It's just so very sad

[Charlie Brown]

a semi-automatic rife loaded with 30-round magazines of fragmenting military rounds is not something you would use to defend yourself unless you live in a Michael Bay movie.

I take your point. Your point is, you don't need an "assault" rifle to defend yourself.
But let's limit that appropriately.
You don't need it to defend yourself against the local rapist, miscreant, home invader.

And if that's all you're worried about, then by all means, restrict it to revolvers. 6 shots, reload.

And, of course, if you expand it to invasion from a foreign country, well then, same result. After all, the U.S. spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. Nobody is going to invade the U.S. by land in the foreseeable future.

So we're done, right?

Not really. Because the Founding Fathers, while concerned about invasions from abroad, we're also very concerned with the rise of a dictator/monarch in America.

And, if the day comes that a despot comes into power, and the only weapons the citizens have are revolvers, then that despot will not have much compunction about sending out the National Guard or whomever to stiffle dissent.

I note for the historical record that a Japanese General said that it would be impossible to invade America because there would be an American with a rifle behind every tree.

 

[cohenzone]

I take your point. Your point is, you don't need an "assault" rifle to defend yourself.
But let's limit that appropriately.
You don't need it to defend yourself against the local rapist, miscreant, home invader.

And if that's all you're worried about, then by all means, restrict it to revolvers. 6 shots, reload.

And, of course, if you expand it to invasion from a foreign country, well then, same result. After all, the U.S. spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. Nobody is going to invade the U.S. by land in the foreseeable future.

So we're done, right?

Not really. Because the Founding Fathers, while concerned about invasions from abroad, we're also very concerned with the rise of a dictator/monarch in America.

And, if the day comes that a despot comes into power, and the only weapons the citizens have are revolvers, then that despot will not have much compunction about sending out the National Guard or whomever to stiffle dissent.

I note for the historical record that a Japanese General said that it would be impossible to invade America because there would be an American with a rifle behind every tree.

Gee, what if the government sends tanks and bombers? I think that the defense against the government stance is practical nonsense, no matter how you try to make it seem reasonable. As I said in an earlier post, if you think the focus of the 2nd amendment was to really equalize the citizenry against an oppressive government, the Founders sure blew it in understanding the future of "arms". The only thing that would hold the government back would be if the people in charge aren't as intent on suppression as the "militia" supposes. There would be no other reason than a lack of will for such a government here not to use the same approach against us as was used in Iraq, namely, no foot soldiers in advance of a pretty secure rout of the opposition by technological- unmanned weaponry.

 

[bmayuc]

I take your point. Your point is, you don't need an "assault" rifle to defend yourself.
But let's limit that appropriately.
You don't need it to defend yourself against the local rapist, miscreant, home invader.

And if that's all you're worried about, then by all means, restrict it to revolvers. 6 shots, reload.

And, of course, if you expand it to invasion from a foreign country, well then, same result. After all, the U.S. spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. Nobody is going to invade the U.S. by land in the foreseeable future.

So we're done, right?

Not really. Because the Founding Fathers, while concerned about invasions from abroad, we're also very concerned with the rise of a dictator/monarch in America.

And, if the day comes that a despot comes into power, and the only weapons the citizens have are revolvers, then that despot will not have much compunction about sending out the National Guard or whomever to stiffle dissent.

I note for the historical record that a Japanese General said that it would be impossible to invade America because there would be an American with a rifle behind every tree.

Wow, lets unpack this:

The crux of your argument against banning Assault Rifles is:

- We need them readily available and in prolific numbers in case a monarch or dictator suppresses our population by force, so that we can group together, militia style as the founders imagined, and revolt. Short of Assault rifles, our uprising will undoubtedly fail

I mean, get a grip guy. V for Vendetta was a great movie but we are all living in the real, live world here. Three things

1. How many innocents getting gunned down in the street, in schools, in theatres, and generally just murdered every day is worth THE POTENTIAL for the above scenario? Its a NON-POSSIBILITY except on TLC's Doomsday Preppers.
2. Are you so daft as to think that some civilian balloon knots with AR-15's would have any freaking chance against a combined military assault, should it ever occur?
3. You quote a Japanese General from WWII(70 years ago) to maintain the relevance of a 250 year old document regarding maintaining militias and quartering soldiers. How did those slaves do with 3/5 of a vote. Did that work out?? Get real dude, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[Fishy]

Not really. Because the Founding Fathers, while concerned about invasions from abroad, we're also very concerned with the rise of a dictator/monarch in America.

And, if the day comes that a despot comes into power, and the only weapons the citizens have are revolvers, then that despot will not have much compunction about sending out the National Guard or whomever to stiffle dissent.

I noted that as well - they were certainly not ready to trust our emerging government. And I hate the fact that at this late date, I can't dismiss your worst case scenario for our current government either.

I don't like the black helicopter mindset, but even local governments are armed to the freaking teeth these days - perhaps that's a good place to start with change. Everyone needs fewer ways to kill each other.

 

[jleves]

I take your point. Your point is, you don't need an "assault" rifle to defend yourself.
But let's limit that appropriately.
You don't need it to defend yourself against the local rapist, miscreant, home invader.

And if that's all you're worried about, then by all means, restrict it to revolvers. 6 shots, reload.

And, of course, if you expand it to invasion from a foreign country, well then, same result. After all, the U.S. spends more on military than the rest of the world combined. Nobody is going to invade the U.S. by land in the foreseeable future.

So we're done, right?

Not really. Because the Founding Fathers, while concerned about invasions from abroad, we're also very concerned with the rise of a dictator/monarch in America.

And, if the day comes that a despot comes into power, and the only weapons the citizens have are revolvers, then that despot will not have much compunction about sending out the National Guard or whomever to stiffle dissent.

I note for the historical record that a Japanese General said that it would be impossible to invade America because there would be an American with a rifle behind every tree.

As Fishy pointed out, there were really good reasons for giving citizens the right to bear arms when the Bill of Rights was written. For the most part, none of the reasons exist any longer. As you pointed out, nobody is going to invade and if it comes down to people needing their guns to defend the country, it would already be lost. The idea that having guns in anyway prevents a dictatorship is so far fetched, it's silly.

The Founding Fathers were some pretty brilliant people, but they also had some pretty poor ideas that have been corrected (slavery, equal rights for women come to mind). The second amendment was a good idea at the time but the consequences so outweigh the benefits that it's another idea that needs to be corrected.

The bottom line, the right not to get shot by some lunatic supersedes the right to go to a shooting range for fun or to be able to overthrow the government.

 

[8893]

In all seriousness, this is very encouraging. The only ones who appear to be left defending the continued need for private ownership of semi-automatic weapons like this are those whose only remaining justification is that these weapons might be needed to defend against the rise of a dictator/monarch in the United States of America. And they apparently believe that the increasingly regular mass murder of innocent children is an acceptable trade-off for defense against this risk.

Let's accept that you can't fight crazy, and that these crazies will never be convinced otherwise. It is still encouraging that the vast majority of those here would now support tighter gun controls, like the vast majority of thinking people on the planet. That is a very significant change imo. It is time to seize this momentum and stop letting the extreme views of a few--albeit expressed repeatedly and loudly--dominate the dialogue on this issue. Let's not drop it. Let's let our elected officials know that it is okay to touch this third rail, because the majority of us are done letting a few crazies make choices that we do not find acceptable.

Charlie Brown, Huskymaniac, Husky Hawk and others of their ilk will no doubt continue to remind us of their views. Ignore them. You can't fight crazy, but they are not the majority. As along as our elected officials know that, there is a much greater chance that something helpful will finally be done here like every other civilized nation on the planet has done.

 

[swami7774]

22 kids wounded vs 18 kids dead. I'll take the lesser of two evils. Wouldn't you?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-6325205.html

 

[cohenzone]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-6325205.html

And that proves what about what weapons should be available for self defense and/or just what weapons are really available to arm US militiamen against the might of our government?

 

[cohenzone]

As I've noted, my son sat in his locked down office at V Tech as a crazy man was shooting up a classroom across campus and as my granddaughter's, pre-school a mile away was also in lock down. Some of the reaction afterward urged approval for profs and other personnel at V Tech and even nationally to be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus. Do I get why some people see that as a solution? Yes. But I think it is totally wrong-headed and is fraught with many more potentially undesirable possibilities relative to the real threat or to the ability to stop someone who enters a building with automatic weapons intent on mayhem. Fewer arms, coupled with proper control over what weapons should be allowed for personal purchase and with the best practical screening for the mental health of purchasers and periodic re-screening if that's what it takes. For the record, even as I approach the age, I also favor re-road testing drivers fairly often after say, age 70 or 75 to see if they are still coordinated enough to be safe on the roads. The point being that when we are talking about deadly implements - guns, cars - the general public safety should be given the maximum deference.

 

[whaler11]

In all seriousness, this is very encouraging. The only ones who appear to be left defending the continued need for private ownership of semi-automatic weapons like this are those whose only remaining justification is that these weapons might be needed to defend against the rise of a dictator/monarch in the United States of America. And they apparently believe that the increasingly regular mass murder of innocent children is an acceptable trade-off for defense against this risk.

Let's accept that you can't fight crazy, and that these crazies will never be convinced otherwise. It is still encouraging that the vast majority of those here would now support tighter gun controls, like the vast majority of thinking people on the planet. That is a very significant change imo. It is time to seize this momentum and stop letting the extreme views of a few--albeit expressed repeatedly and loudly--dominate the dialogue on this issue. Let's not drop it. Let's let our elected officials know that it is okay to touch this third rail, because the majority of us are done letting a few crazies make choices that we do not find acceptable.

Charlie Brown, Huskymaniac, Husky Hawk and others of their ilk will no doubt continue to remind us of their views. Ignore them. You can't fight crazy, but they are not the majority. As along as our elected officials know that, there is a much greater chance that something helpful will finally be done here like every other civilized nation on the planet has done.

With part of the problem being that those that are against further regulation into gun are the experts. Just read the last five pages and see how quickly they get into the minutia.

 

[RS9999X]

As Fishy pointed out, there were really good reasons for giving citizens the right to bear arms when the Bill of Rights was written..

Dating back to post Restoration England when the Catholics King James II banned guns in an attemt to disarm England in favor of a standing army and the Protestants defied Him to retake the Crown and declare guns a natural right of man.

That same war is fought today with the Catholic Church issuing statements like this " We reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns. However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society.""

and the Southern Protestants having "Bring your Gun to Church Day" and celebrating the rights of the rabble to bear arms or all types in case Papists or atheists rule the land .

 

[Huskymaniac]

Oh, how many times have we heard geniuses be called crazy? Few if any of you are capable of comprehending Einstein's work. He was said to be crazy at first too, for some of his theories which took decades to be proven. I really don't care if a coward and fool, who is willing to piss away his civil rights and liberties because he is upset about an atrocity executed at the hands of a total loon, calls me crazy. You are letting your fear cripple you to the point where you will accept any solution to help you sleep better. The real solution is hard so lets make a law which can only hold up if a constitutional amendment is made to nullify the second amendent. Knee jerk much? I bet you hated Bush's Patriot Act. But this is different, right? It is ok to piss way THESE civil liberties. I don't know if some of you are too stupid to understand the foolishness of what you are screaming for or just too weak to accept and fix the actual problems. Laws are easy to make. Often, laws that take away people's civil liberties have devastating unintended consequences. Rarely do they last long term. We banned alcohol once too. That opened the door to a massive growth in organized crime which, when alcohol was made legal again, turned to selling drugs instead. Fix the problems, don't be foolish enough to think you can legislate them away only to surrender yet another civil liberty while accomplishing little to nothing long term.

Luckily, hopefully, calmer and wiser minds will prevail and we will come up with reasonable regulations and REAL SOLUTIONS to the ACTUAL PROBLEMS.

Someone brought up the Catholic Church. The real solutions involve recognizing the sanctity of life.

 

[8893]

Please keep posting squidward. With each post you continue to out yourself as part of the lunatic fringe. Keep 'em coming so more people can know more about the warped mindset like yours that is complicit in these killings. And use more CAPS. We love the CAPS.

 

[nomar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-6325205.html

The -- sad -- point stands. I'm sure you understand that.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Please keep posting squidward. With each post you continue to out yourself as part of the lunatic fringe. Keep 'em coming so more people can know more about the warped mindset like yours that is complicit in these killings. And use more CAPS. We love the CAPS.

And with each post you prove how much of a coward you are. You are complicit with those who supported the patriot act in the loss of our civil liberties.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I noted that as well - they were certainly not ready to trust our emerging government. And I hate the fact that at this late date, I can't dismiss your worst case scenario for our current government either.

I don't like the black helicopter mindset, but even local governments are armed to the freaking teeth these days - perhaps that's a good place to start with change. Everyone needs fewer ways to kill each other.

For what it's worth I think that emerging government was a hell of lot more trustworthy than the current one. Much less likely to oppress and take advantage of its citizens. Ours has seriously pushed and exceeded its Constitutional power already.

As for ammunition, the military requires unremarkable full metal jacket ammunition. This is a treaty requirement designed to reduce internal injuries in wounded soldiers. Hollow point ammunition also is poor at penetrating wood, and glass etc. so can be ineffective in some situations.

In a personal defense situation the opposite is true. It would be dangerous and irresponsible not to use hollow points, since FMJ ammo over penetrates and is thus more likely to pass through and hit an innocent. The gun ban folks have flipped positions on this a few times. Yes hollow points are more deadly, but also safer, and they are much safer for the police. So which kind do you want to get rid of?

Magazine size is the only issue I'm hearing here that is remotely related to these kinds of attacks. But really even with 10 round mags (the max in MA and some other states) you can reload quickly.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Fishy]

So which kind do you want to get rid of?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

The kind that kills first graders.

And the gun that shoots them.

 

[jleves]

Oh, how many times have we heard geniuses be called crazy? Few if any of you are capable of comprehending Einstein's work. He was said to be crazy at first too, for some of his theories which took decades to be proven. I really don't care if a coward and fool, who is willing to piss away his civil rights and liberties because he is upset about an atrocity executed at the hands of a total loon, calls me crazy. You are letting your fear cripple you to the point where you will accept any solution to help you sleep better. The real solution is hard so lets make a law which can only hold up if a constitutional amendment is made to nullify the second amendent. Knee jerk much? I bet you hated Bush's Patriot Act. But this is different, right? It is ok to piss way THESE civil liberties. I don't know if some of you are too stupid to understand the foolishness of what you are screaming for or just too weak to accept and fix the actual problems. Laws are easy to make. Often, laws that take away people's civil liberties have devastating unintended consequences. Rarely do they last long term. We banned alcohol once too. That opened the door to a massive growth in organized crime which, when alcohol was made legal again, turned to selling drugs instead. Fix the problems, don't be foolish enough to think you can legislate them away only to surrender yet another civil liberty while accomplishing little to nothing long term.

Luckily, hopefully, calmer and wiser minds will prevail and we will come up with reasonable regulations and REAL SOLUTIONS to the ACTUAL PROBLEMS.

Someone brought up the Catholic Church. The real solutions involve recognizing the sanctity of life.

Sometimes genius is mistaken for crazy, but most of the time, it's actually just crazy.

You keep going on about loss of civil rights. Sometimes civil rights come into conflict with another and one of them has to be held as the more important one and the other is disregarded. The right not to get killed in a movie theater or a kindergarten class room is simply more important than the right to own a gun.

It's not a knee jerk reaction and it's not because of single loon. It's an ongoing problem that has been repeated over and over again. There have been 7 mass killings (as defined by Mother Jones: 4 or more dead not counting the shooter in a single incident in a public place) in the US this year alone. You probably didn't know that because it's become so common that the 'smaller' ones are easily missed and not the breaking news for days. Since 1982, there have 62 mass murders in the United States - 27 of those since 2005. 142 guns were recovered - over 75% legally owned and over half were semi automatic hand guns or assault weapons. The rate of public mass murder has gone from 1.5 incidents/year for 1982-2004, to 3.4/year over the last 8 years. Obviously there is a problem and it's not just one loon.

I will agree that there are problems beyond the availability of certain types of guns, but the guns are part of the problem. It's like saying, if people just drove safely, they wouldn't get killed in car accidents so there's no need for air bags, anti lock brakes or seat belts. You attack the problem both ways. You get rid of the means and you work on the social issues. It's not one or the other - you can actually do both.

 

[Huskymaniac]

I agree with your argument about civil rights in conflict. The example I would give is the right of the public to live safely being more important than the right of a mentally unstable man to buy or carry a gun. But that doesn't mean the rights of normal citizens to buy and own a gun should be forfeited because of the crimes committed by a few insane people. Fix the problems of the insane people or remove them from society because, eventually, they will hurt someone somehow.

 

[bmayuc]

I agree with your argument about civil rights in conflict. The example I would give is the right of the public to live safely being more important than the right of a mentally unstable man to buy or carry a gun. But that doesn't mean the rights of normal citizens to buy and own a gun should be forfeited because of the crimes committed by a few insane people. Fix the problems of the insane people or remove them from society because, eventually, they will hurt someone somehow.

Yes, you have that right. Given the choice to remove Guns or remove People, dude chooses to remove people...

Hello, these were legal guns that crazy guy got a hold of. That's the freaking point.

Sent from my VS950 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[jleves]

I agree with your argument about civil rights in conflict. The example I would give is the right of the public to live safely being more important than the right of a mentally unstable man to buy or carry a gun. But that doesn't mean the rights of normal citizens to buy and own a gun should be forfeited because of the crimes committed by a few insane people. Fix the problems of the insane people or remove them from society because, eventually, they will hurt someone somehow.

So you support the idea of removing all people with psychological issues from society because an infinitesimally small percentage have hurt people? See what I did there?

 

[jibsey]

I agree with your argument about civil rights in conflict. The example I would give is the right of the public to live safely being more important than the right of a mentally unstable man to buy or carry a gun. But that doesn't mean the rights of normal citizens to buy and own a gun should be forfeited because of the crimes committed by a few insane people. Fix the problems of the insane people or remove them from society because, eventually, they will hurt someone somehow.

But what type of gun? In 1791 when the second ammendment was passed, the kind of firearms that they were talking about took a minute to load and were mostly used to shoot their dinner. Protection was for an Indian or British soldier attack. In England where there is a handgun ban there were 35 gun deaths per year, in the US 24 per day. Finding all if the people who are or could go temporarily insane at some point doesn't seem realistic.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

So you support the idea of removing all people with psychological issues from society because an infinitesimally small percentage have hurt people? See what I did there?

Not only did you flip the argument, your point is exactly correct. This type of act is not predictable based on a diagnosis or a developmental disorder.

 

[Huskies4ever]

Not only did you flip the argument, your point is exactly correct. This type of act is not predictable based on a diagnosis or a developmental disorder.

But, it seems as if there were warning signs, and we will continue to learn more in the upcoming days, weeks, etc...

We don't need to ban all guns, but these high powered semi-auto assault rifles should not be possessed by civilians. Leave them to the military, and law enforcement. Then find ways to treat/help these very sick and disturbed individuals. I don't care if you kill 1 six year old, or 20, or what you use to kill them. You shouldn't ever want to hurt a six year old.

I was once put on medication for seizures, and I wanted to hurt people. It was one of the potential side effects. Any medication that is meant to treat the brain can cause psychotic episodes. One woman who took the same meds went to a gas station, pumped gas everywhere, and lit a match. Luckily, she was subdued without anyone getting hurt. Fortunately, I am off those meds and back to normal (for the most part) and have been seizure free for a couple years. I also work in retail. Some whackjob could come in and shoot the place up. You just don't know.

I just get sick of people blaming video games and guns. I've played many a violent game, and live in a house with many guns, and have never physically harmed anyone. But as mentioned, there is no need for civilians to possess guns that are intended to kill many people in a short amount of time. We will find out why he had access to these kind of guns.

 

[Gurleyman]

Indeed we can attack things from any number of ways.

If we want to talk about identifying mental health problems, that works too. I would suggest that we hire more teachers for smaller classes, so that the teacher has time for more individual interaction. It's easier to slip through unnoticed in the back of a room with 40 kids in it than the one with 20. The sooner a problem is identified, the less deeply ingrained it gets in that kid's psyche.

Also more school psychologists to help diagnose problems or work with troubled kids. Is a 7 year old just simply lashing out or is there something worse behind it? A 10 year old? A teacher won't always know, but it would be good if they could have someone more experienced evaluate.

Greater access to health care is also key. Does no good to flag the problem, if you can't treat it. If that means meds, or extended counseling to a child or teen, we can't say "never mind" and hope for the best.

You know what else helps a lot of kids and teens? After school programs. Music. Art. Sports (competitive or recreational). Science projects. Drama clubs. Volunteering. Other chances to be social. Find peers with common interests.

If the problem is so bad as to require institutionalization, we need to make sure those facilities are available and can handle a possible increase in clientele.

You can see where I'm going with this. Budgets are going up with every suggestion. How much are we willing to pay for? If your taxes went up 2 percent, would you sign up on all of this? My guess is many would say no. And don't get me wrong, they are entitled to that opinion - even all this won't stop everyone from flying off the deep end, just like every gun control measure won't stop every massacre. So perhaps a lot of it is indeed wasteful spending. It's a worthwhile discussion to have at least.