Folks, I don’t advocate the total repeal of the Second Amendment, but can we please put it in perspective? Can there be a balance between that right and the “inalienable” right of those children in Connecticut to life and the pursuit of happiness?
Many people, including some legislators and judges, have apparently not read the Bill of Rights, but I have. They choose to ignore the first part of the sentence. It directly relates the right to bear arms with a “well-regulated militia” for “the security of the State.”
Our Founding Fathers did not intend for every Tom, Dick and Harry to be walking down the street with a 9mm tucked into his belt and an AK47 strapped to his shoulder. Legitimate uses of firearms do not require assault weapons nor 100-round magazines.
The currently popular interpretation of the Second Amendment does not enhance our safety and security, it threatens them.
Isn’t it time for our leaders to quit caving to the NRA? Why do I have to be scared every time my wife or my kid goes to the mall?
John K. Walker
CHANDLER
IAB posted at 7:34 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
If our founding fathers intended to give the right to bear arms to the states why was it included in the Bill of Rights? Are states the only ones allowed free speech or protection from search and seizure or was intended for THE PEOPLE
mlimberg posted at 7:40 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
Criminals will never follow any new or old gun law. All you are suggesting is taking away guns from people who could protect others from television and video game trained killers.
Ever play some of the shooter video games? They are training tools for young minds to become mass murders.
And Hollywood glorifies killing in most of their "best" movies?
Folks, we're barking up the wrong tree going after guns. Stop training our kids to be killers.
And did you know the worst mass murder in America of a school was not with a gun but explosives. If a nut job wants to kill, there is a whole library of videos and movies to instruct the sick minded creeps how to build explosives and deploy them....
But it's easy to say take away the guns, but each time it's been tried, murder by firearms have risen... it just does not work. Criminals don't care about the law. They will always find a way to kill....
God help us do the right think, and give the CT families peace.
Rich posted at 7:49 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
The first part of the sentence is the problem, the government does not do it's job in regulating the militia. If everyone (or man) over eighteen was trained and qualified to use guns there would be a lot less trouble with them. You have people like McClellan here, repeating mythology, nonsense really. We allowed the government to make killing fields of our schools, and then they use the fact that they were successful at it to try and disarm us. The psycho knows he's safe in a school, because he has the only gun. The answer is a well regulated militia where people learn to handle guns, what they can and can't do. The government has fallen down on the job, the children are dead, and idiots are running to them all but begging them to make it worse. Balance? Yes, regulate the militia, train them, and a good deal of the problem vanishes. Start with prohibitions, banning and more killing fields it will just get worse.
Pragmatic posted at 9:48 pm on Tue, Dec 18, 2012.
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and had no gun. John Gacy killed 33 boys but used no gun.
We have a mental health problem that is much larger than guns. The mental health problem will go on long after the last gun is destroyed. Control Washington!
loose stool posted at 3:20 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
No law would have stoped this guy from killing people.Taking away my right to own a gun will not make you any safer.
Hear Me Now posted at 5:05 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he stated, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Gun Control Defined:
The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law that prohibits them from possessing a firearm.
Assault Weapon Definition:
An assault weapon is anything used as a weapon to assault someone with. Pencil, boiling water, frying pan, etc.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Cerulean posted at 8:02 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Of course you are correct John Walker, as most of us would agree.
StotheizzE posted at 10:00 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Once again, many who have responded missed the point of the letter entirely. I think people like Mr. Walker and myself and other rational people have no problem with people owning handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, ect. I have zero reservations about people in Arizona walking around with concealed handguns, because most of these folks are responsible.
What I do have a major problem with are people with high-capacity magazines for their handguns and people with weapons that can get off 30, 40, 50 rounds in a very short period of time.
Someone, please tell me a legitimate reason (and not some doomsday scenario) that would require a person to need 30 rounds in the clip of a Glock? Or why someone would need an AR-15 or AK-47 or a Bushmaster? Anyone who wants to own one of those weapons should be willing to go through some pretty intense screening. It's harder to adopt a pet than it is to own a weapon that could put down nearly 30 people in a short span of time.
DonMey posted at 10:28 am on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
It's odd that you would in one sentence state that the 2nd Amendment exists for "militia" purposes, and then in the next insist the 2nd Amendment was never meant for dangerous weapons. What do you think militias use? Pop-guns?
bubba posted at 12:21 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
StotheizzZ.......Best comment of the day.
bubba posted at 12:21 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Well folks we have a winner in the "Most Assinine Solution to the School Shootnigs" The winner of this award is Newsweek's Megan McArdle:... http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/18/newsweeks-megan-mcardle-calls-for-children-to-b/191889
VofReason posted at 1:50 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
StotheizzZ- I would agree and makes perfect sense. Problem here is that Connecticut actually has some of the toughest weapon laws in the US and yet this terrible tragedy occured. When things like this happen, people rightly question why and want something to prevent it from happening again. The sad truth here is that likely the mother, who lost her life, may have chosen more wisely her hobby of semi auto rifle collecting when the child in her house was mentally unstable.
Ateam1 posted at 4:43 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
When will you anti-gun freaks come to the reality that murderers,thieves.etc. Don't abide by the law! Why can't you get that through your heads!! Prohibition did'nt work and neither will gun control. Did any of you not smoke pot because it was illegal? Give it a break!!!
rockinroller posted at 5:20 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
WOW! Check out this startling statistic: In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone.
And Japan boasts one of the most stringent gun control processes in the world. Hmmm. Coincidence? I think not.
The US leads the world in gun-related deaths per 100,000 population, and the runner up isn't even close. Things have gotten way out of hand and since it's obvious that our society isn't improving sufficiently to think these situations like the horrific massacre in CT. are going to go away all by themselves, we invite governmental intervention into our lives--because we apparently can't make the correct choices on our own.
nodon7 posted at 7:01 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
Finally someone dropped some fact based knowledge. Job well done rockinroller.
And to all the gun loons posting in favor of more guns; the blood of 20 children is on your hands for supporting the NRA and gun rights beyond hunting weapons and limited hand gun ownership after stringent checks. Do not try to hide your malfeasance with the "criminals" have guns argument. If they have guns it is because you refused to limit the weapons people could buy. The less guns, the less killing. Period. I know a few of you nuts found singular examples that showed examples of killings in other ways, but seriously, do you really think you proved anything with that? Stop living in a fantasy world.
Ateam1 posted at 8:06 pm on Wed, Dec 19, 2012.
nodon7; You are a perfect example of someone who has been brainwashed. If any of you think for one second that gun control of any kind will keep them out of the hands of the criminals, you need some serious help!
chuckles3 posted at 7:53 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Yep, gun laws need to be stronger. Outside the movie theatre and the school should have been a BIGGER sign that read GUN FREE ZONE....WE REALLY MEAN IT. No really. It would have stopped both massacres.
Idiots.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 8:53 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
The victims of this horrible, horrible tragedy brought on my a mentally deranged murderer weren't even given a decent Burial before the ......"ANTI-GUN NUTS".....were calling for new Laws. The loudest being our "crying" President, Barack Hussein Obama. The very same Barack Hussein Obama who wasn't that disgusted with Gun Owners when he was being supported for Illinois Senator by none other than ...'BILL AYERS"....the ex-leader of the ....."WEATHERMEN".....DOMESTIC TERRORIST GROUP BACK IN THE 1960'S.
IF YOU ...ANTI-AMERICA GUN-OWNER "HATERS" WANT TO GO AFTER THE 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF PATRIOTIC AMERICANS......AT LEAST HAVE THE COMMON DECENCY TO WILL TILL ALL OF THE BURIALS HAVE TAKEN PLACE........IS THAT TOO MUCH .....HUMAN DECENCY ....TO ASK FOR ???
StotheizzE posted at 10:18 am on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
I agree that the criminals will always find ways to commit crimes, that's a fact. But, shouldn't we try to make some (not-so-drastic) changes so that the carnage they wreak isn't quite so devastating?
I can go and buy a fully automatic weapon, but I have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it and show that I have the skills and mindset to own one. Many people do lawfully own fully automatic weapons and even silencers. How many of these mass shootings have involved fully automatic weapons? I don't think any have, that's because the requirements for owning a fully auto weapon weed out the crazies.
Let's boost the requirements to own semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, no more free-for-alls at the gun shows. That way, the law-abiding, right-minded gun owner can have these things and perhaps fewer people bent on doing harm will be able to get their hands on them. Yes, they will use other weapons - knives, bats, ect. - but the potential for wiping out dozens in mere moments will be reduced.
DonMey posted at 2:03 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
Nodon - ...never mind, not going to waste my time trying to arguing with you.
smartvoter posted at 6:26 pm on Thu, Dec 20, 2012.
StotheizzE -- I'll give you 26 reasons why someone should be able to have 30-50 round magazines. Those poor babies in Ct. are DEAD. If there was someone at the school with the same fire power or more maybe the # would'nt be 26.
I'm using the #26 because I'm not including the gunman in case you were wonding.
Ateam1-- I have been trying to say the same thing to Mike McClellan and Cerulean all day on a differant post. You nailed it and they won't get it, it's sad.
Leon- I can't say anything other than well done, well said keep up the good fight.
Rich posted at 1:01 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
nodon7,
Talk about a fantasy world, it's your ilk that turned our schools into killing fields, the NRA tried to prevent that. The bloody hands here belong to you and people like McClellan who insisted on gun free schools, you're the people that set the table for the psychos, you're the guilty parties, not those who opposed the killing fields created by gun free zones.
TempeTownToilet posted at 7:08 pm on Fri, Dec 21, 2012.
When the Bill of Rights was created it only applied to the Federal government. States did not have to grant those rights to their residents.
But when the 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment required the states to grant the rights specified in the Bill of Rights to their residents.
One of the reasons the 14th Amendment was passed was to require the Southern states to allow former slaves to own guns so they could defend themselves against racist White folks who wanted to continue to enslave them.