NRA takes aim at Biden's gun control task force

But he hinted that the White House was looking at universal background checks for gun purchasers and to limit the availability of high-capacity ammunition clips, either through new laws or executive orders by Obama.

Yep, all out war on the Second Amendment.

“We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals,” the NRA said.

Yep, it's not the hundreds of millions of guns and the easy access to them, it's Hollywood and marketing. It's good that Hollywood movies are only showed in America or else this problem might happen all over the world.

The NRA should just come out and say what their real platform is, and that's to make the greatest number of guns available to the greatest number of people. They weren't formed to tackle school safety or mental health issues and they aren't qualified to make decisions on that anyway. In Tucson, Arizona the police held a gun buyback program and pro-gun advocates set up their own station to buy guns from people wanting to sell them to the government. They thought of a poor, defenseless gun being taken out of circulation was just too much for them so they shelled out their own cash to save the little ones.

Meanwhile, from TheOnion.com:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack

"“After seeing yet another deranged gorilla just burst into a public place and start killing people, I decided I need to make sure something like that never happens to me,” said 34-year-old Atlanta resident Nick Keller, shortly after purchasing a 350-pound mountain gorilla from his local gorilla store. “It just gives me peace of mind knowing that if I’m ever in that situation, I won’t have to just watch helplessly as my torso is ripped in half and my face is chewed off. I’ll be able to use my gorilla to defend myself.”"

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the statement added.

dear oh dear, cry me a river for the NRA...

Again, no mention at all about the prescription drugs the mass shooters were on. It has to be the guns...

Kind of ironic that as this meeting was going there was a school shooting in California, no one is dead thank god, the school has an armed guard but the guard was not on the school grounds because he was snowed in.

"...he cared more about stamping out gun rights than protecting school kids."

Oh, BS! Better gun control WOULD protect school kids, bottom line, and he's not trying to 'stamp them out'. These guys just get stupider and stupider, but the worst part is that earns them more fools to the cause.

Maybe Biden can find someone in Obama's 'binders full of white men' that will come right out and admit that the only change possible that can be done with respect to guns is to amend the Constitution and overturn the 2nd amendment. Since the American public would never approve such a change, time and effort would be better spent looking at addressing America's mental health system and poisonous influence of Hollywood and the music industry. Another repeat of the assault weapons ban and limiting the size of clips would be as ineffectual as the first time it was done.

Restricting gun sales IS the best way to protecting school kids. The NRA is resorting to using political messages and skewed arguments to try and prevent the proposed new restrictions. When they fail, then the lobbying starts to quietly arm-twist the political appointees. That is how American politics works and we don't expect any different.

"...keep our children safe..."

"...keeping our children safe..."

To put it bluntly: They don't give a damn about children's safety.

Just yesterday In Colorado we had a "mentally unstable" person shoot his ex-fiancée after she had gotten a permanent restraining order against him. Now this man had an ankle bracelet to ensure he did not step within the designated distance of her, but he went up to her shot her while she was in her vehicle, took off the ankle bracelet and fled the scene to be caught in New Mexico a couple of days later. His mother was interviewed on TV and she was stating how mentally ill he was....

Now once again the big question is oh almighty NRA, with all these "gun laws", HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL GETTING GUNS?!?!?!

The suspect who shot up the elementary school took them from his Mother and was supposedly mentally ill. The man who shot up the movie theater was claimed to be mentally unstable. And now another man who shot is ex-fiancée is supposed to be mentally unstable too... Why, where, and especially HOW are these types of people who are supposed to be "mentally" unstable getting guns????

Obama gave Biden until late January to come up with policy ideas after attending a moving vigil for the 20 children and six adults killed by a gunman spraying bullets from an assault rifle in Newtown, Connecticut on Dec 14.

Those who live by the sword...

There is a logic that leads some to a conclusion that when one has a thorn stuck in them, to use another thorn to get it out. Once done, both can be thrown away. The reasoning is best exemplified in what recently happened to a very high profile weapons advocate in Georgia. A lot of good all of his guns did him. To some, those who advocate weapons in that way might be seen as enemies of society.

As the NRA president said, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. All that's needed is for every individual to determine for themselves who is bad and who is good and then watch the deaths pile up.

Once again I read an near endless voice of ignorance here in blaming the NRA about criminal activity. The original Clinton Gun Ban was allowed to expire because it had absolutely no effect in crime reduction.

Mass shootings are rare but mass killings happen all across the globe. It's not an American issue. It's just that here the Progressives are using this to push their anti gun, anti Constitution, anti Bill of Rights agenda. The Progressives used to be known as Communists, but had to change their name because people found out just what it means to be a Communist. Progressives then changed again to "Liberal" in a further attempt to disguise their agenda. Liberals love to paint themselves as all about "caring for the least among us" but any remotely careful look at their policies quickly reveals it's not about caring, it's about "Power". That's what this issue is all about for the Progressives ' Power.

Doubt it? Here's the proof. Read "More Guns Less Crime' by John Lott Jr. Read how the study proves that when gun ownership goes UP, crime goes DOWN. This is every state where there are more legal carry laws. Want to know where criminals really do get guns? Read the US Department of Justice "The Armed Criminal in America" and find out that guns come from an underground market. Want to see proof that #1. Crime rates are dropping, and have been dropping for years in the US? Read the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau Of Investigation ( FBI) Unified Crime Report. Look at that same report and find out that there is no such thing under FBI stats as an "assault rifle'. But you will see that all homocides with a rifle totaled just 323 people. Five times that number were killed with a knife! Still believe this is all about safety?

People who hate guns and the NRA fail to catch that this is the most important part that would prevent future tragedies caused by psychotics.

"Biden and other top administration officials have also met mental health advocates in a bid to work out how to make it more difficult for disturbed people to get firearms."

More guns equals more death, more five year old kids murdered. The NRA cares only about selling guns, follow the money and you see who they really represent. Gun manufacturers. The NRA itself has become a terrorist organization that advocates policies that kill Americans. If OBL wanted a lobby group to help him in his attack on America, the NRA would have been the perfect choice. Their results are the same.

Doubt it? Here's the proof. Read "More Guns Less Crime' by John Lott Jr. Read how the study proves that when gun ownership goes UP, crime goes DOWN

Based on this comment , I assume it makes sense for all governments around the world to now mandate that all its citizens over the legal age should now carry guns.... I look forward to the resulting drop in global crime....

“We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals,” the NRA said.

Talk about bringing everything but a gun to a gun fight - and then complaining about it!

“We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals,” the NRA said.

...But you were UNPREPARED to have a meaningful discussion about the mass availability of and ease of access to firearms and how this correlates to the US' massive levels of gun crime compared to countries with strong gun control. This was part of the agenda and the NRA knew it. The only reason they went in, it seems, is so that they could huff and puff and storm off and say that it was the Biden task force that wouldn't listen to their solitary voice of reason.

Amidst the furor over criminal acts, the liberty-hating liberals(talk about a misnomer!) will be sure not to let a crisis go to waste. What we'll very likely see is a series of Executive Orders, all unconstitutional, that will further divide the nation and bolster the Executive's already near-dictatorial power. A similar tactic will be employed to wrest fiscal authority from Congress.

Get ready to see a much uglier fight than we've witnessed to date. http://www.judgenap.com/index.php?post=my-latest-column-guns-and-freedom

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/his-majesty-obama-and-the-debt-ceiling/

The Second Amendment is not about duck-hunting, but repel tyranny foreign or domestic.

The top U.S. firearms lobby emerged from talks with Vice President Joe Biden on curbing violence Thursday saying he cared more about stamping out gun rights than protecting school kids.

That's because the NRA wants to insult our intelligence and try to narrow the discussion down to school safety, and not focus on the root problem -- gun violence. (Obviously a strategy concocted by their well-paid spin-doctors.) Conveniently forgetting that dozens were killed at the cinema in Aurora, and the temple in Wisconsin, and the shopping mall in Oregon recently. As the mother of the young girl murdered in the shooting that injured Gabby Giffords said this week, I hope lawmakers have the courage to finally stand up to these folks. They have controlled the agenda on this issue for way too long.

Doubt it? Here's the proof. Read "More Guns Less Crime' by John Lott Jr. Read how the study proves that when gun ownership goes UP, crime goes DOWN.

Lawrence -- please STOP saying this as if it was fact. You must be aware that The National Academy of Science studied Lott's work and said that in their opinion, the results were inconclusive. That there were many other social, economic and cutural issues that could cause the results. Saying something over and over again does not make it true.

The Second Amendment is not about duck-hunting, but repel tyranny foreign or domestic.

Gun nuts repeatedly citing their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in blind defense of their goal - to freely own weapons of any type and in any amount - is tiresome and annoying, particularly because so few of these "patriots" seem to understand what the Amendment is and why it was created.

Historical background is important. In post-Revolutionary America, no legal framework existed for the maintenance of militias; most citizen/soldiers stood down after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, and what forces individual states had were mostly for urban policing. Shay's Rebellion, which occurred in western Massachusetts in 1786, was a wake-up call to the monied class - the very people who wrote the 2nd Amendment. The rebellion occurred primarily due to economic policies that favored urban traders and punished rural folk who relied mostly on barter and had scarce access to cash. Though it began small, lack of response allowed it to grow quickly, and it threatened to expand beyond Massachusetts across the entire Appalachian region.

It was finally put down in 1787 by a force comprised of militias from several states, but it was very much on the mind of those monied people who wrote the Constitution that same year. If America was not able to protect itself from violence occurring from within, what hope was there to survive in the international arena? Also, and perhaps more importantly for its authors, if any class of citizenry could take to arms to solve political problems, how secure was the monied class?

The wording of the Amendment supports this: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice that the initial modifier restricts the purpose to "the security of a free state" - State security is what was intended to prevent chaos. The result 200 years later is ironic in that view.

It worked out well for that monied class; when the Whiskey Rebellion (potentially more serious due to its location close to Philadelphia) broke out in 1794 for reasons similar to Shay's, George Washington himself was able to gather a collection of militias now maintained by several states in a timely matter, march west, and promptly crush it. That was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

The Amendment itself does not need to be altered, but I strongly hope that the Supreme Court will revisit it for clarification.

One of the main causes of deaths by gun in the USA is by mentally ill according to the NRA and If 1 in 17 Americans are mentally ill then not only should you have psycological profiles done on all present and prospective gun owners, but also people in a position of power who represent the NRA or the Government. Stop persecuting law abiding gun owners is his rant, a far as I am aware all these guns that have been purchased for use in the mass killings are purchased legally, Therefore by definition the rules and the laws must be changed.

"The NRA has called for armed guards at all U.S. schools and has said it will oppose efforts by Obama’s Democratic allies to reintroduce a ban on the rapid firing assault weapons used in several recent shootings."

NRA-idiots! They will never learn.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” the statement added. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms.

Hey NRA/US Gov-this is the 21st century in case you didn't know it. Change the god damn amendment to suit the times.

Folks it's not just the NRA. States are taking immediate action against this too....

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-house-bill-no-hb0104-firearm-protection-act/

" Historical background is important."

Very true. Did you bother to read the article I linked by Judge Andrew Napolitan? Plenty of historical background therein.

"Shays' Rebellion is the name given to a series of protests in 1786 and 1787 by American farmers against state and local enforcement of tax collections and judgments for debt. Although farmers took up arms in states from New Hampshire to South Carolina, the rebellion was most serious in Massachusetts, where bad harvests, economic depression, and high taxes threatened farmers with the loss of their farms. The rebellion took its name from its symbolic leader, Daniel Shays of Massachusetts, a former captain in the Continental army."

Even then, the common people had to fight against the tyranny of the fledgling government.

Regarding historical perspective, here is something Howard Zinn wrote:

"The Constitution became even more acceptable to the public at large after the first Congress, responding to criticism, passed a series of amendments known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments seemed to make the new government a guardian of people's liberties: to speak, to publish, to worship, to petition, to assemble, to be tried fairly, to be secure at home against official intrusion."

And, as a reminder: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You're ignoring my point, Herve. The Second Amendment was not created to assist those like Shay; it was created to assist those like Washington, a wealthy landowner and merchant.

The Amendment as written and passed in the final version wrote, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Note the lack of comma as compared with Steric's version above; the comma would make it nonsensical. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow establishment of "well regulated militia" - likely by state governments - to prevent reoccurrence of disturbances such as Shay's.

If that were not the purpose, it would have simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unfortunately, too many gun nuts do not want to understand this.

The more the NRA and hardcore gun supporters talk, the more they expose their extreme views. Alex Jones is the perfect example of that. The NRA in this article does the same. Does anyone really believe they are leading the charge to better mental health care? Or that regulating movies is better than regulating guns? Or that we really are living in a state where their guns is the one thing that protects us from a government intent on....what....taking us over?

It just all sounds so crazy to me.

Laguna, your opinion,

" The Second Amendment was not created to assist those like Shay; it was created to assist those like Washington, a wealthy landowner and merchant."

is only partially true.

Did you read the article I linked by Judge Andrew Napolitano? Please do.

Are you aware of the background behind what is called Shay's rebellion? There's a fair, yet concise version on wikipedia. But it boils down to this; the Patriots, such as Daniel Shay, who fought valliantly against the British for Independence, soon found themselves under repressive tyranny at the hands of the greedy government of Taxachussetts which had levied intolerable taxes on the citizenry. Shays, for one, had been unpaid for his service fighting the King, and upon returning found himself of under threat of having his farm also confiscated, as was commonplace at the time. They had gone from one tyranny to yet another. The common people, especially those in the rural areas were frequently placed in debtor's prisons. As for the erroneous understanding of the Second Amendment, as a holdover from the British rule many of the arms were stored by Governor decree in armories. Due to the high value of period firearms, few commoners possessed one, save for those who retained one from having fought the Red-coats. Shays and the Whiskey rebellions factored very little or not at all in the wording or punctuation of the Second Amendment, however ratification by the Several Independent States hinged on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights which protects the Natural(human) rights from infringement by any government. Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution pertains to suppressing military invasion or domestic violence such as the rebellions. The wording of the Second Amendment is such because the Constitution itself prohibits a standing army(like DOD!) The militias are a completely State entity, NOT Federal.

But he hinted that the White House was looking at universal background checks for gun purchasers and to limit the availability of high-capacity ammunition clips, either through new laws or executive orders by Obama.

"Universal", meaning federal.

This is a state issue, not federal.

The more the NRA and hardcore gun supporters talk, the more they expose their extreme views. Alex Jones is the perfect example of that.

And likewise, Piers Morgan, a talk show host, going ballistic on air, with his gun control tirade.

Keep your views to yourself, Piers- It's not about you, it's about who you're interviewing...

This is a state issue, not federal.

Today/yesterday a 16 year old kid in central California shot up his high school classroom and the teacher was among the injured. It seems that it just might be time for people in the US to start to think nationally about what is clearly becoming a large problem and only seems likely to get worse.

Alex Jones is the perfect example of that.

Media Matters for America the Liberal rapid response to what they call:

Our blog section features rapid response fact-checks of conservative misinformation

Was even embarrassed that this conspiracy theorist nut is given the time of day by the MSM and he's a perfect poster boy to push the gun nut narrative that the Media loves to embrace. And that's saying something. Have to hat tip them actually for showing some real integrity despite their partisan left vews.

Jones' lengthy history of pushing absurd conspiracy theories should disqualify him from being mainstreamed on media outlets such as CNN.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/08/why-is-cnn-hosting-conspiracy-theorist-alex-jon/192089

Does anyone really believe they are leading the charge to better mental health care?

May not be actually leading the charge, but they sure the heck do not benefit at all when a nut case grabs a gun and goes on a spree killing. Not a great leap to think that they would be totally onboard with keeping nutbags from getting hands on guns, the publicity is horrible and the cause they believe in is severly damaged each and every time a spree killing happens. It's totally in their self-interest to be leading a better effort keep guns out of those that are mentally ill.

Or that regulating movies is better than regulating guns?

Actually, I think they know that this is pretty absurd but that it is just being thrown out there more to point out to the anti-gun left wing Hollywood liberal types that like it or not they are also highly responsible for promoting the use of guns in the U.S. through the popular culture.

Or that we really are living in a state where their guns is the one thing that protects us from a government intent on....what....taking us over?

The American system of Government really boils down to at its core as a system of checks and balances with power diluted so as not to be concentrated to much in one branch or institution. The ultimate check on all that power resides with the people being armed yet still providing their continual consent to be governed. The second amendment in its wise simplicity states this whole idea very cleary in just a few words. "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State" . The Government provides the regulation that the Militia will abide by. The Government is in charge of the Militia there is no other way to provide any lawful authority over it to regulate it and the militia is given a distinct and focused task to provide security nothing more. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people, not the militia. It does not state the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because the militia's right to bear arms can be infringed by well regulated....err-regulations. The people are not tasked with providing collective security, they are not being tasked with anything but the freedom to keep and bear arms without that right being infringed even by the Militia.

It separates the two with a simple comma and it doesn't mince words as to that purpose of seperation. The militia belongs under the Government and the people belong to themselves as free men and women and individuals shall have the means to protect and defend that individual freedom with arms if they so chose to.

Laguna,

The Bill of Rights are government limitations to protect the natural rights of liberty and property.

They guarantee several personal freedoms and reserve some powers to the public.

The second amendment is not about regulation, its about not allowing the government to ban guns in public hands.

SuperLib,

Alex Jones is widely known to be a shill. His act was intentional, to make gun rights supporters look bad.

"We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals," the NRA said.

Love how the NRA doesn't want to mention the one word that is the main topic here......GUNS!!

Sail, do you understand the meaning between what you wrote:

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State" ... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and what the Second Amendment says? Language matters.

Laguna, I'm disappointed.

Have you by chance ever read the Federalist Papers? They are free to download, or you can buy a simpilified version. They contain much of the discussion and period concerns as related to the drafting and consideration of the Constitution as well as concerns which led to the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

Laguna,

The exact words are ... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I posted from memory in my original post and used the word "is" instead of "being" in the first portion of the 2nd amendment sentence.

Good catch, but it does not change or alter my position in anyway. A Militia "is being" recognized as necessary to security to free state and can only serve effectively if they are well-regulated. The founders understood discipline is necessary in an armed force, because if not you risk anarchy and just armed mobs ruling over fiefdoms. A very good modern example of this, Somalia and the warlords that rule there, not pretty at all for anyone living in that hellhole of a country. Well regulated is a must, the Founders understood that quite well.

The founders also understood quite well that the people themselves were also quite a separate thing from an organized militia and took pangs to distinguish that difference in the writing of the amendment. Because just having fought a war for independence against British regular troops they had also fought British loyalist militia's as well. Not every Colonist wanted to break off from England. So they not only understood the necessity of a militia for security but they also understood that not all militia's could always be counted on as always being friendly to the local Government in the areas they would operate in (especially if they were not well-regulated) and the only real check to keep them from running wild was to let the people keep their own private arms outside of a Militia's regulation structure for their own self- protection and to be able to defend their our own private interests if it did in fact conflict with the militia's interests, which it often did during the war for Independence.

The amendment was written from the hard lessons learned in the war for Independence and is really deeply rooted and intertwined in the American experience of fighting for and preserving one's individual freedom.

sailwind: honestly, the most nuts guys are the ones being part of these so called militia. Neuron poor guys who need to play with their toys during the weekend talking with nostalgia of the Great Age of America. We are now in the 21st century. The 2nd amendment as currently interpreted is totally outdated.

Sail, very well said. Very sadly, the ultra-left have little or no appreciation nor understanding of the period wherein the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted and eventually or reluctantly ratified.

Sorry, Sail - you've sailed into the waters of the "most famous comma in the world." (Google it.) The exact wording with correct punctuation is, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The sole use of the present participial form of "be" is to indicate a reason; it could thus be rewritten, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no ambiguity in the language without the comma; with the comma, it makes no sense at all - the former half of the sentence becomes a jumble of incomplete phrases.

Madison's original proposal for the amendment further clarifies that the intention was to create a Constitutional basis for a state-based militia: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." Note the phrase "military service" - this was the intent of the amendment.

Herve, thanks for bringing up the Federalist Papers; in No. 29, Hamilton famously worried about the time and effort required to achieve the standards suitable for a "well-regulated militia":

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Clearly, this talk was preparation for the creation of a standing, professional army to replace the farmer/fighters of the Revolutionary War.

If the Supreme Court were faithful in their interpretation of this Article, they could well require gun owners today to meet similar qualifications: to belong to a government-certified militia, to regularly attend drills and pass tests - it would be something like the National Guard, wouldn't it? Again, there is no reason to change the Second Amendment; the Supreme Court just needs to recognize it for what it is rather than indulging in historical revisionism (ironic in itself, as it is conservative justices who most rail against this).

Sorry, Sail - you've sailed into the waters of the "most famous comma in the world."

Laguna,

Take 57 seconds and watch the link and I'll let the last few seconds in the link speak about this "comma" thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

The sale of guns in the USA is BIG business... Enough said!

Ah, thank you for that elucidation, Sail!

Two points: the crazy guy said, "And the comma separating the state from the people...." You do realize that this is not the comma under discussion. I don't doubt that the crazy guy in the video doesn't realize this, but you do - don't you? Even their chart contained the comma in question - the one which was not contained in the amendment ratified by the states. Maybe you should listen to the last few seconds again.

Second: "They can't seem to find any other places where those hack Framers fu@ked up the word." Thank you for this wonderful analysis! In fact, they can!

Still, that was good for a laugh. I guess under proposed NRA rules, these two (or at least the guy on the left) would be prohibited from owning guns due to psychological instability.

sailwind: Was even embarrassed that this conspiracy theorist nut is given the time of day by the MSM and he's a perfect poster boy to push the gun nut narrative that the Media loves to embrace. And that's saying something.

Piers Morgan was called out by Alex Jones by way of a petition to have him deported, all because he gave his views on gun control. That's how he ended up on the show, not because Morgan's team hunted around for a nut to expose. Jones runs a radio show that's estimated to have a couple of million listeners. And the guy is clearly insane. If he was a member of some fringe group in the woods somewhere affected a few dozen people, I could understand. But it's staggering that a guy with obvious mental problems is getting his message through to the number of people that he is. If the NRA wants to fight mental illness they should start with him.

Not a great leap to think that they would be totally onboard with keeping nutbags from getting hands on guns, the publicity is horrible and the cause they believe in is severly damaged each and every time a spree killing happens. It's totally in their self-interest to be leading a better effort keep guns out of those that are mentally ill.

Agreed, but there is also their desire to stop any kind of restriction that may be placed on guns, and that trumps their desire to stop bad news stories by a wide, wide, wide margin. I don't think they have a problem with a system that is set up to fail if it keeps more guns on the streets, and I think their position is a smoke screen.

sailwind: Good catch, but it does not change or alter my position in anyway. A Militia "is being" recognized as necessary to security to free state and can only serve effectively if they are well-regulated.

We can debate the 2nd Amendment until we are blue in the face, but it doesn't take into account the realities on the ground in 2013 just as many things were not taken into account when the documents were written at the time and have since been amended. The fact is that we have a massively high gun death rate and something needs to be done about it.

The wording of the Amendment supports this: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice that the initial modifier restricts the purpose to "the security of a free state" - State security is what was intended to prevent chaos. The result 200 years later is ironic in that view.

Numerous court decisions have explicitly stated that the Amendment includes the protection of arms used for personal protection which is why the DC Handgun ban was stricken down. Arguments stating that the amendment is dated tend to ignore recent laws and rulings reinforcing contemporary gun rights positions that support the individuals right to own and maintain firearms. Similar court cases have also stricken down laws requiring guns be stored disassembled or under trigger lock.

If yall want to debate the relevance of the comma be my guest but there are plenty of other resources to draw from indicating that any large scale ban or sweeping legislation on storage would be determined unconstitutional.

The Progressives used to be known as Communists, but had to change their name because people found out just what it means to be a Communist. Progressives then changed again to "Liberal" in a further attempt to disguise their agenda.

@ Laurence Lance: Good points. I never thought I would live to see the day, but an excellent editorial came out on the Pravda website from a Russian who commented that the USA should keep the 2nd Amendment and don't give up the right to bear arms. He went on to explain how the Communists took the arms of the people, and the end result was what happened with all of the mass killings in the then USSR by the government. In Tsarist Russia, the editorial explains guns were everywhere, and it was those people with guns who were leading the fighting (White Russians) against the Reds, and once their weapons were taken away, the rest is history.

I notice how people like Pelosi and Biden don't use the term "gun control" but " reducing gun violence" since that polls better but it will be the same net result. The gun laws worked in the CT case. The shooter couldn't buy guns so he resorted to killing and stealing his mothers. Before he even stepped foot at the school, he had already commited crimes in regards to gun statutes, so now why do they want to put further restrictions on those who handle their guns responsibly and don't go shooting up innocent people.

Attorney General Eric Holder was due to hold talks with retailers who sell guns...

uh, right, this is the same attorney general who allowed weapons to "walk" with straw man purchases in a foolish effort to "track" the guns to Mexico. And then blamed US gun owners for Mexican criminals.

The Obama administration has always been looking for an excuse to try to limit the 2nd amendment. Now they think they have one.

Have you by chance ever read the Federalist Papers? They are free to download, or you can buy a simpilified version. They contain much of the discussion and period concerns as related to the drafting and consideration of the Constitution as well as concerns which led to the drafting of the Bill of Rights.

Very sadly, the ultra-left have little or no appreciation nor understanding of the period wherein the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights were drafted and eventually or reluctantly ratified.

I've read the Federalist Papers and lots of history books of the period. One thing I don't see is how the "founders" sat around arguing over the exact meanings of political philosophers who wrote things a century before them. Put another way, I don't see them venerating the previous writings of others -- as though they had no brains of their own -- the way that I am seeing libertards without the capacity to think and reason independently venerating them -- as though the founders were supposed to have the final say on things two centuries after their passing.

Another thing we do know is that the founders messed up horribly, as evidence by over a half-million Americans dead in a brutal civil war over a right of humans as property -- attested and endorsed by the founders. The second amendment, in how it has played out, is a similar major screw-up. Once upon a time there were those who endorsed slavery and were considered assets to the nation. Later, that viewpoint became a liability. Similarly those who endorse the idea that every Tom, Dick or Jane that wants one can have firearms, are becoming more of a liability than an asset.

One thing I don't see is how the "founders" sat around arguing over the exact meanings of political philosophers who wrote things a century before them. Put another way, I don't see them venerating the previous writings of others -- as though they had no brains of their own -- the way that I am seeing libertards without the capacity to think and reason independently venerating them -- as though the founders were supposed to have the final say on things two centuries after their passing.

If an idea is good you should keep it. The concept of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is a pretty good one and that is several thousand years old, I see no reason why it should be revised. That's not to say that such ideas shouldn't be debated and argued, but the idea that just because an idea is old makes it relevant seems lacking. The right to free speech is argued but generally upheld to be a good thing no matter what era we live in. The right to bear arms is, likewise, argued and I hold that the right to defend oneself is generally seen as a good thing well into the modern age.

Also, libertard? Fascinating, I'm almost overwhelmed with the cheerful comradery and the spirit of intelligent debate.

If this administration is soooooo concerned about "protecting school kids", Obama should be demanding that his daughter's school be a gun free zone.

RR

If an idea is good you should keep it. The concept of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is a pretty good one and that is several thousand years old, I see no reason why it should be revised

No idea can be judged "good" or "bad" without a clear understanding of its applications and limitations. Some think "thou shalt not kill" applies to stem cell research; others don't. The founders should not have the final word on it any more than the Vatican does. The same applies to the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is, likewise, argued and I hold that the right to defend oneself is generally seen as a good thing well into the modern age.

If someone thinks they can best defend themselves by stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, I would argue that the basic idea meets with some limitations. There's a spectrum of weapons involved, and there's a very big gap between an 18th century muzzle-loader and what are called "assault weapons" with large capacity magazines.

Also, libertard? Fascinating, I'm almost overwhelmed with the cheerful comradery and the spirit of intelligent debate.

I can't claim anything original about it. The term is derived from "libtard" -- used very frequently by another poster of the "libertarian" ilk -- the one I was replying to, in fact -- and obviously overlooked by you and any who wish to apply a double standard.

The NRA is toast. They've had no clue for a while now. I want to make a YouTube video showing just how stupid their "solution" is. Instead of only having to worry about kids who have access to guns, now we have to worry about ALL kids because the NRA wants at least one gun already on the premises. Video script: two high school kids walk into the armed guard's office and say they've hear some rumors that someone is planning a shooting. The two teenagers rush the armed guard and while one is restraining the guard, the other pulls the gun and puts a bullet through the guard's brain. Then the shooter turns to the camera and says, "Thank You NRA! I didn't even need to bring one from home!"

As a few people pointed out, the gun industry is a huge business $$$$$$ so as long as many greedy fools care more about making $$$€€£££ hand over fist, Americans, anybody visiting the USA will have to live and or die by the almighty $$! So grab your bibles and your Bushmasters! This is the "God given right" in the good old US of A! Kids?? Just "collateral damage" in the eyes of greedy American NRA lovers!

If the US government really cared it would ban all imports and exports of guns, ammo, bullet proof vests etc.. Who needs bullet proof vests outside of cops?? The military?? Crazy idiots who want to kill others and usually rob banks, etc...

The founders should not have the final word on it any more than the Vatican does. The same applies to the Second Amendment.

You might want to re-visit this whole concept about being able to amend the Constitution, as it has been amended quite often over the years. The founders don't have the final word at all, they made sure of that they by including a way for future generations to amend their living document. The second amendment can be repealed and replaced, just like prohibition was if the people so desire.

Which brings up a very interesting point to all, how'd that total ban on Alcohol work out for the nation after the Constitution was amended to make that the law of the law?

Not very well, bans don't work, not with alcohol, not with pot and a ban will fail miserably with guns also. Legalized abortion supports often cite that a ban on abortion if they could it declared illegal again would return abortion to back alley providers to bolster their case to keep it the procedure legal and protected under the Constitution.

Want a serious discussion on how to deal with gun violence in America? Start with the fact that banning guns isn't really an option due to America's unique cultural, historical background and the Constitution isn't going to be amended once again anytime soon to rewrite the 2nd amendment. Quit demonizing law-abiding citizens that own firearms as toothless rednecks or whatever smug derogatory term those that oppose guns throw out there.

Set policies that strive to continue to drop local crime and make streets safer, promote community involvement and self-policing. The safer people feel in their communities the less likely they will feel the desire to own or purchase a gun for self-defense or protection, this is really the only way for the U.S. In short the only effective way for guns to really be banned in America that will really work is going to be by personal individual choice and not decreed by force of law,

The founders don't have the final word at all, they made sure of that they by including a way for future generations to amend their living document. The second amendment can be repealed and replaced, just like prohibition was if the people so desire.

LMAO! They made it so difficult to amend that a half million Americans had to be slaughtered over a basic human rights issue, one in which an overriding minority considered a property issue.

Which brings up a very interesting point to all, how'd that total ban on Alcohol work out for the nation

This isn't about alcohol. Bootleggers and moon-shiners never talked about getting an "army" together and overthrowing the government, and killing people at random ("not unless it's necessary"). Like this Second Amendment "genius." (link below)

Quit demonizing law-abiding citizens that own firearms as toothless rednecks or whatever smug derogatory term those that oppose guns throw out there.

The genius appears to have a full set of teeth. Talk about "demonizing." When you cast your net and lie down with second-amendment "dogs" like this, you deserve every flea that you get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI

Set policies that strive to continue to drop local crime and make streets safer, promote community involvement and self-policing.

What a laugh. Newtown, Aurora, LIttleton and Blacksburg, VA (home of VA Tech) are all extremely low-crime areas.

Now once again the big question is oh almighty NRA, with all these "gun laws", HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL GETTING GUNS?!?!?!

That's easy - they get them by breaking the law. So tell me again how making more laws are going to stop someone from breaking those laws? Face it, more laws like the assault weapons ban and limiting the size of ammunition clips will solve nothing.

Unless you gun control folks are willing to get out from behind your couch and go about amending the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution you are doing nothing but encouraging law abiding citizens to go out and put ever more guns into circulation; you are convincing them once again that you are trying to take their Constitutional right away from them. Only amending the Constitution will allow for the creation of the very restrictive gun laws or an outright ban that can stop criminals from committing crimes with guns. Go about convincing people that the Constitution must be amended or attack the problem from the mental health and culture side of the equation.

I suspect the reason you will not do so is either you are too lazy to attempt to amend the Constitution or you realize that America is different from any other Western nation and banning an individual right to own a weapon is futile. Obama will not be able to go around the Constitution by issuing Executive orders that restrict gun ownership. Even if he does, he will have to mount a massive law enforcement effort to go house to house and take away peoples guns. This isn't going to happen. America isn't the UK or Australia. There is a sizable number of people that do not live in big cities and believe that their very freedom is tied to their right to own a gun for self protection and because it is a part of their culture and lifestyle (hunting and shooting).

Gun control advocates will fail yet again. Congress shouldn't get involved in controlling guns. If they do, they will only be able to pass ineffective "feel-good" laws that serve no purpose. Leave this to the States and local government entities that actually do have the authority to regulate weapons.

@yabits:

The founders should not have the final word on it any more than the Vatican does. The same applies to the Second Amendment.

I agree with Sailwind. The Founders do not and never have had the last word on the Constitution. You and every other citizen does. Quit complaining about the Founders and use the mechanism they provided to you and try to amend the provision in the Constitution that you don't like (ie. the Second Amendment). Despite Obama's best efforts to prove otherwise, America is still a democracy.

LMAO! They made it so difficult to amend that a half million Americans had to be slaughtered over a basic human rights issue, one in which an overriding minority considered a property issue.

Apparently the Civil War were both sides were armed and given guns by the Federal and Confederate Governments to resolve a conflct that was a moral stain is those that denied freedom to others is somehow relevant to advocating a position that the banning guns of guns from the citizens is real bad thing.

This isn't about alcohol. Bootleggers and moon-shiners never talked about getting an "army" together and overthrowing the government, and killing people at random ("not unless it's necessary").

No kidding, it's about guns and a comparision on how a ban enshrined in the Constitution to ban something society has now deemed as desirable doesn't really work out is quite apt as a real lesson learned from history, if one wants to promote trying to change the Second admendment to a Constitutional ban instead.

What a laugh. Newtown, Aurora, LIttleton and Blacksburg, VA (home of VA Tech) are all extremely low-crime areas.

Better self-policing and community involvement in notifing the local Authorities that these individuals need to be on their list to be wary of may will have prevented these atrocities from happening as I clearly stated, Yabits. Strange that you would have some sort of issue or find that so amusing to get a laugh out of it.

Better self-policing and community involvement in notifing the local Authorities that these individuals need to be on their list to be wary of may will have prevented these atrocities from happening as I clearly stated,

Regarding Newtown, cite specifically what measures could and should have been taken to prevent what happened. So Adam Lanza might have been on a "list." So what? How would that have prevented the tragedy? Unless you can provide specifics as they relate to the gun-owner/mother -- who stockpiled enough ammo to wipe out a small town, you are just blowing smoke.

I find those who have nothing but smoke to blow quite amusing.

No idea can be judged "good" or "bad" without a clear understanding of its applications and limitations. Some think "thou shalt not kill" applies to stem cell research; others don't.

Thus debate ensues. However I think most of us agree that a society won't last very long if everybody got to go out and kill willy nilly, thus making it a long standing principle that has been at the basic foundation of virtually all societies. I do happen to believe in good and bad, killing someone is always bad even if its for a just reason.

If someone thinks they can best defend themselves by stockpiling chemical and biological weapons, I would argue that the basic idea meets with some limitations. There's a spectrum of weapons involved, and there's a very big gap between an 18th century muzzle-loader and what are called "assault weapons" with large capacity magazines.

If you want people walking around with tubes full of black powder and lead shot with ready loaded flintlock pistols you're asking for a lot more trouble than you think. Firearm advances haven't just been made on the receiving end but they've been made considerably safer to use. For instance you can't really build a safety into a flintlock just by nature of its design, you also have a problem with people packing the powder wrong and the whole assembly blowing up.

Not to mention the fact that millions of Americans would be storing large amounts of open black powder in their homes and/or apartments.

As has been determined by the courts a person has the right to acquire and maintain arms for the defense of themselves and their property. In a very basic sense pepper-spray and other deterants are a form of chemical weapon.

I can't claim anything original about it. The term is derived from "libtard" -- used very frequently by another poster of the "libertarian" ilk -- the one I was replying to, in fact -- and obviously overlooked by you and any who wish to apply a double standard.

I've always made it perfectly clear that I speak for myself and only myself and I am directing my comment at you at this point in time. If I had to read every bit of vitriol that came out on the forums I'd go mad so I focus on those that are leveling insults at me in particular. I also don't appreciate being referred to as ilk, I think I've been quite reasonable in my responses.

" Regarding Newtown, cite specifically what measures could and should have been taken to prevent what happened."

The very same measure that protects the children of the elite, such as the academy which the president's children attend, and which the NRA also recommends, is the answer.

As far as preventing Adam Lanza Regarding Newtown, cite specifically what measures could and should have been taken to prevent what happened. having accessed guns, had he been institutionalized, as his mother was in the process of arranging, that itself would have prevented the tragedy.

Yabuts, as you know, many things and activities have laws prohibiting them, so many in the US in fact that every day you likely violate a number of them intentionally and unintentionally. Yet, you violate some. The best set of laws were, according to certain beliefs, inscribed on two (or three) stone tablets. Libertarians, btw, are guided by principles of non-aggression. And that's essential to liberty. "Progressives", however, aggressively assert their "right" to dictate to others what they may or may not do or even think. That's violence.

Regarding Newtown, cite specifically what measures could and should have been taken to prevent what happened.

Regarding Newton . I do not know enough of the real factual circumstances of Lanza's situation or his home life or really anything else other than what the Media has reported and that you've duly repeated like a parrot, like Lanza's mother being some sort of right wing prepper extremist. The Media has a overall narrative bias in this and the real facts be damned as usual. The Police report will be out soon enough with real facts and not the usual MSM driven B.S. narratives. So far the police investigation is once again appearing that it is going to be totally at odds as to what the Media has spewed out regarding Lanza's and his life prior to his snapping.

Bottom line until I know the real actual facts and circumstances , I can not offer any specific measures have prevented this from happening.

Below are excepts from an increasingly rare act of real journalism regarding Newton:

When asked if Connecticut state police believe Mrs. Lanza handled her guns responsibly, spokesman Lt. Paul Vance paused for a moment behind his cluttered desk at state police headquarters and cryptically told The Daily Beast, “I think you’ll be surprised” to learn the truth about that once the final police report is released.

He cautioned against taking too much of what has been reported as fact.

Question: Was Nancy a survivalist bent on stockpiling food and guns in preparation for economic collapse, as some media have alleged? To that, Vance scrunched up his face dismissively, shook his head, and in an exasperated tone said, “I don’t even know where that came from.”

(The idea that Nancy might be a “doomsday prepper” was first mentioned by Marsha Lanza, who lives in Crystal Lake, Ill., and admits she hadn’t seen Nancy or Adam for years.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/did-nancy-lanza-handle-her-guns-responsibly-you-ll-be-surprised-police-spokesman-says.html

However I think most of us agree that a society won't last very long if everybody got to go out and kill willy nilly, thus making it a long standing principle that has been at the basic foundation of virtually all societies.

That is not what anyone's position is. Nevertheless, anthropologists have found that it's a nearly universal characteristic of so-called "primitive" societies -- many having been around for thousands of years -- will simply "eliminate" those who violate the social norms. I'm sure to the one being eliminated, it seems "willy-nilly."

I haven't seen a specific proposal that would have prevented the willy-nilly killings of children in Newtown. I did read you wringing your hands and expressing that it would have better if the killer had never been born. Yeah, well, he was born. It would have been better if he wasn't able to get his hands on his mother's arsenal. It would have been better if his mother didn't have an arsenal in the first place -- which, of course, many of the libertarian ilk would defend as her right.

I've always made it perfectly clear that I speak for myself and only myself and I am directing my comment at you at this point in time....so I focus on those that are leveling insults at me in particular.

Gee, and I quoted the poster who it was intended for -- and it wasn't you. I made it perfectly clear in my reply to you. I really can't help you if still want to identify with it when it wasn't directed to you in the first place.

If I had to read every bit of vitriol that came out on the forums I'd go mad so I focus on those...

Right, so rather than "focus" on the one who threw the term out first, you choose to focus on the one who flings it back -- and not at you, to boot. That's some integrity for you. Note: There's not all that many of the libertarian persuasion here, so there's not all that much to "focus" on. The "problem count" is not more than one, and they've earned the term. Still don't like it. Gee, that's tough.

I also don't appreciate being referred to as ilk

A perfectly good Scotch-English word that means "type" or "kind."

Regarding Newton . I do not know enough of the real factual circumstances of Lanza's situation or his home life or really anything else other than what the Media has reported and that you've duly repeated like a parrot, like Lanza's mother being some sort of right wing prepper extremist.

It was one of her own relatives who described her as such. But that's beside the point. What we know is that she brought over a half-dozen weapons into a home with a very mentally disturbed teenager. Not only that, she brought high-capacity magazines and enough ammo to kill a small town. (Does that sound like "self-defense?")

She taught him how to use guns. Well, enough -- you want to feign ignorance in the light of what is already all to well known. You really think a person should have that much firepower in the household of a mentally disturbed person?

Sure, Adam's name could have been on a "list." But so far you haven't provided one inking of anything in what should have been an easily-preventable tragedy of that magnitude. And why? Because you fully endorse Nancy Lanza's "right" to have fully stocked her deadly arsenal -- fatally lousy judgment and all.

" -- the way that I am seeing libertards without the capacity to think and reason independently venerating them --

I can't claim anything original about it. The term is derived from "libtard" -- used very frequently by another poster of the "libertarian" ilk -- the one I was replying to, in fact --"

A little clearing of the air.

A little clearing of the air.

Throughout this and many other "discussions", whether gun control, or election, or economics, the far-left activists routinely employ ad hominem attacks and other self-elevating tactics as various belittlements in order to promote their agenda.

So it's amusing that one particularly vitriolic poster would become perturbed by a term such as libtard when the same individual has hurled many more derogatory terms.

This topic of gun control is and has long been very divisive with little middle ground. It's very deeply rooted in North American cultures. Opponents of gun rights have one goal: confiscation, which is a violation of the Natural Right of self-defense, a Right that does not originate in government or laws of men, but from Nature, whether one considers a Creator as the source or not. It's also a natural property right.

When one group endeavors to remove, rescind, or otherwise infringe on the Rights of an other group, vehement opposition against the aggression is to be expected as also occurred repeatedly throughout human history.

This gun debate, brought on tragic criminal actions, has brought the confiscatory predilections of so-called "progressives" to the forefront of national debate. Certain progressive movements in the 20th century followed similar efforts to disarm the citizenries, all with the same outcomes: further loss of individual liberty, and in several worst-case instances, mass killings of the now-unarmed and undefended peoples.

Defend your liberty, or prepare for tyrannical subjugation.

What we know is that she brought over a half-dozen weapons into a home with a very mentally disturbed teenager. Not only that, she brought high-capacity magazines and enough ammo to kill a small town.

Post an actual credible link if you actually can. I researched and found nothing as to how many guns she actually owned or how much Ammo she purchased. I did read lot's of Media B.S as to her being an avid gun collector with no actual details as to what type of guns she collected, how many she had or anything else other than she was an 'avid gun collector'. I've also read lot's of media B.S how her son was mentally disturbed yet I've seen no actual mental health records or mental health professionals being on record as to having him under care, observation or any therapy. The only credible thing I've read about his mental state was that he had a milder form of asperger's disease that caused him to be painfully shy and socially awkward. Nothing of a violent paranoid delusional type of disorder to flag that this man was a human disaster waiting to happen.

This hasn't dawned on you at all either I guess since you just want to demonize his Mother. His Mother didn't feel he was a threat to commit violence or she would not have had guns in the house so he could access to them. No sane person can make any sort of case that she was actually expecting to be murdered by her own son and was more than willing to provide him the gun to do it with. I'm going to wait for the official Police report and investigation results, you can parrot and report false information as long as you wish of course though it doesn't help your credibility on this in the least.

Post facts not your conjecture.

Nevertheless, anthropologists have found that it's a nearly universal characteristic of so-called "primitive" societies -- many having been around for thousands of years -- will simply "eliminate" those who violate the social norms.

And with a few notable exceptions most of those societies died off in time because they weren't able to bulk up enough population to fend off larger groups.

It would have been better if he wasn't able to get his hands on his mother's arsenal. It would have been better if his mother didn't have an arsenal in the first place

Now who's wringing their hands at something they have no control over? I refuse to support legislation made as a reaction to the minority of citizens that violate the law. I've mentioned the patriot act before and it's gross violation of the rights of US citizens and I feel the comparison remains relevant. The core of the matter remains to be whether or not a person has the right to arm themselves for the purposes of defending their lives and property and my opinion is still yes.

I've noted in other articles that I would support an overhaul of the background check system but only after the current registry gets its act together as what we have now is poorly constructed and leads to numerous errors and/or massive oversight. I've also expressed support for increased penalties for gun traffickers. I support several other modifications to existing gun laws so long as they are handled in a targeted and reasonable manner. I have also explained my reasoning for why 'assault weapons' bans and bans on large capacity magazines would be pointless.

Gee, and I quoted the poster who it was intended for -- and it wasn't you. I made it perfectly clear in my reply to you. I really can't help you if still want to identify with it when it wasn't directed to you in the first place.

As an actual member of the libertarian party I felt the need to respond to the term. I don't use that kind of terminology, I don't support it when others use it, but I respond when one catches my eye.

Still don't like it. Gee, that's tough.

It should be pretty clear at this point that I don't like a lot of things. I'm more than capable of handling it by this point but thank you for your concern.

A perfectly good Scotch-English word that means "type" or "kind."

In the US the connotation is a negative one. That's partly why I avoid the use of the term spaz, in the US it's harmless and refers to someone who is clumsy while in other English speaking countries it refers to the disabled or those that suffer from seizures. Hardly the kind of therm I like to throw around where there are multiple nationalities about.

the far-left activists routinely employ ad hominem attacks and other self-elevating tactics as various belittlements in order to promote their agenda.

I don't know of may besides yourself who would consider me "far left." And I don't see how belittling and ad hominem attacks promotes anyone's "agenda."

So it's amusing that one particularly vitriolic poster would become perturbed by a term such as libtard when the same individual has hurled many more derogatory terms.

I've went back and reviewed hundreds of my posts well into last year before giving up. I can't find a single term that compares to the one I got from you and threw back with the modification. Such terms don't perturb me in the least, but I'll only use them when I see them being thrown out by others first -- and directed only to the source of them.

Defend your liberty, or prepare for tyrannical subjugation.

There are many ways to defend liberty besides plotting and fantasizing about killing your neighbors and fellow citizens -- who are trying to build a more civil, trusting society. The "liberty" that compels you and others to do so is a very inferior one indeed.-- and almost wholly unknown to those men in powdered wigs you hold in so much veneration. (The leaders in Myanmar have not ended their tyranny because the citizenry threatened them with violence.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI

Take a good look at the face of the kind of people similarly "inspired" as you are.

Post an actual credible link if you actually can. I researched and found nothing as to how many guns she actually owned or how much Ammo she purchased.

There are many links. In general, reading requires the application of common sense -- which biases such as yours often prevent people from using. Question: Did Adam Lanza take all of his mother's weapons with him to school? I see no credible information that he did. In fact, the reports are that he shot his mother with a .22 caliber weapon. (He didn't carry that one to Sandy Hook.) He also had a shotgun in his car that he didn't carry into the school. Those who knew her claimed she had more than that. We do know that she had high capacity ammo clips and loads of ammunition. She lived in a million dollar house in an extremely low-crime area. Common sense says that it just doesn't fit that a rational person needs that kind of arsenal for personal self-defense.

That one of her own kin described her as a survivalist is noted. That she didn't talk to her own kin for years says something too.

I've also read lot's of media B.S how her son was mentally disturbed yet I've seen no actual mental health records or mental health professionals being on record as to having him under care, observation or any therapy.

A former make "baby-sitter" reports that Mrs. Lanza instructed him to never let Adam out of your sight, and never turn your back on him. Bias would discount the information. The fact of twenty dead kids says we consider it.

This hasn't dawned on you at all either I guess since you just want to demonize his Mother. His Mother didn't feel he was a threat to commit violence or she would not have had guns in the house so he could access to them.

That his mother didn't feel what became obvious to rational people all over the world -- though you may continue to stand apart from them -- was more a testament to her judgment -- and her lack thereof. You advance the notion that a person should be perfectly OK to bring that much firepower into the home with a person whose behavior was completely unpredictable and who suffered extreme social problems. And once the person goes on a killing rampage, all criticism of the gun-owning and ammo-stocking mother must be suspended, otherwise it's "demonizing."

I'm going to wait for the official Police report and investigation results...

Right. And police reports are always infallible. (Is that why dozens and dozens have been freed from death row once DNA testing became more in use? Refer to the West Memphis Three case. Plenty of "police reports" in that one.) A person who claims they hate bias would be just as skeptical of a police report as any other piece of information. (Why would the police discount reports from interviews with relations who described Mrs. Lanza's character as being more withdrawn, distant and isolated, as you imply they will or should?) Common sense tells me that you're one of those types of people who likes to feign ignorance by "waiting" for "reports" because what is plain about what is known is just too damning to your cause of defending this tragically self-deluded woman and her stockpile of guns and ammunition.

As a mother, she had every natural as well as self-serving interest to believe that her son could somehow "improve" and be integrated into normal society. Natural from an ego standpoint, -- her own self-image as a "loving mother" -- as well as a financial one: She was not working and received around $200k/yr for her and her son. Institutionalizing is not cheap and means that she herself would have had to live on less from the divorce settlement.

The core of the matter remains to be whether or not a person has the right to arm themselves for the purposes of defending their lives and property and my opinion is still yes.

The core of the matter is not what you dictate it to be. (I smell a distinctly authoritarian scent to your declaration. Authoritarianism in response to the concept that you don't get to make or interpet all the rules.) Ask the parents of the dead kids if they think that is the core of the matter. Ask just about anyone who lives in that town now.

The core of your matter is what compelled the mother of Adam Lanza to believe that it would be perfectly OK to stockpile far more guns and ammo than would ever be deemed reasonable by a vast majority of citizens for personal self-defense. And to put that arsenal within the access of a severely mentally disturbed person -- a person whom she helped train how to shoot.

Now who's wringing their hands at something they have no control over?

What you appear to be saying is that there are no possible ways to regulate the possession and/or storage of arsenals in the homes where mentally unstable and potentially dangerous people live. I happen to believe that societies have a lot more control than that -- despite the fact that it triggers authoritarian responses in the slippery and nebulous cause of "personal liberty."

It was Nancy Lanza exercising your core beliefs that directly led to the "personal liberties" of over 25 people being erased on that dark day.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOj1b_v2nFE > (people say this is a Saiga in trunk) The story goes all over the place with 2 then 4 pistols used then a BushMaster (AR15 clone) style weapon used and later found in the trunk and not used.

“A Russian-made, semi-automatic tactical shotgun was found in his mother’s car outside the school. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/world-exclusive-inside-sick-twisted-life-adam-lanza

Now they are saying it is actually a semi-auto shotgun (Saiga etc)

Law-enforcement officials have determined that all of the weapons used by Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza were bought by his mother over a three-year period starting in 2010. Nancy Lanza purchased the .223-caliber Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle in 2010. In 2011, she added the 9mm Sig Sauer pistol to her collection. In January 2012, she bought the 10mm Glock. According to the Associated Press, authorities have recovered other weapons, including a Henry repeating rifle, an Enfield rifle, and a shotgun. Investigators also said it doesn’t appear that Lanza visited any shooting ranges leading up to the shooting.

=It makes no sense arguing the facts about this case when they are few and far between. Even worse is the inept/shoddy reporting and delayed police reports/investigation. =People are upset and don't know what to believe. It seems to me it is taking millions of people on the internet(s) to put the story and videos together and even worse many have no clue about guns (Lib-tards) which causes more confusion.

What is true: Adam Lanza had issues and unfortunately no one has stepped up and taken any responsibility. This is truly the saddest part while all the media is trying to make as much $$$ off "this story" as possible.

Background checks to stop convicted felons and the mentally unstable from owning guns = attack on the second amendment? Umm... I think the NRA just disqualified itself from owning guns under the "mentally unstable" category.

That these checks are not universal is ridiculous. This means that in the U.S. a convicted murderer with diagnosed sociopathic tendencies can walk into a gun shop, and buy a half dozen guns and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo in some states.

This is insanity, and the NRA's opposition to this suggests strongly that they're IN FAVOUR of selling guns to the mentally ill and criminals. Their position is indefensible.

Background checks to stop convicted felons and the mentally unstable from owning guns = attack on the second amendment? Umm... I think the NRA just disqualified itself from owning guns under the "mentally unstable" category.

The NRA isn't against that.

This is insanity, and the NRA's opposition to this suggests strongly that they're IN FAVOUR of selling guns to the mentally ill and criminals. Their position is indefensible.

They are not against it.

The core of the matter is not what you dictate it to be. Ask the parents of the dead kids if they think that is the core of the matter. Ask just about anyone who lives in that town now.

People who lost family in 9/11 probably favored the provisions of the Patriot Act in the months after their loved ones were killed as well, that does not make it a good law. Its one thing to offer condolences, its another thing entirely to allow the actions of a few individuals dictate how the rest of a society are required to act.

(I smell a distinctly authoritarian scent to your declaration. Authoritarianism in response to the concept that you don't get to make or interpet all the rules.)

You're arguing to take rights away from me because of what somebody else did. My desire to retain those rights is hardly authoritarian, quite to the contrary really. If we go by court precedent and the current interpretation of the laws by the SCOTUS and the legislature over the full history of the US my interpretation on the topic is hardly one that I conceived out of thin air.

The core of your matter is what compelled the mother of Adam Lanza to believe that it would be perfectly OK to stockpile far more guns and ammo than would ever be deemed reasonable by a vast majority of citizens for personal self-defense. And to put that arsenal within the access of a severely mentally disturbed person -- a person whom she helped train how to shoot.

Five or six guns is hardly unreasonable and at a target range a person can easily go through well over 500 rounds in a single session. Additionally the person responsible for the killings had never been committed to any mental facility and whether or not he had a mental disorder is still up in the air. I heard one report stating that he may have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome but that condition would hardly explain his behavior. I have friends that were diagnosed with that condition in their late 20's and they are fully functional, responsible individuals, hardly disturbed. Placing blame on those with mental illnesses or disorders contributes about as much to the problem as the NRA believing that video games and movies make people more likely to engage in mass murder.

It was Nancy Lanza exercising your core beliefs that directly led to the "personal liberties" of over 25 people being erased on that dark day.

That's like saying freedom of religion leads to terrorism, it takes blame away from the individuals that committed the atrocity and places it on the majority of individuals that utilize the freedom without harming anybody. Additionally the link technically indirect as the guns belonged to Nancy Lanza rather than the shooter himself. Unless she explicitly gave him permission to use her guns to murder her and those students he technically stole them.

That these checks are not universal is ridiculous. This means that in the U.S. a convicted murderer with diagnosed sociopathic tendencies can walk into a gun shop, and buy a half dozen guns and a couple of thousand rounds of ammo in some states.

That is completely false. A background check is required for all firearm transfers at gun shops. It is mandated under 27 CFR 478.102.

That is completely false. A background check is required for all firearm transfers at gun shops. It is mandated under 27 CFR 478.102.

He is referring to private sales. What you are citing applies to licensed dealers only.

People who lost family in 9/11 probably favored the provisions of the Patriot Act in the months after their loved ones were killed as well, that does not make it a good law. Its one thing to offer condolences, its another thing entirely to allow the actions of a few individuals dictate how the rest of a society are required to act.

That's a terrible analogy. A more apt one would be the banning of mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns after the Kennedy assassination. Moreover, a lot of much-needed legislation and re-organization was accomplished as a result of the massive security failure that was 9/11. The actions of a few individuals have dictated that people be screened more carefully before boarding a commercial flight. Only a few actions with devastating consequences is all it should take.

My desire to retain those rights is hardly authoritarian, quite to the contrary really.

You missed the point. It was your attempt to dictate what the "core issue" was that prompted my comment. You just as well might assert that a core issue for you is to be able to purchase high-powered rifles via mail-order as was ended after November 1963. A majority of the American people might sanely dictate otherwise.

Placing blame on those with mental illnesses or disorders contributes about as much to the problem as the NRA believing that video games and movies make people more likely to engage in mass murder.

Simply ludicrous. The blame is on the one person who should have been in the best position to assess the risk involved with her decisions. As she turned out to be criminally irresponsible, and her awful judgment leading to the consequences it did, society rightfully has to evaluate what actions it needs to take in light of such situations, as infrequent as they may be. To fail to learn and adjust to disasters like this invites repeating them.

Five or six guns is hardly unreasonable and at a target range a person can easily go through well over 500 rounds in a single session.

I households where a person deemed mentally unstable resides, a strict limit could be set on the types of magazines and number of rounds that can be stored there. For target practice, arrangements can be made to supply and store the ammunition needed away from the home.

Additionally the person responsible for the killings had never been committed to any mental facility and whether or not he had a mental disorder is still up in the air.

Oh, so it's a normal person who shoots up little kids randomly, putting as many as 11 bullets in a six-year-old? Suffice to say that his behavior was completely unpredictable, as was attested to by the few who spent any time with him -- as the mother would allow. That he wasn't more thoroughly evaluated has more to do with her decisions also. And that's why anyone wishing to purchase and store the types of firearms and ammo that Lanza did, ought to have a background check that evaluates members of the household as well as the purchaser. A big question mark like Adam Lanza ought to have been considered a ticking time bomb before competent mental health professionals could rule otherwise.

There's no stigma whatsoever over a household with a mentally ill person not being able to keep hundreds of rounds of ammunition, large capacity magazines and so-called assault-type weapons on the premises -- while still keeping those weapons and rounds required for 99.999% of all self-defense situations.

He is referring to private sales. What you are citing applies to licensed dealers only.

Anyone engaged in the business of selling guns is required to be a licensed dealer. So it is not possible for someone to walk into a "gun store" and buy a gun without a background check as Frungy specifically alleged. Private sales are not allowed in gun stores.

Did someone say tyranny? That's the real reason for all these guns? Not for protection from some idiot trying to kill you? Or hunting? Or for the simple reason of liking guns? Someone is afraid the government is going to come after you so you need a gun for that protection? That is a real joke. No gun will protect you if the government is coming after you full force. So if you have your assault weapon of choice how effective will that be when the government sends one of its tanks to mow your house down with you inside it? AR-15 vs. tank. I think the tank will win. If you want to fight the tyrannical government you had better get yourself something that can destroy a tank.

Yabits,

There are many links. In general, reading requires the application of common sense -- which biases such as yours often prevent people from using. Question: Did Adam Lanza take all of his mother's weapons with him to school?

My ineffective common sense tells me that Nancy Lanza would have done heck of lot better by ensuring that her son didn't have access to her car keys and couldn't drive. Ponder that for moment if your capable of it.

Has anyone ever addressed the actual guns? Not really? Then to what end does the 2nd ammendment work. Beyond an assault rifle what what weapon of choice should we get for our own protection? Because I'm wondering when more and more bad people will start attacking with assault rifles.

Mental illness is a tricky situation. If I am a doctor and judge my patient to be mentally ill I just can't go report it on the outside unless he indicates he would commit a crime directly. It would violate privacy and you can't keep a medical license like that.

The NRA is a shill for the gun industry. The cherry pick and they lie. They do spread all kinds of falsehoods with hypocrisy. There are clear examples of this.

her son didn't have access to her car keys and couldn't drive.

or a bicycle. Lots of countries that have cars and bicycles have strict gun control. How can you compare?

My ineffective common sense tells me that Nancy Lanza would have done heck of lot better by ensuring that her son didn't have access to her car keys and couldn't drive. Ponder that for moment if your capable of it.

When will they learn? So he kills his mom and then orders a home-delivered pizza for lunch. Now he's got a vehicle and another dead body to the toll. One of any number of vehicles he could have commandeered. He was very sick mentally, but could still function at a high level in many areas.

Next obvious scenario?

A former make "baby-sitter" reports that Mrs. Lanza instructed him to never let Adam out of your sight, and never turn your back on him. Bias would discount the information.

Her son had a medical condition you can read this also as making sure the sitter was aware of his aspergers condition, Yabits. My common sense says I hardly doubt the babysitter was in any abject fear for his life by being alone with her son. If he was he would have surely stated that instead of remembering vague instructions from years ago when watching her son.

That his mother didn't feel what became obvious to rational people all over the world -- though you may continue to stand apart from them -- was more a testament to her judgment -- and her lack thereof.

The only thing obvious is you have no clue as to what was really going on inside that family other than what the media has reported . Your conjecture is just that, conjecture. makes for some pretty good fiction to read though I'll admit.

You advance the notion that a person should be perfectly OK to bring that much firepower into the home with a person whose behavior was completely unpredictable and who suffered extreme social problems

I advance no such notion at all. My so called defective "common sense" tells me that there is zero evidence that her son's behavior was completely unpredictable and had "extreme" social problems. If I saw this as being the case myself and any rational person would NEVER be OK with this.

Point out to me one police report, one school counselor, one documented incident anywhere that Adam Lanza had violent episodes and had to be restrained, sedated, needed to be under the care of a mental health professional, you can't because its not there. He snapped Yabits and in this case this individual was not giving off any signals that he was going to do. Everything I've read and seen that is credible all points to the same thing, an incredibly shy awkward person the exact opposite of a threatening behavior.

And once the person goes on a killing rampage, all criticism of the gun-owning and ammo-stocking mother must be suspended, otherwise it's "demonizing."

You have to demonize her Yabits, If it turns out she was a responsible gun owner that had locked up her weapons when not in use, practiced gun safety and enjoyed her hobby, that she was a good mother who was involved with her son and doing doing the best to cope with his asperger's condition, it deals a terrible blow to your political position. You sense this I suspect since you've already went ahead to plant the seeds to discredit the Police report. Pretty weird though that you trust the Media reporting more with its "if it bleeds it leads" than a Police report compiled by investigators who aren't in the media.

She was not working and received around $200k/yr for her and her son. Institutionalizing is not cheap and means that she herself would have had to live on less from the divorce settlement.

Yet another nefarious motive on her part attributed to you by nothing but pure fantasy.

You have to demonize her Yabits, If it turns out she was a responsible gun owner that had locked up her weapons when not in use, practiced gun safety and enjoyed her hobby, that she was a good mother who was involved with her son and doing doing the best to cope with his asperger's condition, it deals a terrible blow to your political position. You sense this I suspect since you've already went ahead to plant the seeds to discredit the Police report. Pretty weird though that you trust the Media reporting more with its "if it bleeds it leads" than a Police report compiled by investigators who aren't in the media.

So then the problem is the gun. Would this imply assault weapons should be banned?

When will they learn? So he kills his mom and then orders a home-delivered pizza for lunch. Now he's got a vehicle and another dead body to the toll. One of any number of vehicles he could have commandeered. He was very sick mentally, but could still function at a high level in many areas.

The only thing this tells me is that even you think he's smart and intelligent enough to figure out a way to get his hands on what he actually needs to carry out the rampage. That your giving him credit for being smart enough to get a car if he didn't have access to one, but I'll go out on a limb and say you sure aren't going to credit him for being smart enough to get his hands on any guns if his Mother didn't have them in the house I suppose.

My common sense says I hardly doubt the babysitter was in any abject fear for his life by being alone with her son. If he was he would have surely stated that instead of remembering vague instructions from years ago when watching her son.

The sitter, Ryan Kraft, recalls a kid who was withdrawn most of the time but who occasionally had violent outbursts. Classmates recall a kid who kept to himself at recess and at times seemed enraged but wouldn't tell anyone why. It's possible the mother was more concerned about Adam hurting himself. (Classify that under: "Unpredictable behavior.") In the weeks before his rampage, it's reported that Adam had taken to burning himself with a lighter. (Those are not characteristics of Aspergers.)

My so called defective "common sense" tells me that there is zero evidence that her son's behavior was completely unpredictable and had "extreme" social problems...He snapped ... and in this case this individual was not giving off any signals that he was going to do.

Yes. Your common sense tells you that he was quiet as a mouse for 20 years until he suddenly blew up. Understood. That's why an associate of the mother tells of Mrs. Lanza's desperation in feeling that her son was losing control, and that she was losing him.

Everything I've read and seen that is credible all points to the same thing, an incredibly shy awkward person the exact opposite of a threatening behavior.

You appear to read and see only that which fits your biases.

You sense this I suspect since you've already went ahead to plant the seeds to discredit the Police report. Pretty weird though that you trust the Media reporting more with its "if it bleeds it leads" than a Police report compiled by investigators who aren't in the media.

Both have been known to be inaccurate and should be taken with a grain of salt.

That your giving him credit for being smart enough to get a car if he didn't have access to one, but I'll go out on a limb and say you sure aren't going to credit him for being smart enough to get his hands on any guns if his Mother didn't have them in the house I suppose.

In the United States, it's still easier for a mentally-disturbed person to get his hands on a random vehicle than to get his hands on assault-type weapons with hundreds of rounds of ammo. I realize how much you and your chums at the NRA would like to change that, with the solution of arming more people.

I well understand why you blindly defend the mother who brought all of that firepower into her home: you're both suffering from extreme denial. Tell me more about how it was the car keys.

Having gone back to casually peruse yabits previous posts reveals:

" right-wingnuts"

" Always great to hear what the lunatic fringe has to say about this."

" That is a paranoid assertion from someone who has lost nearly all sense of rational proportion."

Just a couple of examples of derogatory responses to people who disagree with your opinion. Unless people agree with you opinion, there's the sanity attack.

Where? In a modern democracy or in a situation like Rwanda in the 90s? Possibly witness? Defensibly witness? Which is it?

Possibly witness? Definitely witness? (correction)

yabits,

Your hatred of guns is evident. We get that.

Read the book by John Lott.

Well, don't look at me. I never said I hated guns. I said if the government were coming after you- you better get something more than than what a gun shop sells.

Gosh I wonder how other countries without citizens armed to the teeth manage to survive. Those governments must be moments away from kicking in doors....

No one is afraid of the government doing much of anything. Everyone knows it's logistically impossible for the government to do the things the gun supporters are claiming. You have to be stuck in a vacuum of paranoia to think we need guns to prevent Obama from starting random mass killings and house invasions. It's just so utterly silly to use as a point and it surprises me that some people can be duped into that state of paranoia where they think it's logical.

You want me to look at something that includes Nazi in it? At the same time you want me to think it applies to me? I'm not looking at that. My business is in the USA and Japan? Where is yours and do you expect your worst nightmare of tyranny to happen there? If I were in the White House and I wanted to do what you fear I would use drones and Apache helicopters...and lots of other stuff to take out American citizens. I don't fear that. But do you? I'm not talking about Nazi Germany. I'm talking about a modern democracy.

That's why an associate of the mother tells of Mrs. Lanza's desperation in feeling that her son was losing control, and that she was losing him.

Your repeating gossip and not news or facts.

This is only claimed by one source who is described as an anonymous associate and her drinking buddy and who had also claimed:

“She was a country girl” who loved to hunt with a falcon that would scare game she’d blast out of the sky, he said.

Apparently she also has a pet hunting falcon at her house or somewhere involved here, that nobody else has ever mentioned except this lone source.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nancy-lanza-feared-son-adam-worse-article-1.1221505

It's just so utterly silly to use as a point and it surprises me that some people can be duped into that state of paranoia where they think it's logical.

Mr. Shapiro was on CNN and had this exact discussion with Piers Morgan on the 2nd amendment and the real reason behind it for. The whole 15 minute interview is well worth watching, but the link is a three minute portion that is relevant to your position Superlib. Posting for your information and consideration. I do not think Mr. Morgan was really quite prepared for Mr. Shapiro at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8DqCy1TvSU

Just a couple of examples of derogatory responses to people... Having gone back to casually peruse yabits previous posts reveals:

...that you can't portray things honestly. Really? That's the best you could come up with out of hundreds and hundreds of posts?

"Right wingnuts" was followed by "in Congress." That was not a reference to any poster in a derogatory way. Everyone knows about the right-wingnuts in Congress. The ones who want to arm pilots in cockpits, ministers in pulpits, and janitors in schools; who claim a woman can't get pregnant during a "legitimate rape;" and who claim that evolution is a theory from "the burning pit of hell." (We could go on and on.)

Lunatic fringe: Again, when someone brings up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the discussion about guns, I don't know if they're coming from left or right. They are just waaaay out there. (You know, like the people who will insist that the WTC towers were brought down by....[insert craziness here].) There is a lunatic fringe and, occasionally, one of its members in good standing posts here.

Likewise some post out of fear-mongering and paranoia. You know: Like how Turkey and Uganda supposedly took all the guns away and then all their history stopped completely.

None of that compares to the word you concocted, which is purely an epithet.

Your hatred of guns is evident.

I disdain cowardice and stupidity -- which all too often can be found holding guns and promoting them. I do hope you took the time to view your ideological soul-mate on the YouTube link.

This is only claimed by one source who is described as an anonymous associate and her drinking buddy and who had also claimed:

Other sources claimed that Mrs. Lanza was "tight-lipped" when it came to the situation with Adam inside the home. These were people she associated most often. Not a healthy sign. Normal parents find talking about their kids quite a natural part of any conversation. It doesn't surprise me that she needed a few drinks to open up.

It is said that she wanted Adam to fit in as much as possible. That does not square with maintaining a wall of silence about him. Most parents that I have known personally who have "special needs" children form or join active support groups, rather than try to bear the burden all alone. (This holds doubly true for single parents.) The American "rugged individual" type who keeps silent and takes everything on herself, fits very will with a "survivalist" mentality -- someone who also feels they can take everyone on by themselves, when the time comes.

Mr. Shapiro was on CNN and had this exact discussion with Piers Morgan on the 2nd amendment and the real reason behind it for.

Shapiro was an embarrassment. (I can't say Morgan is all that much better.) For a real schooling, lets watch the founder of "Gun Appreciation Day," Larry Ward, explaining how his day is in the spirit of slain civil rights leader, Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. His claim that if "African Americans" had been allowed to keep and bear arms from "Day One," slavery might have been avoided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azq6zvpQ0fc

I can't make this stuff up.

sailwind: Mr. Shapiro was on CNN and had this exact discussion with Piers Morgan on the 2nd amendment and the real reason behind it for. The whole 15 minute interview is well worth watching, but the link is a three minute portion that is relevant to your position Superlib. Posting for your information and consideration. I do not think Mr. Morgan was really quite prepared for Mr. Shapiro at all.

I watched the video. I understand the argument about protection from tyranny. I just don't think that situation is credible in 2013. I don't have any fear that the government will turn into Communist China in the 1950s or Hitler, and it has nothing to do with guns. I think it's something that's piggybacked itself on the notion of personal freedom inside of people who live in a vacuum and are no longer able to see the realities on the ground.

That's a terrible analogy.

Not really. A travesty occurred due to the actions of a few individuals and congress rode the wave of knee-jerk emotional public support to pass a law that subverted the rights of everyday citizens to due process, protection from unlawful search and seizure, and privacy. If the President signs an executive order (a practice I have always fundamentally despised) it would do much the same. It subverts the process of legislation, forces gun owners to participate in a poorly maintained and error prone database system, and makes their addresses and ownership status a public record as exemplified by the abhorrent practice of some news publishers.

You just as well might assert that a core issue for you is to be able to purchase high-powered rifles via mail-order as was ended after November 1963.

I can and have purchased rifles through mail order as recently as 2008. It's actually quicker and more convenient to purchase from a gun store though.

Oh, so it's a normal person who shoots up little kids randomly, putting as many as 11 bullets in a six-year-old?

Anders Breivik was declared sane and he gave exceedingly graphic testimony about how he killed people frozen in terror. Most individuals with mental disorders aren't violent just as most individuals without mental disorders aren't violent. Considering he was never committed it's unlikely he was ever diagnosed with a disorder that would ordinarily prevent him from functioning in regular society.

Suffice to say that his behavior was completely unpredictable, as was attested to by the few who spent any time with him -- as the mother would allow.

That's entirely conjecture at this point and anecdotal evidence doesn't indicate mental disorder. Being unpredictable or anti-social doesn't necessarily indicate violent tendencies.

And that's why anyone wishing to purchase and store the types of firearms and ammo that Lanza did, ought to have a background check that evaluates members of the household as well as the purchaser. A big question mark like Adam Lanza ought to have been considered a ticking time bomb before competent mental health professionals could rule otherwise.

There are a few problems with that idea. For starters there aren't anywhere near enough personnel in the ATF, or any bureau for that matter, to go to every house of every person that buys a firearm in the US, there are thousands of purchases a day. Even if there were enough people to conduct them they wouldn't be even remotely capable of making an educated assessment of the mental stability of the individuals residing in the home. Then they would have to go out and re-evaluate every new person that entered the household and children as they grow older and I doubt any federal employee is going to be able to look at a child or teen and reliably say, "Yup, that ones going to be a serial killer some day". It's unrealistic by any stretch of the imagination.

They are just waaaay out there. (You know, like the people who will insist that the WTC towers were brought down by....[insert craziness here].)

Or that Congressman Gifford was shot because of Sarah Palin and her map.

Or that Congressman Gifford was shot because of Sarah Palin and her map.

I never wrote that Gifford was shot because of the map. Asserting so is unworthy of a person of integrity, but standard fare for those who have little.

forces gun owners to participate in a poorly maintained and error prone database system, and makes their addresses and ownership status a public record as exemplified by the abhorrent practice of some news publishers.

LOL! The existence of a database system does not mandate that it be "poorly maintained" or "error prone." Those are technical issues that are easily remedied.

It's my view that members of a community have a right to know which households are keeping lethal firepower above a certain capacity, that far exceeds the right of an individual citizen who is creating a stockpile of guns and ammunition to remain anonymous.

Anders Breivik was declared sane and he gave exceedingly graphic testimony about how he killed people frozen in terror. Most individuals with mental disorders aren't violent just as most individuals without mental disorders aren't violent. Considering he was never committed it's unlikely he was ever diagnosed with a disorder that would ordinarily prevent him from functioning in regular society.

You are arguing that the requirements for psychological screening should include more factors than the kinds of mental illness that would declare a person to be legally insane. Breivik was diagnosed as paranoid psychosis and narcissistic personality disorder -- mental conditions not considered to meet the standard for insanity. Obviously, anyone applying for a permit for high capacity magazines and weapons classified as "military-assault" type should first undergo much more stringent screening. The screening must include those beyond the age of 15 who are living in the home.

For starters there aren't anywhere near enough personnel in the ATF, or any bureau for that matter, to go to every house of every person that buys a firearm in the US, there are thousands of purchases a day.

I am not referring to every weapon. Those required purely for self-defense would not see anything change in the process. The higher standard and longer waiting period would be applicable to those seeking to obtain the weapons mentioned above. This is preferable to an outright ban on them.

Mr. Shapiro was on CNN and had this exact discussion with Piers Morgan

OK, the whole thing is a joke to me. And why just limit ownership at the AR-15. If the American government is coming after you "in the next 50-100 years" as Shapiro suggests trying to fight that with an assault weapon would be like trying to put on a multi-alarm fire by urinating on it. OK, the American government wants to take out 100s of millions of people in a modern democracy by using what the military has which will take you out in the blink of an eye....with or without an AR. The NRA is hypocritical. They are for the 2nd amendment but against legalizing any guns that could fight tyranny in the USA. I'm thinking a Milkor or a very powerful machine gun. That has a better chance to fight tyranny. If the NRA really fears tyranny then why don't they promote real military grade weapons?

And mental illness. Screening? By whom? My a medical doctor? Doctors can't just go on the outside revealing their patient's' conditions.

I never wrote that Gifford was shot because of the map. Asserting so is unworthy of a person of integrity, but standard fare for those who have little.

Your words:

yabitsJan. 24, 2011 - 12:24AM JST

There's a difference between putting cross hairs on a district on a map (which is what appeared on Palin's site) and putting cross hairs on a person's face. Get your facts straight. Do you see how a little, convenient manipulation of the facts can be used to make Palin seem more guilty than she is?

And so the question becomes, "Will every mentally disturbed person be able to tell the difference and not read the crosshairs as an invitation to a 'second amendment remedy?'"

I like this phrase you used: "more guilty than she is." Yes, the facts should not be manipulated to make her more guilty, but she does share in the guilt to some extent. Would that she and more of her supporters accept their fair portion of the responsibility.

Your words:

The words do not assert that Giffords was shot because of the map the way you presented. You really don't have a leg to stand on when accusing the press of manipulating anything. A person needs some integrity to do that.

And mental illness. Screening? By whom? My a medical doctor? Doctors can't just go on the outside revealing their patient's' conditions.

The same type of screening that commercial airline pilots undergo. Doctors don't need to reveal the details of a person's condition but merely report if they are fit to pilot a commercial jetliner.

The same type of screening that commercial airline pilots undergo

Every single person who wants a gun? By a psychiatrist?

@SuperLib:

Gosh I wonder how other countries without citizens armed to the teeth manage to survive. Those governments must be moments away from kicking in doors....

No one is afraid of the government doing much of anything. Everyone knows it's logistically impossible for the government to do the things the gun supporters are claiming.

I guess you never heard of the Soviet Union and the Eastern block. It is logically possible - it's been proven in the past and it happens today in certain parts of the world.

You must not know much about world history to not understand the possibility of abuse that governments have over their people. But even today there are many governments that are right now kicking in doors and abusing their own citizens. Syria is a good example. Assad - like his father before him - is a brutal dictator that "kicks in doors" to oppress his people. Well, now he is facing an armed resistance because of that oppression. Any people that do not have a healthy fear of government power is not well versed in human nature or history.

America's Founders supported the individual right to bear arms due to the oppressive nature of King George's rule. There would be no United States of America without the notion that free people have the right to bear arms.

Those of the political Left prefer the power of the State over the individual. Therefore, I can understand why they are against the US second amendment. It is not until what they perceive as their rights are abused that they will come to understand what the Founders understood so well. These were very well educated people with a thorough understanding of human nature. No matter how modern we think we have become our basic human nature does not change. For that reason, those that believe in what America used to believe in - that each individual has the right to pursue their own idea of happiness - will oppose those that want to take that right away. And yes, the right to own a weapon is a part of the mix.

The words do not assert that Giffords was shot because of the map the way you presented.

Then your words just make no zero sense in the further claiming that Palin does share some guilt for Congressman Gifford's being shot by a deranged lunatic.

Yes, the facts should not be manipulated to make her more guilty, but she does share in the guilt to some extent.

How could she share any guilt then????

You claimed the map and that Palin were somehow partly responsible for this tragedy occuring, and a real person of integrity in my view would post a 100 percent retraction and an admission as to just how totally wrong that really turned out to be. Loughner hardly knew what planet he was on and Sarah Palin and her map had nothing to do with it at all.

I would've have hoped that you would have actually learned from that experience and would be more refrained from posting nothing but your conjecture and parroting a media line that suits your agenda as you are currently doing regarding Sandy Hook and wait for real facts to come out, but alas that is just not going to happen with you at all.

I guess you never heard of the Soviet Union and the Eastern block. It is logically possible - it's been proven in the past and it happens today in certain parts of the world.

If the American government sent its military after its people the military will win with the current allowed maximum firepower (assault weapons) for citizens. Don't you think the NRA should push for more military style weapons in the hands for the common citizen? An AR will do nothing against an Apache helicopter

I can understand why they are against the US second amendment.

But if you are not for the common ownership of military grade weaponry (remember, it took Stinger missiles to push back against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which America did provide) then you are also against the 2nd amendment.

I can and have purchased rifles through mail order as recently as 2008. It's actually quicker and more convenient to purchase from a gun store though.

How did you do this? A internet or mail order seller has to send the firearm to a federally licensed dealer to complete the transfer. It is against federal law to send a firearm in interstate commerce to anyone other than a licensed delaler. So even if you bought a gun online, you still have to go to a dealer to pick it up and the dealer is required to record the transfer and conduct a background check.

The existence of a database system does not mandate that it be "poorly maintained" or "error prone." Those are technical issues that are easily remedied.

Three background checks in the past 2 years and every time it is thoroughly convinced I'm somebody else by the same name despite the fact they live in another state.

It's my view that members of a community have a right to know which households are keeping lethal firepower above a certain capacity, that far exceeds the right of an individual citizen who is creating a stockpile of guns and ammunition to remain anonymous.

Which often includes the residences of police officers, prison guards, and individuals with active restraining orders? That was one of the main reasons people were so angry with the paper that published the names.

You are arguing that the requirements for psychological screening should include more factors than the kinds of mental illness that would declare a person to be legally insane.

I'm arguing that it's highly unlikely that the psych screening you advocate would be a reliable measure of a persons mental stability. The variability of many mental disorders makes the conditions for denial inherently far too vague. If a screener believes the person may have bi-polar disorder does it negate their eligibility despite the fact it has negligible impact on the behavior? Does a person with social-anxiety disorder have a higher likelihood of being denied than a person with a high functioning variety of autism? I accept that a line should be drawn when a person is involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital but I don't believe that a psych screening should be a mandatory component of a federal background check.

Obviously, anyone applying for a permit for high capacity magazines and weapons classified as "military-assault" type should first undergo much more stringent screening.

Assault rifles capable of automatic fire are already covered as destructive device requiring the same permit as someone seeking to buy a grenade, rocket, or other heavy weapon. If we're talking about 'assault weapons' then I will just reiterate my tired old statement that the term 'assault weapon' is more of an aesthetic term than any indication of functionality. Pull off the attachment rail and the lugs and it's no longer considered an assault weapon. Regulating hi-cap magazines is likewise pointless as they are easily modified with even basic tools.

The higher standard and longer waiting period would be applicable to those seeking to obtain the weapons mentioned above. This is preferable to an outright ban on them.

It still accomplishes next to nothing save for being an inconvenience. Most gun related murders are committed with handguns which would likely fall under the domain of purely for self-defense. I haven't heard of anybody using a machine gun to commit murder in recent memory and AR-15's are hardly the weapon of choice among criminals. And even if this law had been in place it's unlikely they would have prevented the mother from acquiring the weapons as the only condition that Adam Lanza was believe to be diagnosed with was Asperger's Syndrome which is not technically a mental illness and would have explained any odd behavior he may have exhibited, and given that nothing has indicated any violent tendencies prior to the shooting there's nothing that would have indicated cause to deny a permit even if that policy were in place.

How did you do this?

I'm a registered collector which gives me many of the same rights as a dealer. In a past job I once modified trigger assemblies in addition to some minor restoration work, got tired of having to drive to the store every time I needed to order a part. The permit's aren't exactly hard to get and only costs $30 for 3 years.

Living in a country with strict gun controls makes me think it is the members of the NRA who are mentally unstable. They are still living in the 'Wild West' and apparently wish to keep it that way.

I have never even seen a gun, let alone owned one, and never wish to.....

Then your words just make no zero sense in the further claiming that Palin does share some guilt for Congressman Gifford's being shot by a deranged lunatic.

My point was that violence-tinged rhetoric and symbols contribute to a culture and climate where some people -- often mentally and or socially unstable -- misinterpret them as condoning violence as a solution to perceived "problems." Sometimes the calls for violence from the right-wing, pro-gun crowd are more overt -- as with the James Yeager videos linked above. Those who engage in such violence-laden devices are adding their straws to the camel's load.

But to claim direct cause and effect, as you asserted to readers that I was doing, is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

Every single person who wants a gun? By a psychiatrist?

No. Every single person who wants to keep certain categories and amounts of weapons and ammunition in their domiciles. The enhanced psychological screening would be similar to what pilots undergo who want to carry a gun in the cockpit.

Most handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns would not qualify as individual weapons. Those purely interested in self-defense would not be impacted.

Those who want weapons which are claimed to be needed to potentially fight against the government would be put into a different category. I would be in favor of automatically drafting those people into their state's National Guard units. Psychological screening could take place under that system.

Those of the political Left prefer the power of the State over the individual.

As a liberal, I would state it this way, speaking for myself: I prefer the authority of laws made by "we the people" over those of individuals who believe they are a law unto themselves, or who believe they are the final arbiters of the ideas and philosophies of all the men who helped form the United States. But we also recognize that the laws made under our system often contain serious flaws, which only time and trial can correct.

It still accomplishes next to nothing save for being an inconvenience. Most gun related murders are committed with handguns which would likely fall under the domain of purely for self-defense.

If Adam Lanza only had access to two handguns with limited ammunition, I would assert that the "inconvenience" would have been worth it, and would represent a very worthy accomplishment if a dozen or more lives of innocent young people could be spared.

I'm arguing that it's highly unlikely that the psych screening you advocate would be a reliable measure of a persons mental stability. The variability of many mental disorders makes the conditions for denial inherently far too vague. If a screener believes the person may have bi-polar disorder does it negate their eligibility despite the fact it has negligible impact on the behavior?

We are talking about a much higher standard applied to certain weapons and supplies of ammunition -- a standard that would include members of a household as well as the individual seeking to obtain that weaponry and store it in the home. A person with the mental disorders you mention might well be able to obtain firearms and ammunition for self-defense purposes, and I believe a reasonable assessment of what is needed for deterrence by criminals (as opposed to a tyrannical government) can be made as part of rational restrictions by society on the killing power over numbers of fellow citizens they wish individuals (and family members, potentially) to have.

The higher standards would include much more severe penalties for improper storage leading to theft of the weapons and/or their being used to commit crimes.

and I believe a reasonable assessment of what is needed for deterrence by criminals

This should have read: "deterrence of criminals."

If Adam Lanza only had access to two handguns with limited ammunition, I would assert that the "inconvenience" would have been worth it, and would represent a very worthy accomplishment if a dozen or more lives of innocent young people could be spared.

But it is highly unlikely that such screening would have prevented his access. Even if an assault weapons ban were in place the mother still could have purchased the Bushmaster rifle, it may look a little different but it would still have the same functionality, and she would have been able to purchase the magazines for it as well. This is why crafting legislation to the actions of a few individuals among hundreds of millions isn't an effective approach.

The higher standards would include much more severe penalties for improper storage leading to theft of the weapons and/or their being used to commit crimes.

The Supreme Court has already struck down several laws with storage requirements, disassembled storage, and trigger lock requirements.

I'd be on board for fixing the current database and expanding it in that capacity. I don't approve of the psych screening but I've stated before that if they take action to improve the system rather than just expand its reach I would be considerably more receptive of higher general standards for background checks. That is not the course of action I'm seeing in DC right now. As it stands I'm getting nothing but knee-jerk legislative threats, the prospect of ineffective laws, and executive action to subvert the legislative process.

My point was that violence-tinged rhetoric and symbols contribute to a culture and climate where some people -- often mentally and or socially unstable -- misinterpret them as condoning violence as a solution to perceived "problems."

I've read your past comments and that was not your point at all. Your point was to villify the Tea party and Sarah Palin in particular as being somehow being culpable for motivating Loughner's henious act of shooting Congressman Gifford's and innocent civilians that were there that day and the real facts be damned.

Obama is going to issue new gun laws by edict. And also raise the debt ceiling by edict. Followed by suspending more of the constitution by edict. We will at least be spared another elections when he appoints himself President for life.

I've read your past comments and that was not your point at all.

This is why a lot of conservatives should never be trusted to expound upon the "original intent" of the founding fathers -- on the second amendment or on anything else.

They can't even get original intent right of something written in 2011 -- when the very author tells them what the intent was. I can't tell if it's sheer ignorance or sheer arrogance that causes them to stick to their guns when they're as wrong as hell. Probably both.

To bad that the US cannot follow Canada's gun control laws.

Where you have to right to bear arms, but not assault weapons and with stricter background checks!

A perfect balance of respecting the right to bear arms while passing good gun control laws with less gun violence, especially if you compare it to the US.

They can't even get original intent right of something written in 2011

I did respond to your original intent written in 2011. I quoted you and commented on it then. Nothing has changed since.

sailwindJan. 15, 2011 - 11:45AM JST

Yabits,

The far right wing appear to present themselves as experts on what will incite people to violence, and it appears that some of the crazy individuals they have inspired are operating on a hair-trigger.

I see your not buying Palin's “I Didn’t Beam Homicidal Mind Control Rays into that Crazed Gunman’s Brain" lame defense.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/obama-to-lead-mourning-at-arizona-service

I did respond to your original intent written in 2011. I quoted you and commented on it then. Nothing has changed since.

Well, then the quote above proves that you were the one who continued to bring Palin personally into it. I was talking about the "far right wing," and you are right: Nothing has changed since then. The far right feeds and romances a milieu of violent rhetoric and symbols, of which guns are very important part.

Take a look at this charming representative of that segment of the American population, telling folks about the "army" his other videos have inspired and "assembled." Let's hope that his army continues to follow his direction and that, as he says, nobody goes out and "murders" anyone -- unless "it's absolutely necessary." I suspect that the feeling of it being necessary is left up to the individual, and some folks are very likely to be operating on a hair-trigger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2kkax7WOKI

Well, then the quote above proves that you were the one who continued to bring Palin personally into it.

Your very first post on the link I provided:

Quote:

The Palin speech was a total embarrassment. Her use of the term "blood libel" was particularly damaging to the spirit and tone that our president has tried tirelessly to encourage.

Also you keep posting videos to fringe nutcases that get may 300 views tops on you tube to try and smear everybody that disagrees with you in trying to make the case that myself or others who hold a conservative political point of view hold the very same views as these individuals on the videos your posting. You also claimed time and time again how its the right wing feeds off symbols and violent rhetoric. You never mention hip hop culture or gang banging that is glorified in rap music, you never mention Hollywood action movies at all. The Terminator or any other top notch action movie which will have more millions of more hits on you tube then any of the sorry videos that you've now taken to posting to try and smear by association with. And of course you've resorted to your usual attempt to discredit and insult with the usual personal attacks.

Just par for the course in yet another surreal discussion with you.

Also you keep posting videos to fringe nutcases that get may 300 views tops

The views are over 160,000, and the number of "Thumbs-UPs" on it are ten times the 300 views you state.

to try and smear everybody that disagrees with you in trying to make the case that myself or others who hold a conservative political point of view

I speak for myself, but I hope that other observers will chime in and concur that much of the point of view that you call "fringe nutcase" has, in fact, made its way into today's Republican Party and conservative movement. The man in the video considers himself a true American patriot and defender of the Constitution. Although I'm not sure he knows much about it other than the Second Amendment.

You never mention hip hop culture or gang banging that is glorified in rap music, you never mention Hollywood action movies at all. The Terminator or any other top notch action movie

I abhor violence in all of its forms. However, the types you mention don't come at us wrapped in the American flag with patriotic rhetoric. They aren't vocal advocates for the Second Amendment, or use it as a driving force for their behavior. I can't see how hip-hop culture has affected the Democratic Party in the way that far right ideas and rhetoric have crowded out what used to be known as "moderate" Republicanism. When moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Col. Laurence Wilkerson point this out, they get jumped on by the voices of the "new-right."

Just par for the course in yet another surreal discussion with you.

Well, I'm sure that to young Helen Keller at the water pump, what Ms. Sullivan was trying to do seemed surreal too.

Where you have to right to bear arms, but not assault weapons and with stricter background checks!

For starters the Canadian constitution is written differently in regard to that specific right. Next, the general gun laws of Canada aren't too terribly different than in the US. You can, in fact, purchase assault weapons in Canada but you need a permit that is neither terribly difficult to acquire nor is it expensive. Their background checks likewise cover the same general standards as the US one. The only difference is that Canada has focused on ensuring that their existing systems meet up with modern standards whereas US politicians are either in favor of no background checks or a complete ban on numerous weapons categories, there is no middle ground available to stand on. I normally detest the slippery-slope logical fallacy but it's a very very real thing in US politics and it's going on right now with the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling talks. Ban assault weapons today and somebody in congress WILL attempt to do the same to handguns as they did in DC and attempted to do elsewhere after the last Assault Weapons Ban was instituted. I'd be interested in improving the quality of the current systems but that idea is an afterthought at the moment.

I abhor violence in all of its forms. However, the types you mention don't come at us wrapped in the American flag with patriotic rhetoric. They aren't vocal advocates for the Second Amendment, or use it as a driving force for their behavior.

You can't seriously deny that they take full advantage of the second amendment to use guns as a pretty normal feature in movies and in much of popular music, "Janey's got a Gun" by Aerosmith is quite the endorsement of the second amendment for example though it surely wasn't written with that intent. That this doesn't promote the second amendment much more effectively than any individual speaking his own opinion on a you tube video?

I can't see how hip-hop culture has affected the Democratic Party in the way that far right ideas and rhetoric have crowded out what used to be known as "moderate" Republicanism.

Crowded out so much that Romney was the nominee this cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

On February 15, 2012, Bill C-19 passed third reading in the House of Commons; the motion to abolish the long-gun registry passed 159 to 130 and Bill C-19 became law.

Canada has been all over the place on gun registration. The majority people did not register (except for Ottawa). This has generally been considered a disaster and cost Canadians tens of millions of dollars (and most likely more than officially stated).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

It is really fun doing a search on this because 99% of real Canadians (not the politicians in Ottawa!) were/are against gun registration and there is a ton of good stories on it with the abolishment of the gun registry.

In the 2012 outcome of the U.S. general election, the NRA had exactly zero effect on the outcome. Actually less than one percent. Turns out that the officers and lobbyists of the NRA actually represent weapons manufacturers, not rank and file gun owners. That's why they refuse to support common sense restrictions on military style assault weapons, magazines that hold a hundred bullets, or background checks for anyone who buys a gun, even though most Americans and many gun owners support these measures.