The gun debate
I’ll state my position plainly. I don’t believe that the Second Amendment should be read as allowing Americans to own assault weapons. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the kind of arms that Americans possess today. Criminal gangs have more firepower than law enforcement.
That said, here is an excerpt from what Adam Gopnik of the New Yorker had to say about the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I agree with every word of it.
[L]et’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.
The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.
Leesa says:
I agree with a ban on assault weapons. Something should have been done before all these children were shot down. All lives matter and we have lost too many here in this country. How many deaths and suicides could have been avoided if guns were not so easy to purchase? Too many people who don’t have criminal records use guns to intimidate and threaten loved ones in this country. Movies and video games glorify gun violence also. They share some responsibility.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:22 am
But without assault weapons, how will we defend our freedoms and our traditional values when the UN invades to enforce the Kyoto Protocol and force-feed birth control pills to middle schoolers?
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:45 am
I think Lubbock will be ready for the UN invasion.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Yah, it’s just TOO BAD that the gun used in the Conn. shooting WAS NOT AN “ASSAULT WEAPON”!! Of course this fact won’t matter to the gungrabbers. See, Connn. has ALL the bells and whistles gungrabbers lust after. Waiting period, registration of private sales, ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, etc. So the DEADLY FEATURES that make a common semi-automatic into a DEADLY “assault weapon” were missing on the rifle used in Conn. The rifle was a “California compliant” AR 15, which did not have a bayonet lug, folding stock or a flash hider. See without those DEADLY FEATURES that turn ADHD geeks into raving maniacs it cannot be an “assault weapon”. So you have to rant about banning “semi-automatic weapons”. Like the kind COPS carry. Yah, let’s get those “weapons of war”, according to Mr. Obama OUT of the hands of POLICE, SWAT TEAMS and other “law enforcement”. They don’t have any more RIGHT to them than the mere citizen.
Reply »
David Carter Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
How are you defining “assault weapon?” Must it look like an “assault weapon?” Shoot like an “assault weapon?” Is it the caliber? Or, is it the dreaded “semi-automaic” weapon? There are only 3 categories of personal firearms. Muzzle loaders: Load powder, load ball ammo, fire weapon, load powder, load ball ammo, fire weapon… Fully automatic: Load magazine, pull trigger, all rounds are fired until there are none left. Semi automatic: Load weapon, pull trigger, weapon fires, pull trigger, weapon fires, pull trigger…unti all rounds are expended. ALL personal firearms, handgun to “assault weapons,” are semi-automatic. ALL. So, when you restrict any, except those already restricted, you infringe upon the 2nd Ammendment. Or, you will. No inanimate object ever jumped up and killed someone without the the hand of a person being intimately involved. The weak link in all of these tregedies is the human and not the gun. Thousands upon thousands more are killed by automobiles. Will we ban them also. Knives? Baseball bats? All of these mass killings are a terrible tragedy. There is no question about that. But removing guns from the general population will not prevent these tragedies any more than legislating drug off the streets. They’re still there… Sick individuals will find a way to carry out their plans.
Reply »
Americanus Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
My single action Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 mag revolver is definitely a personal firearm, but it doesn’t fit into any of your “only 3 categories of personal firearms.” b/c it is not a muzzle loader, semi-automatic, or fully automatic — it requires the hammer to be cocked for every shot.
Quite simply, your statement that: “ALL personal firearms, handgun to ‘assault weapons,’ are semi-automatic. ALL.” is simply flat-out wrong.
Either you don’t know what you’re talking about, or you are trying to mislead people.
I am a 5th generation Texan that owns multiple firearms — the Ruger 44 I mentioned above was given to me by my grandfather — and I agree with Mr. Burka. Besides, guns are guns. They are to be handled, stored, and used responsibly. They are not high religion, though for some knuckleheads they apparently are.
Additionally, the 2nd Amendment was written when a militia had the ability to match firepower with an invading army. It’s crazy talk to read the 2nd Amendment as providing that ability in the modern era. Do some folks really believe that the 2nd Amendment provides the right for every citizen to possess as much firepower as humanly possible?
If some goofy people have fantasies about being able to overthrow the government that they have issues with, let them try to take on bombers, tanks, cruise missiles, etc. with handguns, rifles, or even true assault weapons — if they do, they are fools that will die trying.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Yah, the Viet Cong, Afgans, Taliban, Chetchen, etc. all LOST because they didn’t have tanks, etc. Ask a Marine that was in Faluja about that.
Anonymous Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin. Never a truer statement!
Reply »
Americanus Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Hey Big Bore aka Fiftycal:
I know a Marine that was in Fallujah. He was in fact injured by a IED. However, I wasn’t aware we lost in Iraq (on the whole at least — but many suffered and many died). Also, didn’t every example you mentioned involve forces that had access to explosive weapons like rocket propelled grenades, and in the case of the Afghans fighting what was then the USSR, U.S. supplied Stinger missiles (and in fact many if not all of the forces you mentioned were backed in some way or another by suppliers in other countries — or in some cases by other countries)?
Are you arguing that average citizens should have access to explosive weapons?
Your analogy seems to me to be a failure.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Let’s say there is an assault weapons ban, as there was at the time of the Columbine shooting, then yet another massacre occurs. What next? Let’s not forget the VA Tech shooter (deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history) was not using assault weapons. Assault weapon regulation is a perfectly reasonable issue to have policy discussion about but we shouldn’t pretend it’s going to solve the problem of these shooting massacres. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer as to why these tragedies happen and there’s no easy solution to stop them.
Reply »
Reality Check Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:46 am
You are absolutely correct. Gun control, more importantly tighter restrictions on assault weapons, should be debated to determine if we need to do more as a country.
However, the real issue that needs to be dealt with and owned up to is that in all of these massacres and shootings the individuals were mentally ill/unstable. There were red flags in all of the records of all of the killers in these mass killings. We have squarely failed as a country to deal with mental illness issues (whether in our schools or criminal justice system).
Reply »
garyfan Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
True there are mental health red flags and a very common profile in all of these cases. The problem is that those red flags exist in a lot of cases. And every killer shares the profile with millions of non-killers. We should have better mental health care available for those who need it. Just don’t think it will make this problem go away.
Reply »
Josh says:
I hear people saying, “Newtown was not about the guns.” To which I respond: “Right, and 9/11 was not about the airplanes.”
If you don’t think we need to regulate assault weapons, then you should also feel quite comfortable getting on an airplane where there has been no screening of any kind, where people can bring on all the box cutters they want. And if you would not get on that plane, then you should support common-sense measures to limit gun ownership.
And if you’re going to be a Second Amendment absolutist, at least be an absolutist about the entire amendment. Note the words that it starts with: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…”
Regulations are right there in the Amendment.
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
December 24th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Yah, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Yup, pretty simple. Now get rid of NFA 34, GCA 68 and FOPA 86 , do away with taxes on guns and ammo and we would be pretty close.
Reply »
anon-p says:
A recent comment not made by me that I agree with:
“You can’t gave gun control without nut control.”
A riposte to the idea that outlawing assault rifles would have prevented the tragedies:
1. Switzerland
2. Mexico
3. Timothy McVeigh
An intellectual disagreement with Mr. Burka’s interpretation of the second amendment:
The second amendment authorizes the retention of weapons by the citizenry as would be typically used by light infantry, which is what militias were. So-called “assault” weapons are squarely and firmly in that category.
I can see a treatment of the second amendment that calls for outlawing or severely restricting SAMs and fighter jets and tanks and the like. However, to outright outlaw what a modern day militia soldier would need to use, if called upon to uphold the peace, seems to fly in the face of the intention of the second amendment.
Lastly, I take extreme issue with this sentiment that Mr. Burka has just claimed to endorse and share: “The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children.”
Shall we extend this to all legislative acts? Abortion? No-fault divorce? Relaxing the requirements for the institutionalization of severely mentally ill? Relaxing drug prohibition? Relaxing alcohol prohibition?
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
We should have both gun and nut control. We live in the modern world where women vote, no slavery exists and guns fire semi-automatically. There is nothing in the second amendment that prohibits licencing of gun owners or weapons. You cannot own a machine gun or flamethrower. There are parts of the constiution that do indeed need fixin’
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
I think it is really weird to base the right to gun ownership on what a modern day militia soldier would use if called upon to uphold the peace. There are no modern-day militia soldiers (other than the National Guard). There may be pretend militia organizations where people play soldier, but the idea that it is necessary to uphold the peace against the government itself, if that what anon-p is trying to argue, is just plain off-the-charts crazy. If that is not what anon-p is trying to argue, I apologize.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
How could you forget the mighty Texas State Guard which fills in for the National Guard when it has been called up?…Of course, I do not believe it troops have any guns….Or, the fact that, under the Texas Milita Act, all males 18 to 50 are part of the “unorganized milita”…ready to be called upon on “foreign invasion or savage Indian uprising”…We have so many militas it is funny.
Reply »
anon-p Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
No, I don’t mean the militia as an insurrection force. That’s ridiculous.
At the time of the constitution, America had weak police forces, was largely rural, and still had unsafe borders. Able bodied men were expected to be called up for defense as necessary. It was not only a right, it was a duty.
On the few occasions militias were called up, they were used as light infantry.
Now, we have a standing army and sophisticated law enforcement departments which all but obviate the need as presented in the original historical configuration.
Nevertheless, the second amendment remains, its rights and implied duty remains, and it is certainly useful. A culture of all able bodied men being able to help shoulder the duties of protection of the populace is a help to law enforcement, increases harmony between civilians and the military, and discourages even the idea of attack or invasion. Because, as Yamamoto famously said, “Behind every blade of grass is a man with a gun.” And, it is a strong deterrent against attempted tyranny.
Switzerland is the nearest approximation to this ideal.
Many may disagree, as I’m sure you do, and will opine that our military and law enforcement are enough, that weapons should be confined to hunting and sport purposes only, and that there should be a clear line between civilians and either peace officers or military.
But, of course, that would be just an opinion, and it would apparently be one not shared by a majority of historical Americans, as we have kept the second amendment and its rights.
I personally think we need more of the “well-regulated” part of the second amendment, but in its original meaning, not your configuration. Well-regulated in the historical context meant, “well trained.”
Reply »
Dan C says:
The notion that we shouldn’t do anything about assault weapons, etc. because no single thing will completely solve the problem misses the point. The proliferation of these weapons and ease with which they can be acquired makes these tragedies MUCH more common here than anywhere else. If we change our laws to restrict them, the number and frequency of tragedies will decrease. That would be a good thing so we should do it. It can be done without endangering peoples’ right to protect themselves or go hunting. The fact that it won’t completely eliminate all risk is not a good argument to do nothing. The reason for not doing anything is what? So gun nuts like this shooter’s mom can continue to collect their toys? Insane.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:44 am
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that shows the previous assault weapons ban had any effect on any aspect of gun crime. If there is please post it. I’m open for policy that would make a positive difference but I’m always apprehensive to promote banning anything (especially given the emotional state the nation is in right now) without seriously considering whether it will actually alleviate the problem it is in response to.
Reply »
Texan Born Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:51 am
The ban on assault weapons should never have ended in 2004. Why, wasnt the ban on assault weapons an everlasting ban? Or at least, when it ended, why didnt the politicians bring it back to the table, and ban them again?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 10:15 am
Prohibition has never worked. It only created more criminals who will get their weapons underground. Check ur history.
Obama, Holder, and the current administration sold thousands of these same weapons to Mexican drug cartels but wants to disarm or prohibit US citizens! Well ain’t that just dandy.
donuthin says:
Guns are an obsession with some. I can understand someone enjoying craftsmanship in a nice rifle or pistol, but there is something totally irrational in wanting to own weapons with high capacity magazines.
Would more stringent gun control help? I’m not sure. Would arming teachers and principals help? No way, may even make it worse.
Do we need more mental health facilities to assist parents with kids that are having behavioral problems? Absolutely. Maybe even help some of those who are obsessed with guns.
Reply »
Kenneth D. Franks says:
I’ve been a gun owner forty something years. I however don’t need an assault weapon or thirty round clips: for deer, hogs, varmints, coyotes, or even personal protection.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Very well said. I have owned guns for 50+ years and agree with KDF statement. Assault weapons and multi-round clips are ridiculous for hunting and personal protection.
Reply »
Wilson Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
True. Multi-round clips are for Tommy Tactical wanna be’s and the sort of folks that shouldn’t have them in the first place. If you need that many rounds you probably are not competent. This idea that the government is coming for your hunting rifle is NRA bull spouted to make money for gun manufacturers.
Reply »
Texan Born Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:52 am
I agree. I grew up with weapons for hunting only.
Reply »
Braden Redding Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I agree also. I have several assault rifles and i have never hunted with them. I would like to do some three gun competitions but aside from legal competition the reason I have them is for martial law situations and for the purpose of keeping my neighborhood from being victimized by thugs. Not a likely scenario. So taking away assault rifles would not be the end of the world and would have no effect on true hunters. I allready have mine anyway. I just can’t see a ban having any real results in lowering the number of mass shootings. We need better health care in general so middle class parents can get the help they need with there kids. I have my 19 yr old bro in law living in my basement. He developed a mental illness and was released from care when he was clearly unstable. He has inherited several firearms from his father. I had to confiscate them from him but this is the type if situations going on in America everyday. People in need of care are turned away because they don’t have money or insurance. This boy has no job, was denied disability, and had to live w his single mother. If I wasn’t blessed to have a good career this boy would have no support, access to guns, mentally unstable, and pissed at the world. We need better care for people like this to prevent the mass shootings. Guns don’t kill people by themselves.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 10:29 am
I own many weapons including many high capacity mags. I’ve been wild hog hunting on a farmers property. He paid us 25 per hog. They run in packs and many took more than one shot. I’m no sniper who makes the perfect shot everytime. One hog took 6 shots to bring it down.
Many of us shoot for sport or for fun! There is nothing wrong with a inanimate 30 shot mag. It’s the evil people you have to worry about. If they want to kill anyone, they will always find a way. 100 times more children die from drunk drivers.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 26th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Your arguments have a problem of misplaced priorities. It places a higher priority on things like:
- the level of fun one gets when using a 30 round clip as opposed to a 10 round clip
- or, effective hog hunting
- or, tournament shooting
…over some relatively small but needed protections for innocent people.
It also places front-and-center the weapons additional killing power. You used it to highlight the fact that you need it to kill many hogs in a short time span. That same argument will be turned against you when it’s shown that it’s also used to kill more people in a shorter time span.
Reply »
Jorge says:
Paul
I agree ! The gun lobby will fight back; the Rs will not stand up—with certain exceptions. This will be another huge dividing line between Ds and Rs. The Rs are on the wrong side of history on this; they may not realize yet but they will in future elections.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 8:53 am
Not in Texas, they won’t. In fact, I see this issue as perhaps being the one that finally causes a secession or two, should the federales actually move forward with controls (but I don’t see that happening, given that you need 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to change anything).
Texas, for better or worse, IS a different country than the U.S. It only stays in the union for fear of losing military contracts.
Reply »
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
The speed with which liberals and Democrats would have us surrender our freedoms is astounding. One can only hope that the potential backlash of a move like this will serve as a proper deterrent to those who seek to disarm law-abiding citizens.
On another point, the Founding Fathers surely never foresaw the advent of the microphone nor its ability to communicate, sometimes vile and hateful messages, to the masses. Would you also have us surrender the freedom of speech too?
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Innocent children can’t be massacred with words. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a false equivalency.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:19 am
Agree!
Reply »
Wayne L.P> Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Horribly biased and poorly thought out comparison. You “right” to own a gun comes at the cost of 10 year olds lives?
Reply »
Sprio Eagleton Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Excellent point about the microphone and the 1st Amendment.
Reply »
Americanus Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
The microphone / 1st Amendment point is definitely a false equivalency. The 1st Amendment is much more clear than the 2nd Amendment, and yet the federal courts have consistently said there are numerous restrictions on speech that are nonetheless consistent with the 1st Amendment:
Time/manner/place restrictions on things like solicitations & protests; you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater; there are limitations on speech that would cite immediate violence; deceptive advertising, libel, slander, etc.
Similarly, there are necessarily some limitations on the liberty contemplated by the 2nd Amendment.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
The founders never planned to give an adolescent suffering with mental illness the right to go to a school and kill babies. The gun lobby has gotten a significant portion of the population to believe that if they buy weapons with increasingly more firepower, they will be able to stave off an attack from the “guvmint.” I would argue that the time when armed citizens could succeed in that sort of battle ended long ago. The US military can blow us into the stratosphere. Give it a rest and let’s work on saving lives, not fantasizing about being Rambo.
Reply »
Larry Phillip's Cat says:
Unsupported assertions:
1. The founding fathers never anticipated the kind of weapons Americans have today.
2. Criminal gangs have more firepower than law enforcement.
3. Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries.
4. In “every” other country gun laws have been tightened.
5. In America gun massacres happen with “hideous regularity.”
All of those statements are asserted without corroboration, and then I’m told I’m complicit in murder bc I’m interested in defending liberty. So pardon me If I tell the author and you, Paul, to take a hike.
Reply »
Alan Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Go to Wikipedia and look at the rates of gun-related homicide and accidental deaths in the United States. Compare it to the rest of the “civilized world” (i.e. Western Europe, Japan, Canada). Then tell me we don’t have a problem.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:55 am
1. It’s certain that the founding fathers never anticipated the kind of weapons Americans have today.
2. The first responders at Sandy Hook elementary said that if they had been in the line of fire of the shooter, they would have been killed too, not having sufficient weaponry to match the shooters’.
…5. Gun massacres seem to be happening with “hideous regularity,” from Virginia Tech to the Oregon shopping mall.
Reply »
Wayne L.P> Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
You honestly think Thomas Jefferson foresaw the Glock? The AR-15? You, sir are intellectually dishonest.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Just a reminder to readers: the appropriation of the names of living politicians (Larry Phillips) is not allowed on this blog.
Reply »
Alan says:
From The Atlantic…
“Of the world’s 23 ‘rich’ countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America’s ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America’s.”
Reply »
WURSPH says:
I suspect that the parents of the 20 children literally mowed down with multiple bullet hits share your belief about assault weapons….
If they thought about it, they might also feel that way about automatic pistol clips with 15 to 20 rounds. You can do a lot of damage with them too…..
That is why my shotgun is a single shot and my pistol six…
That should be enough to protect me from anybody but an professional military…and, assault weapon or not, I would stand no chance against them anyway.
Do not give me Lexington and Concord example…both sides were using single-shot muskets or rifles.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Seems like a sensible outlook . . .
Reply »
South Texan says:
Thanks, Paul, for your timely words of wisdom.
Reply »
José Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:45 am
Amen to that.
Reply »
JP says:
Paul, Assault weapons were banned by the National Fireams Act of 1933. No one today has a right to own an automatic weapon. What I think you mean to say is there should be a ban on semiauto weapons that accept high capacity magazines (the so called AW ban of 1994-2004). However doing that again will make no difference in violence in America. Firearms deaths in the US have declined from 7.05/100,000 to 2.98/100,000 during the period 1993-2009. Mass shootings have not declined however. We should restrict our 1st amendment right to violent media and the press’ right to cover mass shootings which plants the seed in the minds of the deranged to copy cat kill. That would do far more to reduce mass shootings than a so called AW ban. JP
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:33 am
That must not have been covered in my CHL course.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:47 am
In other words, JP, it is your theory that if we get the press to ignore these events, then people with 30 round magazines or 20 round clips woun’t use them the next time they decide to shot up a school? Ah, Head in sand…problem sovled.
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
JP: There you have it. Exactly what is wrong with your side of the arguement. It has nothing to do with anything except: Guns make it easier to kill large numbers of people. Semi-autos (yes, they are assault rifles in common venacular) make it easier yet. We need the licensing of gun owners.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Burka doesn’t understand what he’s talking about, nor does 99% of the media.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
JP,
More often than not, I agree with your comments. But I don’t agree on this one.
I don’t like the idea of pitting one constitutional right against another, in the end everyone loses.
I sense that people aren’t so concerned with general deaths involving firearms. While they may have declined, as you point out, mass shootings have not. People are much more concerned with preventing and stymieing the specific events where an individual targets large crowds and incurs dozens of casualties within a matter of seconds or minutes.
These events are usually carried out using high capacity, semi autos that seem to be entirely too easy for the mentally unstable to obtain. It’s not unreasonable that people want to explore ways to further restrict these items from those who’d carry out such shootings.
Reply »
Tim says:
I think it’s fascinating how gun ownership correlates with living in suburbia. I live in a city neighborhood that’s frequently involved in the IH-35 drug trade and there aren’t many guns here. I feel more safe than I do in suburban neighborhoods where people like my father-in-law have caches of dozens of weapons.
Ultimately in the day and age of armed unmanned aerial drones using a gun for defense against our government is simply a fantasy. And it’s a fantasy that costs a lot of lives.
It would be trivial to have regulations that required guns to be stored at gun ranges or registered hunting lands, and for records to be kept when they’re transported. And if we had those regulations I doubt there would be many qualms about allowing fully automatic weapons. You could go have fun firing off some massive gun at the range and then come home knowing it was safely stored.
Would this fix 100% of the problem? Absolutely not. But this seems fair for even a 5% reduction in deaths. In Newton a 5% reduction would mean two more kids would be alive today.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Viable question?
Does anyone think that the hate, fear and venom preached in some social media over the past couple of political years contributed to the mind-set that killing innocent people in mass is normal?
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! says:
I have been wondering this past week about what Americans value above all else, and in a choice between television, cars, or guns, I think guns trumps them all.
Reply »
Whoa, Nellie! says:
Hmm, I meant to write “love” rather than “value” in the above.
Reply »
Reality Check says:
Mexico has really strict gun control laws that limits ownership and possession primarily to law enforcement and military. The strict gun controls doesn’t seem to have had much effect given that 5,000 people have been killed with guns in Ciudad Juarez alone since 2010.
The big issue isn’t gun control. The big underlying issue is dealing with mental illness in our country.
Reply »
ANON Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Wrong. The issue is how to control the guns that are killing people. Much more easily controlled. True, mental health issues are there, but much less easily fixed. Lets take the easy road and ban assault rifles and make concealed carry a federal thing.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:11 pm
The fact that Mexico’s gun laws do not seem to be working is because they can smuggle them in from the U.S. where anyone not dribbling at the mouth can buy a semi-automatic rifle.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Most of those guns are purchased in Texas. Inhave read (can’t remember where) that there is a gun desler every half mile alomg the border.
Reply »
Bodhisattva Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 6:25 pm
I’m fascinated by the new “mental illness” meme: that easy access to high-killing guns and ammo isn’t the problem, mental illness is. Latest incarnation of the NRA’s “It’s not my fault” approach.
OK, fine. What would you do about it? How many more billions are you willing to spend to improve the mental health infrastructure — clinics, inpatient hospitals, etc.? Are you willing to mandate full coverage of mental illness in private insurance policies?
I suspect (cynic that I am) that the people who say the problem is mental illness don’t really want to do anything about that, either.
Reply »
Indi says:
I accept that we need some common sense reforms, such as closing the gun show loophole, limiting high capacity magazines, strengthening the background check database and strengthening enforcement of current laws BUT this must be balanced with some common sense regulation of violent video games, television programs and movies AND some common sense reform of our mental health laws that will allow us to confine people who are a threat to the rest of us. The focus should not be solely on guns. The problem is deeper than that. If we want gun folks to get on board, there have to be other solutions on the table as well.
Reply »
Texan Born Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:56 am
I agree with your comment!!!
Reply »
Wilson Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Close. We need all of the above, but licensing of gun owners would help, too. We need to know who hasd weapons. No grandfathering either. Need to ban the manufacture and sale of assault rifles to civilians in the US, too.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
We need to know? You mean the federal govt needs to know. I’m sure they can just pass another plank for that in the Patriot Act.
Whoa, Nellie! says:
I would agree with some posters that the underlying toxicity and psychosis of American society and culture is the root cause of this country’s excessive gun violence. However, while we treat the diseases, we ought to make it less easy for the patients to arm themselves with high-power weapons that are designed for warfare.
Otherwise, I want to be permitted to buy hand grenades, artillery, and missiles. Same 2nd Amendment principles. That’s what we’d really need to defend ourselves against “tyranny” anyway. Not small arms that are only being turned on ourselves.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Actually, if we are going to be SERIOUS about “protecting ourselves from tyranny”..we would all need some “tactical nukes”….
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This is about me having the weapons I prefer to defend myself, family, friends and/or strangers with. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is not the answer. Just because you do not prefer to own these weapons does not give you the right to tell me I can’t. I am sorry if it makes you uncomfortable and scared. Some people are just crazy, as we see it in the media. Your gun (AR 15 – AK47) banning idea is a knee jerk reaction to horrible tragedy. Bad things happen in which no one person of government can control, fix or prevent.
Reply »
Tim Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Actually preferring not to own guns does give me the right to tell you you can’t.
It’s in fact my constitutional right. There’s a method for amending the US constitution defined in the constitution. So it is well within my rights to lobby for and get an amendment passed controlling your access to guns. We have repealed amendments before. We can do it again.
Reply »
Wayne L.P. Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
I don’t want you or your kind defending me. I fear you as much as I do a gangbanger. You are just as likely to flip out, have road rage or get drunk as anyone. You are not special. That is why you should be tested and licensed before you have a gun.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
hicccup, what did you say?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
What do you fear? I’m 69 years old and have lived my entire life without a gun. The only concealed weapon I carry is my brain.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I was a weapons speacilist in the military and I build, repair and collect them.
I love my guns almost as much as liberals love handouts.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:24 am
So-called “handout” did not kill those kids!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:32 am
a mentally disturbed individual did.
Reply »
Wayne L.P. Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
This is one where you need to keep your ignorant trolling mouth shut.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
You should listen to your own advice.
I'm Pavlov. Ring a Bell? says:
Good luck with that Tim. I bet you and your two supporters will get real far repealing the 2nd amendment
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Here’s some facts for the hysterical posting here:
•While the perception in the wake of this year’s mass shootings has been that such acts are on the rise, the Associated Press found that it’s actually the exact opposite when you look at the data on a macro level.
•“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University.
•He adds that the random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest.
•While mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, says.
•Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/associated-press-story-believe-it-or-not-mass-killings-are-not-on-the-rise-they-are-on-the-decline/
Reply »
Prismatic Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:56 am
I challenge you to a fistfight. Seriously.
I want to fight you and whoop your ig’nint ass.
Tell me where and when. If you’re too old and brittle after untold years of recliner-ensconced John Wayne movie marathons, send your best son.
You are a blight.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
more violence from the left.
Post your real name and address, I’m sure someone will take you up on your threat.
Reply »
Beerman Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 11:59 am
WOW, I feel safer now!
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
I never did feel unsafe, why are you afraid?
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
The planes that flew into the WTC on 9/11 were also a rare occurrence. That story received the most media attention over any story in history.
But by your rationale because that one event was statically insignificant and so widely over-reported by the media, we should have done nothing to increase air security, or go after terrorists, or their funding or the countries that support and shelter them.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:37 pm
Not at all Vernon as usual you lefties get it wrong. Going after the terrorists was a good thing and I wished you lefties supported it.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Oh…and under what President was OBL killed? I know, Calvin Coolidge…
Vernon Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
I’m all for going after terrorists. But what are these shootings if not acts of terror?
You said that people were being hysterical because these events weren’t statistically significant, though you didn’t say what they were being hysterical about. I said that the WTC could also be statically insignificant, but much action was taken in it’s aftermath.
What’s the difference between 9/11 and this? Why do you think people are being hysterical now but apparently not then?
Texian Politico Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
I guess Vernon is a huge fan of the Patriot Act and truly believes that the TSA is keeping us safe.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Some parts of the PA are good, others are not. The last time I flew the TSA made sure no one smuggled a firearm or explosives on board. I think they did keep us pretty safe. I don’t understand your point.
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
JBB: Any citation from The Blaze isn’t worth the powder to blow it to hell.
Reply »
ANONYMOUS says:
Guns are secondary to the real problem: Mentally healthy people don’t shoot other people.
I believe a necessary component of any solution must be teaching communities how to recognize the signs of mental illness. The onset typically occurs during adolescence and into early adulthood. We must gather parents, teachers and peers and make them aware of the signs that indicate a young person is in trouble. What is that fine line between a quirky personality and mental illness? It must be a community effort. Young people need a safe place to share their concerns about a friend’s behavior. And they need to know it is urgent for them to express those concerns.
Kids who are identified as unbalanced need support and proper medication. Perhaps we should require them by law to be monitored, once they are medically identified. Require regular reports from doctors and counselors. Maybe we should register people who purchase and/or play violent video games, who order gun catalogs, or who visit internet sites about building bombs.
Yes, most of these young people will be male, and the stigma of mental illness is a real problem. But it must be part of the solution, or more people will surely be killed.
Fortunately, my own brilliant but troubled son didn’t kill others – just himself. And it wasn’t until his death that we realized he was very likely bi-polar, probably since high school. But he moved out, away from our watchful eyes, and the other friends who lived with him over the next eight years could only confirm his manic behaviors in hindsight … it seemed to them at the time it was “just part of his personality.” But it was much more – his friends just didn’t know.
Mental illness is behind the Conneticut massacre, that much is certain. We need better ways of identifying and monitoring those who suffer from mental illness so that these types of tragedies are no longer part of our culture.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“Mentally healthy people don’t shoot other people.”
Do you think stable balanced people murder others?
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
According to our legal test for mental illness in criminal acts, mentally stable balanced people murder others every day. When you find a way to sort them out in advance, I’ll agree to let everyone else carry…till then…NO WAY!
Reply »
Reality Check Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Thank you for sharing your personal story. I believe you are correct, early detection and treatment of mental illness is the bigger issue to solve. Have your gun law debates and even enact some new restrictions. But the real societal issue to deal with is finding an effective way to deal with the mental illness problems.
We have cut funding for almost all community based programs that help identify and treat mentally ill people. We as a society like to use the out of sight out of mind approach to mental illness still to this day.
Reply »
Braden Redding Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
I have my bro in law living in my basement. He became mentally ill. He was released from the hospital when he was still clearly unstable. He has several rifles and pistols he inherited from his father who shot himself when he was a 8 yr old child. If I wasn’t in a position to take him in he would loose on his own, no healthcare, no disability, and no one would care until he flipped out and killed someone. I confiscated his guns and provide him a healthy living environment, if he didn’t have us what might happen? They never even asked if he owns firearms and he could purchase a rifle today. This is the problem in America. Alot of sick people have no support and they turn on society and attack us.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Anonymous: I am sorry for your loss. My mother’s younger brother was schizophrenic.
Reply »
nick says:
Anon and JBB,
Me, me, me, that’s all you wingnuts care about is yourselves and what you want. Grow up.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Nick read the comment its a story from an AP writer, dealing in facts about mass killings. It may not fit your agenda.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Scattershooting….
1. How would the government ever remove assault weapons from those who currently legally own them? Are we talking outlawing high round pistols, as well?
2. How would the situation in Newtown have been different if the murderer had been armed with a Samuri sword?
3. Should the most immediate response be to arm some teachers in each school? To train and supply weapons to those willing to undertake the task? To pay for their weapons and training? We have Sky Marshals; why not School Marshals? There is obviously going to be a loud and protracted fight over gun control. Would this not be the most logical action while this battle is being waged?
4. We seem to have no problem spending $30K per year on prisoners in a correctional facility who has been convicted of non-violent offenses, but we balk at getting mentally ill persons off the street who have the potential to mass murder our children? Where is the common sense?
Reply »
Braden Redding Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
I agree. We need armed, trained teachers or armed security at our schools. These sick people pray on and count on the fact that there will be no one capable of stooping them. We need better screening on the initial purchase of guns and we need more good guys with legal carry permits. I have no criminal or mental history and in MD I can’t get a ccp. If I could I would certainly risk my life to save others in a mass shooting situation instead we are at the mercy of these mad men.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
My son is a teacher. Let’s not add that his list of responsibilities. And most teachers wouldn’t want that job. Hire a professional, but be willing to pony up your taxes to pay for it.
Reply »
Braden Redding Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I agree, it should be trained security. Perfect for vets looking for good jobs
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
JJ don’t be dense this isn’t about removing guns its about gun “control”.
Liberals want guns registered so they can tax then.
Reply »
ghostofann Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Have you no sense of decency left?
Reply »
Wayne L.P. Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Well, as far as the samuri sword goes….seriously? You honestly think there is a comparison? The point is guns make it easier to kill and automatics make it easier yet.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
The shooter in CT did not have automatic weapons. You have no clue about this issue at all.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
TP, you are splicing hairs. The weapons were semi-automatic. They will fire a round as fast as you can blink your eyes. Does it really make a big difference?
In reality, an untrained person might slaughter less people with an automatice weapon than a semi simply due to the fact that you burn through the clip faster.
And to Wayne L.P.’s point about the sword…I am simply trying to point out that if a crazy wanted to kill an entire classroom of children, he could do so with sword if there was no one else armed in the school to stop him. Guns are not the root of the problem here, folks. As you have heard before, “It’s not the arrow; it’s the Indian.”
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
In China last week a man entered a school and stabbed 20 kids. Guns are banned there.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
The Chinese guy injured 20 kids with a knife,but none of them died.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
And ur point is what? If he had a pea shooter, no one would have bled. If he had a big sword, many would have died; dynamite, all would have died; a shotgun with the plug out, no telling how many. Crazy people will exact their revenge on the world if there is no one there with a forceful means of stopping them.
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
A lot more people could have run away from the guy with the sword…It can not reach out and kill them dozens of feet away like a bullet can….The same goes for all the other senseless examples–killing some one with a lamp, and so forth. It is the ease of killing that makes finding a way to keep guns away from people who would use them for the wrong things important.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Unfortunately, WURSPH, you still miss the point I was making. Jump all over the choice of weapon if you want to. Join the ones fighting for stricter gun laws. Watch it drag on over how to enforce new laws. Tune into all the verbal barbs being spit back and forth. In the interim, crazy people will still be killing our kids because the weapon of choice is not the problem.
A sane person, properly trained and carrying a firearm in a school is a deterrent to a crazy person also carrying a firearm. The best preventative is getting the crazy off the streets.
Sane people don’t slaughter our babies and grandbabies.
Reply »
Braden Redding says:
I am anti gov. Anti gun control. With that said the problem is that we allow people with mental issues to purchase guns. I would be happy to wait an extra few weeks to get my guns so that a proper medical and criminal background check can be done. If it will help curb these mass shootings and protect my 5yr old when he’s in school I’m all for reform that helps to keep guns away from these sick people. If we take guns away from the good guys then the bad guys will be the only people armed. I don’t want that for my future. When some sick person comes to my house to harm my family they will not succeed because of my rights to purchase assault rifles and semi auto pistols. I have the right to protect my son and proper weapons training and gear are essential to my defense plans. Maybe less strict carry permits will put more good guys in a position to prevent these mass shootings and save your life from a mad man.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I agree, Texas recently passed a law to allow concealed carry on college campuses.
When not amend this to allow teachers who have a conceal carry permit to carry in schools?
Only one school district in Texas does this, Harrold ISD.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
I just learned that 40% of guns are sold ON LINE and none of those purchases require a background check. This is madness!
Reply »
Sprio Eagleton says:
When the constitution was drafted all rifles were “assault rifles.”
In 1927 a former school board member who was upset about property taxes blew up the school in Bath, MI, as well as his home and his car. 45 people died, of which 38 were children. Do we not talk about that now simply because he didn’t use a firearm as his tool of death?
There are no easy answers for ending senseless violence.
Reply »
Pat says:
One fact left unmentioned is that many nations with high levels of civilian gun ownership have compulsory military service, e.g., Switzerland. And anybody who has ever shot a K31 knows that the Swiss really, really value their marksmanship (in addition to a special bolt, it takes special, aerodynamically-superior ammo). When Louie Gohmert says, Shucks, I wish the principal had had an M4!, recall that in many gun-owning nations Civilian Principal Betty does, in fact, have professional assault weapon training most likely combined with some limited urban warfare training. And she had to pass a military psych evaluation. America is not one of those countries.
I’m of the mind that we need to screen folks better, but frankly, I don’t see how two-years compulsory military service would upend American culture, either. It would provide advanced training and a screening mechanism for the mentally unfit, in addition to other benefits. Of course, that’ll never happen.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
The idea that we are a free nation because of the second amendment is largely a myth. The last time the people took up arms against the sovereign government, they were soundly defeated and the South was scorched.
Reply »
Braden Redding Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
There is no way we could ever have a revolution in this country. It’s not musket vs. Musket anymore. We would have no chance. Our gov would cut us down before we even started. We can keep guns out of the hands of crazy kids if we had some reform on purchase laws and better parenting in this country.
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
The South had an army, not just a bunch of folks running around with their own weapons with no sense of order.
The 2nd Amendment is the defender of all the rest. Can you think of any totalitarian governments that allow people to own firearms? What was Nazi Germany’s policy on personal firearm ownership?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
1) We don’t live in a totalitarian regime.
2) Can you explain how the right to bear arms protects my right to a jury trial?
Reply »
Pat Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I want to know how it protects my 4th amendment right to not be illegally searched by government men carrying guns who will cut me down if I point a firearm back at them.
JohnBernardBooks says:
Reagan said it best:
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
Ronald Reagan
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ronaldreag147706.html#gGW19OxyM6V2oaih.99
Reply »
Prismatic Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Now the obstinate Right is using dead president’s to muddy the water on a 21st century issue? Good Lord, that is pathetic. Face it: the problem is access to weapons that can easily take advantage of “target-rich environments” (that one might come back to haunt you, JP).
We can talk about mental health, decline of the family, digital glorification of violence, etc. Blah. Blah. BLAH. This problem is about automatic weapons, their ubiquity, and how easy it is to get one. You can’t make people NOT be born mentally ill, but you CAN make it harder for them to get weapons. What the HELL am I missing here?! This is a black-and-white issue, and given its usual comfort with that simplistic territory, I am surprised that the Right is so confused over this matter and what would ultimately need to be done to mitigate and/or eliminate future massacres.
Keep it up, special-interest Republican Party. More material for Hillary in 2016… I mean, even Joe Scarborough is coming around: http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/12/17/joe-scarborough-gun-control/
Or does he not count because he just must not “get” guns?
Reply »
Texian Politico Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Prismatic, what is your pos? I believe you said you want to fist fight those that disagree with you.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
“This problem is about automatic weapons, their ubiquity, and how easy it is to get one. You can’t make people NOT be born mentally ill, but you CAN make it harder for them to get weapons. What the HELL am I missing here?! This is a black-and-white issue, and given its usual comfort with that simplistic territory, I am surprised that the Right is so confused over this matter and what would ultimately need to be done to mitigate and/or eliminate future massacres.”
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated and licensed. What part of that can’t you comprehend?
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Quit nit picking…You know what he meant…A semi-auto with a 30 round magazine can do the job of an automatic weapon…that’s the problem.
Anonymous says:
How about all the yahoos blaming the massacre on the decline of the American family aka single women.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
“And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Arming teachers is idiotic. With 20+ students in a classroom, a teacher can easily be jumped, overpowered and disarmed by one or more students bent on violence.
Unlike cops, teachers are not trained to use a gun against a killer. They could worsen the situation with panic shooting.
And when the real cops show up, what do you think they’ll do to an adult in a classroom with a smoking pistol in his or her hand?
Reply »
Paul Riddle says:
I agree with Gopnik completely.
I’m no Constitutional expert, and I know this has been debated endlessly, but it seems to me that the Second Amendment is mainly about public safety and securty. It frames the right to keep and bear arms as part of the obligation of the people to provide for the common defense, and that both the right and the obligation are subject to the rule of law.
I personally would favor regulating firearms in a manner similar to the way we regulate drivers and automobiles:
1. Requiring users of firearms to be licensed. Different types of licenses for different types of users (military, law enforcement, private citizen, etc.).
2. Requiring weapons to be registered.
3. Restricting especially destructive weapons, ammunition, and high capacity magazines to military or law enforcement.
To me, laws along these lines would be consistent with the purposes of the Second Amendment.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
People that think we need to arm teachers also probably need to be watered twice a day.
And yes, the shooter in CT didn’t have an automatic weapon, but he did have a gun.
Reply »
Pat Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
With any semiautomatic, you can (illegally) file down the action to turn it into a automatic. This is semi-common knowledge, and happens more frequently than you might suspect. See also: bump-firing.
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
At least at one time you could buy the necessary part to make a semi-auto AK-47 full automatic at your local gun show….I have not been to one for awhile, but I bet you probably still can.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“People that think we need to arm teachers also probably need to be watered twice a day.”
finally a rational thought by a liberal
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
JBB, I own a business and I own guns. And I have never voted for a democrat except when I voted against Rick Perry. However, arming teachers is one of the dumbest ideas out there, with the exception of allowing students to conceal carry. And if you support it, then maybe you are one of the reasons we should be having a bigger debate about mental health in this country.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
I read what you people on the far left and far right post, but I really don’t believe it. Are you so enamored with your team colors that you can’t look at anything from a truly objective standpoint any longer?
What is the root of the problem? I say that it is crazy people bent on killing. Is it easier to identify these people and institutionalize them or gather up every semi-automatic weapon in the U.S. now legally owned by U.S. citizens?
Which could be accomplished in the most expedient manner? Most parents and families with troubled kids and family members are searching diligently for help…with none available. We need to change this, and do so swiftly. This is the shortest distance to a meaningful solution. The gun fight will drag on forever, and even after strict controls are in place, crazies will still be pulling assault weapons out of a closet somewhere and having their way with us. The crazies need to be the first thing to go.
You radicals need to try logical thinking for a change by forcing your deep seated biases out of the picture.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 3:57 pm
John, I believe in the right to own guns. I enjoy hunting and having a gun in the home for self defense makes me safer. But we condition and regulate every single right in the Constitution, whether it is free speech, jury trial, or voting. And don’t get me started on due process and equal protection.
So while recognizing the right to own guns, I think it should be up to local and state governments to regulate firearms as they see fit in order to respond to the devastating effects that firearms can have on their communities. Hunting and self defense are so ingrained in common law that those will never be taken away. But do you have the right to buy an AR15? Maybe that should be up to the state or community you live in.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
that damn pesky US Constitution
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Yeah, damn constitution. You and your ilk didn’t seem to give a crap about the constitution when you were pushing voter ID.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 6:28 am
Voter ID is the law of the land.
That damn pesky constitution.
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Have you ever tried to “institutionalize” someone. It ain’t pretty.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 17th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
I have not but I cannot imagine how much pain and agony there must be for everyone involved.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Not only pain and agony, but the laws don’t make it easy. Most states permit a three-week period of “involuntary commitment,” after which psychiatrists and lawyers get in the act to endorse a plan for permanent commitment. I believe these protections are reasonable to prevent someone from putting Grandpa in the boobynhatch to get his money, but it requires the will and the money to pay for it as a method to cope with mentally ill adolescents.
anon-p says:
Again, I would like to point out that the Swiss have compulsory militia service with nearly every fit male possessing an assault rifle (some fully automatic) and ammo.
They seem to get along just fine. So it’s clearly not the weapons themselves that cause this problem.
Gun control should only be discussed after we have a handle on laws and culture which allows the dangerously mentally unstable to walk around freely while children are holed up in near-prisons while at school and endure drills which have them practice what to do when one adult can come in an terrorize a school while the several adult teachers and administrators can apparently do nothing to stop it.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
You mean the discussion about mental health that would produce reasonable solutions that require government funding that no Republican would ever vote for, lest they be primaried by the knuckle draggers?
Yeah ok.
Reply »
Art Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Wasn’t it Ronald Reagan that cut the social programs that put so many mental health patients on the street?
Reply »
donuthin says:
I think I understand why some fear mental evaluations and possible treatment or isolation. Many of those who are bright on the one hand but mentally unstable on the other hand are afraid of what would happen to them. That probably includes some bloggers on here that seem to be very angry, irrational and potentially unstable enough to warrant an evaluation.
Reply »
Pat says:
(1) Restricting the ability of the mentally deranged to purchase weapons is going to be nearly impossible. First, you have to define “mentally ill”–does this include the depressed (12% of Americans), bipolar (2%), the elderly (10%)?
(2) Keeping a national register/database of the mentally deranged is going to be far more difficult than No. 1.
(3) Therefore, the easiest (and most likely) solution is going to be bans on certain types of weaponry and more extensive background checks.
Reply »
John Johnson says:
The physicians and heathcare professionals know who these people are. The parents, family members and friends of these people know who they are. They cry for help. There is none.
Interventions send these people, against their will, to heath service evaluations that are cursory, at best. With a recommendation that they take medications, they are released back to their families, or just turned out on their own.
I repeat…if we can spend $30K per year to incarcerate a non-violent druggie, we should danm sure be housing and treating those with the potential bent to kill out children.
This is a much quicker fix to the problem at hand.
Right or wrong, the debate regarding weapons used by these people is secondary. Those of you wanting to argue this point are just plain ignorant.
If getting rid of assault weapons and mega-clips is your goal…go for it. In the interim, and for tthe sake of our innocent children, get the mentally ill people capable of perputrating these types of horrendous acts of the street. People close to them and the professionals who treat them know who they are.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 10:31 am
JJ is absolutely right. Better mental health is essential to not just stemming these shootings, but to a safer and more humane country in general.
Sadly, any kind of counseling or other mental health services are still negatively stigmatized, especially in Texas. It’s perceived as a mixture of junk science, weakness and shame. All couldn’t be further from the truth.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
You would be surprised at how many undetected psychotics are roaming around. Your statement implies that all citizens have easy access to physicians and mental health professionals. It just ain’t so.
From reading about the Lanzas, it seems as if the mother sequestered him away in her forest mansion. His brother hadn’t seen him for two years. His uncle hadn’t seen him for eight years. And where was his father?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Many of the homeless need to be institutionalized, no doubt it. They come in contact with people that should refer them for testing and possible admission.
Lanza had teachers and doctors that knew his problems, but where was he going to go? If such a place existed, could he be institutionalized without his mother’s consent?
All these things need to be addressed. I did not say it would be easy. I did, however, suggest that it would be much easier to tackle this aspect of the problem rather than try and remove semi automatic rifles and pistols from owner’s hands.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:26 am
oh good. two months ago we were talking about the problems of putting people on the government dole, becoming “takers” and members of the “47%”. now we’re talking about making it easier to do it.
the hypocrisy is astounding.
Reply »
rw says:
A few weeks ago we were told that the most critical issues in our country where 1) increasing taxes on the rich 2) gay marriage 3) making healthcare a right 4) making contraceptives free and abortions readily available 5) immigration reform 6) bailing out Detroit. The President was re-elected supposedly on these issues.
He should have ignored all of that so that he could focus on getting assault weapons banned.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Psychiatrists estimate 20% of Americans are mentally ill, that’s 1 in five.
Liberals make up 20% of voters, coincidence?
Is liberalism a mental illness as some have stated?
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
JBB: You need to take some time away from your guns and study logic.
Reply »
Willie says:
Sir, I know you are a troll, and so do most readers of this blog. We know your goal is to waste our time and you do. Perhaps you should consider some mental health assistance yourself? There is no need to degrade yourself online. Whatever happened to you so that you have to feel heard can be explored and maybe, just maybe you can get thelp. You have every sign of a desparate man that had failed in life and is striking out. On the other had, you may be just a jackass.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:01 am
Willie I typically ignore racists but you’re special.
Having a bad day?
Reply »
Willie's Aunt Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Nice try.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
JBB, Why is Willie a racist? What in his post suggests anything about race?
Reply »
Rhymes With Right says:
Did the founders envision massive machine presses, radio, television, and the internet — or the 24 hour news cycle? If not, should the First Amendment be read to allow the sort of press/media freedom we take for granted?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 9:43 am
Rhymes, there is also no mention of airplanes, tv’s, electricity, conservatives, liberals, mayonnaise, hamburgers, or Members Only jackets in the Constitution, yet these things exist anyway.
Reply »
Rhymes With Right Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
You may have missed that I was referring to Burka’s opening paragraph in my comment. His “the Founding Fathers never envisioned” argument against the Second Amendment is a weak one, and I was just pointing that out with my parallel to it involving the First Amendment.
Reply »
Wilson Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
No, his point is well taken as there was no way the founding fathers could have anticipated the AR 15. But freedom of speech is in the words, not in the media delivering them.
Tom says:
The Constitution says we have the right to bear arms, but it doesn’t say anything about bullets.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Is there a big market for bear arms?
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
I thought we had a bear market?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 11:45 am
A bear market for bear arms?
Reply »
WURSPH says:
Saw where one of the GOPer State Reps. from the DFW area jumped behind that old trite line “You cannot regulate morals” to defend his refusal to consider any new gun laws.
Too bad he (and a lot of those opposing restrictions) fail to understand that we are not advocating or attempting to regulate morality (we will leave that to the anti-choice, anti-gay folks)…
We are interested in regulating BEHAVIOR.
Restrictions on owning certain weapons will make it harder (but clearly not impossible) for someone to use the kind of weapon used in the Conn. tragedy…That regulates his actions, not his beliefs.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
This may have been stated already but I think the intent of our forefathers was to be at least as well armed as our government in the event we had to take up arms against our own government again.
Reply »
Tom says:
Our government has nukes.
Reply »
Tom says:
And I might add, the original intent was for the citizens to be able to take up arms against foreign invaders, not their own government.
Reply »
Wilson Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Our own government wrote the second amendment.
Reply »
anonymous says:
Our forethathers revolted against their own government.
Is it against the law for me to own a nuke?
Reply »
WURSPH Reply:
December 18th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Why don’t you get the NRA to take the govt. to court on a claim that by denying individuals of the righ to own a nuke they are denying the intention of the “Founding Fathers”? After all, militias need to have the same armament as the Army if they are to help it fend off invaders.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Gun limitations would only be part of any answer – the Newtown attack and the one in Colorado earlier this year also point towards the mental stability of the people carrying out those attacks. But the current medical privacy laws make it difficult to identify persons who, due to their past behavioral patterns — would be considered as high risk factors around any type of gun.
If you don’t support reforming HIPPA to allow for improved tracking and identification of high-risk individuals, you’re not going to solve the problem, you’re only going to feel good about yourself until the next crazed attacker strikes and you wonder why your reform plans made no difference.
Reply »
Wilson says:
Multi-faceted approach: Close the looholes, require licensing of gun owners (like a drivers license) and outlaw high capacity magazines. Put federal waiting periods to work. Require training and use the money required for such licenses to fund the program. Therefore Bubbas can have his gun.
Then work on mental health law and develop the mean of identifying those at risk of such behaviors. Problem here is that many “gunnuts” display antisocial or paranoid behaviors, not sure what to do about that. But we need to be able to curtail the means of mass killings (guns) and the folks likey to execut them.
No one loses the freedom to own a gun, or multiple guns.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Did you see Villalba is filing a bill to allow “school marshals.” Interesting. So I’m searching my memory trying to think of one teacher or administrator I would have wanted to be armed, without the fear of him or herself shooting me or themselves by accident, ala Barney Fife. Not coming to me. Oh well. Maybe we should have vouchers end public schools in a hurry. See, two problems solved with one law. No more public schools, no more public school violence.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl says:
Teachers have enough on their plates without having to be the school militia. Give the job to those who have the desire and training for the assignment.
Reply »
Walker Colt says:
Short of national confiscation, the fantasies of a gun free America will never come to pass. Good luck with that.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Anyone in this country that wants to take up arms against the sovereign United States government should be dragged from their homes and shot.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 8:43 am
perfect example of liberal tolerance.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 9:00 am
So you support traitors?
Reply »
BCinBCS says:
I waited four days to write this, wanting the anger and sadness about the elementary school murders in Newtown, Connecticut to diminish but I have discovered that the half-life of these emotions is much longer than I expected. Nonetheless, I have decided to present my solution to the mass killing problem that plagues the United States. As I see it, mass murders are generally cause by two major factors: (i) by the availability of rifles that fire large numbers of bullets in a very short time and easily concealed handguns and (ii) by the prevalence of uncontrollably angry or mentally disturbed males.
I previously proposed a universal health insurance plan. This plan or any other should not only provide medical care but should also include dental, auditory, vision and psychiatric coverage. Our society rarely looks with prejudice upon the person who develops a physical disease or suffers an accident but the stigma attached to mental illness has made it difficult to allow universal mental health coverage. This must change. Those that have mental illnesses, whether it leads to violence or not, must be treated in an efficient, humane and caring manner. If those that have mental defects or uncontrollable rage can seek inexpensive, prompt treatment, it would go a long way toward reducing the incidents of mass shootings. Obamacare is a step in the right direction but its mental health provisions must be expanded. Will it cost money? Certainly, but what is the life of one six year old child worth; let alone the lives of twenty of these babies?
Gun control is an issue that polarizes the nation like few others. Gun possession is a right guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution. It should be remembered, however, that no right granted by the Constitution or by the Bill of Rights is absolute. Free speech is not an absolute right. Freedom of religion is not an absolute right. Freedom of the press is not an absolute right and neither is the right to bear arms. I cannot own an automatic weapon without a permit from the government. I cannot own a functioning mortar. To solve the mass shooting problem, I propose to modify the scope of the second amendment right to bear arms.
The greatest factor in reducing mass murder in the U.S., as well as reducing the thirty-four daily shooting deaths, would be the outlawing of handguns and the outlawing of large capacity clips for rifles. Readily available, easily carried and concealed handguns contribute to a horrible number of injuries and deaths in this country. It is time to get rid of them. I would place the ownership of handguns in the same category as the ownership of machine guns: it would be a privilege reserved for the most avid gun collectors under the strictest governmental control. Since many people feel the need for handguns for self protection, I would allow the possession of ANY long gun as a substitute. Those that fear for their safety could possess and carry their rifle or shotgun for protection. The possession of large capacity clips, strips and drums would also be eliminated. Clips that can hold six to eight bullets or less and shotguns that can hold four to six rounds or less would be the only ones allowed.
Implementation of theses changes would be hard. The cost associated with increased mental health services would be high and the changes to the gun laws would be actively opposed by many. Elimination of handguns and short concealable rifles would take many years, probably many decades, but by making the illegal possession of these weapons without a license a draconian offense, it could be done. By allowing the possession of any long rifle or full-size shotgun, no matter the design, citizens could be assured of their right to bear arms and to protect themselves. Just as I am not allowed to walk the streets with illegal drugs, the person presenting a rifle with a high capacity clip would be arrested and suitably punished and the clip destroyed, eventually resulting in their elimination. These sensible alterations to our right to bear arms and to our health care system can greatly reduce the SIXTY-ONE mass murder incidents that have occurred in the United States since 1982, the THIRTY-ONE school shootings that have occurred since 1999 and the SIXTEEN mass shootings that have occurred in 2012 (yes, sixteen this year, alone). The time for change is now.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
“Gun Control” Does NOT Reduce Crime (Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTbxid3Cxoo
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
JBB:
I realize that I am foolish to reply to your nonsense but, in the past, I have had relatives who were similar to you so I understand the pathology that dictates your life; your inability to see the world in anything but back and white, your need to blame every wrong on someone else and your need for attention.
If everyone acted the way that your mind works there would be anarchy. Now, you might think that you would enjoy that but, in reality, it would be a terrible place to live. I’m sure that you disagree because, in your mind, you would be “top dog” but, in reality, that world would leave you a broken, sniveling, defeated wreck.
As far as your assertion that gun control does not reduce crime, the opposite can also be claimed: the absence of gun control does not increase crime.
Rather than get into a shouting match, why don’t you re-read my original post, open your mind and see that what I propose, while difficult to implement, is a viable solution to the mass murder crisis in this country.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 5:09 am
actually I didn’t say crime goes up under gun control, a factual ABC news report did.
Instead of falsely accusing me of refusing to see things from your distorted view, why don’t you and other liberals open your mind to facts.
ie the world isn’t flat and you will not fall off the side.
Reply »
Josh Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Not bad, BCS. As a first time poster but ong time watcher I have to say that Mr. Books does not credit to himself by posting, and for the most part is the low point of the discussion. He could not brand or label me as a Dem or liberal as I am not, but I think it safe to label him a boor.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
everything liberals do is about control. They want to control your life through a myrid of laws and regulations.
Liberals=control
Conservatives=liberty
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
JBB: There is no liberty with trans vaginal probes.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
and yet liberals love their prostrates massaged.
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
So do conservatives.
John Johnson says:
Willie, BCinBCS, Pearl, et al…if you need help getting the hooks out of your mouths, let me know.
JBB, you crack me up.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 19th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
“JBB, you crack me up.”
Looks like John is easily amused. Most people with any taste don’t find trolls or proles (and I repeat myself in this case) to be amusing or interesting, but it takes all kinds to make a world. Plus, someone needs to inhabit the trailer parks, and JBB’ and his ilk does that well. So maybe some encouragement is warranted, just to keep the pyramid in place.
Reply »
Art Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 9:38 am
John Johnson and JBB massage each other prostates, seems to me. Gasbags.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 5:11 am
JJ thank you, yes they do take the bait while claiming to be the smartest people in the world.
Reply »
Jim Sirbasku says:
The only prostate massage John Johnson is interested in is one administered by Wendy Davis.
Reply »
Kay says:
I’m Australian and we’ve watched in horror at the events in Newtown and pass on our sincere condolences from afar. But the thing that is so puzzling to many of us here is that despite there being so very many cultural similarities between our countries, we have a vastly different attitude towards gun ownership and struggle to understand America and the gun debate.
Putting aside emotive positions on the concept of personal rights, I’m curious about a simple question. Why does the average American need a gun, any kind of gun?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 7:03 am
protection
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
From what? What is it you fear?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil because I am armed and ready.
buy a clue Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:27 am
Small penis
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 9:03 am
ahhhhsoooo penis envy must be a liberal
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
stop projecting.
donuthin Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Hello Kay from Australia. I was born in Texas and have lived here for all my life (70+ years) and I too wonder why the obsession with guns by so many Texans. I don’t for a minute believe that it is really about protection, but that is the only rational argument they can make. It is almost like the 4 year old kid that can’t give up their pacifier. I think the obsession with rapid fire, high bullet capacity guns is indicative of a more fundamental problem that should be studied.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:29 am
mostly those who buy assault weapons are doing it in some hope or prayer that they have a minority break into their house so they have an excuse to fulfill their fantasy of legally killing someone.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:32 am
or theyre soldier playing militia wannabes who either think the government is out to get them (see gribble; dale) or just dont have the balls to suit up and join the military.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Can’t you liberals do any better than:
“you can’t force teachers to carry” or
“the teachers have too much on their plates”
With a 1 to 1 ratio between administrators and teachers couldn’t we replace a few administrators with a few armed assassins?
or couldn’t we authorize teachers who WANT to pack to pack.
or couldn’t we just make it ok to pack and just not tell everyone if anyone is packing or not and place a sign at the front door that says teachers may be packing?
or is this a violation of a killer’s rights?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
A post by someone long past living in the real world.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
Problem solved VP Joe Biden is in charge of guns and Barack Obama “ain’t touching his beretta”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36ldW_d0ALY
Reply »
Art says:
Beats having Dick Cheney in charge of guns.
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 11:05 am
You made my day, Art!
Reply »
Indiana Pearl Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Mine too! “Incoming! Incoming!”
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
yes Joe Biden is a much better VP than Cheney….snicker
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
only one of them is a war criminal.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 4:53 am
Jerry thanks for helping remind us how goofy liberals are. How is that Benghazi thingy working out? It seems it was a giant clusterflock with no one answering the phone @ 3 am.
jerry only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 10:23 am
I notice you still aren’t disputing the war criminal assertion.
Benghazis gonna work out just fine.
Whoa, Nellie! says:
Our grandstanding governor is one to talk. He wants to arm teachers (snort) and allow concealed weapons anyplace, apparently — yet the man is a walking monument to gun control. Just try getting within a mile of him or his residence with a firearm, open or concealed. Go on, just try. Then come back here and talk about your 2nd amendment rights.
Reply »
Josh says:
maybe we can get our new state rep Kyle Kacel to introduce Ping Pong Control. Only in Brazos County (County of the Apes) could such a naive dingaling get elected…..ala Fred Brown.
Oh, and Dick Cheney was an embarassment as a public servant.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 20th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I know and don’t you just respect Joe Biden…snicker
Reply »
Dan C says:
I suggest you all read a study you can link to at
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
It was done by Univ. of PA and studies hundreds of deaths in Phila. It concludes that people who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed.
Reply »
JMc says:
Not having a gun available sure protected Nicole Simpson and Ron from violence, huh?
Reply »
John Johnson says:
Some how , some way, I have found a means of disagreeing with JBB over the years without our questioning each others’ birthright
He is, no doubt, opinionated to the max…but he is also much more intelligent and witty than most of us…even those of you who are attempting to espouse the same positions I am.
I have friends like JBB who live for finding a way to prick you…to get under your skin…to make you look stupid by responding to his pointed, obnoxious retorts. He is a master at it.
I get a good laugh at your expense. So does he.
The JBB you might sit down and break bread with is not the one who dangles pieces of cheese that you bite on here. Trust me on this, and remove yourselves from the “took the bait” column. He makes you look stupid.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:16 am
i have the feeling chucks as obnoxious in real life as he is trolling on the internet, otherwise he wouldnt be spending so much time here.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 5:00 am
I know several liberal and yes most are highly noxious but harmless. Most are also clueless and they think I like them.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 8:31 am
So in other words, you admit that JBB is a troll and isn’t here to discuss anything honestly. Duly noted. I would agree that people shouldn’t take his bait. He should be ignored or insulted, but never really engaged as one would engage an honest interlocutor. Give someone the level of respect they deserve, I always say.
However, if you think he is really intelligent and you have friends like him, that says volumes about you and your life experience. The only proper response to this revelation is pity.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 9:02 am
Thanks, but I don’t need it. I’m very comfortable with myself…and my eclectic group of friends….many with tongues like Wilkinson Sword blades.
You, I’m afraid, would not fit in. I think most would find you boring and tire of your laughing at your own weak attempts at humor.
Forgive me for being so blunt. That is another trait we all have in common.
Reply »
The Mustache That Dare Not Speak Its Name Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 10:56 am
You are quite correct, John. I suspect that I wouldn’t fit in with your group of friends. And thank heavens for that. But it’s a regular trailer park Algonquin Round Table when you, JBB and the other wits get together, I’m sure.
Anonymous Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Sorry John. Your writings make you appear to be a legend in your own mind. You think anyone who responds to JBB doesn’t know that it is a futile act. Or that you are somehow the only holder of the rational, whereas everyone else is not rational. Nope. You are just like the rest of us. And I bet your eclectic group of friends are as self-worshipping, and thus as borish, as you.
Anon Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 11:36 am
I dont recall JBB making anyone other than himself look stupid. Contards do that.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 1:22 pm
i can just see it now, JJ and JBB getting together and reminiscing about the good old days over a bottle of old grandad and a case of lone star, about the days you could refer to black people as “boy” (before being PC got in the way), when women kept their mouths shut and knew their place, and when drunk driving was more morally acceptable.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Jerry don’t hate me because I better lookin than you.
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:44 pm
your an old bald guy with a hideous beard. i could look better than you after rolling out of bed after not showering after drinking for three days straight.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Jerry your mancrush is showing
donuthin Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Not sure John J is like the rest of us, hope not anyway. At times he seems rational, but then he defends something totally irrational, like JBB.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 2:55 pm
I’m not like you…I don’t belong to any covey or flock. I’m far too egotistical for that… as has been pointed out…and I don’t need the neck nuzzling and rubs on my brisket that you left leaning groupies live for.
Anonymous Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:02 pm
We are all individuals … I’m not! Said the lone man in the crowd.
Anonymous Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 5:24 pm
I think jbb makes himself and the modern American right and the leftists who respond to him emotionally rather than substantively all look stupid. It’s painful to read some of those “I know you are but what am I” name-calling exchanges, especially knowing that many of the participants are probably middle-aged and some may even be involved some way or another in shaping policy or political strategy.
To those of you on the left, why are you not sufficiently in command of yourself and the arguments that support your positions that you cannot respond to jbb substantively without emotion and condescension and simply allow him to twist in his own bare assertions and hyperbole?
As someone who ranges between Jerry Ford and just to the left of Ike on most issues, I think of a New York Times article this week on the politics of the Dutch descendants of west central Michigan. A 54 year old woman was celebrating her birthday with friends at a cafe. Her birthday card read “The Democrats took your birthday cake. They sliced it up and gave it to people not fortunate enough to have a birthday today.”
Fairness and compassion are good traits but there is truth in that gibe. One example that illustrates what I’m trying to say here is the difference between the health care reform that most on the left really wanted and the ideas for universal coverage originally born of conservative thinking that Obama insisted on. Yoke that fairness and compassion together with facts, analysis, a broad view, a long view, and cold rationality. JBB should be an easy mark.
To those of you on the right who are political operatives, I ask you: Do you ever sit back in your easy chair at night, sipping a scotch, and think to yourself that you started out to be a political sorcerer but you ended up being the sorcerer’s apprentice, calling forth that which you cannot put down?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 6:34 pm
“JBB should be an easy mark”
in your dreams
Reply »
jerry only says:
Its times like these I miss morrows postings letting us know what was truly important, like bush running pedophile rings.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 11:31 am
jerry the difference between you and Morrow is he actually made sense at times.
Reply »
Josh says:
The NRA is now beyond the pale of decency. That press conference did notheing to address any problems except to pass the blame on to video games. This is the most out of touch political lobbying group in my memory.
Reply »
BCinBCS Reply:
December 22nd, 2012 at 1:35 am
One of the perks of getting old (probably the only perk) is that one experiences a lot of things. Having Wayne LaPierre blame mass murder on video games reminds me of when I was a child and gun violence was being blamed on comic books – yea, comic books.
It didn’t get any better later, though. As a young adult, violence was blamed on the lyrics of rock & roll (remember Tipper Gore?).
Now we have the next generation of clueless individuals blaming mass killings on video games; the more thing change, the more they stay the same!
Reply »
Anon says:
Well, to put retired cops in every school is going to take money so get ready for one hell of a tax on firearms and ammo. Right thing though.
Reply »
Jerry Only says:
the NRA showed today that they are a bunch of hypocritical cowards. railing against big government for years, now they want more government, and to misdirect the conversation to everything other than the weapons themselves.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Strange, I thought LaPierre made some very good points. Must have been listening to a different speech. The video game portion made sense to me, as did what he suggested could be done right now to protect our children and grandchildren. The key words being “right now”.
It would seem that you and your President’s plan is just more of the same. Have you way with the gun laws…I could care less, but know that whatever you do is not going to stop another deranged person from stealing or pulling a semi-automatic pistol of rifle from a closet somewhere and slaughtering a large number of people. A good guy, with a weapon could. Bottomline.
Reply »
Jerry Only says:
call of duty- the root of all evil.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Are you OK, Jerry O? You seem a little off.
No – make that a lot.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:09 pm
howso?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:24 pm
hahaha…clueless
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
NRA chief: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”
No truer words have ever been spoken.
Reply »
Jerry Only Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 3:38 pm
you mean like in columbine, where they had an armed guard? or virginia tech, where they had their own police force? or maybe fort hood, which was a military installation?
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Ft Hood is still a military installation and Hasan was stopped with a gun, he was shot and is paralyzed from the waist down.
You just made the argument for me, thanks
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 21st, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t part of the problem at Fort Hood the fact that military personnel, other than MP’s, were not allowed to carry their weapons on base? Wasn’t Hasan the only one in the immediate area with a weapon? Don’t you think he knew that before he pulled the trigger for the first time?
I want to see restrictions placed on semi-automatic weapons and mega clips, but you who just keep thinking this is the root of the problem and the ultimate solution are goofy.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I want to wish all my warm close friends here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Reply »
donuthin says:
I don’t think there is a solution until we begin to understand the root problem. While I do not care if we pass gun laws prohibiting the purchase of high capacity rapid fire guns, I don’t think that will have much effect. If you were to develop criteria for screening based gun owners based on some mental stability standard, it would either include far too many people or miss too many. I doubt that having armed guards in schools would have much effect, as it seems all the kids killing kids have planned to die and with the weapons they are using, they could a lot of damage before being taken down.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
I hope I get a new gun for Christmas, I’ve been dropping hints…we’ll see.
Reply »
Vernon says:
Texas has restrictions on the number of shells your shotgun can hold when hunting migratory birds. From what I’ve always understood, that’s to give the bird some sporting chance at survival.
I’m having a very hard time understanding why magazine limits are acceptable in that situation but not acceptable to many people as one possible solution to limiting the carnage during these shootings.
If laws and regulations on magazine sizes can be passed in order to protect birds (in Texas of all places), why can’t they be passed to protect people? Why can’t we give the same ‘sporting chance’ courtesy to people?
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 27th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Charles Krauthammer had the best commentary I have read on the subject.
To your point, Vernon, he basically says go ahead and limit the purchase of assault weapons and mega clips…with the inventory that is stockpiled in personal gun cabinets, safes, closets, pick-up glove boxes, barns and closets, it should only take a hundred years or so to work our way through this stockpile.
Are we talking about the quickest means of keeping a crazy from slaughtering our kids? If so, this idea that you and others support is deeply lacking.
Krauthammer went on to say that in the last 30 years homicides have decreased 50% in the U.S. (Gun murders included). “We’re living, not through an epidemic of gun violence, but through a historic decline”, he further states.
I understand that Biden’s mandate was to address both weapons and the mentally ill. It will be interesting to see what he has to say about the latter.
Reply »
Vernon Reply:
December 28th, 2012 at 9:27 am
Except that if there were no new high cap clips being manufactured or imported, it would create a very different market. The hope is that a ban would make any existing high cap mags much more inaccessible, either by greatly increased prices or a very limited supply.
I’m not saying it’s the quickest way to stop these massacres. But I’m saying that it’s one of the lowest hanging fruits…one small tactic in a much wider strategy to slow, stymie and stop these incidents.
Reply »
John Johnson Reply:
December 28th, 2012 at 9:52 am
Neither I, nor Mr. Krauthammer, it would seem, disagree with you. but you, and many others, want to put it at the top of your list.
As he points out, the last ban on semi-automatic weapons and large clips did nothing to curb deaths caused by/with them, for this very reason…there are just too many of them already out there.
The guy in Portland had sold his weapons a few weeks before he walked into the mall and opened fire. He simply stole the assault rifle he wanted from a friend.
It is the crazies that need to be corraled, however difficult it might be.
Vernon Reply:
December 28th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
I get what you’re saying.
Banning high cap mags (not SA weapons) is at the top of my list only because it could be done quickly…maybe. Again, it’s low-hanging fruit and should be one part of a broader strategy.
I agree with you in that the more important thing is to identify and treat the crazies. But implementing such a policy takes a larger background in policy knowledge than I’ve got to even envision how it should be conducted. Although I can imagine people arguing to no end over privacy rights, medical privacy rights, government intrusion and other things. But just because it’ll be hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
I’m for doing almost anything that will have a reasonable chance of working.
John Johnson says:
As pointed out, after 9/11 all sorts of intrusive policies were implemented to “protect” us.
If someone is deemed by parents, other family members, co-workers, and professionals to be a danger, not only to others, but to themselves, they should be institutionalized if physiological testing proves them to be so.
Reply »
kimberly markuson says:
your retarded.I think gun control shouldnt happen just because these teachers in the school massacure threw there bodys at the killer in order to stop him.what if they had a gun they could of killed the man before he shot those beutiful children.Our founding fathers gave us the right to bare arms and thats one of our rights. If people decide to put gun control in states that would be crazy because the people cant protect themselves and there children.From gangs that have weapons.
Reply »