There is no hope of having bipartisan agreement in the current gun debate. Those
who hate the NRA and have an irrational fear private firearms ownership will
never be able to have a meaningful dialogue on the subject.
NBC News; "The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers
in the town's four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook
Elementary. Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to
include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary
schools in next year's budget."If only this had been done before
Adam Lanza! The only way to stop bad people guns with guns is more good people
I have posted the verbiage in the Heller supreme court ruling.The
ruling was delivered by Scalia and joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and
Thomas.I was accused of "twisting" their words.Please
explain how the exact wording is "twisting"Here is the part
that deals with allowable restrictions.I doubt these guys have an
"irrational fear of firearms ownership"(2) Like most rights,
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For
example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or
state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the
mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the
sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”
finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of
dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
There is no hope of having bipartisan agreement in the current gun debate. Those
who hate our government and have an irrational fear spawned by overdoses of hate
radio that background checks be done before allowing private firearms ownership
will never be able to have a meaningful dialogue on the subject.
I'm pro gun rights and I think universal background checks would have been
a good idea.To all the people who propose hiring armed guards for
all of our schools: are you willing to pay more in taxes to support all of these
new government employees?
Same here Roland,I think the those on the right think that all
"lefties" want to ban guns.There is much support for
background checks, even with gun advocates and those on the right.However, there is little support nationwide with removing the ability for
people to own guns and protect themselves. The American public would not stand
for it, including the vast majority of the "left".Reasonable, constitutional restrictions should not be seen as anti-gun.
Is the NRA going to pay for these armed guards? if not, who will?So
let me get this straight...We have thee lowest per pupil funding in
the entire nation... Many of our schools don't meet earthquake building
codes... Many still don't even have air conditioning. And believe me, many
textbooks social studies uses are out of date (showing that Russia is the ussr
and that Germany is still divided) yet somehow we can afford to put armed guards
in every single one of our schools? Huh?For folks who hate taxes we
sure are proposing some expensive solutions to violence. Instead of attacking
the core heart of the problem, too many powerful guns being sold to anyone, we
keep beating around the bush. Beating around the bush not only costs lives but
is incredibly expensive.
The truth is that the NRA leadership and others have made a very positive
suggestion: Place experienced, armed security officers in schools to protect
against harm to our children. ============ The truth is
they never suggested HOW to pay for it.Tell me -- NRA supporter...Is
that BEFORE or AFTER we start start buying pencils for children?But
the Teachers guns, but can't buy the children pencils.Ridiculous.This being suggested as a viable solution in the LOWEST
school spending in the United States of America.
@ LDS Liberal; How to pay for armed guards in schools? Easy, just take the money
out of the Dept of Education budget and cut out some of the frills that they
waste money on, like half the administrators, vice principals, and junkets they
go on. We spend more money per student in America than any other nation, except
Switzerland with poorer results than most other countries. That's why
charter schools are so popular, they are less expensive and the children
actually get a good education!
Didn't we just go through a debate on these posts over whining about too
many non-teachers employed in schools?
"We spend more money per student in America than any other nation, except
Switzerland"How many of those schools have organized sports?
Music? Arts? Once again, you fail to grasp the entire picture.How
many of those schools agree to pay for the education of minorities and other
folks who have immigrated (illegally)? Of course, we can't do anything
about that because repubs who don't want to hurt their big business
contributors and lose votes will never actually do anything other than amnesty
illegals. The bottom line is, if you wish to pay higher taxes, then
keep voting with the NRA. They are all about higher taxes and beating around the
Aside from the fact that the background check did pass, applying normal
procedures-- not the 60 vote threshold that Republicans have imposed on anything
getting done in the Senate, gun control legislation was DOA in the House.But this issue represents just one more thing Republicans are on the
wrong side of with most Americans.
Seeing armed guards at our schools with semi-automatic weapons is another reason
to consider home schooling.
Mountm pulls another of his standard right tropes by suggesting that funding for
the "Ed Army" be taken out of the education budget from all that fat and
waste there. I believe if we should get an actuarial estimate of the cost of
arming every school, we should raise taxes to pay for it and put it in with the
property tax bill with a line item for all to see the true cost of this
"security". I suspect the right would find such and increase
intolerable and an infringement on their "rights". PS.
Does the left have rights or only lefts?
The NRA and their GOP stooges want America turned into a Police State.Nothing conditions the next generation of children into growing up into
paranoid gun lovers than seeing and believing they can only be safe and secure
when surrounded by armed guards.Kind of like the scared and ignorant
""We spend more money per student in America than any other nation,
except Switzerland"A factual but very misleading statment. That
is like comparing the cost of living in San Francisco to Provo.. you can't
just take raw dollars and make statements like this. It is about as close to
lying as you can get.Now if you look at the number as percentage of
GDP...not the same story is told. There are numerous countries that spend more
per child per gdp -Norway, Isreal, Iceland, Korea to start with.The
idea of placing armed guards in each and every of the 98,817 public schools is
rediculas. The same crowd who thought the TSA was an over reach, now want to
put guards into our schools. Of the recent mass killings, one, only one,
occured at a school. The rest were in public places, and placing more armed
guards in schools does nothing to prevent those killings.It would
sell guns to 100,000 more people though. What a coincidence.
Why should my side listen to your side when your side refuses to listen to my
side? Earlier in the debate I was fine with a compromise plan that gave your
side the armed guards for schools thing. Now I just want it to lose. It's
not like it really makes things safer anyway, after all the reason school
shootings are such massive shocks are due to their rarety and even then... @Mountanman"The only way to stop bad people guns with guns is
more good people with guns!"...Columbine had an armed officer.
LDS Liberal"The NRA and their GOP stooges want America turned
into a Police State.Nothing conditions the next generation of
children into growing up into paranoid gun lovers than seeing and believing they
can only be safe and secure when surrounded by armed guards.Kind of
like the scared and ignorant North Koreans..."You are becoming
irrational. You are just putting everything you hate into categories where it
doesn't even belong like comparing pro gun advocates to north koreans.
That makes no sense whatsoever. In North Korea only the government has guns.
Isn't that what you are trying to promote?
Not to mention In North Korea, all political dissidents are put to death. That
should be a liberals paradise.
Im a gun owner and still support universal background checks. They work. Last
year in Utah alone 600 unqualified purchasers were turned away because of
background checks. Why would we let those people walk next door and make their
purchase without a check?
Re: "To all the people who propose hiring armed guards for all of our
schools: are you willing to pay more in taxes to support all of these new
government employees?"Apparently, the good people of Sandy Hook
are.But, as another poster said, ". . . placing armed guards in
each and every of the 98,817 public schools is rediculas [sic]."And that may be so.Thus, other states -- Utah, among them -- have
chosen a different, less "rediculas" course. We've decided to train
and arm willing educational staff and teachers who want to protect themselves
and the schoolkids from this mindless predation.Cost? Much less.Effectiveness? The same. Murderous criminals now know our schools are no
longer the free-fire zones they used to be, so, rather than take a risk,
they'll take their grisly business elsewhere.At least Sandy
Hook parents are doing SOMETHING to actually protect their children. As opposed
to the big, fat nothing that deranged liberal gun-control advocates'
proposals amount to.
You already have some background checks. Why not expand the process to the level
your friends, the criminals, get their guns, on line, gun shows, private sales?
2 million denials have happened with our loosy goosy current system the past 15
years. No, this will not stop all crime, mass killings, terrorism etc but it
might stop some. Our gun laws are so lax my dim witted son in law bought a
pistol and didn't even know what and how to use the safety. There was no
requirement to show proficiency. Your arguments against expanding background
checks hold no water otherwise we can repeal all traffic laws because there are
still violators. Maybe we can repeal safety regulations at chemical plants and
coal mines since they don't seem to want to abide by them either. Being
responsible is not infringing but liberation. There is no boogie man.
I'm still amazed that there are "some" who still think the 2nd
Amendment somehow protects the rights of guns to children, criminals and the
mentally insane.The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution under
the premise of using some "common sense".The
uber-far-right-wingers are dishonoring them, and are trampling the very
Constitution they "think" they are protecting.FYI - I heard
over the weekend that in many states, in order to buy a hunting license, you
need to disclose what caliber rifle you plan to use.i.e., giving
"them" your Name, address, and weapon.Isn't that the big evil
nasty "gun registry" you all are alreaady so worked up and worried
To "Roland Kayser" and "JoeBlow" how would background checks
have stopped any of the recent mass murders? How do performing background
checks stop illegal activity? The better solution would be to enforce existing
gun laws.To "LDS Liberal" actually the NRA has found a way
to pay for the security. They have offered to properly train existing school
staff for security. The traing would cost the taxpayers NOTHING, yet make our
local schools almost as secure as the school Obama sends his kids to.If the GOP and NRA want to turn the US into a police state, why is it that it
was the liberals that shut down Boston and turned it into a police state? The
evidence points to liberals wanting the police state, not the GOP.
"How do performing background checks stop illegal activity?"No law can totally prevent crime. But speed limits certainly entice many
people to not speed.Couldn't you say that speed limits stop SOME
illegal activity?Some have suggested that 15 million gun purchasers
were denied guns because of background checks in the last 10 years. Can they
still get guns? Yes. Did many of them go on to get guns? I am sure that they
did. Partially because that law very easy to get around.But, one
the day that each and every one of those 15 million tried to buy a gun, they
were not able.The background check system stopped illegal activity 15
million times.No law stops all illegal activity. If that is your
criteria, we should get rid of all of our laws.Look, I am not anti
gun. I own guns. But, I am for reasonable and constitutional laws.
I'm all for it if the NRA uses it's extensive cashflow to pay for it
instead of using it to hijack our legislative bodies.
The scope of the NRA solution is absolutely staggering when you consider
applying it to society as a whole. Last year, we had mass shootings in a movie
theater, a public school, a shopping mall, and a church. Maybe others locations
as well. If we were to somehow figure out a way to fund armed guards for the
tens of thousands of public schools, then what about every other public venue
that can and has been a target for mass shootings? The NRA solution is guns...
guns everywhere! Leave your house and every possible destination, from grocery
stores, to shopping malls, to movie theaters, to churches, to government
buildings will have at least one armed guard. The NRA solution now is armed
guards in every public school. The NRA solution somewhere down the road is a
complete police state.
The anti-gun people need to go to their utopia in North Korea where only the
government has guns, there is no political opposition and everybody is treated
equally. I know they are starving over there but they are being treated equally.
LDS liberal promotes the very thing that we got away from in 1776.
King george would've loved to have him as one of his disciples. He can even
use Religion to promote his agenda.
The first gun control laws were passed by pro slavery democrats against the
blacks. They are not any different today. Sure they claim to be pro civil rights
but they like keeping black people dependent on the government and yet will use
race baiting frauds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to keep them dependant
and call it civil rights. Leopards never change their spots.They just use civil rights as a cover for their racism and divisiveness.
They have not changed since 1865. Dependency on the Government is not freedom
Re: ". . . I am for reasonable and constitutional laws."Then
you must be opposed to all liberal gun-control measures currently being
debated.Any measure of the "reasonableness" of proposals,
necessarily implies, both a substantial likelihood of accomplishing the
objective, and a downside proportional to any benefit to be gained.Loony liberal gun-control measures fail on both accounts, Even
liberals admit their proposals have zero chance of preventing future incidents
like those in Sandy Hook, Aurora, or Tucson, though that doesn't prevent
disingenuous political exploitation of victims of those incidents.Play that manifest ineffectiveness off against the intrusive, expensive,
easily abused nature of these proposals, and "reasonableness" falls
quickly off the table, clearly revealing the real liberal motive -- hassling
real people into abandoning their rights.Rreductio ad absurdum
comments regarding nerve gas and nukes, aside, the unconstitutionality of any
political scam that provides no benefits, only burdens on the exercise of
constitutional rights is patent.Anyone who is "for reasonable
and constitutional laws" must, necessarily, oppose the current crop of
UNreasonable, UNconstitutional liberal gun laws.
Reading some of the comments on this post make me even more convinced of
universal background checks without exceptions. I am most interested in the
keeping guns from the mentally disturbed since reading these comments convince
me that there are already lots of folks with mental issues who have guns today
(and post in this column).
@Redshirt1701"How do performing background checks stop illegal
activity?"We require ID when purchasing alcohol because we have
an age requirement of 21. Does that eliminate all underage consumption?
Obviously not. But do you think it reduces underage consumption? If your answer
is yes, then that's the same sort of logic we use for background checks.
No, they won't stop all illegal activity, but it should reduce it. Same
goes for speed limits, obviously doesn't stop everyone from driving like a
maniac, but I imagine it has some effect.Sure, background checks
wouldn't have stopped Newtown since he got the guns from his mother who
legally purchased them but we have around 30,000 murders and suicides each year
in this nation as a result of firearms and I'm not going to just ignore the
potential impacts this has on some of the other ~29,974 gun deaths just because
this provision wouldn't have stopped one particular incident.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtTo "Roland Kayser" and
"JoeBlow" how would background checks have stopped any of the recent
mass murders? How do performing background checks stop illegal activity?===========Umm, pretty much the same way "Road
Checks" stops DUIs,and "Border Checks" stops illegal
immigration, and "ID Checks" stops under age drinking, and
TSA "Security Checks" stops terrorists from blowing up airplanes and
skyscrapers, and "Background Checks" keeps pediphiles and repeat
rapists away from women and children.C'mon RedShirt - this is a
no-brainer!Why do you keep supporting a KNOWN criminal's right to buy
weapons?This is beyond ridiculous!Truely it is.
Goofy theories have resulted in crazy politics.
Not to mention In North Korea, all political dissidents are put to death. That
should be a conservative's paradise.
I love the proposition that arming a kindergarten teacher provides the same
level of security as having a training police officer on campus. Just think
about it. This brought to you by the same crowd that says women shouldn't
be allowed in combat roles in the military, now believe a teacher (vast
majority are women) should be the first line of defense on those who would
attack our kids.Now lets be clear... I firmly believe women can
handle guns every bit as well as a man, when they receive the same training.
But we are talking about placing loaded weapons in several hundred thousand
classrooms under the charge of someone whose primary role is not to make sure
that weapon is secured and safe. It is a recipe to numerous incidents of
accidental discharge.I am confident we can teach teachers how to
shoot and gun.... what I am not as confident is that we can train them on
situation management to make sure those weapons are only used appropriately.
To "atl134" we already require background checks. So why do we need
more laws and regulations and more background checks? Wouldn't it be
easier to enforce the law? For example, there were 72,000 attempts by felons to
buy guns in 2010, yet only 44 were prosecuted. With that many attempts, and so
few prosecuted, doesn't that indicate that Federal agencies are not
enforcing the law? If they are already not enforcing the law, what good does it
to do add more unenforcable laws onto the books?To "LDS
Liberal" the roadblocks do not stop people from driving drunk, they are just
enforcing the law. People still drive drunk despite the roadblocks. If
"Border Checks" stop illegal immigration, how is it that we have
millions of illegals here?Why do you want to make purchasing guns
legally harder? What good does it do to make it so that law-abiding citizens
have a harder time buying guns?
@Redshirt1701"we already require background checks. "Not for all gun purchases we don't. We do not require background checks
for private sales. That is a massive loophole that can be exploited."With that many attempts, and so few prosecuted, doesn't that
indicate that Federal agencies are not enforcing the law?"Maybe
they lack the manpower/resources to do much about that. You'd need a lot of
lawyers if you wanted to prosecute 72,000 more people each year wouldn't
To "atl134" if we are already not enforcing the laws that state that you
cannot sell or give a gun to felon or other person not legally permitted to own
a gun, what good will it do to make more laws that are unenforcable and lack the
manpower to prosecute?Go and read federal gun laws. The proposed
laws do nothing other than make buying guns more difficult for law abiding
people. The proposed laws do nothing to stop the illegal gun trade.Again, we already have laws that make straw man purchases illegal, and make it
illegal to sell to somebody who has been in jail, is abusive, drug addicted, or
mentally ill. The laws that are being proposed are already covered by the Gun
Control Act of 1968. If we are not enforcing a law that has been on the books
for 45 years, what makes you think that making a new law will help?
Re: "We do not require background checks for private sales. That is a
massive loophole that can be exploited."Yeah. Something less
than 3.9%, according to the flawed, dated study the Obama regime uses to justify
its attempted power grab.Massive.
"For example, there were 72,000 attempts by felons to buy guns in 2010, yet
only 44 were prosecuted. With that many attempts, and so few prosecuted,
doesn't that indicate that Federal agencies are not enforcing the law?
"The law is being enforced, RedShirt. Those 72,000 attempts to
buy guns by felons, means that 72,000 felons were not able to buy guns. At least
not through a gun dealer. The law worked, it was enforced. The gun dealers
enforced it by doing the background check. And I seriously doubt if any licensed
gun dealer would not run a background check, because they would lose their
license if caught. What you are complaining about is that the
government doesn't waste the resources to prosecute 72,000 people that
wanted to purchase a gun but were denied. What crime is it, exactly, that they
commited? It's been a while since I bought a gun, I might be
wrong, but I don't remember filling out papers, I just showed them my id
and they ran a background check. So you would think every person
turned away from a bar because they are underage should be prosecuted?
I'm also really not sure what your point is RedShirt. You don't think
we should have backgrounds checks, so in the world you want to live in every
single one of those 72,000 felons would have been able to buy a gun. And also,
in the world you want to live in, not only would everyone of those 72,000 felons
been able to buy a gun they would have been able to buy fully auto M16s, or
AK47s (you never did answer me which one of those you recommend for being able
to kill the most people the fastest). Of course in the world you
wish you lived in, you also would like to see terrorists be able to walk into
the local Bombs-R-Us and be able to purchase the largest most powerful bomb
imaginable, and fill their car with these bombs. And if a cop stops them and
sees their back seat stuffed with these bombs the cop can only say, "have a
good day, go on your way." Because you don't think any of that should
be against the law. In the world you wish you lived in.
To "mark" you can walk into your local grocery store or farm supply
store and buy the components needed to make powerful bombs.You seem
awefully angry and bitter that I have pointed out that the problem isn't
that we don't have enough laws, but that the problem is enforcement of the
laws that we do have.
Typical leftist thoght. They don't want to pay for expanded security
personell in schools, because it's to expensive, as though a background
check system is free, and an expanded background system is even more free!
Hahaha, I'll pay for more security personnel in school. Absolutely. But I
won't try to do it on the cheap. I won't pretend that teachers should
also be cops. If you want cops in schools, lets do it. But we will need to pay
for it, and it won't be cheap. So we will have to raise taxes. You ready?
RedShirt, are just pretending to not understand. It
really is not difficult. Clearly people can make explosives. And yes they are
deadly. But they cannot make military quality explosives. They just can't
do it. Maybe you don't understand that. But it's immaterial anyway to
the point. Right now owning, or making, a bomb is a crime. No new
laws needed. YOU want to get rid of the law that says its a crime. So anyone can
buy a bomb. And a bomb that will work. No more making them. Plus
they can carry that bomb right into the middle of a crowd. Of children. If a cop
sees them, not a thing can be done. No crime has been commited. Until he
detonates the bomb. That's the world you want.
To "mark" again, you are wrong. It is possible to make military grade
explosives at home, using easily procurable ingredients and equipment.People carry potentially explosive devices into crowds every day, and are not
arrested. Why make more laws and problems for law-abiding citizens if the laws
are going to be either unenforced or are unenforcable?