I have to side with NRA on this one. The AR 15 is a semi-auto rifle that has
been around a long time that can and is used for both self protection and
hunting. The .223 round is perfect for deer and it is semi-auto not fully
automatic. Banning this gun is nothing more than a knee jerk ...we gotta do
something ... response to the Connecticut shooting and will do nothing to stop
gun violence but will take away from a persons right to defend his home and
family as well as remove a great hunting rifle. The problem with the political
left they want to ban all guns period. You give an inch and then what's
next? A killing with a regular handgun and now they want to ban handguns. A
killing with a bolt action deer rifle and now they want to ban hunting rifles
and on down the line with shotguns etc... until they reach their goal of a
gun-less society. The real problem is NOT being addressed here and that is
violence in movies - video games - RAP songs etc... and getting help for the
I hope the NRA uses their influence to stop any gun ban from Obama. Gun bans do
nothing except hurt the responsible citizen who wants to protect him and his
family against crazy people bent on doing harm. Expect Obama to jump back out on
the campaign trail and label all those who aren't for gun bans heartless
child haters. Watch and see. If the man is anything he is easy to predict.
More "gun ban" nonsense from nonsensical posters.There is a
huge difference between a "gun ban" and sensible restrictions. But a
degree of intelligence is required to understand that.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORYIn 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
>From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminatedIn 1911, Turkey established
gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun
control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who
were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China
established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia
established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless
people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million. I for one, do not want to see a repeat.
old man,Those with whom you disagree are nonsensical? yes, again the
typical "tolerance" of the left is fully manifest in your derogatory
comment.Additional gun control will do NOTHING to prevent future
occurrences.Gun laws hurt rational, law-abiding citizens; they do
not stop criminals or the insane.Additional gun laws in reaction to
the CN tragedy is like taking Rogaine for a broken leg - you can say you
received some sort of treatment - but it was entirely the wrong kind.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.......This is just a knee jerk reaction to
this event, and doesn't come close to getting to the root cause of what
happened.Yes, we need to insist people secure their weapons. This
is the second instance of someone other than the owner using guns to inflict
great damage... so the NRA shouldn't have any resistance to sensible
demands that gun owners secure their weapons.But this was NOT a gun
incident. This was a mental health failure. Plain and simple. We need a plan
in 30 days that addresses this issue. We have far too many mentally ill
homeless. We have far too many soldiers coming home with trauma from the recent
two wars. Fix the mental health issues, and most of these "gun" issues
The top of list should be1. Gun education in schools, that teaches
respect for guns,2. Teaching or morals and values.Anything else will just deprive law-abiding citizens of rights, freedoms and
liberties and maybe their lives.Murderers and crazy people do NOT
care about laws or bans.
If Obama wants gun control he should start with Eric Holder and fast and
Mountainman.... and if we follow that train of though, we should do the same
with drug dealers.... lets just nab the little guys and not worry about where
the drugs lead.... and we should just grab the guy who stole the car, and not
worry about chop shop people. This "Fast and Furious" is a common
police technique used for decades.... it isn't anything new. We have let
spies go to see if they lead us to hired them.... get over it... and stay on
topic.And don't forget... and you'll love this, fast and
furious, was authorized by the Bushed administration, and carried out under the
Obama administration. These two incidents have nothing to do with each other
what so ever. These were legally purchased guns that were not secured by their
owner and kept out of the hands of someone who was not mentally right....
UtahBlueDevil. Not according to ABC news. There was some gun walking during the
Bush administration but the fast and furious scandal operation exclusively
belongs to Barrack Obama, he owns it. But don't worry, he is going to get
away with it even though perhaps dozens of innocent people were murdered.
OK. Let's talk specifics and consider only one issue: Background checks.Should there be background checks on everyone wanting to purchase a
firearm? Should the gun show exclusion be recinded? Should anyone wishing to
purchase a firearm be required to undergo a background check regardless of how
they purchase the item?Now, we can see those on the extreme fringe
of the gun controversy objecting to this because they will argue that background
checks will alert "the government" as to who has a gun. Their paranoia
will manifest itself with the psychotic fear that "the government" will
come and take away their weapons when they need their guns to fight "the
government" when the black helicopters come. They don't want anyone to
know what type or numbers of weapons they have when they need to take up arms
and fight "the government (i.e. other Americans) in their fantasy.The deaths of the children of Sandy Hook Elementary is the price they are
willing to pay as they prepare for the armageddon they believe in their heart
will soon be upon us. This is mental illness at it's most extreme.
How about setting a deadline on proposals to help those with mental illness
instead. Taking away guns and the right for one to defend themselves, their
family, and their property isn't going to solve very much.
Consider the following two articles:Hint: Use a Google search for themActive shooters in schools: The enemy is denialPreventing juvenile
mass murder in American schools is the job of police officers, school teachers,
and concerned parentsActive shooters in schools: Should teachers be
trained by police firearms instructors?Should at least one teacher on
every floor of every school in America be armed, trained, qualified, and
ready/willing to end a deadly threat in their school?We need to have
our schools just as prepared for violence and intruders as we have them prepared
for fires by setting up drills and having armed security on the premises.Write to your Senators and Congressional Representatives now!!I have already done so. There is no need for more "feel good"
Its funny how some gun owners think that they are going to be rounded up and
killed in some mass genocide, and that having an automatic weapon will thwart
these exterminators plan.
Any 'fix' to the fact that every few years a school gets attacked
won't work, unless we go to the root of the problem, and that is too many
children aren't being raised properly. Children should be raised by
parents, not day care facilities. Mothers who have children in their formative
years shouldn't be expected or encouraged to work. And if rights are going
to be taken away in an attempt to fix this problem, it makes more sense to
prohibit mothers from working than to take away guns, this because guns are not
the problem, improperly raised children are.
this is rich. anti-gun joey will head up this group? why would anyone think
anything will happen?
I hate to see the deaths of these beautiful children politicized by this
president. Some one please share a rational gun control measure that would stop
these disasters. The truth is that, short of confiscating all guns, there are
no laws that will keep people like this from taking innocent lives.
Re: "There is a huge difference between a "gun ban" and sensible
restrictions."Sure there is. But no liberal or Democrat is
talking about sensible restrictions.What they want is to ban
"assault weapons," [which they define to include any gun that's fun
or useful], "high" capacity [meaning anything more than single shot]
magazines, sales at gun shows [an "embarrassment" they've tried to
eliminate for years], and more "comprehensive" background checks
[meaning complex, liberal-controlled star-chamber proceedings, in which
you're guilty 'til proven innocent, to some impossibly high
standard].And then, they claim not to understand how we could
possibly object to any of these "sensible" restrictions.Liberals' real problem? Real people know what's in their hearts, and
we don't trust them.
City folk don't understand what guns are.But, they understand wine
"short of confiscating all guns, there are no laws that will keep people
like this from taking innocent lives."So, the extension of this
is not even try.Utah is great at limiting and regulating alcohol.
Does it stop all DUI and alcohol related crime? Of course not. So, should we
just do nothing?There are a lot of areas that one can apply this
logic. And it is faulty logic most of the time.There is usually a
balance between freedom and the rights of others. Lets look for that.
The shot heard round the world on the little bridge in Concord Massachusetts was
to prevent the British army from confiscating the cache of arms the militia had
stored away as a defense against tyranny and as a right to self preservation.
Look it up and learn the real history and not sugar coated or mythical
history.The notion that guns or any other form of arms as stated so
directly in the second amendment are for the private use for hunting and
sporting is to re-write and revise history and is an insult to the blood of the
maters of the revolution.
In a state of tranquillity (Franklin described it as temporary safety), wealth,
and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity
and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be
employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable.
When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to
our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier
victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of
servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We
ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen! Samuel Adams.
My knee jerk reaction is: Arm teachers.
procuradorfiscal, once agagin you couldn't be more wrong. I'm just
curious if you were to ask a "liberal" what time of day it was, would
you argue with their response..because that's all your post is. It's
a complete distortion (kindest word useable here) of the argument. I do think that someday America will grow up emotionally to the point that new
generations will look at our gun culture as insanity. But it will take an
increased trust in society and our ability to govern. It took Europe hundreds
of years to get there and I'm sure it will us also.bcandersen,
states the case for this feeling perfectly. His/Her, "gun history" that
justifies individual gun ownership...has nothing to do with criminals, hunting,
or sport..it's all about if you don't own a gun the government will
come in and round you up and kill you. Eventually America will get over this
I'm glad Obama has his priorities straight at this crucial time. Never mind
about the economic disasters that are here and the fiscal cliff heading our way.
Let's make sure we rush to create a new bill that bans assault weapons and
will only affect law-abiding citizens. I'm glad we can make ourselves feel
better over this type of do-nothing legislation, meanwhile, our country is
headed for economic doom. Thanks, Mr. President! Oh, and thanks to the 47
percenters who voted this indivdual back in. I can go to sleep peacefully
? "How about setting a deadline on proposals to help those with mental
illness instead" Done, folks..helping those with mental illness is all
preventative care...accessible to those with health insurance..Obamacare gave
40,000,000 more people access to health insurance, and increased preventive care
for all. So obviously you have now changed your mind about the ACA.
Re:pragmatistferlife"Eventually America will get over this
fantasy."So you are declaring that we have seen the end of
tyranny?Are you declaring that despite all the lessons of history,
that mankind has changed and that we now have nothing to fear? Just
want some clarification on your view. Have we entered the age of enlightenment
and the nature of man has changed forever?You seem to be declaring
to the world that if any man fears for his/her freedom, they are delusional.Have we seen the last threat to our republic and the rights of man are
guaranteed now forever?Just what are you declaring here?
Re: ". . . once agagin [sic -- again?] you couldn't be more
wrong."Thanks for proving me right!The "gun
culture" liberals love to mock is, in reality, nothing more than a
pragmatic, time-tested, near universally-accepted approach to confronting and
deterring evil.It's sad that rigid liberal orthodoxy prevents
them from thinking for themselves, and actually prevents liberals from even
considering real, pragmatic solutions.
Grundle, no tyranny will not end. The fantasy is that in America the government
is going to come into your home and drag you out to a gulag..and that even if
the government tried to physically subject it's citizens that you running
around with your rifle would do anything to prevent it. To
procuradorlfiscal..Re: ". . . once agagin [sic -- again?] you couldn't
be more wrong."Thanks for proving me right!...huh..what are you
talking about? Your definition high volume, your definition of assault weapon,
your definition of comprehensive background checks, are pure hyperbolic fantasy.
Very Sad and even grotesque that the Obama Administration after Fast and
Furious, where, under his watch and supervision many murders equal to or at
least no less devastatingly sad to families and the country would use this
latest tragedy as political capital.It makes me really sick in the
We need a law that requires all parents and children to be good. In a society
that can't define what evil is, a law such as this isn't far behind.
The irony is watching otherwise decent, but ignorant, citizens follow the pied
pipers of ignorance and corruption, which includes most politicians of our
ruling criminal class.
Re: ". . . your definition[s] . . . are pure hyperbolic fantasy."I agree the definitions are liberal fantasy, but they're not my
definitions. Each has been, and will continue to be advanced by one or another
liberal politico or think tank.Look up the old, failed assault
weapons ban that designated semi-auto handguns, rifles or shotguns as assault
weapons, if equipped with telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade
launcher [no civilian weapon fits in this category], or flash suppressor.Look up proposed amendments to Title 11 CA penal code, Section 5469 to
define "high capacity magazine" to include ". . . any ammunition
feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm . . . ." [which
is the current definition of "detachable magazine"].Look up
Eric Holder's attempt to impose Chicago-style [demonstrated need]
background checks a year ago -- abandoned for then-extant political reasons, but
sure to resurface in the new Obama regime.It would be hyperbolic
fantasy, indeed, to suggest any of these measures would make a single American
safer.But then, that's not liberal's true aim, is it?
There are many more children killed in foreign lands by drone strikes, but
reports of their deaths do not make the news. If Obama truly wants to reduce
violence he can start with the man in the mirror.
The irony of it all is that the people that are calling for bans on guns or
increased regulations on guns are all protected by people who carry guns.If guns are good enough to protect them from crimials, why can't we
have guns to protect ourselves from criminals too?
Old Man and Pragmatist have no solid arguments. Society won't be made safer
by disarming law abiding citizens. That is absurd. And criminals will continue
to get guns--a ban won't prevent that. (Heroin and Cocaine are
banned...nobody ever gets a hold of drugs, right? /rolls eyes.) Old
Man and Pragmatist are for controlling others and taking away 2nd Amendment
rights from the American people.Pure and simple. Shame on both of you and all
the knee-jerking illogical folks who support this kind of ban.
Blaming guns for crime is as illogical as blaming spoons for causing obesity or
matches causing arson. What has happened in America is the same ideology that
other countries have experienced; increased dominance of the secular
progressive, moral relevance (liberalism) politics. What I find incredibly
sadly ironic is that Barrack Obama only recently instigated a fast and furious
gun running operation to Mexico where those guns were used by drug dealers to
murder perhaps dozens of innocent people and these secular progressives, who are
running our country turn their hypocritical heads and hearts to claim they care
deeply about protecting innocent people, not from evil people but from
"evil" guns! What they can't promise is that any gun control law
will be obeyed by evil people. So gun laws never work, never have, never
will.I own guns partly because there are evil people running loose who do
not obey our laws against murder, rape and robbery and they certainly will not
obey any gun control laws either. A gun in my hand is much better for my family
and me than a cop on the phone.
Question to all you conservatives who say liberals are too extreme and
don't have any reasonable proposals for gun control but also say you want
to have a discussion on the matter... what proposals (anything you can think of)
would you consider to be reasonable new regulations on guns?
@Mountanman"What has happened in America is the same ideology that
other countries have experienced; increased dominance of the secular
progressive, moral relevance (liberalism) politics"Then why does
Canada have a homicide rate 1/5th that of the US? Spain has one 1/20th the US.
Germany, the UK, Norway, and Japan have even lower gun-crime rates than Spain.
How can secular liberalism lead to more crime when crime rates have actually
dropped over the past 20 years, and those nations (and many others) are way more
socialist and have way less gun-crime? Your argument just doesn't seem to
be backed up by the facts at all.
Re: ". . . what proposals (anything you can think of) would you consider to
be reasonable new regulations on guns?"Nothing springs to mind.
But then, I don't lie awake at night, straining to think up new
restrictions on guns, as do liberals.I'd say the burden's
on you.We already know what would actually work -- screening,
training, and arming willing school personnel. It would provide both a
meaningful response -- if the Newtown principal that was killed trying to
intervene had been provided the proper tools, no one in the school would have
died -- as well as a significant deterrent to the cowards perpetrating these
attacks.If you've got something to propose, now's the
time. But we know NOTHING liberals have proposed to date would make schools or
society more safe.
alt134Resistance is futile. Using logic, facts and reson will not be
considered. Join the masses knee jerk reaction to the problem and arm yourself.
And don't give us that liberal garbage citing statitics that the gun has a
much higher probabilty of being used on you or your family than for your self
"(Heroin and Cocaine are banned...nobody ever gets a hold of drugs, right?
/rolls eyes.) "So, are you suggesting that if we no longer
banned heroin and cocaine that nothing would change?
I love the argument that more guns equates to less crime. I would love to see
one stat that backs that claim up. It just can't be supported with any
level with facts.That said, like any freedom, the only way to really
be free is to also take the risks associated with that freedom. If we allow
guns, as we should, we need to accept the risks of that freedom. If we allow
free speech, we need to accept that there are those who will make their living
abusing free speech. If we truly believe in freedom of religion, we have to
allow for those who will choose that freedom to choose what we don't agree
with. This is about freedom. Every freedom has a dark side to that
choice - gun ownership is no different. Painting the world as being safer with
everyone armed is a distortion of reality.... we need to accept and acknowledge
the risks of freedom as well.... burying your head or making up facts discredits
@JoeBlowEveryone on this board is smart enough to understand theanalogy. Criminals will get guns whether they are legal or not.And
no, Heroin and cocaine should not be legalized.Because...Heroin and Cocaine can't be used by law abiding citizens to hunt ordefend one's person or one's family as guns can (and are
regularlyused to do). The Second Amendment protects citizens rights to
beararms not use cocaine and heroin.@FT and UtahBlueDevilFor every "Fact" the Brady Campaign feeds you, I can show you an
FBI Uniform Crime Report that shows violent crime drops when concealed weapons
are made legal. Year after year, in state after state.
Too many guns means too many accidental deaths as was the case with two two-yr
olds this summer in Utah and nobody was at fault. Put that in your collective
pipes and smoke it. Most of you really don't care.
louieThere are almost 7 million auto-accident deaths every year. Do
you think we need to ban cars? Put that in your collective pipe and smoke it.
You really don't care. Blaming guns for these deaths is like
blaming cars for drunk drivers or utensils for obesity. Nobody wants to put the
blame on the responsible party--the person. We've come so far in this
country that we are willing to make all sorts of excuses, but never blaming the
What's going to deter a future killer?Option A: A "No Guns
Allowed" signOption B: A "Teachers and Principal certified
Concealed Carry Permit Holders"
@ Louie"Too many guns means too many accidental deaths as was the case
with two two-yr olds this summer in Utah and nobody was at fault."Okay, right after we take care of the problem of the dozen kids killed in
their own driveways when run over by a car, usually by their parents'. If
you want to save more lives, get busy on that one first.This whole
gun ban push is not about preventing violence, but about executing the
liberal's long-standing eagerness to just ban all guns. And, right now it
also serves Obama's interests by deflecting attention away from (a) fast
and furious; (b) the fiscal cliff he is not doing anything to avoid; (c) the
bankruptcy of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; and (d) the obscene and
unsustainable and unrepayable $16 trillion debt he is heaping on our
children.Never let a crisis go to waste. Even when the
"solutions" have been proven to be unworkable. He may fool 51% of the
people yet again, but he is destroying our country.
The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and
homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more
guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at
different countries or different states. Economist Richard Florida
dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social
indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations,
more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with
more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly
predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer
gun-related deaths. The South is the most violent region in the
United States.Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have
happened from 2007 onward.
President Obama, How about tasking your administration to come up with
ways to promote and strengthen two parent families with children and to instill
a work ethic in the rising generation? Now that would be positive change.
There will never be a law that prevents unpredictible evil. Evil is here to
stay until the millenium and that's one of the reasons our forefathers
reserved the right to bear arms. Another was to protect against an
unconstitutional government that would deign to confiscate private arms.
I think we need more carry permits so people are prepared to defend against such
things as mass shootings. Apart from that, stronger sanctions on the mentaly
ill would go a long way towardending these mass shooting sprees.
To "atl134" maybe, as others have suggested, the increase of homicides
and mass murders within the US is caused by the increased use of psychiatric
drugs. You know those drugs that have the warnings that using them may result
in suicidal or violent actions.With the US leading the world in
psychiatric drugs, and those drugs resulting in suicidal or violent acts, do you
think there is some link between the two?The web site Citizen
Commission on Human Rights International has a search engine you can use where
they will list out studies where they found links between drugs like Ritalin and
violence. Don't you think that if we are becoming such a drug dependant
nation that uses drugs that increase violence that maybe that is the cause of
So, if I listen to the logic of these postings the best thing I can do for
society and my family's safety is to arm myself. Yet, I cannot find one
statistic that says society or my family will be safer. The fact remains, the
gun(s) I purchase are more likely to harm me or someone I know. No thanks, I
won't fall victim to the propaganda being put forth by the NRA and 2nd
amendment nuts. Two types of people need guns, sportsman and cowards.