gun supporters in this forum emphasized that mental health is the main problem.

It is also a fact a single check at the time of purchase is not enough as mental health of owner can worsen later.

Therefore it is reasonable expectation that mental health as most of the people believe is cause of these tragedies should be checked periodically.

Maybe publishing the results is objecnable, but the gun owners licence should be subject to renewal depending on good mental health of owner and anyone who has access to it?

I dont see what is the problem in that?

@just my thoughts. That is much more reasonable, and sensible, than your previous post.

Martha, if it gives you some comfort, I have just deleted my comment above regarding "fringe views." (For the record, my clients have included GSK.) I am already behind where I should be on some chores. Holiday cheer to all!

This is from the The National Institute of Mental Health Website regarding the side effects of ADHD medications.

"Studies show that children and teenagers with ADHD who take atomoxetine are more likely to have suicidal thoughts than children and teenagers with ADHD who do not take atomoxetine. If your child is taking atomoxetine, watch his or her behavior carefully. A child may develop serious symptoms suddenly..."

" Acting more subdued or withdrawn than usual
Feeling helpless, hopeless, or worthless
New or worsening depression
Thinking or talking about hurting himself or herself
Extreme worry
Agitation
Panic attacks
Trouble sleeping
Irritability
Aggressive or violent behavior
Acting without thinking
Extreme increase in activity or talking
Frenzied, abnormal excitement
Any sudden or unusual changes in behavior."

How many children and young adults are on these medications?

Any country that would have the capability to attack us on our own ground ground would knock out or jam all satellites that would be able to provide us with a GPS capability.

@NJarhead But mass murders repeatedly were committed with the use of gun. You don't agree that we should do what I suggest to limit the access to guns from mentally disabled and criminal people. I thought you agree that we should do something about that.

Absolutely. But the arguments I'm reading is to restrict access to them entirely for everyone.

From all reports Nancy Lanza was a " responsible gun owner."

Apparently not.

@Exit82 - 100% false
A responsible gun owner never would have allowed access to a person with mental issues.

A responsible gun owner would not have taken her child who had mental problems to a shooting range and taught him to use weapons.

I remember, as a kid in the 70's, hearing about some other kid who hit his friend with a bat because he saw it on Bugs Bunny. There were rumors abound that Bugs would be banned (or at least those episodes). I knew then, as I know now, there was more to that issue than Bugs Bunny, because I could never imagine doing that. All of my friends agreed.

All these laws (thanks to liberal America) that are supposed to make us better are changing our society and I wouldn't agree that it was for the better. I hope I'm still alive when studies begin to show that all the liberal movements are to blame for our downfall.

@GTWatchdawg
Totally agree with that.

how about chopping your fingers off

there is nothing to debate you dont need automatic weapons period
stop watching re runs of rambo
read the second amendment it pertains to the milita not carrot wackers sitting in their camo boxers
executive order on the way melt all automatic weapons down

Tim what does anything have to do with automatic weapons? None were used here and they still remain legal under the NFA; even after the Clinton's AWB. Are you confusing semi-automatic and automatic weapons?

Tim,

English please?

Thank you.

Barneylicous

English pease?

I wonder how you would feel the if your 6 year old got shot in the face by a person with a mental disorder who obtained his automatic weapon from someone who was not considered a threat to shoot people. Don't choke on your chick fil a.

So, Stuffin, how is a determination made that a person with a mental disorder is "not considered a threat" or "is considered a threat" to shoot someone? And who makes that brilliant determination? Just wonderin?

Stuffin,

What does me going to the range, watching O'Reilly and enjoying a chik fil a have anything to do with the potential of my 6 year old getting shot?

Thanks for sharing your liberal twisted sheeple.

Barneylicous