Jon Meacham, a gun owner, on restoring the assault weapons ban

First, some personal history.  I am a southerner who grew up with and around guns.  I own some still. My father gave me a .22 rifle when I was 9 and a single barrel .410 shotgun when I was 10.  I have inherited many of my family’s guns, including a rifle made by my great, great, great grandfather, which I will preserve and give to my son. One of the central memories of my childhood is of hunting — not well; I am a terrible shot — quail and dove and grouse on a farm on the Tennessee River.

Tragically, my mind has all too frequent occasion to return to that time and that place, to the smells of cordite and of home. Whenever there is news of a terrible shooting, I wonder why America has so miserably failed to enact even common-sense gun legislation. I am not advocating a total ban, even on handguns. But I am embarrassed and ashamed that so many Second Amendment true believers are unable to make sound distinctions between sporting arms that tend to be used responsibly and the vicious, unnecessary machinery of human death like that allegedly wielded by Jared Lee Loughner in Tucson.

This is the type of gun that the shooter in Arizona is charged with using — a Glock 9 mm with an expanded clip that holds 33 rounds. What on earth could such a thing be good for except for rapidly ending as many human lives in as short a space of time as possible?

Congress banned such clips in 1994 under President Clinton; in 2004, under the second President Bush, they were allowed back on the legal U.S. market. So were other assault weapons banned for the previous decade. Of course the alleged murderer in Tucson was by all accounts mentally ill and susceptible to substance abuse. Could he have put his hands on this kind of Glock and this kind of clip illegally? Sure he could have. But he didn’t have to.

Here the system, such as it is, failed on two counts. First, there should be, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed, a strengthening of regulations that keep those with certain kinds of mental health and substance abuse records from being able to purchase firearms for a given period of time. We cannot control the dark meanderings of every disturbed person in America. But we can make relevant facts already in the public record available to gun sellers.

And we should not be allowing the sale of clips like this. The power of the gun lobby is such that the issues surrounding guns and ammunition have been notably absent from broad debate for 15 years or so. Politicians — including many Democratic ones — linked the 1994 Republican landslide to the passage of the assault weapons ban and decided, “never again.”

How about applying that steely resolve to something other than electoral survival — like, say, the survival of 9-year-old girls and federal judges and congressional aides who are in a Safeway parking lot on a Saturday morning?

Now Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg are sponsoring legislation to restore the ban on such weapons. The argument from Second Amendment purists that such things will then only find their way to the black market is unconvincing. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. A ban on these clips would mark a step toward bringing order out of the chaos of the Tucson tragedy.

The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government. We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time. This pistol with this high-capacity clip is a tool of destruction. I say this as someone who does not want to give up my own guns — but who believes that with rights come responsibilities. Yes, liberty is precious. But so is life. It should not be so difficult for men and women of good will and good heart and sound mind to find the right balance between the two.

Play
 
SUGGESTED STORIES
  • thumb
    Our friends, the dictators
    Jon Meacham: The crisis in Egypt is a reminder of America's checkered history with friendly authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.
  • thumb
      A tale of two countries
    Jon Meacham finds Charles Dickens' words — "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" — especially apt to describe President Obama's State of the Union address.

Comments

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    A gun owner that doesn’t know the difference between a “clip” and a magazine? Obviously you are not a responsible gun owner. The whole thing was just another hit piece on a Constitutional right that specifically states “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

    What magical algorithm was used in determining that 10 rounds is ok and 30 is not?

    The 94 AWB did nothing to ban the sale of standard capacity magazines(i.e. your 30+ round death machines), it only raised the price of said magazines.

    The video was just more “shoulder thing that goes up” nonsense.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3RZEU2VWZ3EDJN4RDZ3GSUBMM4 Bob from Reno

    In the early 70′s, in my early 20′s, I became a NRA rifle and shotgun instructor prior to becoming field sports director at a boy scout camp. A year or so later, I pasted my NRA sticker in my car window as I worked as an election deputy (unpaid volunteer) in New Jersey, locking up ballot boxes that had been unlocked for decades and helped to diminish the influence of organized crime in that state. A year or two later I decided upon moving to California that I would leave my single shot .22 to one of my brothers; that carrying the rifle could cause more problems than it was worth. Fast foward 10 years or more, when one of my friends, a Los Angeles County sherriff deputy, asked me for help in addressing a problem in the sherriff’s office where some deputies (see news reports from the early 80′s) where deputies were attaching citizens with the apparent approval of higher ups in the department. While in retrospect I could have done things differently, the .22 wouldn’t have helped. In short, the problem was denied and covered up. While an armed citizenry is part of the answer, it is not the total answer. Having citizens gain greater trust in government is the largest part of the answer. As long as denial and cover up of corruption and abuse in government against the citizenry happens- and those in government (particularly lawyers) – believe abuse of the citizenry is the cost that must be paid so they maintain control and continue abusing people, America’s problems will continue. By the way, as I see it a major portion of this problem is due to the Miranda decision which required attorneys to be provided for anyone facing 6 months or longer imprisonment. While a few state have 6 month penalities for misdemeanors, most have 12 months on the books. Due to the way this short sighted decison was worded, everyone gets a lawyer – who are overworked and to gain favor from the prosecutor help encourage crime – by offering “getting out by tomorrow” if the person pleas “no contest” and keeping him or her imprisoned until they are worn down. This in order to keep the prosecutors numbers up and looking good. Requiring defendents to speak before a judge would help restore both integrity and responsibility to both the courts and the individuals accused of crimes. While the left wants people on their knees before any and every government employee…who they see as providing everything needed, and the right which believes only the rich and powerful should be allowed at the table, it has really been the common citizens who uphold the values this country was founded upon.

  • Madogpaddle

    WOW, The drizzle I just heard is amazing. Instead of promoting, holding the person or persons responsible for a tragedy like the one that we all just experienced, but to attach something that you obviously don’t know anything about is amazing. To say that a high capacity “clip” (you don’t even know that it’s a magazine not a “clip”) is only for killing people is just unbelievable. You don’t use/own one so it’s “just for killing people” to try to scare people into believe the much coming out of your mouth. SAD!. Instead lets get rid of the first amendment instead of the second and see how you react. O ya that is how you make your living, Bet you would fight to keep that one, but all the rest I guess just don’t matter. Last year will be the last year I ever donate to PBS…

  • Ali

    It is NOT about and has never been about HUNTING. It is about not becoming one of the millions killed by the likes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

  • James Michael

    Mr. Meacham,

    Your POV is filled with the same ignorance of the larger issues that brought tragedy to Tucson, and no doubt await further future headlines of similar tragedy. It wasn’t the gun that killed so many people, and it wasn’t the 30 round clip; it was the person behind both. But let me address a deeper issue you and your congressman buddy from Chicago don’t seem to comprehend about your proposals and ideas on more restrictions.

    Any law, of any kind that places a label on people for enforcing the law, always manages to be circumvented by alternative options that beg “where do you draw the line?” Why stop at 10 round clips? Why not make all handguns “single shot?” Or if you feel generous on those of us who want to protect ourselves from criminals, who put stolen AK-47s in the back seat to spray a human target with, why not allow us to carry handguns with as many as FIVE round clips? I’ve got a better scenario for you… Your law gets passed, and Congress makes it illegal for any “lawful” handgun to have more than a NINE round capacity, INCLUDING one in the chamber. Are you going to have a law that says no person can carry more than one handgun? Remember, LAWS are used by LAWFUL people, while UNLAWFUL people won’t give a crap. But let’s answer the first question: You going to have laws that say lawfully registered carry permit holding civilians can only carry ONE gun?

    Because if you’re not, it’s not problem for idiots like the Tucson shooter to buy two or three guns, and with two or three, or four or five guns tucked under his belt, he is LAWFUL (until he begins spraying people), and he’s got just as much fire power as he had with the 30 round clip you’ve outlawed. Only now, he doesn’t need to STOP to RELOAD. He fills both hands with a gun, drops the first one that goes empty and reaches for gun number three. IF THAT SCENARIO would have happened, there LIKELY would have been a hell of a lot more DEAD people laying around, and Gabby might be one of them, having taken TWO or THREE rounds in the head from two hands filled with guns; BECAUSE there was no interval for the brave pedestrians to jump him when he tried to reload a second clip.

    What’s my point? Well, there are several.

    First, your conclusions are based on a SYMPTOM, not a problem, so your remedy has no merit, because it doesn’t address the problem.

    Second, I’ve just given one simple scenario that took me all of five seconds to create in circumventing the best 1,000 word speech you can come up with to preface your personal historical empathy to our Second Amendment rights, as you illustrate your complete lack of understanding to the core issues this tragedy brings out and what can be done to react positively towards them. A REAL criminal, with as much premeditation as the Tucson idiot used for MONTHS before finally striking out, would come up with far more deadly tactics to execute people by, and still adhere to your superficial symptom chasing, silly proposal to limit clip size in handguns; and REMAIN legal in the process, because talking heads like you and your typical politician haven’t a clue how to write legislation that anticipates the thousands of variables to their consequences, which criminals (and the human spirit) have proven throughout history they can always trump.

    Third, your conclusions about what a 30 round clip is “only good for” – is not what I consider prudent nor accurate in why I have supported PBS. If I want a liberal POV, I’ll turn on one of the of the usual liberal media channels that plague the airway. It’s not what a host of a new program flying PBS` banner should be taking a position on, particularly when he is so short sighted on his arguments. I’ll give you a scenario for a reason to have a 30 round clip. If I am sitting in my living room, and I hear someone breaking in the house with three or four other home invaders, and I suspect they are carrying weapons, and I can’t get to my MAC-10, or my AR-15, then I would like this option – especially if I was so arrogant that I didn’t feel I needed to own three of the same kind of handguns, because I wasn’t planning on assaulting any Congresspersons at the local mall.

    You, Mr. Meacham, don’t have the wisdom to PREDICT what scenario my life will take in defending my home; nor the power to DECIDE how I will defend my wife and children from the horrors of a gang breaking in to LIMIT what my options are. No one does. It’s bad enough that I have to jump through hoops to get an FFL for full automatic weapons and silencers, so I don’t need to wake the neighbors when I’ve just ruined my dry wall quietly spraying the gang of illegal immigrants who planned on robbing and killing me, and raping my wife before killing her. I most certainly shouldn’t have to go out of my way for a 30 round clip, if I felt that empowered me to protect my home better.

    When you can control DRUG traffic in America, with your “legislation,” and “police enforcement” – then come to me and the rest of American with your grand ideas to add another useless condition to another useless law you haven’t the understanding of, nor the resources to enforce if you did. Otherwise, keep your personal opinions off the backs of my funding for Public Television unless you’ve got some facts that make it a documentary worth watching because I will learn something. Reactionary opinions are like rectal cavities, everyone’s got one. I can hear limp suggestions from superficial POVs down at the local Pub with more argument than you’ve presented this evening.

    If you want to use your pulpit for something constructive and factual, next time dig into the social trends in America behind the hypocrisies of Washington’s actions on every turning point in our history since 1962. You might find contained within that framework the exact antonym of three generations to what Tom Brokaw called “The Greatest Generation.” Buried within that is the answers to why we are where we are today, and getting worse. It’s why corruption runs rampant in Washington, and we are seen globally as exactly what we are, the hypocrite bullies of the globe. And within that, is the core of what fuels the social cancer in our society for home-grown terrorism, that you might notice is rising in striking proportions. Until this country can return to the fundamentals of the nuclear family that won WWII, you will see more and more tragedies like Tucson. That’s a given. Just like disconnected from reality talking heads, with their own Public sponsored pulpits will find a “symptom” to rant about, as if they know what to do.

  • Jriper03

    Two clowns talking: i like how more than one person tries to discredit this mans whole statement by pointing out that he use the term “clip” instead of magazine. Who gives a flying F**k.. you want to see him lying, you want to convince yourself that he is not a gun owner, so you put way to much importance on the term clip and convince yourself. Also to blatantly dismiss the actual purpose design of a gun by this statement “To say that a high capacity “clip” (you don’t even know that it’s a magazine not a “clip”) is only for killing people is just unbelievable.”– Madogpaddle What’s unbelievable its the fact that you seem to be ignorant of the history of guns and its sole creation as a weapon of war. And technically all pistols are for this purpose, there are only a few “pistols” you can seriously hunt with. :-) This is coming from a person who would love to own multiple class 3 weapons, but when I think about it its not really a necessity (the class 3 part) but a want, I think its cool. But the reality is they’re not “toys” as much as we might feel they are sometimes. And your lying if your a gun enthusiast and say you’ve never felt that way. Another point is the “shall not be infringed” part well how far are we supposed to take that statement??? What do you specifically mean..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 mean do you seriously want to take it literally? Ok we can , Im a guy who bought my gun at a gun show, I rob a bank, when the cops come to arrest me they can’t take my gun away because according to the constitution they have no right to.. also in that small statement you picked out from the rest of the constitution its says nothing about a “responsible gun owner” so why do you give a shit ? Like you I never want the government to take away our weapons, but your arguments against responsible gun laws are based purely in emotion and are not thought through. Bring your other points and i will nock them down :-)

  • James Michael

    PS

    Mr. Meacham, please have your executive producers contact me about spot hosting a few programs. I guarantee the ratings will go up, and the donations will flow. There’s obviously a missing POV with PBS that needs to be reflected if they’re giving you as much rope to hang yourself as they have.

    James Michael

  • Go Logic

    Mr. Meacham,

    If you are going to do a piece re handgun magazine capacities implying that such capacities are somehow the “cause” of mass murders, you should at least do your homework first. The “clip/magazine” issue aside, you should look at the magazine capacities in some of the recent tragedies such as Luby’s and VA Tech, and I don’t mean by reading the distortion promulgated by the Violence Policy Center. In many of the recent incidents, the perpetrator had some magazines with 15-round capacities but also others with only 10. They still fired many more rounds than were in the highest capacity magazine each carried. That is because they had plenty of time to reload since no person in the area had any means to fight back. Even those situations where the attacker(s) had even higher capacity magazines (20 to 30 rounds or more) it often is not he capacity of any given magazine that determines the number of deaths. For example at Columbine, if you read the reports, you will find that much of the killing was done with a shotgun (5 to 7 round capacity depending on model and length of round).

    Why don’t you focus on the real issue that allowed this (and other) tragedies to happen – and that is the fact that our civil rights laws have been so skewed to insure absolute individual protection against any form of interference that the parents of a person who they knew has serious mental issues could do nothing about it because that person is over 18. Or a community college who witnesses such aberant behavior in a student that they ban him from the campus, but can not report that to any mental health officials for fear of being sued. There should be clear mechanisms that allow people who witness behaviour that is abnormal to initiate actions that can lead to getting help for that person if, in fact, such help is needed. I recognize the complexities that would surround such provisions (how do you stop the jealous wife from claiming the husband is mentally ill just because he is having an affair. etc), but those issues are no more complicated than others faced by society. Taking the easy way out by banning handgun magazines of some certain size will not fix the problem. Only getting mentally ill people the help they need will fix the kind of problem that caused the Tucson tragedy.

    And then there is the issue of perfectly sane people who decide they want to be criminals. What effect does passing a law regarding magazine capacities have on such people? There are very severe penalties for killing people, but that did not stop the Tucson tragedy and certainly has not stopped murder from happening every day. How would a law regulating magazine capacities deter a criminal mind from committing a crime? The very nature of a criminal is that he/she does not obey laws. Does anyone really believe that passing a law that says no person can possess a weapon within 1,000 feet of a politician is going to keep someone who is bent on doing harm to another from going through with it?

    Handguns – regardless of magazine capacity – are inanimate objects (tools) that can not function without human action. We need to address the humans that use such tools in inappropriate ways, not the tools themselves. Put criminals in jail. Get help for the mentally ill whether they agree they are mentally ill or not. Keep records of mental issues or criminal behaviour in a way that will show up in background checks. Etc. Etc.

    Your “soap box” is very powerful in terms of the number of people you can influence, and as a result you have a significant responsibility to ensure that what you spout from that soap box is true and appropriate to the issue you are espousing. It appears to me that you did not fulfill that responsibility in this case.

  • Downzero8249

    Using the proper terminology gives one credibity. Not knowing the difference between a clip and a magazine just exposes ignorance.

    The problem with “responsible” gun laws is that they are never enough. We have thousands of gun laws on the books. If creating a law stopped crime we should be crime free already.

    If handguns are weapons of war why are they not issued to the overwhelming majority of service members?

  • Andydurb

    Take a step back for one minute…..
    to say this most recent tragedy will be the reason for another heated discussion on the topic is an understement.
    But unless Jon Meacham [and hopefully others] continue to do such a fine job of reporting it and making suggestions, we are doomed to discuss it ad nauseam until the next one.
    [of course that is exactly what some would love to see.....]
    Jon,s reporting was excellent, and while some will just remain in denial or talk endlessly about the finer points of ‘clip sizes and magazine terminology’, bottom line is there has to be an end to this.
    for those who contact their legislators and demand changes and limitations on these weapons of death, congratulations to you, and you will help save lives.
    To those of you who continue to make excuses for mass ownership of these murderous weapons, instead of reasoned ownership and hunting rights, you must be accountable to the families and friends of the next victims. Because there will surely be many more to follow!
    congratulation to Jon Meacham, Carolyn McCarthy and everyone who demands change!
    Andy D.

  • Sturmsegel7

    Tom Shales Wash Post/syle was correct about Jon Meacham. See:
    http://www.observer.com/2010/media/10-names-tom-shales-called-jon-meacham-and-alisons-new-pbs-show
    Jonathan Ellis wants to ban my 30 rndr AR-15, how about I take out his favorite ice cream, “tootie frutie?” While we are at it, how about a ban on McD and all the fast food Companies that are killing far more people than Semi-Autos?
    As a Cherokee, I cant tolerate anyone who speaks favorable of Ol Hickory Stick, aka Andy Jackson who sent my people to the Hell that’s Oklahoma.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    The dig at being a “responsible gun owner” was a idiosyncrasy to expose people like you that think the erosion of our rights is ok, as long as it if “fer the children”. Thanks for proving it (if you’re having trouble understanding this, refer back to responsible gun laws for a clue).

    To say that guns sole reason for creation are for weapons of war show your ignorance on the history of weapon. Nice try though.

    The 2nd is not and has never been solely about hunting. Only Fudds believe this. Once you realize the vast scope of what the 2nd amendment means maybe you will have more respect for it.

    You have knocked down nothing, what you have shown is a complete lack of understanding and respect for our Constitution. But continue on with your dribble, it is getting you know where. Now, you may go back to your communist manifesto like your friend Jon.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Back to DU with you.

    Is “weapons of death” the scariest term you could come up with? Common, you can do better than that.

    Whose reasoning? Yours?

    The only individual responsible for the murder is… the murderer.

    “and you will help save lives” this is a wholely false statement proven by the last AWB. But if that is the best you got…

    I’ve contacted my reps and they are promising to stand fast in support of my rights, and yours.

  • Treda

    Another clueless anti gunner. This video has no merit.

  • Northfultonlawyer

    Treda, you are so ignorant and stupid. It is people like you and their beliefs that set the stage for what happened last Saturday in Tucson. What kind of stupid name is Treda anyway, or did you just make it up.

  • Rcrumb

    I too am a life long gun owner and active shooter. I agree completely with the writer as do many other gun user I know. Can we agree that moderation in all things is a wise idea? Can we agree that facts point out that our country is out of line with the rest of civilization concerning the liberal availability of combat weapons and that we have far higher rates of murder do to it? Do you believe having these weapons in our society makes us safer or more democratic?

    You say the the writer is clueless. Why? What merit does your comments have. You must be a very insecure, weak in spirit and mind to write something like that. I hope you find a peacefull path out of the fear and hate that make you suffer. God Bless and Good Hunting,

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    “Can we agree that moderation in all things is a wise idea?”
    -Shall we moderate your free speech? Or how bout moderating how much you earn according to the what gov believes you should have? From each according to his….. no thanks.
    “Can we agree that facts point out that our country is out of line with the rest of civilization concerning the liberal availability of combat weapons and that we have far higher rates of murder do to it?”
    -If it was true perhaps, but since it is not… no.
    “Do you believe having these weapons in our society makes us safer or more democratic?”
    - YES!
    “You say the the writer is clueless. Why?”
    - Because everything Jon and his buddy said was pure bs.
    ” What merit does your comments have.”
    - What do yours?
    ” You must be a very insecure, weak in spirit and mind to write something like that.”
    -typical
    ” I hope you find a peacefull path out of the fear and hate that make you suffer”
    - Why do you fear a piece of metal and plastic? Whos hateful(ref “very insecure…)?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Listen to yourself. What evidence do you posses that points to “people like you and their beliefs…” was the cause of this? Last time I checked this spin had been refuted by everyone including the nuts ex-girlfriend. Sounds like you made your name up too. Lawyer my butt. Maybe your that Sherriff incognito.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X6KJ3Z2ATQY35XIIXU5PYIMQTU Alfred

    you make a convincing and compelling argument.

  • Jabrams920

    I’m afraid you are the one with no merit.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    As does your retort.

  • Bizu

    STRIKE DOWN AMENDMENT 2 AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR ALL TO CARRY ARMS! PERIOD!!!

  • Guest

    Isn’t it a violation of union rules to bring real guns onto a set?

  • Paob

    Those are the dumbest non-sequiturs I have ever heard. Every gun owner I have ever met is a frightened person. Man up and go out into the world and stop worrying about someone shooting you. It ain’t likely. I had a bg city stickup man try to take away my wallet while he had his 45 staring at me, almost thirty years a go. I took away his gun and kicked his ass. He was so surprised that he ran off into the darkness. I’d just gotten out of the service and taught hand to hand combat. The dumb ass.

  • bulldog6

    Why does he feel the need to distinguish himself as a southerner? Liberals seem to continually feel the need to label people despite their own rhetoric. I am from the south. Does that mean Jon Meacham knows me? Hell no.

  • StuartH

    Big cities and rural country areas are so different that citizens in each can’t fully relate to the realities in whichever one they do not live in.

    Inner city areas that have high crime and high poverty are places where someone is very likely to just become frustrated with other people to the point of taking a gun and shooting. This happens often enough that some sort of way of cutting down on the number of people who are out of their minds who go shoot people is something the public cries out for.

    Rural areas where people might actually hunt for meat to put on the table, might as well be on a different planet. Hunting through forest and canyon where there are not very many people to have any sort of encounter with, offers a way of thinking about guns that doesn’t involve much likelihood that other people will be shot, especially not in large numbers.

    In inner city areas where people can go crazy just be being around too many others, it doesn’t make sense for automatic weapons to be easily available. I think it is quite reasonable to ban large clips that have no use, except in a military situation, and probably to ban automatic weapons altogether.

    When the police face people in a manic state who are both psychotic and on the latest “dust” and who also have automatic weapons with large clips, they are endangered. The public is endangered.
    All too often innocent bystanders and children are shot.

    This is plainly a situation where responsible people need to step in and figure out some way of making it more difficult for people who ought to be in mental treatment to get hold of guns and to be able to kill others with them.

    This has nothing to do with rural areas and hunting. If it were, this would not be an issue. Most of those people are the most responsible people among us. They are not causing the problem.

  • Deb

    To Mr. Meacham, thankyou for stepping up to the plate. Hopefully more avid gun owners will also.

  • iyoumeweus

    I have often wondered what was meant by the term ‘arms’ in the 2nd amendment. It seems that in the 1790’s a ‘stand of arms’ implies either a smooth or rifle bored flintlock muzzle loading musket with a bayonet for a militiaman while an officer had a sword and perhaps a single shot muzzle loading pistol. Pikes, halberds and tomahawks might also be found in some militia companies and should be included in a listing of militia arms. So how did it happen that swords, tomahawks etc become outlawed. I am very certain, although not easy to conceal, you cannot carry them on the street although you can purchase, own and display them I your home. Why is there no National Sword and Tomahawk Association to protect these 2nd amendment rights. Percussion caps using mercuric fulminate which would readily explode under a hammer blow was invented in 1814, and subsequently incorporated into a cartridge and projectile. The merging of the procession cap and a metallic cartridge lead to the development of the first multiple-firing weapon, the Gatling gun, adopted by the U. S. Army during the Civil War. Neither my great-great nor great grandfather understood they could own a Gatling gun.

  • jeff

    I’m afraid he does not go far enough. Not only do we need no restrictions on guns, semi-automatic nor automatic machine guns but we the people need full access to nuclear weapons and other explosives.

  • iyoumeweus

    We do moderate speech. You can not hollow “FIRE” when there is no fire or “RAPE” ot many other nouns which discribe danagous siturations which do not excist and could cause injury.

  • Hetrose

    Well, Bizu, I would not go that far, but how about soementing along these lines?

    Just as there is a No Fly List, there should be a No Buy List.
    Ban all automatic weapons sales.
    Ban all semi-automatic handguns for non-military, police or security personnel.
    Ban al ammo such as Hollow Points, armour piercing rounds and exploders.
    Ban sales of Super rifles, such as the armour piercing long range sniper rifles.
    Ban the carrying of weapons in at least some specific public places such as Political rallies, etc. – and within a mile of an Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance.
    If a particular weapon, accessory to a weapon, or type of ammo is illegal to own, then it cannot be manufactured here or imported into this country.

    The following should be Mandatory for purchase of any firearms:
    A very thorough background check – no quickies.
    Yearly license fee for each weapon.
    A psych evaluation before purchase is allowed.
    In depth and on-going safety training.
    A large liability insurance policy to protect anyone harmed by someone’s weapons.
    Extra fees on weapons and ammo sales which go into a Victim’s Fund.

  • Duncanidho

    that’s not a 30 round 9mm magazine, thats like a 60 round magazine.. Hmmm

  • evi1joe

    The Assault Weapons Ban didn’t really do much of anything from my point of view as a VERY liberal (practically a black, kenyan, maoist, socialist nazi!); I’ve also never seen any statistics that proved it helped anything. For example, there were plenty of “pre-ban” magazines and guns available, though they did cost a bit more–so I suppose the poor criminals couldn’t afford them. However, you could still get an “assault rifle” without a flash-hider or bayonet lug–but banning ridiculous things like “bayonet lugs” (did it really reduce the number of people killed in drive-by bayonetings? I doubt it) and “flash hiders” (but not muzzle breaks–you could shoot faster follow-up shots, but people would be able to see where you were shooting from at night due to the flash-signature) doesn’t do much. Also, making rules like “no concealed carry guns within 1000 feet of politicians” is ridiculous–(a) how do I know who I’m 1000ft from, and (b) that law wouldn’t have prevented ANY of the obviously illegal shootings that have occurred (such as the AZ tragedy). People who want to ban types of guns or magazines are impractical idealists in our pluralistic society; just as deluded as anti-choice “pro-life” people. I’m all for tougher gun-laws like longer waiting periods, more in-depth background checks, etc. What I’m not for is going into hysterics every few years when some insane person (like Loughner or Cho) guns down innocent people. He could have killed as many or more people had he driven his car at 90mph through the crowd; then backed over them. If you want to kill someone who will let you get close to them at a Safeway, you can do it with a knife, a pipe-bomb…even a sharp stick. Surely we don’t want to ban sharp sticks just because, what use does anyone really have for a stick that sharp?!

  • JR Jake

    That is a 30 round, two times the handle length on a normal 15 round Glock.

  • Debs

    Attempting to draw a comparison between gun ownership and free speech is ludicrous. Freedom of speech does not include freedom to incite harm or violence against another person or persons. Clearly an unstable person having access to a gun is a troubling thought, as their capacity to act responsibly is diminished. Do you not think it appropriate that certain persons lose their right to drive a vehicle if in the use of that vehicle they have acted irresponsibly by way of consuming alcohol or driving in a manner that would endanger others? Vehicles too are useful and popular, yet as a society we accept that management of the right to access and use a vehicle is desirable. The same argument can be applied to firearms. The individual right to have free access to certain firearms and accessories, should never come at the expense of the multitudes who have the right to expect the laws of the land will ensure the safety of their communities, and their family members can be expected to return home safely after a Saturday afternoon at the local shopping center.

  • jaeger

    Some people are part of the solution, and some people are like you

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TYRSGPGUV7G6KLATV2LYVE7344 Marc

    taken to the most absurd illogical conclusion

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TYRSGPGUV7G6KLATV2LYVE7344 Marc

    NEV. ER. You must work for the government right?

  • John Bates Thayer

    Sorry, but my giving up my rights will not make you, me or anyone else any safer.

  • Ludwig

    Mental illness is very complex…the vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent in any way.

    Outreach and help I can agree with. But the money is not there and hasn’t been since Reagan decided that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” So go figure. Most of the the nation’s mentally ill are sleeping on corrugated cardboard in storefronts…can’t afford a Glock, thank God…can’t even afford a McDonald’s double cheese.

    Yes this is how it is.

  • Ludwig

    Mental illness is very complex…the vast majority of mentally ill people are not violent in any way.

    Outreach and help I can agree with. But the money is not there and hasn’t been since Reagan decided that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” So go figure. Most of the the nation’s mentally ill are sleeping on corrugated cardboard in storefronts…can’t afford a Glock, thank God…can’t even afford a McDonald’s double cheese.

    Yes this is how it is.

  • Bodkins

    this is unreadable as the browser repositions to the top of the page about every 15 seconds

  • Bodkins

    this is unreadable as the browser repositions to the top of the page about every 15 seconds

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Freedom of speech is not regulated. You most certainly can yell “fire”.

  • Dpp211

    Dude, you watch too much television…no gang of illegal immigrants is going to rob and kill you, and your wife is probably so ugly if they did break it they’d sooner rape you than her…

    You’re not Jack Bauer, and you’re never going to be. Your guns make you a danger to you and everyone around you, including your family. Look at the numbers. Out of developed nations, the US has the highest rate of deaths by firearm because you insist on putting more into circulation. Less guns in circulation= less deaths by gun. Simple math…

  • BillySometimes

    I love how people keep demonizing “the government.” WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Elected officials aren’t elected by each other, WE ELECT THEM. Whether the government officials that get elected reflect your views depends entirely on where society itself (at least the voting population), made up of “we, the people”, stands on “the issues.”

  • TEA

    so why not just error in the direction of caution? don’t drift into “yes…you could be struck by lightning or killed by a shark” territory….

    People who want to ban types of guns or magazines are impractical idealists in our pluralistic society; just as deluded as anti-choice “pro-life” people. I’m all for tougher gun-laws like longer waiting periods, more in-depth background checks, etc. What I’m not for is going into hysterics every few years when some insane person (like Loughner or Cho) guns down innocent people. He could have killed as many or more people had he driven his car at 90mph…”. Why is any limit to access to unnecessary weapons?…..and make your case FOR extended clips for urban, non-hunting weaponry.

  • Rspelos

    as he intended.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    The right to drive a vehicle is not in the Constitution. A little hypocrytical saying I cannon draw a comparison of one right to another when you try to draw comparison of a right and a privilege…

    “Do you not think it appropriate that certain persons lose their right to drive a vehicle if in the use of that vehicle they have acted irresponsibly by way of consuming alcohol or driving in a manner that would endanger others?”
    -And you have proven my point. Guns and their parts should not be banned. Criminals should be prosecuted.

    The right to bear arms is a “law of the land” that ensures the safety of the people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dino-Ridgeway/1693264682 Dino Ridgeway

    You don’t know much about anything BUT the second amendment, do you.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Some don’t want to be apart of yoru final “solution”. Some people have respect for our country and its founding documents.

  • BillySometimes

    “Listen to yourself. What evidence do you posses that points to “people like you and their beliefs…” was the cause of this?”
    It is people like you, who believe there should be absolutely no “infringement” on the right to buy any type of gun, that did help allow that freak to get the weapons he wanted

  • Hockeygrin

    Forget it, no one is listening. America will always be the murder capital of the world. We are looked at like freaks by the world. Things are not going to get any better, so give up. I did.

  • Hockeygrin

    Forget it, no one is listening. America will always be the murder capital of the world. We are looked at like freaks by the world. Things are not going to get any better, so give up. I did.

  • Jimmycap

    you should get a new browser then

  • Jimmycap

    you should get a new browser then

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    I applaud you comrade.

  • Jimmycap

    I doubt those “founding documents” described a 30 round magazine for a weapon that is meant only to kill people

  • Cgvignone

    WE, America NEEDS An American National HealthCare System

  • Edward Lazarus

    Nonsense! Common sense certainly dictates that a 30 or 30 plus clip is NEVER needed for ANY purpose EXCEPT to commit MASS MURDER!
    Wiggle around the 2nd amendment—but facts are facts. I believe STRONGLY–in the “right to bear arms,” but those who equate expanded clips with the right to bear arms are full of crap! Period! End of story!

  • Jimmycap

    I’ll bet Mrs. Giffords feels safe now

  • Anonymous

    Try it, psycho.

    Sure you can yell, but your freedom of that speech doesn’t mean you get freedom from the consequences of your actions.

    Seriously, you need to turn off the Halo video game and start living in the real world.

  • Tullymon2

    I hope the FBI is watching this one…

  • Anonymous

    You are probably soon going to be incarcerated. Too bad someone will probably be hurt in the process, but at least you’ll be properly stuck in some concrete hole where you obviously wish to be anyway.

  • Anonymous

    You sound like the type who would rather give up someone else’s right to live so you can go to bed with your “gun”.

  • Ggg

    I don’t have money for that…

  • Debs

    I was applying a degree of common sense to the argument, something that you seem unwilling or unable to come to grips with. When the right to bear arms was included in the constitution, clearly it could not anticipate the sort of guns and weaponry that is available in this day and age. I refer back to my “vehicle” analogy, it is accepted that legislation is fluid and adaptable to changing times. So to should the same common sense apply to gun legislation.

  • Anonymous

    The founding document called for “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” I see nothing well-regulated about current gun laws, no relation to any militias that are well-regulated. And I certainly don’t find the free state very secure when innocent people, including a 9-year-old girl, can’t even freely talk to her Congresswoman without getting killed and said Congresswoman getting shot in the head.

  • gunNutsaysWhat?

    You’re going to need more than a glock, friend.
    Rambo you ain’t.

  • Justsayin

    Police are for the ban. Impractical idealists that they are…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dino-Ridgeway/1693264682 Dino Ridgeway

    Does the NRA pay the mentally challenged to shill for them in comment sections? This guy must be getting paid by the word.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Swords, tomahawks, etc have certainly not become outlawed. I’m not sure what state you live in but in mine I could just as easily replace my sidearm for any one of those if I so felt inclined. The only exception is ballistic knives. But I believe this is in the works to be repealed also.

  • Herpaderp

    Because we all know that Rights and Necessity go hand-in-hand without any conflict, correct?

  • Archivist1000

    THAT is funny!

  • Riclov

    You are sadly misinformed. Of the five largest mass killings of the last several decades, the Columbine case was number 4. Three of the top 5 were in Germany which has extremely strict gun control laws. The other was in Switzerland, which also has very strict laws. The USA and our gun laws are not the issue. We have laws in place to restrict the purchase of guns and ammunition, but they are rarely enforced. If the law had been enforced, the Arizona shooter should never been allowed to buy the gun, the expanded clip or the ammunition. No new laws are needed. Enforcement of the current laws are.

  • Herp

    You are a fascist

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeffery410 Jeff Young

    That is hilarious. Can’t determine whether you are trying to be funny or serious.

  • Zuzette

    I also wonder what the founders meant by “bear” arms. Loaded, unloaded; concealed, unconcealed; single shot, repeaters; automatic weaponry like they never imagined? They did not clarify exactly what they meant, which, in other parts of the constitution, we’ve taken to imply that it is each generation’s responsiblity to decide for ourselfves what is in the common good. Easy access to guns designed only for the purpose of killing as many human beings as possible as quickly as possible is decidedly not in the common good. It is a monsterous wrong that cannot be defended.

  • gunNutSaysWhat?

    IN GUNS WE TRUST.

  • Aswiss

    All swiss have the right to bear arm.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Thank you.

  • gunNutSaysWhat?

    these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.

  • Barbbjjb12246

    I am very liberal, but even I find that scary. I have known four people personally who committed suicide with guns. I knew a female sheriff who was calling a man’s home because he was drunk. She asked that they come and get him, He put a gun to her head which he had hidden and shot her because “the bit.h talked too much”. All these guns were small and easy to hide. I knew a teacher who killed his entire family and himself. I knew a twin who shot his brother while cleaning an an “empty gun”. My great aunt shot and killed her fiance with an “empty gun”. I’ve had a gun pointed at me. I think that I could only hold a small gun and that to sell guns that only men can hold and fire is discrimination against women. Bullets are projectiles and they are not covered by the second amendment, I don’t care what you say.

  • rbrain

    I agree with the earlier post (by Heterose)

    Just as there is a No Fly List, there should be a No Buy List.
    Ban all automatic weapons sales.
    Ban all semi-automatic handguns for non-military, police or security personnel.
    Ban al ammo such as Hollow Points, armour piercing rounds and exploders.
    Ban sales of Super rifles, such as the armour piercing long range sniper rifles.
    Ban the carrying of weapons in at least some specific public places such as Political rallies, etc. – and within a mile of an Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance.
    If a particular weapon, accessory to a weapon, or type of ammo is illegal to own, then it cannot be manufactured here or imported into this country.

    Reasonable is completely off limits to the NRA, who keep peddling the delusion that unlimited handgun ownership is the only thing protecting people from tyrannical governments. Perhaps if the military revolts and uses the “real” weaponry, a tyrannical government could be overthrown, but the NRA argument is just to keep the handgun industry happy.

  • tom swift

    At least it’s easier to get a free browser like Firefox than to buy a Glock.

    It is, isn’t it?

  • http://twitter.com/JafafaHots Jafafa Hots

    You must have been furious when they amended the founding document to let blacks be considered fully human… and to allow women to vote, etc.

    Tarnished the original intent, they did!

  • Greenmean112

    Right O Jonny ole boy! I’ve always said you were a maaaaanly sort of man

  • TrulySaddened

    This is exactly the type of inflammatory and fringe labeling attack that leads to what we are dealing with. Hetrose’s comments are a perfectly well reasoned and thorough possible solution to the crisis we face in our gun toting society.

    Instead of such a foolish and mistaken response, how about trying your brain at a reasoned and well thought out defense of automatic weapons…one that goes beyond “the right to bear arms”, which as we all know, never ever was intended to include Gatling guns, as one of the previous commenters so astutely observed.

  • Greenmean112

    No merit? you my friend are the clueless one.

  • Williamcg1979

    what is an armor piercing sniper rifle? does that mean that there are sniper rifles that DON’T pierce armor? that’d be kind of pointless, really.

  • Escher

    Personally, I’ve always liked the gun fetishists’ credo of “You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold dead hand.” Maybe we should give that a try. It is what they keep asking for, after all.

  • http://twitter.com/ProObamaAgenda Kevin G

    clearly your list is incorrect…many more were killed at Virginia Tech(33) than at Columbine.Oct 1991..George Hennard drove his pickup to Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, then shot dead 23 people and himself
    July 1984 Some 21 people were killed when a 41-year-old opened fire at a McDonald’s restaurant in San Diego. He was shot by police.
    February 1983 Three men shot dead 14 people in the Wah Mee club in Seattle’s Chinatown
    August 1986 A former postal worker entered a post office in Oklahoma, and shot 14 workers before killing himself.
    Dont let you love for guns cause you to shy away from the truth

  • PacificCoaster

    Your moronic argument just seems to be that freedom and stupidity is always better than regulation and reason.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PKOPJI2ECLDRQMZQU5NY7CF75A Silence Dogood

    The answer is no.

    Alcohol related fatalities kills more people than gun violence does.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PKOPJI2ECLDRQMZQU5NY7CF75A Silence Dogood

    There is a reason why this is the case, but Huffpo censors the answer because it’s not pc.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Dill/571202765 George Dill

    Always confused me if IN GOD WE TRUST, why do we have so many guns in this country?

    Best if all Americans can buy all the guns they want until Jan. 1, 2012 … then the military and the gun toting Americans have a war. Last man, woman, or child standing wins (with God’s help of course). I have $5 on our military vs the God fear’in tea baggers. Per mutual agreement, looser bodies can be ground up for fertilizer. Recycling is a Godly attribute.

  • TrulySaddened

    Your uneducated adherence to the letter of the constitution reminds me of most religious extremists. It is exactly this type of extreme fanaticism that leads to most of the wars and violence in our current world.

    Your words, not just here but many more so above as well, exhibit blind extremist thought without educated reasoning and the application of human conscience. What separates us form animals and enables us to create a society is our ability to reason and to think and to have a conscience and to use our minds as tools to interpret the world we live in and respond to it in appropriate, creative and logical ways.

    Your responses show a total lack of independent thinking and the total lack of ability to use your mind in smart reasoned thought.

    This leads to extremism. Extremism leads to violence. And you are as clear a warning to us all as any.

    Clearly my friend, you have none.

  • TrulySaddened

    Your uneducated adherence to the letter of the constitution reminds me of most religious extremists. It is exactly this type of extreme fanaticism that leads to most of the wars and violence in our current world.

    Your words, not just here but many more so above as well, exhibit blind extremist thought without educated reasoning and the application of human conscience. What separates us form animals and enables us to create a society is our ability to reason and to think and to have a conscience and to use our minds as tools to interpret the world we live in and respond to it in appropriate, creative and logical ways.

    Your responses show a total lack of independent thinking and the total lack of ability to use your mind in smart reasoned thought.

    This leads to extremism. Extremism leads to violence. And you are as clear a warning to us all as any.

    Clearly my friend, you have none.

  • Johnds139

    When John Meacham speaks ,any individual who professes intelligence , listens.

  • Shieldbash

    This is absolute nonsense. The United states isn’t even in the Top 20 if you are looking at worldwide per-capita statistics (which is the most accurate measure). If you are looking at absolute number, then we are number five.

  • Anonymous

    Automatic weapons are not necessary for anything but premeditated murder and gang war. End of discussion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PKOPJI2ECLDRQMZQU5NY7CF75A Silence Dogood

    Err whatever this place is :P

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PKOPJI2ECLDRQMZQU5NY7CF75A Silence Dogood

    It is true that he could have killed more people with a car… do we need car control?

  • TrulySaddened

    “None” referring to common sense and a free thinking mind.

    It is closed off and dangerous and such a sad example of the growing extremism in our world…an extremism that will be our demise I am afraid.

  • Anonymous

    The main thing is that a semi-automatic handgun with large ammo clips has no right being available to the public or anyone other than military or law enforcement personnel. I own several rifles, they are TOOLS. Any of them could be used for home defense, but no child will be able to operate one due to their weight and complexity. I use them for sustenance hunting when visiting my home state of Alaska which I then use ALL of the parts of the animal, selling the hides, bones, tendons and organs to local groups that employ furriers, native artists and more to ensure EVERY millimeter of the animal is used and I use the meats (while paying quite a bit for my licenses) in my normal food throughout the year instead of beef or other meats from grocery stores.

    A handgun is not a viable tool to take out large game or even smaller game like Turkeys, Fowl, etc… Rifles are the appropriate tool. Handguns were developed to be used against people and nothing more. If you hunt with a handgun, you’re going to get trampled by your prey however they are very effective at bringing down people, that’s what they were developed for so I say ban ALL handguns. Only allow them to be licensed tools used by the military and law enforcement, no one else. Offer a buy-back program where we pay twice the going rate to smelt them down and ensure that ONLY new handguns are ever put onto the street in the hands of officials and ensure each of those have tracking systems in place so they can’t be traded or converted to a black market sales opportunity.

    I love my rights and I love my guns but I would prefer the system England has where the worst I have to worry about 99 times out of 100 is someone pulling a knife. I can defend myself against that, I can’t do a damned thing against a bullet…

  • Anonymous

    According to Wiki, we’re #1 per capita by a significant margin. Canada has one-third of the number of guns than we do per capita.

    Check it out yourself at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

  • Anonymous

    What will he say when the Death Panel comes knocking?
    What then, America?
    There is NOTHING in the Constitution or the Bible that says government should have any say in the ordnance that Free Men keep on hand to defend themselves against the genocidal intent of lawless cults like the Democrat Party, against confiscatory dystopian nightmares like the islamofascist Obama Administration.

  • Andrew T Ones

    You, sir, are a dipshit, and am saddened that people as ignorant and simple minded as you are walking this earth.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XCSTZ44ZIRMRIMBDKB6DEQFZ2Y screwed

    It’s “DemocratIC party, nut job

  • http://www.facebook.com/angry.dizzy.hulk Bobby Noyes

    sad, sad, sad.

  • Jujudahlman

    Well, I hope someone puts you on a watch list for mentally handicapped and should be monitored. You do not live in reality of facts. Your state of mind is the reason we need more gun regulations.

  • peter1122

    It is terrible what happened in AZ.
    But do we really want another national argument (as we did with healthcare) that leads to a worse impediment to freedom and more people being unhappy and frustrated with Government run amok?
    How about we start with things that are actually killing people fastest? Like cigarettes, drugs and alcohol? These are regulated, and look how fast we are killing ourselves with them?

  • Todkaninchen

    Mass murder and gang wars?

    How peaceful of you!

  • Todkaninchen

    Exactly, that’s why we need them out of police hands as well. They shouldn’t have the option of premeditated murder and gang war.

  • Offchance

    I think you may be referring to semi-automatic weapons. It’s difficult to obtain, maintain and purchase a automatic licence/weapon.

  • Offchance

    I think you may be referring to semi-automatic weapons. It’s difficult to obtain, maintain and purchase a automatic licence/weapon.

  • http://twitter.com/granitesentry Danny Lee

    Two things. 1. If the college or the liberal sheriff or the parents had seen to their responsibilities, the guy would not have been able to legally buy a gun or a clip of any capacity, because his incapacity would have been a matter of public record. 2. “The power of the gun lobby” is not a matter of some kind of dark magic, but the simple result of the fact that most Americans recognize that blaming crimes on the tools used to commit them is nonsensical and, frankly, a little simple minded. http://www.granitesentry.com

  • Anonymous

    Police use pistols 99% of the time. Only swat and special response teams have autos. Unless you mean riot police in places like Sudan.

  • Jdcopyboy

    There is a difference between killing ourselves and killing others. That is why cigarette smoking is illegal in many public areas – it is hardmful to others. What we do only to ourselves should not be regulated. Rethink your argument there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=818409501 Scott Tice

    A Glock 19 is NOT an automatic weapon.

  • Anonymous

    For a more accurate accounting and how the U.S. compares to the rest of the world, check out:

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

  • Jdcopyboy

    We do have car control. It’s called transportation safety standards, registration, inspection, insurance mandates and licensing. That one deflated quick didn’t it?

  • Anonymous

    The part about “well regulated” militia does not count? It’s in the same SENTENCE as the rest of the Second Amendment. And for the Context of Militia at the time, see the Militia Act of 1792. It actually mandates white adult men to have a weapon, yes. It also says that weapon can be a rifle OR a flintlock (only one). It also mandates how much ammunition you are allowed to have, and also maintenance of said firearm. And that Act clearly references said militia to be for the Defense of the United States.

    The Founding Fathers were intelligent and rationale beings. If some guy said he wanted to have 10 rifles and a cannon, I’m quite sure they would have said “whoaaaaa”. And I am sure of that based on their writings.

    In fact, you notion that arms are not regulated means I can own a shoulder fired missile or nuke? Really? You need a Federal Logistics Registration Number to own those, and frankly I think that is a good idea. Yes, that is Arms Control, and it already exists under the Constitution. The extent of it is up to Congress. Banning it is Unconstitutional, but regulating it is not.

    And Obama actually stood up for the gun people. Chicago recently tried and outright handgun ban. A Federal Court overruled the ban. Obama backed up the Courts decision. They didn’t report that ion FOX?

  • Anonymous

    That’s only because alcohol is much more available than guns are. It’s a misleading statistic

  • Liquid_d55

    Who typed that for you, as someone as ignorant as you could never figure out a keyboard ?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Not true. There are even game wardens with M4s.

  • Jdcopyboy

    I don’t think people would be so quick to compare gun deaths to vehicle fatalities (or alcohol related ones for that matter) if they took into account just how heavily vehicles and alcohol in the U.S. are regulated. Guns should work the same way.

  • Wrongside
  • peter1122

    You think drugs only affects the cigs/drugs/alcohol user? How about their family? Or the border guards or the people hit by drunk drivers?
    14.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month.
    About 45 million adults in the U.S smoke cigarettes
    Approximately 14 million people in the U.S. are addicted to alcohol or abuse alcohol
    Alcohol is the third leading cause of the preventable deaths in the United States.

    These preventable deaths are FAR and AWAY more numberous than tragic deaths by gun. And the solutions are far less controvertial (already under “government control”).

  • Anonymous

    You don’t have to worry. Unless there is a grand shift in American political thought, your right to own a handgun is safe. The occasional murder of innocent people in a shooting spree is simply the price we as Americans have to pay, so you can go to the shooting range every now and then.

  • Anonymous

    You don’t have to worry. Unless there is a grand shift in American political thought, your right to own a handgun is safe. The occasional murder of innocent people in a shooting spree is simply the price we as Americans have to pay, so you can go to the shooting range every now and then.

  • GonzO

    Too much Palin and Fox News for you, you need to get off that stuff.

  • Jdcopyboy

    you didn’t listen to what I said. I was talking about deaths of others. The only one that does that is alcohol. Marijuana doesn’t even kill anyone unless it’s from lung cancer. You’re living in a middle school PSA, bud.

  • Anonymous

    January 15, 2011

    Dear All,

    The whole truth and nothing but the truth with regard to the Second Amendmant – as I see it:

    As it stands now the argument for gun control has been lost by liberal democrats, socialists, communists, and the rest of the left, leaving out Vermont, because they elect Bernie Sanders. How did we get here? A quick trip down memory lane.

    In the twenties and thirties automatic firearms were the tools that mobsters used to lethal effect. The likes of Bonnie Clyde and his sawed off BAR were not just a myth. After that experience we passed a law that required a tax to be paid for each machine gun of $200.00. And of course it barred felons from making an application. Then if you had one you could be prosecuted. There have been a few amnesties for veterans and the like, but the law held. Then the 60’s came along – and holy cow the drug infused rage of the radical political and otherwise was busy reaping it’s evil seed from one city to the next. So we passed another law, the gun control act of 1968. Then in 1986 most of that was repealed, as a compromise, to cease the manufacturing of machine guns for public sale. All we had to buy and sell were the tens of millions of machine guns manufactured prior to 1986. Obviously this makes these firearms extremely valuable so they are not traded all that often, and they are literally worth their weight in gold, inducing a significant amount of law breaking, bearing in mind there are millions of these in the world outside our borders, since we have no border control they find there way to our country. Then we did the assault weapons ban, which wasn’t really a ban at all, and it had a sunset provision built in guaranteeing a massive supply of new firearms at the end of the ban. We all know what happened when Obama became President. Citizens bought guns, lots of them, I even bought a few, as an investment.

    The stone cold fact is, we stand at a compromise on the Second Amendment. I can’t buy a machine gun, I can only possess semi-automatic firearms, regardless of all of the features that make liberals wet their pants. I for one think it is a good compromise, and if you liberals continue to push the issue you’ll lose those gun control bastions that you so covet as you ride around in your bullet proof limousines. This will happen because if you force a new compromise in this climate I’ll be legally able to bring my concealed gun where ever I please so you can be comforted that I’ve paid some asinine tax to the ATF on my “high capacity” magazine.

    What I’m saying is this. Do not kick this dog. Let it be. Stop instigating people to arm themselves by telling them generation after generation that you are going to take their guns, in time, they will become ubiquitous and people will not get so hot and bothered over them.

    Joe Doakes

  • Escher

    Just throwing this out there, but how do you gun people interpret the “well ordered militia” part of the second amendment? Are each and every one of you members of a well ordered militia? Am I? Is my grandma? Do I get a shiny badge or a certificate or something? Who does the ordering? Where do we meet? Should I bring the sandwiches?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Cunningham/644663163 Pete Cunningham

    Where are the deaths from marijuana? Marijuana use has never been associated with cancer.

  • Chuck

    Of course scripture does not speak specifically to “guns.” Jesus however does have quite a few words about peace, loving enemies, and loving even enemies. He teaches that non-violence is a powerful force, more powerful than weapons. (See the power of non-violence in the civil rights movement.)
    Yes, he did “drive the money changers out of the temple,” but he did so without harm, and for the sake of those who were being victimized.
    In fact Jesus never teaches us to defend ourselves.
    If you’d like, you can go to the old testament and find many references to the use of violence, but Christians claim a new covenant, inaugurated by Christ. We should be different from the culture.
    Our problem is that we who claim the name of Jesus don’t really believe the words of Jesus.

  • Henry1121

    What is a death panel? Please explain.

  • Johnny

    Cigarettes, drugs, & alcohol will kill you faster than a Glok 9? Really?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=621296833 Max Allstadt

    You know what’s better than bans? Heavy licensing and testing requirements for assault weapons. Licensing is better than bans for keeping weapons out of the black market.

    Make assault weapons available to law abiding citizens who pass psych screenings, practical exams and written exams, along with background checks. They will buy them. This puts them in the hands of the most stable members of society. It also reduces the supply to the black market, increasing the black market price, which makes it harder for people like Jared Loughner to get them.

    Crazy people, in particular, will have a hard time buying from the black market. Loughner is visibly insane, awkward, arrogant, and somewhat unintelligent. A black marketeer would meet someone like him and be very suspicious and cautious, likely abandoning the deal completely.

    The middle way is not bans, but heavy duty licensing for the most dangerous weapons, particularly hi-cap magazines.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t need to interpret it. It is not written in latin. It is the goal of the Second Amendment, the purpose, one of many, in the bearing of Arms. Not just the ones you were borne with, but as inseparable in goal of guarding your liberty, our liberty. If want to make fun of it, that is your right, and if you want to become a militia of one, eat right, exercise, do a little shooting at an NRA approved range with the AR-15 or M1A variant of your choice, with a safety officer present, and in 20 years when the communist chinese invade to take our food, at least you will be kind of ready for it.

  • peter1122

    I’ve got three letters for those who believe in effectively designed government programs: T.S.A. And if that doesn’t scare you how about S.E.C., the F.B.I, or the C.I.A? Do the massive failures/government intrusions of these institutions in the last 10 years make you more willing to give up any more of your rights?

  • solsister

    You are obviously educated. You use words like “dystopian” and “confiscatory” properly and even spell them correctly. Given that, how on Earth can you fail at using logic and reason so miserably?

  • joedoakesisparanoid

    Do you sleep under your bed at night?

  • Guns are not God.

    Failures of all of those agencies in the last ten years? Under who’s leadership, pray tell? Which party was at the wheel when these agencies failed so hard?

  • Anonymous

    The rhetoric surrounding gun politics is very confusing. I tend to agree with Meacham though. I believe the important part of this article concerns the magazine or “clip.” Most violent crimes committed using guns in the US involve handguns, not rifles, automatic or semi-automatic weapons. It seems very logical to limit both the size of the magazine and the number of them a person can own.

  • Dav

    Under the Second Amendment, are we allowed to purchase missiles and tanks? Or are some weapons restricted?

    If such weapons are not available for purchase — even under the Second Amendment — then why should semi-automatic / automatic weapons and ammo be allowed?

    Owning a gun for private protection is fine. But heavy artillery in densely populated areas is completely insane, and that includes high-capacity magazines.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    The Militia Act of 1792 was written to for a UNIFORMED militia for national defense in reponse to the narrow victory a couple decades before and the continued threat from other countries to impose their will on the newly formed replublic. It has nothing to do with the unorganized militia that helped forge this country.

    Private citizens were indeed allowed to own mulitple muskets and cannon. Some even owned ships of war. You can still own a functioning cannon. I don’t recall anyone going before a judge for owning one, unless you have a source you want to provide.

    Obama didn’t stand up for anyone. He had to say he backed up the Courts decision, he has to. He said not a single word prior to the ruling in support of 2nd ammendment rights. But then they didn’t report that over at MSNBC did they?

  • Anonymous

    No. But I do enjoy a drink now and again, now being the operative word. Living a good clean life and staying out of the worlds way. It is astonishing to me how readily some would give up so easily what so many have fought and died for, and some, will never have. As for paranoid. Not a chance. Careful? Absolutely. I drive very sober, and very carefully.

  • Johnny

    Haha that’s too much. This guy’s comments are pretty scary, though. I’m hoping maybe he’s military or law enforcement- hopefully most ordinary Americans wouldn’t think that way.

  • peter1122

    The guy was a nut who wanted fame (at which he succeeded)
    If he wanted to kill her so bad maybe he should have used a rifle (he failed).
    Or he could have driven a car into her.

    Folks, it isn’t necessary to tear the country apart (again) to make other citizens believe as you do. Over an issue that is statistically insignificant compared to health deaths that are preventable, affect more FAMILIES and are already under our Gov’t regulation (which has proven sooooo effective).

  • Escher

    Ok, I admit to a bit of snark in my original comment, but I think my basic question was sound and you made no real attempt to answer it. Simple question: Are you a member of a well organized militia? No knowledge of latin is required.

  • Shweetness

    Liberty is more precious than life…

  • Anonymous

    No worries. Peaceful debate is good. Snarky or otherwise. We all are members of the militia depending on the circumstances. Let’s take this horrible event. Regular citizens bore the only Arms they had and took this dirtbag down. If I was there, and it was safe to do so, he would be dead. The concept of a militia is citizen based. Not standing military under federal control. The moment a citizen takes that oath they cease to be militia.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Missiles and tanks are not arms in the historic definition of the term “arms” that was used in the BOR.

    How is a standard capacity magainze a piece of artillery?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Explain the logic of how 10 is somehow better than 15 or 30?

  • FJOD

    John
    I agree with you 100%. I grew up with guns. I served in the the US military. I find the desire by some in the public to have an unencumbered proliferation to firepower unreasonable. I am a fan of hunting and “plinkinging”. Howerver a man only needs so many rounds for self defence. I am for reasonable gun control. O love to hunt and I am a fdan of my .45….do I need a clip with 33 rds….no…but a crazy man may.

  • peter1122

    My point wasn’t which party was to blame, but that Big Government demonstrably doesn’t work. Anyway, as far as I recall:
    T.S.A. designed by Bush 2 and Republicans.
    S.E.C. ?? Most of their agents watching p*rn or bedazzled by Madoff during Bush 2. However Clinton initiated the housing crises by insisting on loans to unqualified people, and allowing regular banks to make risky investments.
    F.B.I under Bush 2 Didn’t put 2+2 together to see 9-11 plot.
    C.I.A. gave Bush #2 faulty info on W.M.D to sell the Iraq war. No sign of Osama either.

  • Johnny

    I see your point, more people will die this year from lung cancer than bullets. As far as numbers go, you win that one. But there’s an individual choice involved there. And you did say killing faster….

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    So you served (past tense) and now you no longer care about your oath to uphold and defend the constitution? Did it mean as little then as it does now?

    Rights should in no way be regulated by what one man determines another “needs”.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    You forgot the whole “the right of the people” part. woops.

  • Ericreiberg

    Spring fed magazines are not in the “historic” definition of arms. Such parsing leads to the inevitable solution that we must all only be allowed muskets and black powder. The which I am fully in support of.

  • sonny9636

    Instead of 20 shot and killed…maybe only 10, or less. Sounds logical to me.

  • Dexter Groove

    it’s not a standard capacity magazine

  • Anonymous

    Lee Harvey Oswald was a United States Marine – Do you feel better now? A law enforcement officer in Chicago murdered not one, but two of his wives – Do you feel better now? Human beings, are human beings, with or without the badge or the patch.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Yes… who indeed is responsible for oversight of goverment agencies? Mind giving us your answer?

  • Joenp3

    How many shots would it have taken you to bring him down…33? Someone was there with a gun and drew it after the shooter was down. Others stopped the gun-wielding-individual from shooting the wrong person. Limiting clip-size will not infringe on anyone’s rights or liberties.
    My 10 shot clip on my Glock 29, with as many extra clips as I want, is more than plenty.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    In many of my firearms it is.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/cWLyzXJgjOnLXgWTjoMhycw8GkqNG.kVgHoz#7e81a Your Namepickleweedpete

    You there, Joe? I hope so. Hey, I’ve got more guns than you shake a stick at, including nine or ten AK’s (mostly bulgarian, but one or two chinese and one russian) and I drink, too — yeah, give me good old american bourbon — but I think we got a problemo here. I can understand what this guy is saying.

  • http://oddboyout.blogspot.com/ oddboyout

    I’ll try to explain it to you, though from observing other comments you’ve made I fear this may not satisfy you.

    In the Tuscon shooting, Loughner was able to murder 6 or injure 13 people before he had to change his 33-round magazine. The reason he was unable to continue is because he dropped the 2nd magazine. He bought these legally. If he was limited to 10-round magazines, I believe logic should stand that fewer people would have been injured. Even if he had used 2 10-round magazines he would not have been able to murder or injure as many as he did.

  • Concerned Gun Owner

    Restricting certain kinds of guns and clips in the interest of saving lives is not some camel’s nose under the 2nd Amendment tent. It is simply an attempt to accept responsibility and restore some kind of balance with the 2nd Amendment rights we enjoy as Americans, as Mr. Meacham so eloquently stated. I say this as an avid hunter and gun owner/collector also. If Republicans really do believe in personal responsibility as they purport, then they should have no problem embracing limited restrictions on their freedoms in order to promote public safety. Otherwise, their pro-liberty rhetoric is willfully and deceitfully hollow, and tragically tainted in crimson red.

  • Mark

    The rights of the people, I don’t agree with you so I’m not a people?

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Really? Then the 1st amendment regarding protection of free speech doesn’t apply blogs, photocopies, or any other means of publishing other than the good old manually operated printing press. Fools…

  • Mountain woman48

    and when the child killed is yours?

  • Johnny

    OK relax, Joe. The Ft Hood shootings, too… I get it, Geez! But most citizens need to go out & buy assault weapons in case of a… Chinese invasion? Huh? Come on, Man!

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    They are the modern interpretation of having a flask and ball bag or having a space cylinder for a revolver.

  • Mark

    The courts are responsible.

  • Easyco99

    so 10 dead is acceptable to you? the problem with your argument is that you equate lawful ownership of firearms with criminal ownership of firearms.

  • mountain woman 48

    the second amendement dealt with muskets…not spraying bullets..you can have THEM..as an originalist

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    The emotion instead of logic route eh?

  • Flaboater1

    If more people were armed…perhaps others would have taken him out before he had a chance to kill 6 people

  • Anonymous

    I’ve read conflicting reports on that. Truth is in short supply in events like this. High stress moments cause memories to be all fouled up. They’ve done all kinds of studies on it, caught some on NOVA once. If he was within 7 yards, one shot, beyond that I would not pull the trigger, I’d have to get closer. A pistol is tough enough to shoot at the range when not one is shooting at you. Never fired in self-defense, I don’t ever want to be forced to do that. Lastly, your Glock fires from a magazine not a clip, when you think clip, think M1 Garand, a clip is a piece of metal that is bent and holds the cartridges in place so they can be loaded in order without the benefit of a spring, that is what a magazine does, as it pushes the rounds into position for the operating part of the pistol or rifle to strip them off, an place them into the breech or chamber, prior to the pulling of the trigger. I’ve already given my opinion as to the magazines above.

  • JIM

    OUT LAW GUNS AND THE BAD PEOPLE WILL STILL GET GUNS. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE NOT THE GUN AND IF MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE HAD A GUN THAT IN THE PARKING LOT THEY MAY HAVE CUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED OR HERT GOD HELP THE FAMILYS

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    The musket was the most modern firearm of the time. Today it is the semi-auto firearm.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    How many non-fudd guns do you won in this collection?

  • Mrgrouchy

    so if you were at the scene of the shooting in Tucson, and the murderer was about to shoot YOU… you’d be ok with not being legally armed? So proud to be the sheep, yet you’d cry foul when the wolf arrives.

  • Joenp3

    YES! THE CHILD! That’s something they conveniently leave out of the discussion. To say nothing of The Sr. Citizen diving in front of his wife…children to grandparents.

    “Rights should in no way be regulated by what one man determines another “needs”.”
    Unless it’s your determination, for the rest of us…of course.

  • Model Citizen

    The “hold individuals responsible” defense has its limitations. For the same reasons that we prohibit 7-year olds from getting driver licenses, mentally ill individuals should not have easy access to firearms and ammunition.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    own :/

  • Anonymous

    You are making stuff up.

    Article 1 Section 8 of the US CONSTITUTION gives CONGRESS the power to:
    -provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    -provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    You are talking about a militia BEFORE THERE WAS A COUNTRY (and you even stated as such). There was no government then. The Constitution formed and defined our government and made us an actual country.

    Tell me why the Militia Act of 1792 did not have a “special clause” for “unorganized militia”? They forgot that part? No, there was now a COUNTRY and no longer an “unorganized” militia. Obviously we did not have a Uniformed Militia BEFORE we had a country.

  • sonny9636

    You missed the point…clearly. As John M. said, there is just no need to to have that type of mag available to the public…lawfully or otherwise. I think people need to start considering the greater good of the public, instead of their own selfish interest. Only a selfish person would not consider common sense gun laws to protect innocent people. Open your mind. I’m tired of hearing about all these senseless massacres; to many in my young life.

  • Anonymous

    Where is your sense of irony on a Saturday night . . . We are free. We must accept significant risks to remain so. The greatest risk we face is in our motor vehicles and swimming pools.

  • TrulySaddened

    After reading too many of ‘Shall not be infringed” posts I feel compelled to write the obvious:

    Your uneducated adherence to the letter of the constitution reminds me of most religious extremists. It is exactly this type of extreme fanaticism that leads to most of the wars and violence in our current world.

    Your words, not just here but since yesterday it appears, exhibit blind extremist thought without educated reasoning and the application of human conscience. What separates us from animals and enables us to create a functioning society is our ability to reason and to think and to have a conscience and to use our minds as tools to interpret the world we live in and respond to it in appropriate, creative and logical ways.

    Your responses show a total lack of independent thinking and the total lack of ability to use your mind in smart reasoned thought.

    This leads to extremism, and extremism leads to violence as history shows us. And you are as clear a warning to us all of extremist thought, as any.

    If you really look at the history of civilization you will see that only evil and violence has come out of extremist tendencies. And extremist tendencies do not allow for independent thought and logical interpretation…or to an adjustment to the challenges that the modernization of society has continued to bring upon us from the beginning of time.

    Without those adjustments society fails and collapses. You have only to read history to know this.

  • TrulySaddened

    After reading too many of ‘Shall not be infringed” posts I feel compelled to write the obvious:

    Your uneducated adherence to the letter of the constitution reminds me of most religious extremists. It is exactly this type of extreme fanaticism that leads to most of the wars and violence in our current world.

    Your words, not just here but since yesterday it appears, exhibit blind extremist thought without educated reasoning and the application of human conscience. What separates us from animals and enables us to create a functioning society is our ability to reason and to think and to have a conscience and to use our minds as tools to interpret the world we live in and respond to it in appropriate, creative and logical ways.

    Your responses show a total lack of independent thinking and the total lack of ability to use your mind in smart reasoned thought.

    This leads to extremism, and extremism leads to violence as history shows us. And you are as clear a warning to us all of extremist thought, as any.

    If you really look at the history of civilization you will see that only evil and violence has come out of extremist tendencies. And extremist tendencies do not allow for independent thought and logical interpretation…or to an adjustment to the challenges that the modernization of society has continued to bring upon us from the beginning of time.

    Without those adjustments society fails and collapses. You have only to read history to know this.

  • Joenp3

    Clip/shmip…great bob-and-weave though…

  • Southern Man

    It’s important to answer this response. I don’t think they would have needed an automatic clip in order to “CUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE KILLED OR HERT.” One bullet would have sufficed.

    Common sense gun control, please.

  • Johnny

    I’m not against citizens arming themselves, however automatic weapons shouldn’t be available to just anyone, in my opinion. I don’t think a firearm ban is practical, but gun control is necessary.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Your logic fails.
    The individual could have simply used two or more sidearms with your 10-rounders and have done much more damage. No need to reload.

    And from what I’ve been hearing, the reload failure may be due to the sub-standard quality of magazine he was using (probably korean made).
    Also,

  • Anonymous

    Jon, is the problem with the magazine and the rounds it holds or with the person holding the gun and their mind?? Any criminal mind isn’t concerned with using a legal weapon or state ordained magazine. Think before you write.!

  • Model Citizen

    MADOGPADDLE said:

    “To say that a high capacity “clip” (you don’t even know that it’s a magazine not a “clip”) is only for killing people is just unbelievable.”

    So, what do you kill with it? Raccoons? Manatees?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Or not. A backup sidearm or learning how to do a tactical reload would negate any magazine capacity limit.

  • Model Citizen

    There’s no way a right wing POS like you ever gave a single penny to PBS so no one’s really concerned about your threat.

  • Peter Merkin

    I am a gun owner and avid Second Amendment supporter. I don’t hunt, but own my guns for competitive shooting and self defense purposes. I own three semi-automatic handguns that hold between 13 and 15 rounds in a magazine (or “clip” as some insist on calling it). They were purchased, by the way, in full compliance with New Jersey law, which has its own “assault weapons ban” in place and limits magazines to 15 rounds. Are 10 rounds sufficient for defensive and sporting purposes? Yes. Do I have any desire to own a 30 round magazine? No. The problem is, if this ban is passed, do I become a felon overnight? Will I need to turn in my three handguns to the police? Who will compensate me for them? Why should I be punished for the insance actions of some nut job? A more sensible ban would outlaw extended magazines only — in other words aftermarket magazines that do not come with the gun and do not fit flush with the bottom of the firearm. Either than or a grandfather clause should be required. Otherwise. literally millions of law abiding gun owners will be turned into felons overnight.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    What is an automatic clip? Is that attached to the “shoulder thing that goes up”?

  • Lollardfish

    Let’s be clear. One citizen came with a firearm, nearly shot the man who had disarmed the killer, but was either warned off, managed not to squeeze off a round, or both. I don’t really see how that’s an argument for or against gun control, though it is an argument for a lot of training for gun owners.

  • Lollardfish

    When such a law is passed, there tend to be extended periods of buy-backs. I don’t remember what they did in the 90s, but Australia did something similar in the last few years and it worked well. Gun-related crime rates have plummeted as a result – it’s a heavily armed society, but not with semi-automatic weapons now.

  • Model Citizen

    Prior to approximately 700 AD, not a single individual per year was killed by firearms. Why? Because there were no firearms.

  • Anonymous

    There’s a part of me that selfishly and perversely feels that maybe we should have more of these incidents. The logic I’m conveying is: The more incidents this nation has, the more we would want to enact reasonable gun control. Even the pro-gun lobby would have to hard time explaining why we shouldn’t have these laws. However, I disagree with what Jon Meacham said before the end of his commentary . . to an extent. Liberty is more precious than life. However, that only counts in wars. What happened in Arizona wasn’t a war, it was an assassination attempt that resulted in the lost of lives. The pro-gun lobbyists don’t seem to know the difference.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    you don’t need a computer to send messages or cars to get to work either. USPS or walking will do just fine, right? As for John M. owning a gun.. big deal. That doesn’t make him a defender of the Constitution any more than my owning a word processor make me a best selling novelist. I’ve owned 10-round magazines, and I’ve owned 17-round magazines. 17-rounds are much better for self defense purposes.
    “Only a selfish person would not consider common sense gun laws to protect innocent people.”
    Really? I guess since it was already illegal to murder and shoot innocent people, it would have stopped the Tucson shooter, right? Laws don’t stop criminals. Criminals by definition don’t obey the law. To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.

  • Model Citizen

    You simpletons always divide gun owners into two categories: criminals and non-criminals. You forget about the mentally ill — people who don’t intend to do harm but can’t help it due to mental illness. In that case, gun control is warranted, no?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Boy, pulled that one right off of a MSNBC transcript did you? Typical liberl “yous ignorant” crap.

    “adherence to the letter of the constitution”
    -I appreciate that, since that is exactly what I am charged with doing. You may not care about some old piece of parchment, but I do and I will continue to fight for my rights AND yours even if you don’t want them.

    And if you are the stuart of history that you claim to be, you would know that in the past century the wars and atrocities were started by seculer societies and the amount people killed in its name are orders of magnitude beyond any religious extremists.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Try shouting louder next time, I hear that works.

  • Model Citizen

    Actually, one would need nuclear warheads to fight back against oppressive governments today and have any chance of surviving. Should we allow our citizens to possess nukes?

  • PollyinAK

    I am from a military family, and I live in Alaska. I own a gun. Yes, banning assault weapons won’t deter true criminals from getting them somehow, but it will make it harder for people who are mentally unstable to get them. If we have a handgun for self protection, we only have a few shots available to us to protect ourselves, so we don’t need 30 bullets. Are we really going back in time? Do we want people with guns running our neighborhoods like the wild west?

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Thats true, they were killed by wild animals and other people with ricks, clubs, and knives.

  • Anonymous

    I do too. But the sausage factory that gave us Obamacare is going to put you in a worse world then you are in today. I promise you. The 112 Congress will turn out as bad as the 111 or the 108th. Unfortunatly, the widom of good citizens who do not run for office, is not present in that chamber or in the oval office, we are governed by our inferiors in almost every way. I sleep well at night because we get it right, because we are free enough to try every dumb idea first. Gun Control is dumb. The Major Nadel Milik Hassen should of been tried and shot by now, same with this dirt bag, and the next one. You give me some crime control, I’ll compromise on the Gun Control. That has absolutely zero chance of ever happening. Thanks to Janet Reno and a place called Waco and Obama and the EPA’s fascination with lead. Time for me to go to bed. Good night to all of you and be carful out there.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Talk about simpleton.. It’s already illegal for the mentally ill to own firearms. It’s one of the disqualifying questions on the Form 4473.

  • Dolanator43

    Sorry, but you said you don’t hunt! Then why do you need guns???? For self-protection, you have got to be kidding me!!!

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Better turn in your computer for a printing press then. that’s original too

  • Mr. Grouchy

    A nuke by definition isn’t a firearm. Nice try.

  • Model Citizen

    And it did such a great job of stopping Mr. Jared Loughner.

  • Hazyafternoonsunshine

    Ok, so everyone should have pulled out their guns and started shootong? Like the OK corral? Is it Minnisota where people are wearing holsters with hand guns in public? I am not particularly interested in resurrecting the wild wild west. All this talk of second amendment solutions. It is getting a bit nutty.

  • canuck333

    As someone living in a country with reasonable gun control legislation, I feel I should point out that I am at virtually zero risk of being killed by a gun. I don’t fear people with guns, because here people carry guns to kill deer, not because they’re afraid of getting shot, or because they think the government is going to come and get them.

    Oh, and all of the illegal guns in my country come from yours, so thanks for that.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    A standard capacity magazine is what the firearm was originally designed to use. the 10-round magazines of the Clinton gun ban was legislatively mandated limited capacity magazines.

  • Roy4

    I’m trying to picture someone attacking 19 people with a stick.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    You drink your milk out of a bag.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    It didn’t happen then either (wild west). You’ve seen to many john wayne films.

  • PollyinAK

    In 20 years if communist chinese came to take our food, it would take more than us having guns to stop them. No, that’s not going to happen. If it did, I would just ask them what they wanted for dinner. They are smarter than that, they’ll just beat America up in the stock market. You do know that the “new war” is the global economy, dont ‘cha??

  • Anonymous

    This is called an ad hominem attack upon the person who made the argument and is not legitimate argument. The letter of the Constitution does not require that the right not be infringed because that would go against the weight of our constitutional law which allows for infringement in some way, shape, or form upon ALL of our rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. I always have to wonder at the Second Amendment totalitarians who elevate this particular right above all others and treat it as some sort of sacred right, whereas most are not troubled at all about other infringements upon the protections found in the Bill of Rights. Only the Second Amendment seems to inspire such mindless zealotry and refusal to consider reason and moderation.

  • RaleighNC

    Jon, Thank you for your article. You make a very convincing argument for those of us who are prone to think critically without prejudice; we are pragmatists.

    However, those who oppose us are mostly fundamentalists, not pragmatists. And as fundamentalism is a way to avoid having to think critically, we have to find additional tools to convince fundamentalists. I wish I knew how. I imagine less logic and more engagement of emotions is involved. That seems to be how the fundamentalists gin up their support.

  • Anonymous

    Automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and revolvers – NONE of these were around when this provision was written. It was written at a time when merely loading and firing a gun was a complicated process requiring skill and knowledge and couldn’t be accomplished by a three year old as loading and firing can be now.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    I can, if no one else has a stick. All it takes is 1 swing to bash in someone’s head with a baseball bat. Hey, if you don’t want to protect yourself or your family with physical force if need be, I don’t care. Just don’t tell me how to protect mine.

  • Thom

    “Just because I can drink and drive safely why should I be punished for someone who
    gets in a wreck because they cant drive as drunk as me?” Its call a LAW FOR THE GREATER GOOD, not just for your own selfishness.

  • sonny9636

    There is no logic to your arguments. So, no you will clearly never be a best selling novelist…I have no doubt about that.

  • Model Citizen

    There’s no logic in your comment. The second amendment arose during a time when the firearm was the apex of offensive and/or defensive weaponry. Citizens might find the need to form a militia to rise up against oppressive governments and use the best weapons available – guns – to fend off an attack. If the US government turned on you and your neighbors, you can be assured that your 33 or 50 or 100 or 1000 round magazines will be of limited assistance. At this point, they only serve to aggravate attacks against fellow citizens and enhance the death toll.

  • PollyinAK

    :-)

  • canuck333

    You need to have a gun to feel safe buying yours.

    Or do you prefer to suckle the teat?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Keep it comming, these are classic.

  • Model Citizen

    No one is going to attack your family. You have an irrational fear. People like you are known as “pussies” and your irrational fear creates all of these problems.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    LOL

  • Brollens

    In the “historic definition of ‘arms’” Semi automatic weapons as well as tanks and missles were never imagined. Grow up. The rest of the world has had to. This isn’t the 1700′s.

  • PollyinAK

    I thought about that too. Perhaps, if he started shooting, an armed newcomer on the scene would have thought he was the “bad guy” and shot him instead.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Exactly my point. There’s a control already in place. It’s already illegal for criminals and the insane to own firearms, yet there’s no way to enforce that if the authorities with that information don’t furnish it to the National Instant Check System…. When info is put into the system, it works. I was at a local gun shop about 3 years ago when a guy in his early 20′s tried to trade in a rifle for a handgun. He came back denied on the NICS, and had his rifle confiscated, as required under the law. Plus, a report was filed with the ATF and the local police, as required under the law.

  • Brollens

    I’m beginning to wonder about your sanity. You sound pathetically obsessed with your “hobby”.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    What utopia you living in?

  • Scooderdude

    Exactly the sort of mental instability YOU just displayed is why this legislation is needed.

  • PollyinAK

    I read history books.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Hows this for pragmatic? You stand by and watch in silence as your wife and daughters are raped any murdered in cold blood, as Dr. Petit did in Connecticut did. He was un-armed, and was ‘pragmatically’ forced to watch as his family was destroyed by 2 killers.

  • PollyinAK

    Mentally unstable people who are listed have had treatment. The people like Loughner aren’t in the system yet, because they haven’t been diagnosed. And a lot of people who have substance abuse issues aren’t on the list either. The list and the law is great, but there’s a huge population that aren’t on the list.

  • Scooderdude

    That statement will get you shot, here. :-)

  • Model Citizen

    My point is this: no one needs guns capable of firing multiple rapid rounds of ammunition. You certainly don’t need it for hunting and the chances of Obama’s henchmen coming after you in your home are about as likely as you winning the Powerball lottery on all seven continents on the same day with the same numbers. If you think otherwise, you are delusional and suffer from irrational thinking, and you, Sir, are one of the people that should not be allowed to purchase, possess, or carry these magazines that caused such havoc in Arizona recently.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    You’re alot like this Loughner nut, you think everyone else is crazy.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Irrational fear???
    Here’s some history. My mother was mugged twice on her way home from work and dragged down the sidewalk. I was 10-years old the 1st time. I was jumped by 3 guys once going to the store when I was 16. My sister was robbed on the street.
    Don’t talk shit about something you know nothing about.
    I wish all the above on your family.

  • Sallybobally

    You are a busy little beaver aren’t you. What would make you happy exactly? Every man, woman, and child with their hand on the trigger?

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Questioning the motives of an individual are absolutely relevant to the issue.

    “The letter of the Constitution does not require that the right not be infringed”
    -Wrong. It’s right there in English “shall not be infrigned”.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Wow I guess you don’t like me. good. It’s obvious you don’t know a damn thing about self defense. I’m not a hunter. The police aren’t after me. but you think I shouldn’t have a magazine because you don’t like me. fine, tell you what.. I’m going out tomorrow to pick up a few more. Just because I can. an there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    Because I made a joke? Lighten up francis. You all are to wound up.

  • Model Citizen

    I’m 43 years old. I have never had a gun in my home and I never will. I am not afraid. The odds of something negative happening because the gun is in my home outweigh the odds of something negative happening because there is no gun in my home.

    Not only do I think that people that have guns are the biggest cowards known to man, but I’ll go a step further:

    YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO KILL SOMEONE, PREFERABLY SOMEONE OF A DIFFERENT RACE OR RELIGION.

  • Model Citizen

    Spiteful behavior like that just further demonstrates your child-like personality.

    Proliferation breeds death.

  • Jimmydean

    Exactly, I’m sick and tired of stupid laws made by stupid people. Great name BTW – Peter Merkin.

  • brosometal
  • brosometal
  • sonny9636

    I think you need some help….

    I’m concerned with the crazies getting their hands on guns; but I’m even more concerned with people that have irrational fears doing something dumb.

  • sonny9636

    I think you need some help….

    I’m concerned with the crazies getting their hands on guns; but I’m even more concerned with people that have irrational fears doing something dumb.

  • Joenp3

    WOW! Citing wikipedia…I thought everybody was smarter than that…

  • Joenp3

    WOW! Citing wikipedia…I thought everybody was smarter than that…

  • Dixfiles

    The day after Az. a very large man came into the grocery yelling “Jesus is the way, go to God now, etc” I wondered. What if he had a gun, what if I had a gun, or other people in the store. What if he were wearing different clothes and speaking another language?
    Counselors, teachers, school psychologist,campus police etc. identified this problem.. What will happen now? Republicans will cut many of those buffers of society.
    If we are going to use the 2nd amendment then perhaps we should only own muzzle loaders?
    Just thinking….
    Totally identify and agree with all you have said!

  • Dixfiles

    The day after Az. a very large man came into the grocery yelling “Jesus is the way, go to God now, etc” I wondered. What if he had a gun, what if I had a gun, or other people in the store. What if he were wearing different clothes and speaking another language?
    Counselors, teachers, school psychologist,campus police etc. identified this problem.. What will happen now? Republicans will cut many of those buffers of society.
    If we are going to use the 2nd amendment then perhaps we should only own muzzle loaders?
    Just thinking….
    Totally identify and agree with all you have said!

  • Model Citizen

    The individuals that committed those atrocities were wrong. Had you or your mother or your sister been carrying guns, however, someone would likely have died. Perhaps the robbers/muggers but they may have taken the gun and killed your mother, sister or you. Those assholes, fucked up as they were during the moment when they took advantage of you and your family, also have families and don’t deserve to die because they made poor decisions.

  • Medicine

    I am a democrat, as well as a second amendment supporter. (talk about being on both sides…)

    i feel its kinda crazy that this is the result of a metally incapable man. I totally agree that he should not have been able to purchase the pistol, but adding laws against legal gun owners is just taking away from the good people. Now they are trying to make it illegal for anyone to be near a congressman with a gun within 1000 feet. If your going to attempt to hurt this man, a petty law is not going to stop you. But it might stop the person next to him who is legally armed and willing to defend good people from bad ones. No Gun zones are just a way to take the power away from good people and make an area seem safe. It does nothing to actually solve the issue.

    yes, this world might be a better place without guns, but we are past that point. Now you cant take away rights of good people who will follow them and let the bad people keep doing what they are going to do.

    It gets old that this society “shoots from the hip” (pardon the pun) when incidents happen, instead ot learning and advancing from them. Do you honestly think this kid would have not done this shooting if only 15 round magazines were available? It would have still happened, and we would be in the same spot.

    An Assault weapons ban will do nothing. Just cause resentment against the people pushing it, and divide this even more.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Model Citizen said “YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO KILL SOMEONE, PREFERABLY SOMEONE OF A DIFFERENT RACE OR RELIGION.”

    Oh, stop projecting your crap onto me. I’ve been a lawfully armed citizen for over 20 years, and before that I was a NCO with a secret security clearance in the Air Force. I’m about as vetted as any man can be. I don’t care if you don’t want to carry a gun, or if you want to bury your head in the sand. I hope you’re not married with children, because you obviously haven’t given a thought to what may be necessary to protect them in the gravest extreme.
    Your problem, once again, is a failure to discriminate between lawfully citizens and criminals. I would happily go to my grave without ever having to use my gun to defend my family.
    Tell you what… why don’t you put a sign on your front lawn telling everyone that you don’t own a gun, and never will. See what happens. See you on the news, Dr. Petit.

  • Joenp3

    I doubt he would have needed to start shooting…just seeing the gun would have, likely, been enough to push the first domino…

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    How many black powder rifles have you loaded and fired? It is as easy if not easier than semi-auto.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-Anderson/100001196734319 Wayne Anderson

    No you do not become an instant felon >>> that is poor logic you have unknowingly been infected with…. Standard legislating in 95 % proposed laws “grandfathers” in such 15 round clips. Magazine or clip are interchangeable in the civilian world, in USN, or USMC a person would never confuse a Magazine with an ammo clip. A Magazine is secured shipboard repository of munitions —- from pistol rounds up through nukes. Nor would you have to have your guns bought back. the Glock 19 has available factory made original equipment options of clips with a variety of capacities as I recall it was 10 , 15 , 19 , 33 . I would assume the manufacturer of your weapons has just as varied a grouping of clip capacities. Your weapons would not be obselite, just replace the clips. I know this from hunting in the MN– ND region, in my teen years one state had a 3 round clip max for deer hunting and the other had a 5 round max — fairly simple mark clips for which state it was the legal max and don’t cry — it’s not manly.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    don’t be stupid. every hand-wringer out there thinks that its that simple to take someone’s gun away from them. I take my gun ownership quite seriously. I spend a lot of my own money to take professional training on the lawful use of deadly force, when I can, when I can’t, and train continually on accuracy so I can hit the aggressor while under stress, and not any bystanders.
    I’ll stop the SOB, of that I’m confident. If he dies of his wounds, so be it. My #1 concern is for my family, not someone who’s trying to hurt them.

  • Joenp3

    Amazing how “Will Infringe Upon Us” passed your point by and moved on to other one-liner opportunities. A couple more drinks and he’ll pass out, then ignorance fest will be over.

  • Model Citizen

    “Now they are trying to make it illegal for anyone to be near a congressman with a gun within 1000 feet.”

    No, “THEY” aren’t. You’ve got to attempt to engage in a more robust level of thinking. Instead of making vague comments like, “they are trying to …” let’s talk in facts:

    A SINGLE REPUBLICAN congressman has proposed legislation making it illegal for anyone to have a gun within 1000 feet of a congressman. His motivations are political. He is grandstanding. Not only does no one else agree with him (a prerequisite for the plural term, “they”) but it will never pass because it is inherently defective. There are more than 500 members of congress and most of us can only recognize a few of them. How could you ever know that you were within 1000 feet of a congressman out in public? You couldn’t. This is all bullshit and there’s no reason to get worked up over it. It is nothing but a subject for discussion and you have fallen for it.

  • Picklebarrel

    A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
    —George Washington’s First Annual Message to Congress

    In other words, the people must be armed enough to stop a uniformed force from tyranny. Yes the problems of buying weapons for mentally unstable people is a problem, and we must change those laws accurately and maturely. Lets remember the second amendment isn’t there for hunting, its there for criminals, criminals who can also be the government.

    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jeffereson

    Thomas Jefferson

  • Bigspuds

    It’s the right to bear arms for the protection of Freedom… Not the right to bear arms for hunting Bear! Red Dawn! Good luck using a 410 ga. Against the Russians or whoever!!!

  • ConcernedForUSA

    Gun control laws are unconstitutional. If they are a really good idea, have Congress amend the Constitution to change the 2nd amendment. Until then, anything restricting a US citizen from bearing arms or what arms to bear is illegal. Cars kill more than guns. Does that mean we make cars illegal? No. Does that mean we make them slower? No. It common that sports cars can reach over 160MPH, but there is no road in the country where you can drive that fast. So why make it? Because there is a demand and in the hands of a responsible person, it is safe. Making a 33 round magazine or a 133 round magazine doesn’t matter. A killer will kill with whatever you give them. If the gun only fires 6 rounds, it still kills. A responsible and normal person will not murder with a car or gun. Making either illegal does no good.

  • Fdrr1272

    Wow, that didn’t take long.

  • Orgo

    That statement is also FALSE. Australia’s crime has gone up. Please do accurate research.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    I would argue the cannon or the submarine was the apex weapon of the era. The cannon was known as the “queen of the battlefield”. Volunteer artillery companies were of great value to the revolutionists (yes, citizens owned cannon).

  • Model Citizen

    And your mother and sister are just as proficient with guns, right? Grow the fuck up.

    I’m concerned about my family’s safety too. That’s why I keep guns out of the house.

    For what it’s worth, my 8 year old cousin, Scott, is dead because he was playing at his next door neighbor’s house with his best friend and the kid shot him with his father’s loaded gun when they were just playing around. I’m positive the father only intended to protect his family with the gun and considered himself a responsible gun owner but shit happens.

  • Model Citizen

    Actually, that’s YOUR problem. EVERYONE is a lawful citizen until the moment they aren’t. Then you fuckers disown them – the same people that you fought for the right to pack heat – and say they were “criminal” or “irresponsible” or “mentally ill”. The only thing separating them from you is about 5 minutes.

  • CLOWNBABY

    And only a 33 round clip could have stopped that?

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Nope, my mother who passed away 5 years ago didn’t like guns, and never would have carried one. same for my sister. me, i’m another story. As for shit happening… well, no, shit doesn’t just happen. The guy was irresponsible by leaving his guns out. He was responsible for your cousins death. The difference between him and me is that I’m responsible. I lock mine up. The only safe place for a gun is either on your hip, or in the safe.
    BTW, you seem to think it’s ok to start cursing at me because you don’t like my opinion? LOL. keep it coming…

  • Kintups2005

    Excellent reasoned argument.

  • CLOWNBABY

    But you don’t need a 33 round clip, do you?

  • canuck333

    Can you explain to me why it is that most people who are as protective of the second amendment as you seem to be tend to be against the ACLU who seem to be concerned with the rest of the constitution? Not pointing fingers at you, as I don’t know what you believe, but it seems pretty common.

    I would wonder less about the aims (heh heh) of the NRA if they seemed to give a shit about any other part of the constitution than the second amendment.

  • Model Citizen

    No one here is arguing for the right to carry submarines or canons, okay? Let’s just leave silly arguments like that off the table. We have, however, entered a period of history where technological advances might allow someone to possess a suitcase nuke. Where do you draw the line?

  • canuck333

    I forgot to address something you wrote.

    Cars kill a lot of people. That’s why you need a license to drive one, and also why you need to register it and insure it. You even have to pass a test! Crazy!

  • PoorDaddy

    Hi concerned. I don’t remember where I heard this quote, but it is irrefuteably logical.
    To Say That Guns Kill People is to assume That Automobiles Drive Drunk and Matches Commit Arson.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Nope, but he should have had a gun. he didn’t, he was unarmed because “that kind of stuff never happens here”. But as we all know, it did.

  • canuck333

    Russians? Is Regan still president where you live? Didn’t you hear? Rocky beat Ivan Drago!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-Anderson/100001196734319 Wayne Anderson

    Had the nut case been forced to attack with his 4″ buck knife that he had it is unlikely any would have been killed and few wounded. the gun owner who rounded the corner did not show his gun because he did not want to be taken as shooter #2 >>>> he admitted in a news interview he almost shoot one of the Heroes who wrestled the gun from the shooter Your NRA Hero fantasy is the nightmare of all thinking police >>>> mass-shooting in mall>>> local yahoos go quick-draw ///how do they react and respond without killing the innocent ??? This is a recipe for chaos and carnage >>> and then the next NRA addict will be proposing that everyone be required to carry in public>>>> As a friendly tip if you find your typing in all caps _-_-_ put down the cap gun and get some Prozac.
    W.S. Anderson USN/USMC ret.

  • CLOWNBABY

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07slay.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

    I don’t necessarily disagree with you but based on the story I don’t know that it would have helped. I don’t see why assault weapons can’t be banned though or training required. Not every gun owner is as responsible as you.

  • Model Citizen

    Guns, under the control of people, kill more people than baseball bats. Cars, under the control of people, kill more people than horse-drawn carriages. Matches, under the control of people, kill more people than flashlights.

    The object may not be responsible, but it’s characteristics make it more or less deadly.

    Don’t neglect that fact in your reasoning.

  • Menwaasa

    Mr. Grouchy,

    No one is advocating that Dr. Petit should be banned from owming a gun that might have prevented his tragedy. He could certainly have used such a means of defending his family–as opposed to fighting with his fists, which were cerrainly no match for what the rapists were capable of. But do you really believe the doctor needed a gun that could fire 30 rounds in a second to do the same job?

    That’s all those (such as Mr. Meacham) advocating handgun control are saying. By all means allow people to defend themselves, but it makes no sense to argue that the guns they get to keep should be able to fire 30 rounds per second or faster. What are they fighting off? A head of lions?

    Give me a break!!!!

  • Menwaasa

    Mr. Grouchy,

    No one is advocating that Dr. Petit should be banned from owming a gun that might have prevented his tragedy. He could certainly have used such a means of defending his family–as opposed to fighting with his fists, which were cerrainly no match for what the rapists were capable of. But do you really believe the doctor needed a gun that could fire 30 rounds in a second to do the same job?

    That’s all those (such as Mr. Meacham) advocating handgun control are saying. By all means allow people to defend themselves, but it makes no sense to argue that the guns they get to keep should be able to fire 30 rounds per second or faster. What are they fighting off? A head of lions?

    Give me a break!!!!

  • Anonymous

    You missed the part about “well regulated militia” ….in the same sentence? Do you know what a Militia was considered to be? Have you actually read the Constitution that gives Congress the Right to Regulate the Militia? Have you ever read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution? Or the Militia Act of 1792?

    No one is saying “no guns”. That would be Unconstitutional. But regulation is clearly part of it. How Congress does that is up to them as long as any Legislation is per the Constitution.

    The Pot leads to Heroin argument is nonsense. Gun control is not a precursor to “no guns” any more than “no driving after 7 scotches” will lead to “no drinking scotch”.

    So do you think that needing a Federal Logistics Registration Number before buying missiles and nukes is Unconstitutional? Because those are “arms”. The Second Amendment mentions “arms”, not “guns”, so why do you reference gun control? Do you really think anybody should be able to buy any kind of arms?

  • Anonymous

    You missed the part about “well regulated militia” ….in the same sentence? Do you know what a Militia was considered to be? Have you actually read the Constitution that gives Congress the Right to Regulate the Militia? Have you ever read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution? Or the Militia Act of 1792?

    No one is saying “no guns”. That would be Unconstitutional. But regulation is clearly part of it. How Congress does that is up to them as long as any Legislation is per the Constitution.

    The Pot leads to Heroin argument is nonsense. Gun control is not a precursor to “no guns” any more than “no driving after 7 scotches” will lead to “no drinking scotch”.

    So do you think that needing a Federal Logistics Registration Number before buying missiles and nukes is Unconstitutional? Because those are “arms”. The Second Amendment mentions “arms”, not “guns”, so why do you reference gun control? Do you really think anybody should be able to buy any kind of arms?

  • Mr. Grouchy

    I guess when you say EVERYONE, that includes you, right? I’m mean, you’re sooo angry right now, you could probably just bash my head in, can’t you? You’re a lot more unstable than I am, that’s for sure. The vitriol!!! Seriously, I think that the only thing between you and Jared Loughton is about 5 minutes. He didn’t like Gabby Giffords answers, the same way you don’t like mine! LOL…
    Nice try, but once again, you have a failure to discriminate between a lawfully armed citizen and a criminal. But then, angry emotional folks tend to do that…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-Anderson/100001196734319 Wayne Anderson

    Get help for your PTSD don’t fall victim to the siren’s song of paranoia
    W.S. Anderson USN/USMC rt

  • Model Citizen

    Very well articulated. Thank you.

  • Lstnvlly

    Why not a sign that says ” Caution I have a loaded weapon”.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    My point is that he never availed himself of that option. Like I’ve been saying, if someone doesn’t like guns, or doesn’t believe in self defense, then so be it… that’s your choice. I just don’t want someone to force that same choice upon me. I had been a victim of violent crime when I was a teen, and my mother as well. Never again.

  • rbrain

    Interesting analogy. There’s almost unlimited evidence of repeated government regulation to make driving a car safer for the driver and the rest of society… seat belts, airbags, crash test requirements and regulations of all kinds for automobile design and manufacture. You have to have insurance to drive a car, roads are designed to specific standards, the list is endless. The same argument is being made in the above article for guns. Why are cars regulated for broad public safety concerns while absolutely no restrictions on high capacity ammo magazines, fully automatic weapons, licensing requirements, background checks, or “anything restricting what arms to bear” is ok.

    And if the constitution says any arms are ok, where can I buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Wayne-Anderson/100001196734319 Wayne Anderson

    Get help Prozac has many alternatives …. Did you also fail the entrance requirements like AZ shooter >>> after all I notice you denigrating others service
    USN/USMC.

  • Student of the Constitution

    Gun control laws are completely constitutional. SCOTUS has upheld assault weapons bans, they’ve only overturned outright bans on all handguns. And SCOTUS is the arbiter of what is constitutional or not, NOT YOU!

  • PoorDaddy

    Hi model. I believe you proved my point. It is the PERSON in control of all these inanimate objects that are responsible, not the object. I think we bark up the wrong tree by not ascertaining the level of competency, sanity and responsibility of the gun owner as opposed to “banning”. Banning anything only creates an illegal market for the item banned. We have lots of history to prove this.

  • Model Citizen

    The Constitution is not a perfect document and the framers knew it. That’s why the ability to change it through amendments was built in. One example is how the Constitution treated slaves. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons “all other persons,” meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Under your strict adherence to the letter of the Constitution we would still be infringing upon the rights of Africans that were brought here against their will and their descendants.

  • Menwaasa

    Amen to that, Clownbaby! People like Mr. Grouchy need to wake up and face reality. I don’t understand why they are so defensive of the indensible. A gun only needs a bullet–one bullet–to kill–not 30, or 50, or 500 bullets in the same chamber. No one needs that many bullets unless they happen to be in Vietnam-like combat environment or are facing a pride of lions that is attacking all at once.

    I would love to hear what Mr. Grouchy thinks about that argument :-)

  • guest

    If he had a gun and tried to pull it out (tried) don’t you think the criminals would have just blown him away? I love how everyone just assumes that if you have a gun, you’ll never be a victim of a crime, which is ridiculous.

  • 1plato2

    I think you both need to relax, otherwise your going be out in the streets shooting at each other. Model Citizen, Mr. Grouchy is right, he has a right to own a gun to protect his family. Mr. Grouchy, Model Citizen is right, we should expect gun owners to be responsible so that 8 year olds don’t get shot. Both of you please need to recognize the the other one is just as concerned about the welfare of those around him and both of you should recognize that guns are inanimate objects, neither good nor evil, and that it is the actions that one does with them, the sickness one has, that people have that lead to all the above mentioned harms. Work to fix that and it won’t matter how many guns there are or how big the clips are, violent crime and accidents will go down.

    Peace out!

  • guest

    You really think that was a joke? If so, you’re just not funny.

  • Student of the Constitution

    Private ownership of shoulder-launched missiles is banned. Where is the black market for shoulder-launched missiles on our streets? Where are all the people killed in front of their local supermarket by a guy with a shoulder-launched missile? Seems to me that ban works pretty well…

  • Mr. Grouchy

    No semi-automatic handgun or rifle is capable of firing 30-rounds in 1 second. I don’t own 33-round mags because they’re impractical for discreet carry.
    What I oppose is folks who don’t have a clue as to what is involved in defending their family in the gravest extreme, telling me and others trained to do so, how to do it and what to use.

  • Model Citizen

    I don’t own a gun and never will. I disagree with your opinion but I would never resort to violence over it. You could actually bring yourself to put a bullet into another human being and sentence them to death. I couldn’t. Who is the unstable one?

  • guest

    Exactly – and you can’t have drive by stabbings either.

  • Sjmuffler

    Arizona is of the least restrictive gun states in the country. Did a single gun owner with a weapon within 200 yards of the Tuscon event stand a John Wayne chance to stop the shooter? No! This is because it’s BS that armed people prevent these kinds of events. The only people who need clips with 33 rounds are the military in harms way. Citizens have no need for them. We have to get past the all or nothing point of view by the NRA and all gun owners when related to the technology available.

  • canuck333

    I’ll take a stab at his response:

    Don’t pretend that kind of thing doesn’t happen here. I’ve been victimized, so I’m right. Oh, and furthermore, some people are unarmed and bad things happened to them. Never mind the fact that if you carry a gun you are more likely to be shot and more likely to be killed.

  • Model Citizen

    Only a fanatic would make a statement like that. By your logic, you are justified in carrying a flamethrower, bazooka, or grenade.

  • Menwaasa

    Great question, Pollynak! Let’s kope the gun nuts here come out with a sensible answer. As you rightly insinuated, hunting guns don’t need 30 or more rounds per second unless you are being attcaked by a pride of lions or are in a fire fight with the Taliban or the Al-Kaeda terrorists. But the last time I checked, we don’t have any of those folks on American streets so why do we need waepons with such fire power?

    Again, let’s hope one of those gun-totting nutcases give us a *sensible* response to such a question.

  • Student of the Constitution

    What I oppose is my neighbors being gunned down in front of a local supermarket with a weapon that no one other than law enforcement has any business owning and which allowed him to kill and wound so many in a matter of minutes. What about our rights not to be shot by maniacs with unfettered access to military-grade weaponry?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=713920962 Jack Davies

    I’ve always understood and felt strongly in support of the 2nd amendment, while also confronting and accepting the reality that restructuring our current gun laws would most likely save a lot of suffering.

    Perhaps a compromise could be for municipalities to organize independent citizen militias that could then obtain group licenses for the military grade arms, which OF COURSE are designed to take as many lives as quickly as possible, a necessity in serving their intended and perhaps some day vital purpose. Hunting rifles and the like would still be available under current screening procedures, but the assault weapons, cop killers and heavy ordinance would be held in communal storage, accounted for and ready in case the need ever does actually arise. The fact is, it could.

  • Mike from Oregon

    I am so tired of the “cars kill people, are we going to restrict car ownership” argument. We do have regulation on car ownership and use, although we should have a higher ability threshhold to drive. Besides, the main purpose of a car is to move people from point A to point B. Any injuries or deaths that might occur are accidental and not a primary result of the use of the car. And we’ve made cars safer and the death rate go down by what -regulations. THe main purpose of a gun is to take the life of another creature. If you are going to a gun range to practice, you are practicing for when you have to take that life. So the argument comparing cars to guns is completely baseless and stupid.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VCVEQQYQDRL6AZOUUH5YWQYEUA Chris

    Except he could have bought 2 or 3 guns with less ammo in each and did the same amount of damage. Reason doesn’t stop the crazy person. I doubt restricting 30 round clips will stop him as well.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Child-like? doubtful… I’ve been told I’m quite the serious fellow.
    As for “Proliferation breeds death.”, I can only respond with “Use the Force, Luke”.

  • Anonymous

    A gun in the hands of someone with poor judgment or diminished emotional capacity (either mental instability or a bad day) is equally lethal. Bullets don’t distinguish intent.

  • SHALL_NOT_BE_INFRINGED

    You can indeed buy grenades and grenade launchers. It is a Class 3 DD and avaliable to the public.

    40mm.com

  • Student of the Constitution

    The guy was chronically unemployed. How was he gonna buy 2 or 3 guns? Face it, it would have saved lives if he hadn’t had a 33-round clip.

  • PoorDaddy

    Hi rbrain. The repeated government regs re safety you mentioned were all bought and paid for by the powerful Insurance lobby over the years. All these regs increased their profits by limiting injuries. Limiting injuries was the story, increased profits was the real driver.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Really? When is it irrational to want to be prepared to keep your family safe as humanly possible? I guess the crimes, some of them violent that you see on the evening news are somehow not relevant because it didn’t happen to you? I put on my seat belt all the time, and my kids to also. It’s the only sane thing to do.
    I think it’s more irrational to pretend that bad things don’t happen to good people.

  • Model Citizen

    No, you’re wrong. By your logic, let’s allow EVERYONE that wants an atom bomb, as long as they have no history of criminal behavior or mental illness — Cubans, Pakistanis, Tea Party members — to have one. It’s an inanimate object, right? Let’s just trust everyone to use it wisely (i.e., never) and see how that works out.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Nope, those cause collateral damage, and be a danger to bystanders. That would be irresponsible.

  • Model Citizen

    That’s exactly what Jared Loughner’s gun did last week — collateral damage to many bystanders. It is irresponsible to allow people to have that level of fire power.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_73XH4ESZVDCP7PYTRSF6MNJUQI Dean

    I concur with this post. Gun control laws are not completely unconsitutional, but no government institution can ban a person, who has not commited a crime from obtaining certain firearms. This is what should be made clear.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_73XH4ESZVDCP7PYTRSF6MNJUQI Dean

    We regulate cars, so by your logic we can regulate guns.

  • canuck333

    Are you actually arguing that the government shouldn’t have tried to make cars and driving safer? Drunk driving laws are actually a draconian plot to save insurance companies money? Seat belts and speed limits too? Ask someone who was rear-ended by someone speeding without insurance about that.

    Wow. That’s quite a worldview you’ve got there.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    hey Canuck, you seem to like gloating about bad things happened to my family. Who’s the twisted one? Yep, some folks were unarmed, and bad things did happen to them.
    As for “if you carry a gun you are more likely to be shot and more likely to be killed”… hasn’t happened yet, but I’m sure you’ll keep praying… peace lover that you are.

  • Rikilii

    Actually, a civilian with a gun was running to the scene. The only reason his arrival at the scene ended up being irrelevant was because the shooter’s second 30 round magazine malfunctioned.

  • Citizenwangpeng

    The irony about the gun laws, or lack of law, is that for all the law and order talk that you hear on the right these easily available firearms are fueling the drug wars on the Mexican border. According to a Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/12/AR2010121202663.html), “Federal authorities say more than 60,000 U.S. guns of all types have been recovered in Mexico in the past four years, helping fuel the violence that has contributed to 30,000 deaths.” These include AR-15s and AK-47s. Texas is reported to be the top source. What is bizarre is that “the identities of U.S. dealers that sell guns seized at Mexican crime scenes remain confidential under a law passed by Congress in 2003.” A truly violent situation.

  • malamamakena

    I live in Hawaii. We are #50 of the 50 states in gun ownership. Only 9.7% of the population owns 1 or more guns. AND – get ready for this surprise – Hawaii has the lowest number of gun deaths per 100,000 population in the United States!

    Lowest number of guns. Lowest number of gun deaths.

    Any questions?

  • Model Citizen

    Guns are like sports cars: The smaller your dick is, the more horsepower you want.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Stop. That wasn’t collateral damage. That was murder and assault. Once again, an emotional failure to discriminate between a lawful citizen and a criminal. Who’s crazy now?

  • whatsnext

    Meachum is missing the point about WHY the Tea Partiers and NRA are vehement opponents of any and all restrictions on guns, even 33-round clips: Forget about logic, forget about what the 2nd Amendment really says — they are thinking of the day when they will bring down the govt. with an armed uprising — Sharron Angle and others have made not so veiled references to their real aims.

  • nancer

    actually, the guy running to the scene said he almost shot the man who was holding the gun after disarming loughner. he came around a corner and was smart enough to sort out what he was seeing before he fired. if he hadn’t paused, he very well could have killed yet another innocent person by mistake.

  • canuck333

    I’m not gloating about the tragedies your family has had to face. But that doesn’t mean that those tragedies are an argument. They certainly inform your opinion.

    Statistically, if you carry a gun you are more likely to be shot and killed. This has nothing to do with my hopes and dreams. All is says is that some people carry guns, and it doesn’t really work out that well for them.

    We atheists don’t do a lot of praying, though we do love peace.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=524396525 Jack Shipley

    Interesting, isn’t it, that these folk who are originalists about every other issue with the Constitution (at least how they read it) but not about the second amendment and the militia clause.

  • PoorDaddy

    There is a black market for shoulder launched missiles, but not in my price range, nor is it a desire of mine.
    Has banning drugs worked? Did prohibition back in the day work? Kiddie porn is banned, but you still have plenty of molesters out there. I just don’t see a ban as a realistic answer. Just my opinion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LTI2JLT6DMKHFZYTMTAW6SXVXM John Horner

    33 round magazines have no reasonable place in the average citizen’s home. I say that as someone who does own two guns, so I’m not an anti-gun person, but putting these high capacity magazines into civilian hands is really just asking for trouble.

    You can’t own a fully armed F-16 as a private citizen either, ya know.

  • Model Citizen

    You think Loughner intended to kill all of those bystanders in the crowd? As best as we can tell, his target was the Congresswoman. Had he been limited to single-round weapons, we all know that the number of deceased would have been reduced. You’re still crazy. Also grouchy.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Nope, my history isn’t any argument, its a fact. Rational people make decisions based upon facts, not supposition or emotion. I don’t take my decision to carry lightly. As for statistics, Who’s statistics are you talking about? Sounds like the lies form the Brady folks or the VPC. Trying looking at the DOJ and FBI crime reports.

  • Welcometoreality

    That is the biggest lie and pile of shit you have posted in all of your rants I’ve read the past 4 pages.

    An accomplished rifleman could fire approximately twice in 1 minute, allowing time for clearing the barrel, reloading, priming – and praying your ball actually went straight further than 30 ft from you.

    Welcome to 2011, 1776 is a LONG time ago.

  • Model Citizen

    Excellent point! Until the Constitution was amended, they had no clear right to bear arms!

  • Anonymous

    Nonsense! The very idea of “independent citizen militias” and “military grade arms” is foolish. That’s what your state national guards are for. The 2nd Amendment plainly states that a “well regulated militia” is necessary for guaranteeing the peace and liberty. And your state national guards fulfill that role. I suspect you just want to play patriot games for your personal power and enjoyment. Guns do not kill people, but people with guns do, and the more people with guns, the more people will die.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Of course he did. He’s crazy, right?
    You’d have as much chance of keeping a 33-round magazine out of that crazy’s hand as you would keeping a gun out of his hand. How could you limit him to a single-shot weapon, or keep him from any weapon.
    The bottom line is I carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy, and I can’t afford his pension.

  • Bob Cranston

    Uh, the 2nd amendment was in the original Constitution. It was not an amendment added to the Constitution.

    A lot of people would have had rifles especially in the rural areas for hunting and varmit control.

  • Bob Cranston

    Yeah, their going to bring down the govt with 9-mm. Sure thing buddy.

  • CitizenoftheUSA

    More innocent people shot as properly armed officials of the law raise their weapons – and see a crowd of people in front of them waving their weapons in all directions, shooting at everyone else with a weapon.

    you can float an imaginary idea – so can I.

    Yours causes more deaths, no matter how you look at it though.

  • Bob Cranston

    Really, do you go around measuring the dicks of gun-owners and sports car drivers.

  • Model Citizen

    If that shit wasn’t readily available at a gun show, Loughner wouldn’t have had it in his possession. Convenience is a huge factor. Yes, SOME, fanatics intent on getting access to certain contraband could find it somewhere, but taking it out of the mainstream would do a great deal toward minimizing it.

  • PoorDaddy

    No where in my post did I state vehicles shouldn’t be safe. I’m just telling you where the $ for the “push” for these regs came from.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Ah, but only if they put me or my family in danger. I disagree with your opinion, but would never shoot you over it, though you wouldn’t believe that. Once again, a failure to discriminate between lawful citizens and criminals.
    so let’s get his straight.. you wouldn’t shoot someone if that was the only way to keep them from hurting your family? whos the crazy one?

  • Bob Cranston

    Yes because setting of an atom bomb in your neighborhood because a criminal broke into your home while you where there is sensible.

  • TomServo

    Menwaasa,
    You got some facts messed up. There’s no gun that fires 30 rounds per second. 30 rounds per ammo clip, yes, but not a second.

  • canuck333

    Then maybe we should try and find a way to make money by making people safe from guns.

  • Model Citizen

    Uh, no it wasn’t. The original Constitution was adopted in 1787. The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, was adopted in 1791.

  • Model Citizen

    And no one is complaining about “hunting and varmit control”.

  • Anonymous

    Having firearms may give people a satisfaction or sense of safety, freedom, exhillaration, or an unexplained keenness for having them, whatever it is…. There’s some belief, or set of beliefs causing one to make a decision to use or own guns, or not. What beliefs those may be are part of the equation. But it seems that existing conditions in one’s life, work, environment, are what people fight and even die for, to remain the same. I stress ‘TO REMAIN THE SAME’ because making changes in terms of gun onwership: people resist change. Those with guns don’t want their freedom and safety taken away, neither do people without firearms. Yet it’s possible that there’s a way in which people could feel safe, feel important, could enjoy their lives without guns. In the U.S., it’s going to take generations to the point that interest in firearms simply fades away; but for now the ‘gun climate’ in the U.S. continues to be convoluted. Intrinsically is it the gun, or what the guns provide for us, that we want? Similarly is it the money, or what money provides for us? So we continue to try to protect ourselves by being able to buy convenience to security, but the gun doesn’t always ensure security or safety. Genuine security and safety come from citizens collaborating, building foundations of trust, and handling different viewpoints with civility and respect. I respect people’s viewpoint to have guns, but I don’t find it useful when there’s hatred in the atmosphere and guns readily available – which is working against the betterment of society.

  • canuck333

    I’m talking about the difference between anecdotal evidence (your personal experiences), which are factual about the events in question, and empirical evidence about society at large, and statistical probabilities of things happening to you.

    I don’t know who you’re talking about, but I’ve never heard the FBI or the DOJ suggest that people should carry guns because it makes them safer. Or are you inferring that based on crime rates?

  • CC

    First of all, fully automatic rifles are illegal. Even now, after the bush years. I agree the car argument is flawed, however, I also agree that the size of the magazine is not going to change much. I am in the military, and I can tell you that a 15 round, standard magazine for a Glock could be changed and the gun firing again in the time it takes to blink an eye with practice.

    Here is why the assault weapons ban is flawed. An AR-15 is semi automatic with no scope, yet a hunting rifle, that fires a bigger more powerful round with a range of 300 more meters and a twelve power scope is legal and the AR-15 is not. Which is more deadly?

    The real solution is to have sane gun control laws. This may sound crazy from a crazy right wing, gun toting, military nut (as many who read the Huffington Post probably believe I am because I willingly am serving and own guns), but we need to regulate guns.

    In this instance, the car analogy is useful. Why do we have to pass a drivers test, register and insure our cars, and carry a drivers license to drive, but not so for guns. I agree any mentally stable, law abiding good standing citizen should be able to own a weapon, but the idea of them not having basic gun safety knowledge scares me. If one had to get, and renew a gun owners license like a drivers license than they would have to have a federal background check every few years upon renewal. Every gun owned should be forensically tied to the license so if a crime is committed with that gun the perpetrator is known. This license should be good in all states, as a drivers license should be so everyone clearly knows the law and is not confused when crossing state lines. These simple, responsible, and common sense changes would have a huge impact.
    The bottom line is that no political side can set aside their rabid radical agendas to come up with a common sense law like this. The right wants everyone to be running around shooting in the air and hooting and hollering, to defend their rights. And the left wants all guns off the street 2nd amendment be damned because guns kill people, not people kill people. This is the political world we live in, the common sense, middle of the road that most of us like to walk is forgotten.

  • Model Citizen

    Once again, logic escapes you. The justification for having guns in the first place comes from the second amendment of the Constitution and deals with the need for citizens to form a “well regulated militia”, presumably to protect the people from rogue governments — not the neighborhood bully. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, citizens with firearms could actually band together to protect our nation from invaders. Try that today. Good luck battling the invading Chinese or Russians with your muskets. My point is that you don’t need a nuclear warhead. You don’t need Napalm. You don’t need flame throwers or bazookas. You don’t need Gatling guns. You don’t need rocket-propelled grenades. You don’t need an AK-47. At some point you might need a handgun. But do you need the ability to fire off 33 rounds from a magazine in rapid succession? I doubt it. You have to draw the line somewhere. Where do you want to draw it? Napalm?

  • Barbbjjb12246

    What use is it except to shoot innocent people, or even what you consider guilty people…that is what the courts are for. I’ve never seen anyone go after a deer with a handgun. My granny shot an intruder in the leg with a rifle…that works…If you notice ninety percent of these folks are men carrying heat.. They don’t have much else to play with, so they pick on others….

  • Anonymous

    Right, because all the injuries and deaths caused by car accidents are just that, a “story”, a propaganda campaign. They don’t happen, they are just a scam so that the insurance companies can get more money. That makes total sense.

  • culturegeek

    did you just say that the Second Amendment wasn’t an amendment?

  • Model Citizen

    See what we’re dealing with here?

  • culturegeek

    Looks like you struck a nerve there.

  • Model Citizen

    They’re dying for the opportunity to one day show their wives how manly they are with their big pistols to compensate for the day to day disappointments in the bedroom.

  • PoorDaddy

    You’re Welcome! Since you want to ban shit in the US, I’m starting to think we should ban ALL comments from anyone outside the border of the US. You’ve really got no business telling us what to do…..you no longer have a choice….YOU ARE DISARMED up there already!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    So wait, the state with the lowest amount of guns per capita has the lowest gun crime per capita? NO WAY!!!

    You’re an idiot. Try living in London where not even the police have guns. Knife crime is out of the stratosphere.

    I have a fact for you. A concealed weapon permit holder is the least likely to commit ANY crime.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    That’s because it’s a blatant lie.

    They are use fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers, something that you can’t even buy in the US!

  • Model Citizen

    We’ll take the knife crime. Jared Loughner killed 6 and injured 13. What would the statistics be if he had a knife or two?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    no, no they don’t

    anything run by the government, especially “militias” goes against the spiriti of the second amendment and the founding of the country.

    if you require a license to own a gun or be in a militia, the government has a list of names and can use that against you. what happens to the gun owners if someone pulls a cous? they have a list of names for people to execute first

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    maybe in this particular situation, yes
    most situations are defensive

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    to a point that is reasonable, yes

    but cars aren’t a protected right in the constitution

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    any license with your name on it is a list of people to go after

    what would you do if some rogue general pulled a cous or suddenly the decided to “crack down” on gun owners?

    bad idea

    also, cars aren’t a protected right in the constitution

  • Keep and Bear Muskets

    It wouldn’t stop him, but it would probably have reduced his ability to do damage. I tell you what: you TP-heads are really into the “original intent,” right? You want to feel close to the Framers? You can have all the 18th-century weaponry you want.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    good luck getting it

    have you checked the prices?

    the kind of person that can get that license is rich and has enough gun training that they can be trusted

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    would you please define what an “assault weapon” is?

    the reason the ban will never come back is because of the definition, you basically have to ban all rifles

  • Model Citizen

    Which helps to demonstrate our point: Cars didn’t exist when the Constitution was written. It’s not a perfect document. If you want to follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution then you can only bear the arms that were available when it was written. 33-shot magazines didn’t exist then and can’t, therefore, be considered arms.

  • Zroyse

    Please never speak again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=210400320 Nicholas Reichart

    you need to read your constitution again, that part isn’t clear because of the punctuation

  • Model Citizen

    Yes, just like how Mohammed Atta had enough airplane training that HE could be trusted.

  • Spupinoes

    good on you, Jon Meacham.

  • Zroyse

    “coup” – idiot

  • Model Citizen

    Don’t you think the people without guns are more likely to be “cracked down on”. Less resistance.

  • Anonymous

    “What on earth could such a thing be good for except for rapidly ending as many human lives in as short a space of time as possible?” If those humans are government officials forcing their way into your property without a search warrant, that is a reason you might want a high capacity magazine for your weapon.

    The Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. It is right after the First for a reason. If the government does not respond to our petitions for redress of grievances, it is the duty of the Citizens to remove that government, by force of arms if needed. America is not immune to power hungry, psychopathic politicians, the bane of humanity and all governments since time immemorial. Until we eliminate greed, recognizing it as a pathology and treating it as such, we must always maintain a vigil against seizures of power over every aspect of our daily lives by the power hungry, eager to tear the Constitution to shreds.

    The television tells us a different story. Human rights are only violated in other countries. Dictators rise up in Africa or Central America. This is America. It can’t happen here.

    The alleged shooter in the recent tragedy was know to be unstable. Before he was kicked out of school, he was recognized as “crazy.” One student took a seat near the classroom exit, just in case. Why wasn’t he treated? Why was he allowed to buy firearms? We should take the mental health of the population more seriously than just leaving it up to the free market. The medical department should be no different than the fire department. There have been several cases of individuals like this in recent years. The pattern should have been recognized and pro-active measures taken. File this case under “Condemned to Repeat.” (I am in favor of responsible gun ownership rights and “socialized” medicine. Isn’t that interesting?)

    Rights impute duties. The right to own a firearm “being necessary to the security of a free State,” imputes a duty not to violate your fellow Citizens’ freedom and security with that weapon. This is what kids need to learn in school. We need to teach kids about rights AND the duties they impute. We have so much gun violence because the duties required with gun ownership aren’t taken seriously enough.

    We cannot have a government “by the people” if the people don’t know how to govern themselves.

  • Model Citizen

    Actually, it’s not. That’s some bullshit that the NRA came up with. I challenge you to explain how the comma affects the overall meaning.

  • canuck333

    The irony of course being that you are more likely to be killed than I am. But yeah, you’re right, what would a Canadian know about gun control and its effectiveness.

  • Model Citizen

    So you’re willing to allow countless nut-jobs to have access to tons of high-powered guns and ammo on the remote possibility that “government officials” will someday force their way onto your property without a search warrant? Space aliens may select you out of the entire human race to be abducted and anally probed. Are you going to arm your residence with heat seeking lasers? Someone should be monitoring you right now, whack job.

  • Cat Shoes

    But…but…but…Who the heck is “they” (as in “they have a list of names for people to execute”) if “they” (the Govmint) was just overthrown in a coup?

    We’re required to have a license to drive a car, get married, catch a fish. But there’s no need for accountability/personal responsibility to own a semiautomatic handgun with a 33-bullet clip? That makes NO sense, Nicholas. :-(

  • Model Citizen

    I think it’s safe to say that “they” have powerful software that logs all of these comments and already know which one of you fruitcakes will put up resistance based on your wing nut statements.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    So if the point of the second amendment is to sufficiently arm civilians so that they can defeat the military don’t we have the rights to all the weapons necessary for that task,. fully automatic rifles, anti-aircraft cannons, tanks, fighter jets, hunter-killer subs, nukes? Or is it possible that the founding fathers could not have imagined some of these weapons.

    But I do agree with you on mental health. Under the Regan administration state and nation spending on mental health facilities was slashed most of the patients were discharged to their families who were ill equipped to deal with their issues or simply put out on the street where they swelled the homeless population.

  • Veracity

    What a smug a self righteous rant Meacham. Take your avg. 12 gauge semi shotgun with 5 rounds of 12 gauge 00 Buck and shoot that into a crowd and your “sporting” firearm will turn into a “vicious, unnecessary machinery of human death” Each 00 buckshot round has 8 .33 caliber pellets fired with 1 pull of the trigger.
    Your “sporting” gun can spit out more projectiles of death (45) without reloading than this idiot’s Glock.

  • Cat Shoes

    But if “they” have been overthrown by a bunch of pistol-brandishing yahoos, how can “they” turn around and execute the coup’ers, list or no list?

    (And why are right-wingnuts so damned paranoid? That’s not a healthy way to live one’s life.)

  • Stormkeeper_knight

    It takes very little work or knowledge to turn a “safe” semi-automatic gun into a fully-automatic one. As for grenades, they’re not sold legally, but it’s still possible.

  • culturegeek

    A killer with a revolver will have to reload after shooting at most 6 people. And what happened when this one reloaded? Except he got to fire 30 shots. He shot 20 people, killing 6, wounding 14. And even the revolver is nearly 100 years younger than this country.
    When the Second Amendment was written, the most people you could kill with a gun before reloading, was one, two if they stood exactly in line and you got really lucky.
    How in the hell do you know what the people who wrote that law would think of your claim that everybody has a God-given right to an AK-47 capable of firing 600 or 800 times per minute? AFAIK, none of them ever saw anything that could fire more than once or, if you were really fast, and really lucky, maybe twice, in a minute.

    Not to mention, you seem to forget the words “well-regulated,” which intelligent people think probably means–well, regulated. Also the word “militia,” which most sane people (and most US courts) interpreted as a reference to the National Guard.

    Then there’s the really obvious fact that a guy taking on the biggest military in the world with a 9mm is definitely not going to win, no matter how big the magazine. I am reminded of a certain Robert Anton Wilson thought for the week from years ago. I think he said something like “[NRA or somesuch] think they need guns to protect them from the government. HEILGEFLIEGENKINDERSCHEIßE! Have they SEEN the government lately?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    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.” That is the literal text from the Constitution. If you are going to argue based on the “spirit” of the 2nd amendment then you have to accept implied powers and a broad reading of the commerce clause which allows things like the EPA and a health care mandate. Or going the opposite direction if you want to argue that it should be read based on the founding fathers’ original intent then you are only allowed to own those arms that were in existence when the amendment was written. Enjoy your smoothbore musket

  • Lamatjim

    hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Actually, then what happened? You are groping!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    So when are you expecting UPS to bring your Abrams M-1a well maybe that is a vehicle and not “arms” A howitzer then can you have that? Will Fed-Ex Make you sign? Whats a SAM going for these days on E-Bay. There must be restriction on what weapons civilians are allowed to own. Some people are trying to have a rational discussion about where those lines should be drawn. Arguing that there should not be any lines at all merely gives everyone else here license to ignore you.

  • Tim

    I’ll take the knife also. Most people who are stabbed survive.

  • Anonymous

    I went through ROTC training when I was in freshman year at high school in Bakersfield CA (58-62). I learned how to shoot a RIFLE, to the point that I could go out and shot quail, squirrels, ets w/ all the guys……………BUT what we had were SINGLE shot rifles. Those were NOT these assault WEAPONS – for that is what they are. I am all for anyone having their single shot rifles if they are out deer hunting, or whatever BUT assault WEAPONS w/ multiple charges? Give me a break! Are the goons saying that they “need” these WEAPONS so insecure that they “think” that they need them? Spare me! A REAL man can take a single shot rifle out hunting and bag a duck, or a deer, or whatever. Are these “Girly boys”. to quote Arnold SO insecure that they think that they have to have an assualt WEAPON?

  • Tntbenson

    Worked real well for Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, and for the idiots at Waco.

    If you want to reign in government excess, do it at the polling place.

  • VagabondSaint

    And we have speed limits for cars, we require insurance for cars, cars are heavily regulated and checked for safety, we have drunk driving laws, a license is required is required everywhere to even operate one, you can lose that license quite easily, and you have to be occasionally retested to be sure you are still fit to operate a vehicle. A country where guns are regulated, controlled, and overseen as much as cars would be a much safer country all around.

  • VagabondSaint

    So we won’t get real gun laws until someone figures out a way to make money off of them? Why are the manufacturers of Tasers and pepper spray not behind this legislation already?

  • Cat Shoes

    “Why wasn’t he treated?”

    Probably because he had NO health insurance. (Especially if “crazy” is considered a preexisting condition.)

    “Why was he allowed to buy firearms?”

    Probably because he had the money in his pocket (but not enough money for health insurance) and because he had a constitutional right to buy a friggin’ gun (or three).

    Weird set of priorities we have here, no? yes?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    But at least the shotgun has a use besides putting people in the ground. Plus with five rounds of 00 shot most of the pellets will end up hitting the victims closest to the shooter. After five rounds no new targets before a reload. While the Glock with an extended mag is still firing.

  • Kajungrl30

    He, is not a whack job, he is absolutely right. Try reading a little history and you will see that his sentiment is the exact intention of the founding fathers when the structured the second amendment. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. The guns in this country are not the problem. It is the attitude of the people here. We have to stop letting our children be raised by the internet and xbox. We have to take the time to shoe them the difference between reality and fantasy. We have to stop touting the Death penalty and then wonder why people feel it is perfectly fine to off someone they think deserves it. Guns didn’t make this mess, we did. And it is our job to clean it up. My healthy respect for firearms and human life comes not from the law, but from the teachings and example of my family and the community I grew up in. We could all do better to treat life and guns with a little more reverence. When we stop being indifferent to life until it is ended and stop treating guns as toys or pathetic attempts to prove some non-existent manhood, we will be much better off. But make no mistake disarming the people is the first move in the rise of tyranny. History has proved this time and time again. Great Britain tried to do it to the colonies, Nazis did it to the Jews, and don’t think for a minute that it couldn’t happen again. The moment you think your freedom is safe enough that you stop defending it, is the moment you begin to loose it.

  • MichaelR

    So, you call yourself “Model Citizen”, yet you respond to someone you disagree with, with this kind of discourtesy and blatant rudeness? And I see your callous behavior all over this page. Typical.

    The problem with gun grabbers is you insist on focusing on the implement, rather than the person using it. I have yet to hear anyone say that mentally unstable persons should be covered by 2nd Amendment rights. In this case, the concern over the extended magazine is ridiculous. As a firearms expert, I could do more with a six-shot revolver and a pocket full of spare ammo than most of you could do with one of these “assault” rifles you’re so terrified of. The article itself says it best: “First, there should be, as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed, a strengthening of regulations that keep those with certain kinds of mental health and substance abuse records from being able to purchase firearms for a given period of time.” Gee, ya think? Don’t blame or impugn the millions of lawful gun owners because you people have no idea what kind of laws to pass. Don’t blame us because you are afraid of the implement rather than the person using it.

    This perception that the 2nd Amendment is about sporting arms gives me a rash. Guess what? Pappy’s goose gun is actually NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment. Well, it is, but not near as much as these “assault” weapons that you pay so much attention too. The 2nd Amendment is in place to keep the real power in the hands of the people (btw, I’m a liberal Democrat, voted for Obama, and despise the Bush family, Palin, et al). And after such cheesebal maneuvers as the Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security, etc, don’t tell me that we can afford to give up that power.

  • http://twitter.com/AztecRed Epic Monkey

    Sorry Mr. Meacham, but I and lots of “assault weapon” owners are not going to be thrown under the bus because of the actions of a few. If you don’t believe me, just ask Bill Clinton. He tried to throw us under the bus and it cost Al Gore the presidency and handed the House over to Newt Gingrich. And there are more of us now than there were then. We’re also better informed, better connected, and younger than our predecessors.

  • Cat Shoes

    You’re honestly scared that “they” will suddenly decide to crack down on all gun owners when “they” can’t even keep track of who’s double-dipping on welfare?

    Again, paranoia is NOT a good state to be living in.

  • LVogt

    “…Second Amendment true believers are unable to make sound distinctions between sporting arms that tend to be used responsibly and the vicious, unnecessary machinery of human death…”

    Jon, these people want military weapons to fight the government. It ain’t about huntin’ squirrel.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    But you had to devote a significant portion of your life to developing that talent with discipline and practice. Traits that, not incidentally, would make you less likely to fire into a crowd of innocent people.

    The focus of the 2nd amendment was external threat not the ability to craft a 2nd American revolution. In the 18th century military and civilian arms were essentially the same By the time of the Civil war that was barely the case but modern military equipment has such a massive potential for destruction that it would be irresponsible for it to be widely held in civilian hands.

  • Azjaeger

    There are two things to keep in mind. First, in every country where the politicians have managed to take away the citizen’s gun rights, the first step is always the banning of “military type” weapons. Then eventually, they get around to making them turn in their “sporting” arms. See Great Britain if you need an example. Second, if the Tucson police had acted on Loughner at any point in his history of threatening people and charged him with making death threats, he wouldn’t have been able to legally buy a pistol as he would have failed the background check that is already law. Instead, they cut him slack because he was the son of a county employee.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Umm after Newt got the house in ’94 Clinton went on to win the budget showdown and won an election for a second term. Al Gore won the popular vote. And I hate to tell you but today’s 18-29 year olds, the ones who have done the bulk of the fighting in every war ever, are more liberal than conservative. From Politico “According to the EMR exit polls at the presidential level, in 2008, 45% of voters 18-29 identified as Democrats while only 27% identified as Republicans.” So for every

  • http://twitter.com/CaliforniaYume Eric Hilton

    So you don’t care how many people die as long as you can hold on to your precious assault rifle.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    And guess what happend when the guns are taken away. NOTHING. Last time I checked Great Britain had not devolved into tyranny. Plus for a real hunting challenge use a bow.

  • Azjaeger

    Sure. Explain New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. Handguns are illegal in all of those cities. Also, it is currently illegal for felons to own guns. Why do people continue to think that those that are willing to commit murder will be afraid to own a gun because it is illegal?

  • Bravosixniner

    Hahahaha your funny, Epic, why is it that your allowed to have assault rifles and I cant bare 120mm cannons? Whats the distinction? Assault rifles were invented by Nazi Germany for combat not defense. So if you can buy AKs then why cant I buy 40mm grenade launcher? Its a gun too, why not landmines? I dont expect you to change your mind but I do think its within my constitutional rights to possess heavy artillery, its your buying Assault rifles for defense then I should be able to buy hand grenades.

  • Jdberger

    I’ll bet that Reginald Denny would have liked to have the option to carry a Glock 19 with a 33 round “clip”.

  • MichaelR

    “The focus of the 2nd amendment was external threat not the ability to craft a 2nd American revolution. ” Total nonesense. I suggest you study your constitutional history. Nothing at all in our Bill of Rights has anything to do with anything “external”. And the entire Bill of Rights has everything to do with “a 2nd American revolution.” 1st, 2nd, all the way to the 10th Amendments were designed to pave the way for another revolution, if needed.

    And don’t try to tell me that visionaries like Benjamin Franklin had no notion that firearms technology wouldn’t evolve. They understood it very well and made sure that the citzenry would be able to keep up with their government.

  • Azjaeger

    Maybe, but that was 2008. I’m old enough to have lived thru Carter…the kids of 08 hadn’t lived thru a Dem administration…now that they can’t find work, they’ll probably see the light just like we did by 1980…:)

  • Proglibinsky

    Your comment is fueled by utter ignorance and emotion. So called “Assault weapons” are “legal”, semi auto and in some case’s fully auto. This is an ideal weapon
    for SELF DEFENSE!! You and this Regime are not the arbiters of what kind of legal weapon the American people should own. Meacham is a useful Idiot and tool of the Left. This Tucson
    tragedy is being exploited by progressives to further their agenda of complete Govt. control.
    And with gullible f00ls like you too believe, God help us.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Actually the Supreme Court overturned the DC handgun ban in Case 554 U.S. 570 DC vs Heller in 2008. This ruling overturned the handgun bans in all of those cities.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    I thought Clinton was a Democrat?

  • MichaelR

    One thing you gun grabbers might want to consider: It has been reported on Huffington (which led me here) that Glock sales have skyrocketed because of the inevitable push to ban. Pardon the pun but, you guys are effectively shooting yourselves in the foot.

  • Azjaeger

    Jon Meacham is the editor of Newsweek, a left wing newsmagazine that has become even more left wing since it was sold for a dollar (no kidding) as it was losing so much money that it was about to fold. Of course, he leans on the idea that he’s a Southern gun owner and even HE is for bringing back the “assault weapons” ban, and conveniently doesn’t mention he’s left wing. Google, it’s a wonderful thing. :)

  • Kajungrl30

    Yet you don’t have the lowest murder rate in the US. Funny. Current lowest? North Dakota. Gun ownership rate there? 51% one of the highest in the country. Any Questions?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Well as a voter I along with you and the rest of our fellow citizens are the arbiters of what weapons we want available. What is happening here is a debate to see if a majority agree that the line should be moved without violating the 2nd amendment. The left is as important a part of this country as the right. Progressives like me are part of the American people just as much as the most ardent Libertarian. I do not agree with you but it should be possible for us to have a civil discussion on this topic without one side or the other trying to paint people who disagree with them as Un-American. Liberals are not the enemy. They are your neighbors, your cops, your doctors, even your children. Not exclusivity but significantly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    What’s wrong with being left wing? It worked ok for Lincoln.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Well there are so few people there it is hard to get someone in range. But seriously there are more to murder statistics than gun ownership. Lots of guns and less murders doesn’t mean unlimited glocks for all, it just means that like most issues in this world it is complicated.

  • Kajungrl30

    How does the original intent imply musket? Does every one who says this think the founding fathers where ignorant of advances in science? Benjamin Franklin was one of the greatest scientist of the era. To say that they could not fathom weapons that could do the amount of destruction possible today is foolish.

  • 1995

    When a crazed lone gunman killed 35 people in Australia in 1995, Australia enacted similar bansto those meacham proposes. There has not been a similar incident since. Sadly bitter Americans who.cling to their guns and religion just don’t seem to get it.

  • ypw

    Here is a suggestion: Since there is a law to hold the bar owner or restaurant owner responsible for selling drinks to a patron who later causes traffic accident because of drunk driving after leaving the
    premises, why not pass a similar law to hold the gun seller responsible too for selling the gun to
    the person who committed the crime using the gun. In other words, the family of a gun victim can have the right to sue the gun seller as well.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    They could fathom the destructive power of a hydrogen bomb? A stealth bomber? The founding fathers were visionaries in many ways but I doubt they could have forecast 200 years of advances in military technology. But I agree that Franklin is one of history’s great polymaths but he new nothing of atomic theory, high explosives. Incidentally he did help organize the city militia of Philadelphia to put down a populist uprising on the frontier of Western Pennsylvania

  • Proglibinsky

    Liberals/Progressives have demonstrated over and over again how they believe
    in Govt. as the answer for all of life’s problems. Liberals are willing to give up the freedom that
    our Constitution grants us to further this Green Utopia and Socialist insanity. There is nothing “uncivil” in saying Liberals/Progressives should be defeated at the ballot box and driven out of power. You Progressives can’t Govern a free people and remain in power, you can only rule over subjugated masses. Conservatives need to hit these Dems hard and
    don’t let up until they are driven from power and out of the Capitol. Dems are such low life’s.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    While I understand the sentiment this kind of rhetoric is not helpful to the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    “he would have failed the background check that is already law. Instead, they cut him slack because he was the son of a county employee. ”
    So are you against gun control, or are you for gun control without favoritism? If you see gun control as ‘first the military, then hunting’ then it should matter if the police went easy on him or not. If you think it should be legal and there shouldn’t be any kind of laws about who can buy what, then it shouldn’t matter, and if it does matter, then you have to admit that gun control is not some big plot. It actually is about safety.
    But you can’t have it both ways.

  • Veracity

    For people who do not hunt not shoot skeet a shotgun has few other purposes except to do that. What do you mean hitting victims “closest to the shooter”? The spread could spread wider than an individual and hit others.
    You can skirt the point, but his article labeling certain firearms which he doesn’t seem to need or like with scary rhetoric is disingenuous and you know it.

  • Proglibinsky

    Sounds like your a Democrat politician what a brilliant load of cr@p.

  • Nspineda9

    why do you eat you guns

  • Kajungrl30

    Very true, but my point is that guns are a tool. It can be and is often abused, but the same could be said about cars, phones, computers and so on. I think our problem stems from our attitude, not our gun ownership. So like you said, its complicated. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of the violence. But it will limit a persons ability to protect themselves.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Progressive does not mean Socialist nor Utopian. I do not want to oppress anyone. I understand that the government is an expression of the will of the people and as an imperfect people we will have an imperfect government. I do not believe that government is the answer to every problem but nor do I believe the market is. I do believe that government should “provide for the general welfare” and the no one in a country as great and wealthy as ours should die of a curable disease or go to bed hungry at night. I believe that everyone who participates in our society has a duty to support it and that those who have benefited the most have the most incentive to provide that support. No one succeeds on their own. We all get help on a daily basis. We all depend on each other to keep this country running and the lights on. The essence of being a liberal is to understand these things and move the government, as the embodiment of the people’s will to providing them. I want to enslave noone. I want everyone to be as free as possible. Free from fear. Free from want. Free from violence. and Free from oppression. I look everyday for ways to expand freedom. If these are my ideals how can any honest man call me anything but a patriot.

  • Kajungrl30

    He also stated that a democracy needed a revolution every 20 years or so in order to be maintained. I am paraphrasing here. Also could he have foreseen the science behind it, maybe not. But the notion of wiping out an entire city, yes I believe he could.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    I agree that is why I am not advocating getting rid of guns nor have I seen any official in either party do so. But we sure don’t need 30 round mags.

  • Kajungrl30

    Does it matter. With training and practice, you can reload a pistol in 1 second or less.

  • Anonymous

    Can’t happen here? Go ask Rodney King and the parents of Oscar Grant whether it can’t happen here. Go ask the Japanese who sent to internment camps in the 40′s, go ask the friends of students who were shot at Kent State. Are would there have been less bloodshed if they had had weapons or more ?

    We should take mental health seriously, unfortunately, many of the same people arguing for people to own semi automatics are the same ones who oppose the kind of care this guy needed. Some of them carried signs implying violence if it passed. Are you going to tell me that shooters like the killer of George Tiller, the military doctor who went on a spree, The guys at Ruby Ridge and Waco, would have not done what they did if they had a class in school about gun duties? The US has some of the highest gun violence rates in the 1st world, and yet other countries don’t have classes in gun duties either. At some point, you have to declare some items as simply being too dangerous and not useful.

  • Awfuk

    Nobody is looking to grab guns. I think the dreaded gun control efforts died in the eighties and even those wouldn’t have grabbed guns. But allowing any loon in the country to have 30 rounds chambered for their Glock is extremely stupid. So keep the Glock but how about limiting the loons to 9 rounds which would have saved quite a few lives and maybe even the 9-year-old girl? Seems fair to me since I’d go for a 44 magnum which is a revolver and only holds six rounds. I get six and can shoot better than the loon with nine. I win or maybe not. 30 rounds is ridiculous. Bambi is crying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Actually that was Jefferson who also said “The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I. and ” Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear. … Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.” He also did not think that Jesus was the son of God. The opinions of dead men on future events is not something that can ever be known unfortunately. We will simply have to disagree.

  • http://twitter.com/Marish01 Marish01

    The second amendment wasn’t an amendment? Um… I guess Jefferson should have called it the second added-on-thingie.

  • Awfuk

    expand on this brilliance maybe? Very intriguing…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    That is one second that can’t be spend shooting people. And it was when the Tuscon killer went to reload that people stopped him. I should say it matters.

  • Arothschild30

    Can you please explain the necessity for assault rifles for average americans. I really don’t see how they are needed and/or what purpose they serve.

  • Anonymous

    The purpose of the 2nd amendment is right in the text itself. “For the purpose of maintaining a ready militia”. Not for the possibility of police coming in your house, but for maintaining a military force for the government.
    The Amendment were designed to allow people to voice their opinions and keep their civil rights, but not necessarily through violence.
    Besides who decides when a revolution is necessary? Is simply the fact that you hate a President’s policies, or that you disagree with a judge over the legality of a search warrant automatically entitle you to take lives or bring down a government. I can see a lot of people who will believe they are right to do whatever they want as long as they have a gun, and your belief in gun duties, however noble and right, ain’t going to stop them, any more than a glass door stops a determined burgler.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Proglibinsky knows the secret trick to blowing up a tank with an AK-47 to prevent government oppression

  • Kimber 45

    Why is that? The size of the magazine makes no difference in the criminal activity. Hi-Cap magazines are used regularly in competitive shooting events. Both in rifle and pistol events. And this tired argument in your last sentence doesn’t say much for your reasoning ability. Lets try to stick with reality Ok?

  • Awfuk

    Excellent idea but we have something called the NRA. They prevent this kind of logical restriction on gun manufacturers as the ability to jam 30+ rounds in a single clip is extremely important when hunting geese. Great idea but the all powerful NRA will kill it. America is really exceptional though… So lame.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Just because they are used doesn’t mean they have to be. What did they use for the 10 years (1994-2004) that there were not legal? And he is making a valid point in his last sentence. If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to overthrow the government is necessary then we should have the right to privately own any weapon in the US arsenal

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Well geese are mean. Maybe we should have an exception for shooting them.

  • Veracity

    Because the example given in the original post would be more analogous to suing the car dealer who sold the drunk driver the car.

  • Awfuk

    True. Not really religion though. NRA baby. They own DC. Absolutely own them. US government is powerless to stop them. Hope Australia doesn’t follow our model of $$$ for representation.

  • Proglibinsky

    It’s simple……..SELF DEFENSE!! SPORT!! A well armed Militia. Apparently
    you Libs think the Police will save you from evil. Keep thinking that way and between
    your love for Abortion and your sheepeople attitude your ranks will thin through
    attrition.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Where do you think the Aussies learned it from. Citizen’s United decision anyone?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    So could we still sue bullet manufactures? Or would that be like suing BP? Wait suing BP is a bad idea how?

  • Veracity

    Sure. And also sue Hammer makers, Knife makers, bat makers ad nauseum

  • Proglibinsky

    Another thing you Libs lack is a sense of humor except when electing the president of
    your choice. Bill Maher is a great example of the Genius of Progressive confusion/contradiction. Elrod needs to go to bed now and stop trying to be funny.

  • genius

    Struck a nerve indeed. Of course all of the comments imply you are a dude. I have worked at car dealerships for over 20 years. The Chevrolet Corvette is the ultimate “P” symbol, then I moved on to a Lexus Dealership… Do we even need to go there?
    No one knows better than this former babe in the office how perceptive your comment is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Wait the job of the police is not to protect the citizens? That will be news to my brother the cop. Plus how is an assault rifle more effective than a pistol? They both shoot bullets. If you need an M-16 maybe you should move to a safer neighborhood.

  • Proglibinsky

    BullCR@P!!!!!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Wait Jon Stewart isn’t funny? Al Franken was good on SNL. Maher is not my cup of tea honestly. I love Lewis Black though. I probably do need to go to bed however. Church is early tomorrow. Might stick around for a bit longer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Conservative debating skills ladies and gentlemen.

  • Awfuk

    I forgot how mean geese are. And they can ATTACK. 30+ rounds in a clip is reasonable now.

  • Ktthecarguy

    Type your comment here.If you are fighting off more than 30 enemies at the same time, maybe you have more pressing problems that should be addressed.

  • Veracity

    Makes about as much sense as the liberal debaters with the 40mm, Land mine, Howitzer analogies. At least it is short and sweet versus rambling hyperbole.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Or not

  • dragonlady620

    I have made that suggestion often. I think it’s a good one.

  • genius

    Ed Shultz addressed this issue and knew it would be blown out of proportion. He said the reason the gun sales went up was because all of the furror might cause these guns to be unobtainable if they were banned, so therefore everyone is going to snatch them up while they still can.
    I thought is sounded like a good reasoning. Agree, disagree???

  • Awfuk

    OK. I’ll tone it down a notch and say that a logical discussion around anything to do with guns in the USA is not likely to happen for reasons that are mysterious. How’s that?

  • Awfuk

    LOL!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    Unfortunately you are probably right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Greg-Elrod/43700193 Greg Elrod

    I knew I should have gone to law school.

  • Veracity

    Sometimes…but in this instance the level of debate one can engage in with either response…it does

  • Osbornepanderson

    Thought Meacham was a historian? Besides if you’re a bad shot, as you claim, should woe come your way you’ll probably need a 30 rd. clip.

    President John F. Kennedy

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”

    “The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight.” – 10 days before his murder … and what exactly, John Meacham, has changed?

    Founder Thomas Paine

    “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

  • Veracity

    I would like to sue the State that let’s drink driving offenders keep their drivers licenses.

  • Veracity

    It’s never too late.

  • Proglibinsky

    You’re closed minded and not thinking again. Not everyone lives in a city. Rural life with the
    constant threat of your pals the illegals that come in packs of 20 or more make an AR15 a far better choice and a 33 round clip on a semi-auto pistol would fit the bill too.
    Firepower is something YOU wouldn’t appreciate until you need it and you don’t have it.
    Just ask your Bro the Cop. I never said the “job of the police is not to protect the citizens”.
    Re-read my post or go to bed. You Libs actually think”Al Franken was good on SNL”???? Man, this is yet another example of “Liberalism is a MENTAL DISORDER”!!!

  • Awfuk

    I don’t agree that anyone who thought the Glock would be banned was correct. I do agree that the reason sales went up was an irrational fear of banning it. So I agree. No evil intent with people who suddenly purchased the Glock. I’m still sticking with my 44 Magnum which doesn’t have the assault weapon capabilities of the Glock but will provide more than adequate defense.

  • Proglibinsky

    I can’t decide if you are just woefully ignorant or just a simple minded drone…..or
    maybe a nice person who believes everything he is told by the Democrat party line.
    Judging by your post here I would gather that you are somewhat delusional and I know
    that’s not “civil of me” but neither are the Marxist’s Ideals you cloak in P.C..
    You’re a Socialist that want’s the Govt. to tax the crap out of the “rich” and you
    think somehow killing the “golden goose” will make everybody equal….your social justice
    is twisted.

  • Awfuk

    The bad shot we’re concerned with KILLED a 9-year-old girl. Your worried with the authors bad shot? None of your quotes justify assault weapons that kill little girls or anyone else.

  • Veracity

    Why do you need a “magnum”?

  • Proglibinsky

    PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE not “assault weapons”. AR15′s are a beautiful thing and the
    Glock/33 round mag isn’t bad either. You need to separate them.
    The only blame here is with the shooter. You Libs keep trying to redefine the argument and
    try to change the language. Typical tactics of the Loser Left. The Shooter is to blame!!!

  • TucsonDean

    malamamakena is correct, Hawaii has the lowest rate with 2.8 deaths per 100K, North Dakota has 9.1. That means that on average, a person is three times more likely to be killed by a firearm in North Dakota, where lots of people have guns, than in Hawaii, where few do. Do you actually find that surprising?

    http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

  • Awfuk

    So Veracity. You think that my love of the pathetic six round 44 Magnum is lame and you want everyone to have 33 round Glocks to defend themselves? Really?

    I can handle my business with SIX ROUNDS. Why can’t you? Very weird that you need 33 rounds to probably hit walls and random stuff around where you’re shooting.

  • Awfuk

    Because I own it. Isn’t that the basis of the entire argument?

  • Proglibinsky

    I’ve read enough of you post’s to know that you are a f00l and a damn
    good one at that.

  • Awfuk

    Wow. So access to increased ammunition without reloading doesn’t matter when it comes to your kill ratio? Well played Prog. I’m not buying. We’re talking about killing civilians and not enemy combatants btw.

  • Veracity

    Lol you can handle your business with a .22. So what.

    I am fine with 7 in a 1911. Nor do I need 33 round mag for my 1911…but you are foolish if you think mag capacity would have prevented this.

    Lol I find it funny you get a little defensive when someone questions YOUR choice and right to have a MAGNUM but you feel so free to question and condemn other people’s choices because you don’t feel a need for it.

  • just some guy

    simple fact is if there was just one responsible concealed permit owner there then maybe just maybe the death toll would have ended with the idiot in the G-string. I doubt a ban on guns would prevent this sort of thing anyway in our country, look at the gang situation…many are convicted felons but not a one of them is without their “gats”. I have a conceal & carry permit, have attended training and safety courses and practice at least once a month at the range. I have no fear of a guns or madmen simply because I know I am fully capable of defending myself. .

  • Veracity

    No because I can hold a low cap mags in my hand…and grab another as I am moving.

    You know how long it takes to reload when you have a mag in your hand at the ready? Much quicker than it would take anyone to subdue you.

  • Proglibinsky

    Why must you project your ridicules logic on other people?
    So somebody wants a 30 or more round clip. Why should
    you care? If you were a real freedom loving gun owner you wouldn’t
    be feeding into this gun grabbing war of the Left. Enjoy your
    Dirty Harry fantasy and leave reality to the rest of us.

  • OsbornePAnderson

    The ‘bad shot’ that killed the girl could just as easily been the 1st as the 30th. What if the gun owner that came from the safeway store had been there sooner or along? Would the 2nd or 3rd shots that day been the ones putting down the shooter…. saving 6 lives? Of course not, right?
    JFKs words are more relevant today, not less. Look at liberal/socialist Switzerland for what could be…. armed but not deadly.

  • TucsonDean

    Substantially harder to conceal as well, making it much harder to walk through a crowd and surprise a target with it, as happened in this recent shooting..

  • Veracity

    So you have your choice. You ridicule other people’s choices because you don’t feel it necessary.

    I don’t need a magnum…some would say its overkill. I dont care…but just because it’s not for me should I argue that no one should need or own it as you are with your rhetoric?

  • carl

    Wow, a ten round clip, a twenty round clip, what is the difference. What if he had two guns? or many ten round clips, or a large truck that ran over and killed a bunch of people, or made a home made bomb, like Oklahoma City. That bomb was made out of fertilizer and desel fuel. If people what to kill they will find a way. A shotgun with buckshot would have killed more people, why not ban buckshot and shotguns? It is not the equipment it is the school that did not refer the shooter to the police, or was it the police who knew the shooter was dangerous and did nothing, like the sheriff did nothing and knew of the shooter and his insanity. Many people knew how dangerous the shooter was, they just did not do anything like Columbine, in Colorado. The mentally ill should not be able to buy guns.

    Also, with the federal government failure to stop the criminals from comming across the boarder, then who will be here to protect us.

    Now the Left wants to punish the inocent. Just like they like to kill the unborn, and kill the elderly like crushing old cars when their usefulness is over.

    Don’t take away my freedom in response to another government failure, like the oil spill in the Gulf. We are punishing US for the failure of the federal government to properly police BP. Now Gas is going to hit $4 or $5 a gallon.

    Stop taking freedom away as a solution to governmant failures. Government cannot control their spending, so to respond to their failure to control spending, they raise taxes, and borrow money they know they will never be able to pay back. Again, they are going to throw us all in the poverty by creating another crisis.

    They cause the crisis, then punish us as a means of addressing the failure of government.

  • Awfuk

    Mag capacity is a big part of this. Do you really think that idiot was a good shot? There’s no way a nutcase like that would have had the kill ratio he did without the gift of 33 rounds to spread wherever he wanted.

    I like the Magnum and don’t feel constrained by its six rounds. 33 rounds would be a gattling gun I think and rather lame for my Magnum. Rather than question my decision that six rounds is enough to defend myself please explain 33 rounds to do what? Kill people is my position.

  • Proglibinsky

    Get a grip Awfukup and knock of the crap. Amazing, so your assumption is that everybody
    who want’s a 20/30 or larger round clip is bent on “killing civilians”??? You need to back off
    and take a breath. This is about our freedom to own whatever legal firearm or ammunition
    we want. If you buy this creeping incrementalism of so “common sense” new gun laws and
    restrictions than you don’t deserve to own that 44 your so proud of and eventually if these Libs get their way revolvers will be a thing of the past also. So keep feeding that beast with
    your gun grabbing Dems.

  • just some guy

    Well I have to disagree with ya, simple fact is you can usually spot a drunkard without much difficulty, even easier when you’ve been pouring him drinks all night. With a crazy person that can be a bit trickier since they can act just as normal as the next guy.

  • Sammy

    You lost me with the killing the elderly. I suppose your looking for a birth certificate.

  • Veracity

    I would bet he would have had a better kill ratio with a 12 Gauge with 00 Buck turning Meacham’s “sporting arms that tend to be used responsibly” into a “vicious, unnecessary machinery of human death”. Amazing that the same firearm itself can carry a distinctly different label all based upon its use and intent

    Magnum is overkill with over penetration…you dont need it…should be banned. ;)

    Hope you don’t have speed loaders either :D

  • Awfuk

    The shooter had a Glock with 33 rounds. The very cool guy who had a .38 and didn’t shoot the wrong guy had six rounds. No shots were fired that weren’t intended.

  • Forthesnarkwasaboojum

    This ignores the fact that the shooting may have been averted if the proper controls had been in place. If gun sellers knew the man was unhinged, he may not have been able to acquire the weapon in the first place; even if he were able to, it is unlikely he would have been able to acquire the high capacity magazine as well, thereby helping to reduce the number of casualties, perhaps even the number of those who were killed.

    As for the beauty in a weapon, the viper, the leopard, and the jellyfish are all beautiful animals; you are a fool if you play with them.

  • Awfuk

    I’m not ridiculing anything. I agree the Magnum is overkill but it has limits. The Glock doesn’t have limits. I only need the Magnum. It’s that simple.

  • Kifff

    He “needs” a 44-magnum because that’s what Dirty Harry carried. That’s all. Nothing more. He’s seen too many movies but not enough reality to be able to separate his macho fantasies from cold reality.

  • Veracity

    Glock has limits…you are just being disingenuous.

    I have a question for you…who is more dangerous…someone with a .44 magnum revolver who really knows how to shoot or an idiot with a 9mm Glock and a 33 round mag who doesn’t?

  • Veracity

    Yes and you are no different from anyone who says that .44 magnums are overkill…they don’t see a need it so neither should you.

  • LBBVCF

    What a stupid arguement. If people kill people and not the “equpment” used, why not have C4 explosives available in the local Walmart? While you are at it, why not let small nuclear weapons legally purchasable, its the person right, NOT the equipment.

  • Forthesnarkwasaboojum

    The fact of the matter is, there wasn’t. Keep in mind, this was in Arizona where it’s much easier to acquire guns and the permits to use them than places like, say, California, where gun controls are far more stringent.

    As per your competence with a firearm, we can only have your word at that. I do hope your hands are better than my shaking palms.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    Yes,there was.

  • Forthesnarkwasaboojum

    Well, with a ten round magazine, he wouldn’t have been able to wound nineteen people, would he?

    Fortunately, he was stopped by numerous bystanders when he reached for his second clip, as you postulated.

    As per the rest of your argument, it is nonsense.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    There was one man with a gun there. He stated that he almost shot the guy who was,at the time holding Loughners gun. Are you fully capable of discerning who the bad guy is in a situation like that? And nobody is suggesting banning guns. Read the article.

  • Zedthewizard

    carl . . . if he had multiple weapons he would still have to drop and pull the spare weapons out say two more times for the ten round clip to reach thirty bullets. enough time for people to react. my own opinion is when pulls a gun you run away or toward it, but don’t duck and hope for the best. i’ve had several guns pulled on me, but under different circumstances than a crazed killer.

    proglibinsky . . . i don’t think meacham is a democrat.

    and all of those who talk about freedom . . . that’s an ideal . . . WE have liberties and limited rights. yes, i do hate the argument that you don’t need these weapons for hunting. hunting isn’t even in the constitution and is not supposed to be about hunting rules and regulations. the states put those out.

    that being said . . . if you really feel your freedom is based on having a thirty round clip because this threatens the government to bend to your will you shouldn’t be having a thirty round clip because the government has much more powerful weapons . . . such as wanting to increase the use of drones in our skies. but certainly, there needs to be a waiting period and a background check. don’t worry too much about your freedom . . . it’s like the forests . . . no need to worry, they are already gone.

  • Forthesnarkwasaboojum

    Well then a fat lot of good they did, didn’t they?

  • Meatbucket

    Nuclear Weapons don’t kill people, people do. Where’s my Hydrogen bomb so I can use it case the Chinese or Russians Invade so I can blow up half the east coast.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    The guy was grabbed while he was trying to reload. After he had blasted 30+ rounds. If he had been grabbed trying to reload after ten or even twenty,maybe some people would still be alive. All of your other wingnut crap is insane. Try cooling it.

  • Awfuk

    That’s a good question that I don’t have a good answer to. My assumption is these loons don’t know how to shoot but it could be completely off. But why shouldn’t we have a rule that says if you’re insane you shouldn’t have access to any firearm or a 33 round clip?

    I apologize if I seem a bit cranky with all of this but losing the 9-year-old really hit me. I have a 5-year-old daughter that I love more than anything.

    Regarding the brewing Magnum controversy… I like the .44 as I can handle the kick. The .38 is fine and I’d be happy to own that as well. I still think the Glock is much more versatile and more prone to assault than defense.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    Uh..who’s going to invade us? Or do you mean the scrawny mexicans armed with plastic bags filled with their meager belongings you’re afraid of? Need 30 rounds to fight the tyrannical government? You’re going to need Tanks,Artillery and Aircraft for that. I don’t think you want to be taking on the US Army.

  • Forthesnarkwasaboojum

    Forgive me, I thought you were the person I had originally replied to.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    I believe the 1st shot was into Congresswoman Giffords (D) head.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    You really get all hot and bothered over those “beautiful” things. Do you also pose in a red G string with your arsenal? Separate the ability of a maniac to kill people,and limit the magazine to 10 rounds. What’s your problem with that?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    You need the Nuke to protect yourself from the very same government that would creep in and take your 30 round magazine…I mean stop you from buying anymore in the future because,well…the one you have now you can keep…but you can’t have any more! Damn tyrants!!

  • Forthesnarkwasaboojum.

    In that case, why not do away with traffic lights? They are an infringement to my right to free movement, after all.

    Freedom is not absolute. In order for society to flourish, certain restrictions have to be emplaced for the good of the whole. This is recognized by the majority of people; if we were free to murder without legal consequence, there would be a bloodbath. If we were fee to commit thievery and rape.

    This is not a rebuttal to the overall conversation; merely to the nature of the argument you present.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    The “gubmint” isn’t going to TAKE anything geniuses…what you already own now you own and will keep. So basically what some of you are crying about is being cut off from slapping down your dollars and being able to buy more more more magazines..30…40…60 rounds! You gun nuts run around with your hair on fire over a false argument,trying to scream out and convince us that the tyrannical government (we the people,by the way) will come and snatch your precious gear. Uh..NO. You keep what you already own. So relax. You’re so full of crap. “Cold dead hands” What a joke.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    It’s pretty cool..we have more concern over preserving Mule Deer than people.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FF6LP4ALFBUUWHM2A2MEII3K3Q BRYANS PICTS

    By not shooting the first guy he saw with a gun..he did pretty well thank God. What a nightmare if he had drawn and fired.

  • Awfuk

    That’s funny. My first exposure to a handgun was a .38 Magnum which I handled quite well. Seems logical that I might want to upgrade to .44 Magnum but what do I know. To be clear I’m not opposed to guns but I do think we can have a rational discussion about them and the responsibilities of all the owners.

  • Anonymous

    No, it is the same sentence. It is all related.

    All Laws of English say that the comma is for separating the sequential parts of a sentence, or to separate a items on a list.
    comma: the sign (,), a mark of punctuation used for indicating a division in a sentence, as in setting off a word, phrase, or clause, esp. when such a division is accompanied by a slight pause or is to be noted in order to give order to the sequential elements of the sentence. It is also used to separate items in a list, to mark off thousands in numerals, to separate types or levels of information in bibliographic and other data, and, in Europe, as a decimal point.

    This is not a “list”. These are not separate thoughts. How is “being necessary to the security of a free state” a separate thought? How is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” a separate though?. It is all part of one thought, with commas for pausing..

    “Due to the snow today, there will be no school”. This does not mean there will no longer be any school

    Other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are similar with their use of the comma as well As an example look at the Fourth Amendment. Does the phrase “no Warrants shall issue” (between commas) mean there will never be any Warrants issued?

    I respectfully disagree.

  • Mary Alden

    Ahhhhhh….No suhprize heah….waddaya ‘spect from a RINO !

    Wese Wan’ owa guns heah in dis heah country see !

    We don’ lik none a yizz libs.

    Mark Levin, Limbaugh, Steve Hannity, and Sean Malzberg, dems da guyz fuh me, see.

  • armalite

    meathead.

  • Anonymous

    One could wonder if there is a correlation between gun ownership and fear of becoming a victim of crime? Specifically, if one is an ardent firearms ownership advocate and owns multiple firearms also more prone to constant fear of being a victim of a crime? The way the firearms are described icome perilously close to romantic, lustful descriptions. We are a violent country. To say early U.S. settlers “intruded” on the Native Americans would be like saying the U.S. is merely “intruding” on Iraq and Afghanistan. Except now we can destroy and kill with much more detachment

  • Anonymous

    This guy Meacham has to be the most over educated, condescending fool in the media. First of all, the second amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. Its purpose is to limit the power of government. Second, if this psycho couldn’t get a hold of a gun he’d probably have made a homemade bomb and taken out the whole block. This obsession by liberals with a tool borders on a mental illness that in itself should be explored.

  • Emigab2003

    It is clear that you are over fed with all the “goodies” from Fox news. Have you asked yourself how all the guns you have can stop you from limiting the power of government? What is your 9mm pistol or M16 rifle going to do against our country’s nuclear weapon? I feel bad for people like you because you do not think for yourselves. Keep drinking that talk radio coolaid!

  • Mando45

    All tools are regulated as to manufacture and restricted as to access and use. Think harm management when we liberals speak of the need to restrict firepower.

  • Anonymous

    So you’ve decided that the government should run your life and there is
    nothing that can be done about it, since they may drop a bomb on you or
    something. The founding fathers would have been proud of this attitude. I
    don’t know where the Fox news or talk radio reference comes from, I’ve held
    these attitudes for many years long before Fox news and even when the
    “fairness doctrine” was in effect and talk radio was impotent. I’m afraid
    you’re the one drinking the coolaid and showing it by even bringing up these
    inane references

  • Rob From VA

    Well said… one problem here though. I agree with you about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment…. “limit the power of government”. So it logically follows that in today’s world, you should be allowed to purchase and own enough firepower to take on the government (read: US Army, Marines etc.). Bazookas, tanks, F-16′s etc. Come on now…. let’s get a bit real OK?

  • Anonymous

    You’re missing the point of the second amendment and the reason it was
    included in the Constitution. Guns are produced for the explicit purpose of
    inflicting harm. For this reason, regimes have banned them throughout the
    ages to retain this prerogative in order to control the general population.
    The second amendment was included to remove this option from the state, thus
    limiting its power.

  • Model Citizen

    It depends how fucked up in the head they are.

  • Model Citizen

    Sounds like you have sex with your gun from time to time. Do you also wear little panties when you’re home alone with your gun?

  • Model Citizen

    Right now there are ZERO deaths per year from Chinese throwing-stars in US middle schools. If we started allowing students to carry them to school, Chinese throwing-star related deaths on middle school campuses would skyrocket. The mere availability of this weapon in the hands of unstable teens will result in the unnecessary deaths of innocent children. Are the kids that throw the weapons at fault? Yes. But so are the adults that would allow such a stupid policy in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    Politician Dictionary:
    Loophole [loop-hohl]
    –noun
    1) freedom

    Usage: Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light
    bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation.
    Legislators want to eliminate that “loophole”

    Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

  • Anonymous

    The states can and most probably would ban the items you mentioned, we’re
    talking about limiting the power of the federal government.

  • Anonymous

    I often wonder if politicians are getting kickbacks for proposing to ban something, thereby skyrocketing sales lol

  • Anonymous

    gun manufacturers’ faults .. sue them?
    Did Goliath’s family blame whoever made the stone in David’s slingshot?
    Ban rocks, and blame the Maker.
    I’m betting criminals would get them anyway .

    Harm management huh?
    California has a self-defense waiting period ,,, my cousin and his wife got murdered there while waiting, they moved from Texas.

    How bout them “assault rifles?”
    Oops, I mean “home defense rifles”
    January 10, 2011 at 9:14p.m Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office Deputies were dispatched to 3405 Farmosa, NW of Mission,Tx in Hidalgo County in reference to shots fired, home invasion by 4 to 5 male suspects. The owner shot at the intruders with his AK -47 hitting one of the suspects in the chest.
    WAIT AK-47? isn’t that one the Brady Campaign says has “no defensive use?” Maybe it was an AR-15, wait no, it seems like only yesterday Dr. Suzanna Hupp, testifying before Congress reminded us of a man on his rooftop during riots defending his home and life with an AR-15 … maybe it was something else.

    How about them bazillion capacity ammo clips?
    Are you aware there’s no Hollywood one-stop-shot “smart bullet” with a guidance control system available to homeowners? Do you recall the Florida incident where police shot a criminal over 30 times yet he refused to fall down and quit shooting back?

    Re: you deciding what I “need” and “may have.”

    How many bullets do I need?
    Are you an elderly disabled handicapped man who has been held hostage twice, once by two armed men, another time by 5 armed men? No? Then I’m a better judge of that than you are, dontcha think?

    How many hurricanes, evacuations and aftermaths or other natural disasters have you been through to know what I “need”? Not as many as I have? Then I’m a better judge of that than you are, dontcha think?

    How many of those OPTIONS in your car do you NEED.
    You do want us to decide what YOU “need” too right?
    Got any ice cream in your freezer?
    Please justify why you “need” it, I’m drafting a bill.

    Please leave my freedoms alone, you loophole you, else justify a need for your ice cream:)

  • Anonymous

    NOT every wacko uses this or that gun or magazine or knife.
    EVERY SINGLE ONE of these crazies trying to kill others wears shoes
    They help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and sometimes are used in escapes. Ban shoes.
    (The TSA and airports will be safer too, they make you take them off anyway.)

  • Anonymous

    I have carried up to 28 guns concealed, all fully loaded, that’s 280 rounds even using “reduced capacity” magazines instead of the ones designed and tested, without needing to reload, limiting capacity of magazines is a silly argument which attempts to mandate an extra un-needed part in a machine.

  • Mr. Grouchy

    Once again, an emotional failure to discriminate between lawful citizens and criminals. The Tucson shooter killed those people, not an inanimate object. If he had run down those folks with a semi-truck, would you have called for the banning of all big rigs, and everyone only drive a honda hatchback? Doubtful… you instead choose to fixate on his choice of weapon because of your fear of it, and all who would own it… even for lawful purposes.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting logic, if guns were allowed in the Russian school, like they are in kindergarten-12th grades schools in Harrold School District Texas, perhaps the 100 children and 300 people would be alive

  • Mrgrouchy

    Your neighbors had no law enforcement or security there. As for your rights, you have the right to self defense, just like everyone else. The courts have consistently found that the police to not have a legal obligation to protect the individual. Look up ‘Riss v. New York’ as one example.

  • Emmy

    No, it’s about the billions of dollars that the gun lobby makes, running guns in the US and Mexico.

  • Mrgrouchy

    I question where that statistic about your gun ‘more likely to be taken away and used against you’, etc, etc, etc. came from. There is nothing in DOJ or FBI crime reports about that.

  • Anonymous

    Why would he? We are trained in DeEscalation, no threat, no reason to draw.

  • Mrgrouchy

    No, because that could be considered to be threatening and intimidating to some folks. That’s not what I’m about. I’m about discreet carry in order to be able to protect my family if that day ever came, without causing the herd to panic. I don’t brandish, I don’t threaten, I don’t flip the middle finger if someone cuts me off in traffic. I’m utterly responsible when carrying because it IS a serious responsibility.

  • Anonymous

    I’ve owned a Glock since 1989, it hasn’t hurt anyone yet, I feed it well and it behaves.
    On the other hand, my boss’s wife was killed by a Ford car that had a defective transmission which slipped into drive and crushed her in the garage … ban Fords.

  • Swabby01

    i don’t consider my government an enemy to kill or overthrow. if things are that bad i can move to another country. of all the killing, wounding, and other gun violence in this country, none of those people are fighting their government. there are far more irresponsible gun owners than responsible ones based on the results we have in this country. no one wants to take away your right to defend your home, but if you need 33 bullets then you can probably throw the weapon with more accuracy.

  • Anonymous

    I have carried up to 28 guns concealed, all fully loaded, that’s 280 rounds even using “reduced capacity” magazines instead of the ones designed and tested, without needing to reload, limiting capacity of magazines is a silly argument which attempts to mandate an extra un-needed part in a machine.

  • Anonymous

    How about them bazillion capacity ammo clips?
    Are you aware there’s no Hollywood one-stop-shot “smart bullet” with a guidance control system available to homeowners? Do you recall the Florida incident where police shot a criminal over 30 times yet he refused to fall down and quit shooting back?

    How bout them “assault rifles?”
    Oops, I mean “home defense rifles”
    January 10, 2011 at 9:14p.m Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office Deputies were dispatched to 3405 Farmosa, NW of Mission,Tx in Hidalgo County in reference to shots fired, home invasion by 4 to 5 male suspects. The owner shot at the intruders with his AK -47 hitting one of the suspects in the chest.
    WAIT AK-47? isn’t that one the Brady Campaign says has “no defensive use?” Maybe it was an AR-15, wait no, it seems like only yesterday Dr. Suzanna Hupp, testifying before Congress reminded us of a man on his rooftop during riots defending his home and life with an AR-15 … maybe it was something else.

  • Anonymous

    Someone at the Brady Campaign PROVED 10 isn’t enough.

    3 criminals, at 4 each, and someone gets the 4th… 2 x 3=9 +1 = 10

    carry one in the chamber too?
    10 in mag plus 1 = 11, so with 3 criminals … SO …Two criminals can be shot 4 times, one shot 3 times.

    ok, 3 or 4 bullets each right?

    right?

    April 2007 in a hospital bed with four gunshot entry wounds and a single exit wound. Colin Goddard …

    wound up full of bullets

    Colin Goddard received multiple gunshot wounds to the leg, shoulder, and buttocks.
    (So if he had been a “bad guy” he could have still been a threat)

    Thanks Colin, you proved my point, 10 isn’t NECESSARILY enough to STOP a threat from 3 home invaders, 3 robbers, a street gang …. maybe not even enough for 2 criminals, possibly not enough for one criminal

    To any Bradys reading this:
    Situations vary, you don’t know what I need, and you sure don’t have a right to legislate based on what you imagine I need, obviously one of your employees disproved your assertion that 10 is ALWAYS enough to STOP a threat.

    I’d rather use the “normal capacity” (the capacity that was designed and tested) than your “reduced capacity” magazines with additional parts, plugs and such which add an extra part subject to fail. They aren’t hi capacity nor high capacity but normal capacity. So stop trying to cripple them.

  • Anonymous

    Someone at the Brady Campaign PROVED 10 isn’t enough.

    3 criminals, at 4 each, and someone gets the 4th… 2 x 3=9 +1 = 10

    carry one in the chamber too?
    10 in mag plus 1 = 11, so with 3 criminals … SO …Two criminals can be shot 4 times, one shot 3 times.

    ok, 3 or 4 bullets each right?

    right?

    April 2007 in a hospital bed with four gunshot entry wounds and a single exit wound. Colin Goddard …

    wound up full of bullets

    Colin Goddard received multiple gunshot wounds to the leg, shoulder, and buttocks.
    (So if he had been a “bad guy” he could have still been a threat)

    Thanks Colin, you proved my point, 10 isn’t NECESSARILY enough to STOP a threat from 3 home invaders, 3 robbers, a street gang …. maybe not even enough for 2 criminals, possibly not enough for one criminal

    To any Bradys reading this:
    Situations vary, you don’t know what I need, and you sure don’t have a right to legislate based on what you imagine I need, obviously one of your employees disproved your assertion that 10 is ALWAYS enough to STOP a threat.

    I’d rather use the “normal capacity” (the capacity that was designed and tested) than your “reduced capacity” magazines with additional parts, plugs and such which add an extra part subject to fail. They aren’t hi capacity nor high capacity but normal capacity. So stop trying to cripple them.

  • Model Citizen

    You enjoy the way it feels in your rectum?

  • robster

    Sounds like you have a problem with the clip- so be it -but what do you have against semi-auto pistols ? Any sem-auto pistol even the 1911 colt models and even the wwi luger can accept extended magazines.

  • Goose

    Government run my life? If you mean having government make sure the water I drink and the food I eat is safe, the building I work in is up to code so it doesn’t collapse on me, the road I drive on is built to specs so it doesn’t collapse under my tires, that there is somewhat of a safety net for me if I lose my job or reach retirment age, and a few other hundred things like that . . . then yes, I want government around.

  • Goose

    You sound like a good NRA boy 1rpb1. Do you feel safe with 28 concealed guns?

  • Model Citizen

    Yeah, but thousands more would be dead due to after-school fights with guns present.

  • Anonymous

    ok then, sounds like you’d enjoy prison where they control even more, at the expense of being able to make your own choices, at the expense of freedoms.

  • Anonymous

    feeling safe has nothing to do with it, at Virginia Tech, everyone “felt safe” until …

    The 28 guns was an exercise while I was teaching Rookie Police Officers how to frisk a person.

    I’ve never been a member of the NRA. and I don’t kill defenseless animals.

  • Anonymous

    not if it was just the Teachers, and Parents, who underwent training in de-escalation and background checks, and more training carrying them

  • Anonymous

    You are right, Waco made it pretty clear that armed resistance is futile and will be met with overwhelming force. On the other hand I can’t bring myself to say to my servants, the hired help, that I trust them with all manner of weapons, but not myself at all. I respect you’re judgement that you can’t be trusted with firearms, I just don’t feel that way about myself. Glenn

  • Goose

    Maybe making up for other deficiencies in his life?

  • Anonymous

    Neither do I, one of the purposes of the second amendment was to reduce the
    need on the part of the citizenry to go against the government by limiting
    the power of the state. It’s obvious you don’t know any gun owners or they
    don’t talk about it around you. That comment about irresponsible vs
    responsible gun owners is totally off the wall. The comment about throwing
    the gun is a childish visceral comment and irrelevant to this conversation.

  • Anonymous

    Waco and Ruby Ridge are good examples showing how important it is to the Government that you do proper paperwork and pay the $200 tax … they need the money due to the deficit..

  • Model Citizen

    Silly, silly, silly. Loughner got his ammo at Walmart. Take the ammo out of Walmart and he’s left to try and kill me with a golf club, tire iron, paintball gun, or can of ignited hair spray. I think I’ll take my chances with those items.

  • Anonymous

    Knives are quiter and don’t attract help as fast and make bigger holes, and are deadly at 21 feet .

    I’d rather be shot 4 times and get tiny holes and survive and have help come, like Colin Goddard did..

  • Anonymous

    I’ll have to take a break from the discussion to shower and put on my guns … church today, I usally only carry 7 to church, in case a Deacon forgets theirs I can toss one … I sit next to a retired Police officer who got a permit to carry too, and his wife who is also armed.

    Later guys.

  • Sheev

    The 2 amendment like all the other amendments does not grant us any rights. It simply reminds us of a right we were born with. Vote it away or restrict it all you want the right is still there only repressed. Are we to be a repressed people? Over and over again we have seen the gun laws just make it worse for the common person.
    We need to understand why we no longer have an assault weapon ban. It was because it failed. When it was put into effect it was to give it a chance to show it would help reduce gun crime. It failed. We need to start calling the assault weapons ban by it’s real name. The Failed Assault Weapon Ban.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dennis-Warren/1066522607 Dennis Warren

    It also specifically states “a well regulated militia”, but I guess you failed to mention that because it doesn’t fit your narrative. You, an individual, are NOT a well regulated militia (the National Guard is). And yes, I own guns and have a CCW.

  • Tacitusmk3

    yer an idiot

  • Model Citizen

    You guys should have a threesome.

  • Tacitusmk3

    another idiot.

    “…a well-regulated militia…”

    Skip the word “regulated”?, falangist?

  • Tacitusmk3

    another idiot.

    “…a well-regulated militia…”

    Skip the word “regulated”?, falangist?

  • Tacitusmk3

    yer just an idiot, who shouldn’t be armed.

    ever kill? nope? go figure.

    YOU don’t NEED a gun, falangist, you need a book, and not one full of magic fairy tales

  • Tacitusmk3

    wrong. again.

    are you EVER RIGHT? I mean, except as a falangist, of course.

  • Tacitusmk3

    do you ever LEARN, or do you just rinse and repeat whatever your corporate masters decide?

    Not afraid of corporations, are you? but black folks make you CRAZY.

    falangista.

  • Anonymous

    How about doing something that will yeild long term benefits for everyone and even Republicans would support right now, serious public investment in mental health care and research. Reagan eviscerated the mental health system in this nation the way he eviscerated research into alturnative energy souces. We are paying a high price for that today, but we can change that. Quality mental health care for who ever needs it is something I believe both gun lovers and gun haters support and the NRA would think has nothing to do with them. Glenn

  • Mvann5

    LOL! I like that.
    It is absurd that our gun laws are such that they are and we will have tragedies like this unless they are reformed. Obviously guns DO kill people. And the more firepower you have the more people you are going to kill. The rest of the world looks at us in horror of what the average citizen has…… he’s ready for combat!

  • Anonymous

    I’ll have to take a break from the discussion to shower and put on my guns … church today, I usually only carry 7 to church, in case a Deacon forgets theirs I can toss one … I sit next to a retired Police officer who got a permit to carry too, and his wife who is also armed.

    Not long ago a couple of our church kids, aged 5 to 8 found a whole den of rattlesnakes in the church back yard while playing, musta been about 30 snakes. We prefer to protect our children, I propose some politician in a Chair in Washington doesn’t know what we do or don’t “need” and shouldn’t pass laws based on his imagination of such, I don’t try to regulate his “need” for ice cream.

  • Anonymous

    Not long ago a couple of our church kids, aged 5 to 8 found a whole den of rattlesnakes in the church back yard while playing, musta been about 30 snakes. We prefer to protect our children, I propose some politician in a Chair in Washington doesn’t know what we do or don’t “need” and shouldn’t pass laws based on his imagination of such, I don’t try to regulate his “need” for ice cream.

  • Anonymous

    intelligent well versed response.

  • Anonymous

    The 2 A relates to the 3 A, so that the “people” can protect themselves from those referenced in the 3rd Amendment … I skipped nothing.

  • Anonymous

    You’re looking at the wrong political spectrum. Fascists are not at the
    opposite end of the spectrum from Communists, they occupy the same space.
    The spectrum I use has absolute freedom at one end, not a good idea, and
    absolute government control at the other, also not a good idea. Hopefully,
    the United States will fall on this spectrum more towards freedom as opposed
    to more government control. The country’s placement on this spectrum is
    what the argument is all about.

  • Djkandnlk

    Thank You, I hope you are able to get on a Prime Time TV, this coming week.. and do this, again..CNN, MSNBS… ABC,NBC.CBS :)

  • Djkandnlk

    Very Good!.. reminds me of Old Bufard T. Puffer.” up in Maine..:)

  • Proglibinsky

    WTF?? Work on your analogues.

  • http://twitter.com/MuParadigm J. Gabriel

    “The whole thing was just another hit piece on a Constitutional right that specifically states ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’.”

    The full text of the Second Amendment: “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.”

    It never fails to amuse me how self-described Second Amendment Absolutists aren’t absolutist at all, how they always emphasize the “shall not be infringed” part, but ignore the “well regulated” part.

  • Djkandnlk

    Fred, Former Cons. Repub, Deeply.. Now A Dem. The people of Tunisia. were able to get the right people with guns to help them.. took time, basicallyu though, they did it without extreme carnage.. all one has to do, is lose a loved one, to than one ,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Infinity Bullet. You are fine.. But facts tell us many are not, upstairs.^^. soo. even trying to kill this shooter ib Tucson, by a concealed / carry, witness. was next to impossible, it was so fast, deadly, and innocent people trying to rustle’ this dude down.

  • Dlewisa

    Why doesn’t anyone ever bring up this question: “Just because a certain kind of gun exists does that mean that you, a private citizen, have the right to own it?”

    I think a part of the solution should be strict classification of guns in categories sort of like “Private citizen” vs “Police/Military”. And once those are in place outlawing the purchase of Police/Military weaponry by private citizens and registration of those types of already owned by private citizens if only if they plan to take those types of weapons off of their property. And if they are caught with one off their property, then fine the hell out of them.

  • Anonymous

    I gits along jus fine with “black folks” It’s the “Jim Crowe” laws I don’t care for at all.
    Apparently the Nazis didn’t want JEWS armed … KKK didn’t want the “black folks” armed now did they?
    Allow to set 5 minutes, … rinse and repeat.

  • Djkandnmlk

    agree. and think..credit to Rachel Maddow Show. ..for the people to have a real fighting chance to hold their own, in this scenario.. they would need to match. for match, every arsenal in the Military’s Possession, cause that is who the people would be fighting..infinity, moot’ reasoning.. back in the day, Amendment there, because of the times, the Wars fought here, States side.. I say, Amend. the Amendments, on Behalf, of Fore Fathers.. they would NOT approve..:)

  • http://twitter.com/oldieski oldieski

    Exactly. Why can’t we make it necesssary for everyone to get a document signed by a doctor verifiying that the person is capable of handling a gun. If you are over a certain age, you require this for a driving licence in many jurisdictions.

  • Anonymous

    “Just because a certain kind of light bulb exists does that mean that you, a private citizen, have the right to own it?”

    Loophole [loop-hohl] or (ˈluːpˌhəʊl)
    –noun
    1) freedom

    Usage: Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light
    bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation. Legislators want to
    eliminate that “loophole”

    Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

    “Just because a certain car exists does that mean that you, a private citizen, have the right to own it?”

    Cars are dangerous, I know people killed by them, they are more dangerous in the wrong hands.

  • Proglibinsky

    That same logic of “creeping incremental-ism” will lead to the eventual and complete loss
    of all our gun rights. You’re sucked into this “common sense” gun law BS that makes
    you believe if you just make this concession than all will be right cause nobody wants to repeal gun ownership. We’ve played that game for too many years and it’s the Left’s greatest
    tactic in destroying Constitutional freedoms. One can appreciate the fine work of a gun without being compared to a mass murderer, tone it down now….lets be civil.

  • Djkandfnlk

    in a “Nutshell.:)

  • Proglibinsky

    Your analogies are flawed,ignorant and a pitiful attempt at rebuttal. Might you dial
    back your attitude to a more civil tone of discourse?

  • Mjacobs67x

    12 gauge shot gun. Private or military? 9mm semi-auto? I suspect Dlewisa has never held, let alone used a gun, yet here she is looking to impose restrictions and bans.
    THe criminal does not adhere to the law, and the police will not get there in time if a gunman is in your house or pointing a gun at you. You can protect yourself or be a victim.

  • http://oddboyout.blogspot.com/ oddboyout

    So if the next step would be to limit the number of handguns an individual can own. I’m amenable to that idea. You are probably not.

  • Mjacobs67x

    Oh no the rest of the world looks at us crossed eyed? That’s just terrible. I bet if we gave them some money they’d like us again.

  • Proglibinsky

    This was a “foolish” comment. Of course Sheriff Stupnik should have done his job
    and handled Loughner and there by possibly preventing from perpetrating this mass
    murder. But again the gun and the magazine are not to blame it is the shooter.
    You Libs just keep trying to do end runs around reality and hoping to re-frame the debate.

    The beauty of a weapon is lost on a person such as yourself and that’s a real shame.

  • Anonymous

    I proposed a urine-drug test prior to being able to buy a gun too. (MOST of these crazies are on drugs, Jared was a pot-head among other things)

    But, the California Politicians couldn’t get guns then, so it’ll never pass.

  • hereinmn

    Really? Cars are dangerous and thus are regulate. You can’t drive one without a license, and to get a license you need to pass a test. Not so with guns. Cars also have many purposes beyond killing people. Not so with many guns. Use of false equivalents like yours are the typical fodder of radio and cable talking heads who would rather distract attention from the true issues than actually deal with them.

  • Anonymous

    My guns protect me from snakes, wild boar teeth that would shred my legs, bobcats.
    I have a license to carry my gun, and an inalienable right to defend my life, Not so with cars. show me once cars defended a life. Use of false equivalents like yours are the typical fodder of radio and cable talking heads who would rather distract attention from the true issues than actually deal with them.

  • Proglibinsky

    But your tactic is to go to the extreme and ridicules boundaries of logic to support
    your view and this shows that you’re arguing from a flawed and defenseless point.
    Not a great way to win the day. Try to open your mind to the right side of this debate.

  • Anonymous

    some gay-basher would want to be sure the gays are disarmed first …
    Like the “jim crowe” laws, patterned after Nazis disarmed Jews, people wanted Blacks disarmed, now it’s gays …
    I’m not gay … not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  • Model Citizen

    Beauty? Barf.

  • Model Citizen

    His argument wasn’t flawed. Why don’t you explain what the difference is? Why shouldn’t there be C4 in Walmart?

  • Model Citizen

    You say that because you can’t defend the truth. You know I’m right. It’s not just “the shooter”. The policy matters.

  • Just saying …

    The arguments presented here are a perfect example of the ambiguity of defining the Second Amendent. If you ignore any historical context, then you would want everyone armed as the founders were wary of standing armies and even anorganized police force. Neither of these situations would work well in today’s world. But even past the historical views there is still tremendous disagreement about how to define a militia (most would interpret this as the Natioanl Guard), how to fefine “the people” who can bear arms, and even what “bear arms” means as all the way back to Greek times bear arms meant standing up an army. Guess that leaves it to every individual’s reading and thus no solution (except that it is clear the NRA wins by there being an argument at all … anything to promote sales!)

  • Curious4802003

    Why not tax gun purchases or ammo purchases the way we do cigarettes and fund mental health programs. I guess the same 2nd amendment purists, are also against taxes.

  • Anonymous

    “Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are the only (quite nebulous) inalienable rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. The second Amendment was established when the deadliest weapon was a sword, because a rifle took 20 seconds to reload at fastest. Meacham is right to say that common sense has left the debate due to crazy NRA BS.

  • Anonymous

    Make the taxes high so poor Blacks can’t get one …

  • Si8bqm

    “limit the power of Government” Here in Canada, we use the ballot box to do that. Fewer innocent people die. You should try it sometime.

  • Pman

    Curious4802003- Ammunition and Guns are already hit with additional excise taxes. Educate yourself before commenting.

  • Pman

    Curious4802003- Ammunition and Guns are already hit with additional excise taxes. Educate yourself before commenting.

  • Anonymous

    Since some of my relatives were involved in that

    (John Adams, Samuel Adams etc among others)

    define a militia (most would interpret this as the Natioanl Guard
    Except they’d be “partly” wrong since the National Guard wasn’t even formed for many years later. But agreed, it’s the necessity of a “standing army” that was in mind to allow “the people” a way to enforce the 3rd Amendment (among all the others) to ensure that we didn’t have to quarter soldiers at the risk and fear of death … in a nutshell it ensured the right of “self-defense”

    how to fefine “the people” who can bear arms,

    We the people … isn’t hard to define.

  • Anonymous

    and, life is surly worth defending, hence the Second Amendment.

    established when the deadliest weapon was a sword

    true and baseball teams use better equipment now than when the game was invented, I desire not to play with lesser quality equipment than the “criminal team” gets to use.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-Tulogeski/1145174670 Jesse Tulogeski

    I am all about responsible use of firearms… But if we go by the same logic that High capacity magazines are only used for bad then we should also ban Vehicles that can go faster than the legal speed limit or make Drunk Driving illegal. I am pretty sure that more people die by drunk drivers then they do from High Capacity weapons. Do you really think making them Illegal is going to stop the criminals from getting them? Anyone remember the North Hollywood shootout on February 28, 1997? They had many High Capacity weapons ILLEGALLY modified and that was after the assault weapons ban in 1994.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-Tulogeski/1145174670 Jesse Tulogeski

    this video here shoes that a person can still fire just as fast with standard capacity magazine as opposed to someone shooting a low capacity magazine. be warned the gentlemen in the video are quite right wing.. but you will understand the point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oURZ3LxYhIY&feature=player_embedded#!

  • Gtown48

    The clips and assault weapons are already circulating and can be had by those who would use them for refarious purposes. The cat is out of the bag. Pandora’s Box is open. Laws won’t stop those who don’t live by them.

  • Mastershake947

    After this the gun laws are going to get stricter and then they are going to eventually take them away for good.

  • Just saying …

    Exactly! 270 million guns in circulation for a population of 310 million … something tells me no one should feel any rights being infringed here.

  • Just saying …

    270 million guns in circulation for a population of 310 million … something tells me no one should feel any rights being infringed here.

  • cybercuz

    And just how many people have you come into contact with who want to end your life? How many times have you had to defend yourself with your gun from a would-be criminal?

    And surely, bobcats and snakes are not interested in ending your life. About the wild boar, I don’t know what to say, except, stay away from them?

    It seems to me that you enjoy putting yourself in situations in which you think you need to use your gun as justification for your “right” to pull the trigger

  • bird

    You have the type of thinking that hurts this country. C’mon, Taking away completely? That will NEVER happen in this country. Even though I think we should follow Australia’s lead and ban all except for sport and animal countrol(outback). Give your anxiety a rest pal.

  • bird

    Me confused. with your logic, the more high-capacity, automatic weapons available(hell even mandatory), then the safer we americans will be. That makes alot of sense. You’re analogies don’t align with reality. I guess you’re saying I should go get that 50 cal anti-tank automatic cannon and mount it to my car, b/c I’ll never know who may have a modified AK-47. Yes, criminals will always be here, but as the old saying goes – an eye for an eye and were all blind. Plus – didn’t you read the interview of the two gus who almost killed each other at the Tucson tragedy because they both had guns and thought they were the shooter? They got lucky.

  • bird

    Thank you. American’s tend to think with anything but their brains. Logic is left at the shores here. I like Australia’s take on gun control.

  • bird

    Yes, we all need to be prepared and armed to to teeth with high-capacity automatic 50cal cannons, b/c who know’s what our neighbor is up to. The problem is the 2nd amendmenters say the gov is the enemy when really it’s themselves, and the rest of us is caught in their insane crossfire.

  • bird

    They should be taxed even more. To the point it is painful on anyone’s pcketbook to even think about owning a destructive object. And I vote for Chris Rock’s idea of making each bullet cost $5000. Sport or no sport.

  • Dvivcar

    Same is true of nuclear weapons, so why try to limit them. Your argument is spurious and silly.

  • Jriper03

    Ok so I dont understand the history of weapons ? School me real quick…dont just say I dont know.PROVE I don’t know. Also I can see where I messed up with people like you, for the record I didnt mean the 2nd amendment to sound like it was just for hunting, even though i never actually said that. Also you think im a communist because I want responsible gun control? I got you on two points for this, first I know the importance of the second amendment for the people to protect themselves against oppression if the government SERIOUSLY trying to take away our freedom, SO I WILL NEVER WANT A LAW THAT TAKES AWAY MY RIGHT TO OWN A GUN/s. Second “the erosion of our rights is ok”, erosion : definition -the gradual destruction or diminution of something. Unless you can prove empirically that “responsible” laws are the same as destructive laws, that statement is an opinion. And yes that was a dig before because clowns like you get me aggravated, im not proud of it. But yeah you’re still a clown. :-)

  • Model Citizen

    These guys are so worked up because the guns they acquire are like the penises they never had. Taking their guns emasculates them. It’s as if you’re literally severing their penis from their bodies. That’s why this is an un-winnable argument.

    Go polish your penises — I mean, pistols — boys.

  • bird

    oh don’t start with the “criminals will get anything anyway” excuse. There has to be some basis of regulation or we all might as well start buying those home-friendly T28 tanks with 50cal, you know, just to deter the neighbors dog from poopin on my lawn. and nice try with the “victim campaign” statement. That’s (yawn) and oldie but of course illogical. you’d both be dead if you both had guns. There has to be a basis of law built on reason and preservation of human life. Owning a glock with a 32-round mag is not for sport and should be banned, period. same for ar15, m4, g35 and so on. I think the only weapon citizens should be allowed to use is a Wii handheld, b/c we are obviously too stupid to control what we have now.

  • JustFor

    This is exactly why the Second Amendment was created. Just because this author has been lead to believe that “assault weapons” are used in more crimes that “sporting weapons” is not a reason to create legislation. Because it’s simply not true. It wasn’t before the first assault weapon ban and it’s still not.

  • Earl Grey

    The paranoid perception that one needs a high capacity magazine to protect oneself from “personal threats to safety” should be sufficient justification for denying access to it.

  • Savconsulting

    We say we are a god fearing, caring, compassionate, intelligent nation. I beg to differ. I think we are a nation of simple minded, savage who love the thoughts of killin’ the bad guy whomever he is. Whether it was the native american as we expanded to the west, or invaded other sovereign nation that posed like or no threat to us. The biggest crime of recent years was not trying Bush and Cheney for knowingly lying to us and killing and mainimg tens of thousands of americans and hundreds of thousands of ther people who we invaded weithout direct cause. Unless and until those hypocritical leaders follow the words of their bible and biblical leaders will we remain in this downward spiral of murder and mayhem. We are NOT an exceptional country or people. We are savages who pose as righteous.

  • PhillupTextfield

    Fully agree. If only Christina Green had a MAC-10 in her Hello Kitty backpack, she could have had a nice even exchange with Loughner. Level the playing field between the law biders and the lawless. That way we can finally cut out the middle man (gubberment law enforcement) and get back to hale and hearty America of the frontier.

  • Dvicar

    Why are so many Americans chicken without their guns. As we all see (I am a Vietnam Vet), the volunteer forces don’t get swamped by people wanting to exercise their 2nd amendment right to protect our country, it’s just an excuse to get bigger weapons to make up for their insecurity.

  • Rainsdean

    wow, sounds like you need to move. a-you go to church, b-you go to church loaded to the teeth with deadly weapons, c-i guess you hate your fellow church-goers(or pastor), d-your church land is filled with evil snakes waiting to take away unarmed children.

    Do you live in Texas?

  • bird

    I think everyone should be required by law to own and carry 2 9mm with extended clips, 8 grenades, 4 shock grenades, a 50cal sniper rifle, 2 liters of water, a machete, an AA-12 with ten clips, and of course a fully loaded M4 with 20 clips. And this is just to go outside and mow your lawn. You need to double this and have a BTR-80 to drive to the Mac store.

  • Anonymous

    America is under attack from within! Obama and his islamofascist collaborators in the Democrat Party and Al Qaeda are using this unfortunate event to strip Real Americans of their last line of defense! Disarming the population is just one more step toward sharia and subjugation of America as an islamofascist caliphate to be ruled by distant imams and their warlord Osama Bin Laden!

  • Georgekentc

    How does well regulated milia become an indiviuals right to carry around assault weapons? When the second amendment was written a sword or bayonet was a assault weapon, hardly the same as today. I don’t think anyone needs an assault weapons for defense. Assault weapons have only one reason and that would be to assault. hence the name assault weapon.

  • Model Citizen

    That’s only a fantasy in your head.

  • Anonymous

    “It isn’t who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes” – attributed to Joseph Stalin.

    We had a school bond election here. They asked us to vote for or against $60 million to be extracted from the taxpayer and funneled to some “good old boy” contractors for unnecessary construction projects. The polling place was a local school. The votes were counted in school district headquarters. It passed, of course. Apparently this is “legal.” Some parts of America are still “third world.”

    Oh, I know, “It can’t happen here.”

  • Anonymous

    “Not for the possibility of police coming in your house, but for maintaining a military force for the government.” You must be kidding. Is that what they teach in government-run “public” school nowadays. LOL!

  • Darcibastiaan

    What on Earth are you talking about? Stay off the Internet.

  • Model Citizen

    It’s right there in the document – no need for indoctrination. chrisfs is right. That “ready militia” would be called upon if necessary to defend against British invaders, Indians, etc. Remember, The 2nd Amendment was written just 8 years after the Revolutionary War ended.

  • Model Citizen

    It’s right there in the document – no need for indoctrination. chrisfs is right. That “ready militia” would be called upon if necessary to defend against British invaders, Indians, etc. Remember, The 2nd Amendment was written just 8 years after the Revolutionary War ended.

  • Model Citizen

    By the way, the seeds for Al Qaeda were planted by Reagan and cultivated by Bush, a man who is personal friends and business partners with the bin Laden family.

  • Anonymous

    What color is the sky in your world?

  • Anonymous

    due to the the necessity of having a militia, the people’s individual right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed so the people are not forced to quarter soldiers (3rd amendment)

    I don’t know what an assault weapon is, except a weapon used offensively

    January 10, 2011 at 9:14p.m Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office Deputies were dispatched to 3405 Farmosa, NW of Mission,Tx in Hidalgo County in reference to shots fired, home invasion by 4 to 5 male suspects. The owner shot at the intruders with his AK -47 hitting one of the suspects in the chest.
    WAIT AK-47? isn’t that one the Brady Campaign says has “no defensive use?” Maybe it was an AR-15, wait no, it seems like only yesterday Dr. Suzanna Hupp, testifying before Congress reminded us of a man on his rooftop during riots defending his home and life with an AR-15 … maybe it was something else.

  • Joep Rijntjes

    Not even having a gun will make me feel safe from the likes of you. Having you in asylum just might.

  • Model Citizen

    You don’t get it. It’s overkill (no pun intended). It’s like using an aircraft carrier to pull a water skier. Those idiots would have defended themselves with surface-to-air missiles if they had them in the garage.

  • Osbornepanderson

    I know you’re right about the 1st shot… and that you seem to miss a lot of points and ignore words and other questions. I said it ‘could just as easily been the 1st as the 30th. And thanks for ignoring the other questions like what if their had been somneone closer that could have interveined because they knew how. MAybe there would only have been 2 or 3 shots that day and only one person in the hospital and no fatalities. Why do you think only cops with guns can protect you? Most street cops have pathetic firearms & tactics training and are great at arriving after the carnage… just in time to draw the chalk line. Did you look at the Switzeraland model? How does the most liberal country in Europe with the most guns per capita have among the lowest gun crime rates in the word… so low that they don’t keep track sometimes?

  • Anonymous

    I just got back from church. all the deacons and pastor are armed.
    Why would someone be comforted by a rod and staff? (psalm 23) because the Shepherd protect the flock.

    We value and protect life out of love, not hate

  • Anonymous

    killin’ the bad guy whomever he is is not a goal I have, but protecting the life of myself and family is.

    We are trained in DEescalation, that’s why when robbed twice, by 2 armed men. and 5 armed men, I laid on the floor, however if they started shooting, executing people one by one like the robbers at the Yogurt shop did with the 4 teen girls, I’d get up. I”m not about “killin’ the bad guy” I’m about protecting life though.

  • Frshstrt

    As with certain businesses that refuse the right to serve anyone-why can’t the same work for gun sellers. It was stated that the seller was uneasy about the sale but since there was nothing in a database to give them an excuse to refuse. But that would be against the NRA and no one, politician or anyone goes up against the NRA .

  • Anonymous

    The Hollywood misconception that there exist a magic one-stop shot bullet, gets some people killed. When my friend was shot 6 times, took the criminal’s gun away and beat him, the ambulance had to take the criminal first, as he was in worse shape.

  • Anonymous

    Ahhhh the legislator’s PEN argument turned around … clever

    A legislator’s PEN gives power to control, it’s about control, not guns.

    Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light
    bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation. Legislators want to
    eliminate that “loophole”

    Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mark.fey Mark Fey

    The writer of the comment labeled “lazlodelarental” is seriously disturbed and in need of mental illness treatment. This individual is a danger to themselves and others, this much is clear.

    We are all threatened by these attitudes and the people that harbor them.

  • Anonymous

    you mean knife control? Because knives became the weapon of choice after guns, so carry knives were banned so now scissors are the weapon of choice and should be banned?

    Airports aren’t as safe there … gunshots at Sydney airport in which a motorcycle gang…

    Oh my, I guess the bikers ignore the law.

  • John

    Friends. A brief observation. The argument that one needs to own and carry a gun to protect oneself against the “bad guy” is spurious at best and out and out lies at worst. I have an acquaintance who has worked in personal protection for some high profile clients in the R&B world. He recounted a story where his client insisted he carry a gun during his work. He patently refused, “if I have to reach for a gun when someone is about to hurt you, your dead and I am dead, I want my hands free.” Plus he mentioned the issue of the “baddy” taking your gun and killing you with it. Yes this man is a kungfu master and instructs Hapkido and other martial arts. Self protection is about knowing how to avoid a dangerous situation not hoping to be in one.
    Yes it is a hard road and takes years to become sufficient enough to use in a real situation but “needing” a gun for protection? Have you really prepared yourself to take a life every time you strap on?
    I get a bit frustrated listening to arguments about needing to protect yourself, yes guns work from a distance, and I am pro-gun as well as pro-assult weapons ban. LIMIT the access.
    If self-defense is what you want there are a lot of options, all will prepare you to defend yourself without needing toys.

  • Anonymous

    Lets see FBI stats …

    Murder and non-negligent manslaughter, rate per 100,000

    1. District of Columbia 24.0

    Violent crime, rate per 100,000

    1. District of Columbia 1345.9

    Good, stricter laws put them at the top of the list …. how’s that workin’ out for them? Bout like Mexico, Brazil ….

  • Anonymous

    ok, the 2 guys with guns at my head once, the 5 guys, 3 with pistols and 2 with shotguns … so 7 I can think of right off the top of my head.

    How many rattlesnakes are you friendly with to make that assertion? Pet them often?

    I’m not a city-folk, I moved from the big city to the country where it”s safer, and if you don’t stop makin’ fun of us, we’ll not tell you which of the cow’s horns to twist to get milk.

  • Anonymous

    And how many robbers have pointed guns at your head?

    I’ve had seven.

    Have you really prepared yourself to take a life every time you strap on?
    I’m prepared to protect myself and those I love yes.

  • Anonymous

    who is the NRA? I don’t hunt animals, I’ve never joined any groups like the Brady bunch, who I’ve heard of, or whatever, but I keep seeing y’all talk about NRA, what have they got to do with me owning a gun?

  • Anonymous

    No, this is what I learned by actually reading the amendment that you claim you support.
    “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. ”
    It’s the only amendment with the reason right in the text. A WELL REGULATED militia, being necessary to security of a free state is the reason.
    Does having everyone strap on semi autos with huge clips seem like something that would contribute to our security? Seems more likely that it will make people less secure.

    And for the people who want to take the Constitution absolutely, you’ll see that there is no other restriction. It says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” (period), Which either every child, every criminal and every mentally ill person can own as many full automatic assault rifles and grenade launcher as they want,
    OR, you have to assume that the Founding Fathers meant us to use some common sense and decide for ourself what reasonable gun control would be.

  • Anonymous

    To focus on gun control as the solution to this problem removes energy to solve and correct the mental health issue that is the underlying cause of the event. Suggesting enhanced gun control is treating the symptoms and not curing the disease. The military has been funded to research its PTSD problems. From this research we should gain insight in to helping people mentally balance their lives. I encourage everyone to contact their legislative representative to fund mental health research and treatment.

  • Anonymous

    True

  • John

    Only once I am happy to say. How is being armed myself going to help? I grant that if you can see them coming you have a different situation.
    When it happened I don’t think being armed myself would have helped, except maybe got me shot.
    I grant there are times when being armed will keep you safe. However you don’t always have time to draw, I was trying to point out, poorly, that an expert in self-protection and a trained bodyguard refused to carry a gun when he was responsible for the “principle”. I think that perspective is valid and brings up good questions. I don’t think that your argument is strong enough to support not bringing back the ban. A standard clip would have dispatched all 7, if you are a good shot.
    btw: which horn do you twist for the milk?

  • http://www.facebook.com/thomasngo Thomas Le Ngo

    The problem isn’t the equipment. It’s the user. Case in point: the Virginia Tech shooter used 10-round magazines. The system needs to be set up to prevent mentally disturbed and violent individuals to get their hands on any weapon, even combat or tactical knives. It wouldn’t be foolproof, but it’s the first step towards addressing the real problem.

  • Anonymous

    She was nine, that would have given her at least 3 years to practice if she had gotten her first gun at the age I got mine. You might be surprised, there are several instances teens defended against home invaders.

  • Anonymous

    LOL Easier to find a unicorn, only one choice of which to twist ;)

    I know what you’re saying, I was a licensed Private Investigator for many years.

    There’s times being armed helps, there’s times it wouldn’t.

    The first time I had a robber put a gun to my head, I actually could have disarmed him, but I looked at the front of my store to see another gunman holding my cashier and another employee at gunpoint too. … Pays to assess a situation before reacting.

    The two gunmen had no plan, I asked “you going to lock us up” One nervously said uh, ok where? I suggested a back room, thay had us lay down, they held guns to our heads and said don’t follow.

    Now in Austin at the Yogurt shop, the criminals did similarly, but executed the 4 teen girls working there, at that point, it’s time to draw, no matter if they have the drop on you or not, or … just wait your turn.

    At that point, I get up, they may get 6 or so bullets in me, but they’ll not stick around as long or take time to aim as well.

    Recently … Houston store owner kills 3 armed would-be robbers Google Ramon and Eva Castillo, yeah he got shot several times, survived because he shot back, they intended to execute them

  • PSmith

    It’s not about hunting, stupid. It’s about the Second Ammendment and the right to defend ones self and his family from crazies like Loughner and others like him. To defend himself with the use of “modern” means. No one has ever, and I mean ever, told me what comon sense gun laws are. The do-gooders and gun banners idea of comon sense gun laws are the complete ban on all guns. Well I’m sorry, if you want to turn in your guns, go ahead, I’ll keep mine.

  • John

    I stand corrected, I should not have used “toy”. In a past life I was an assistant range instructor and my senior who was a Gulf W 1 vet drilled me not to use weapon but rifle or firearm as the intent is different for each. my appologies, and no I do not currently own a firearm of any kind.
    Each one of your points is valid, and I do defer to your experience in PI. It does not sound like we are too far off. I think your point: “There’s times being armed helps, there’s times it wouldn’t” is exemplary of your experience.
    my frustration is not with your argument at all,
    would you hold that any limitation on legal firearm ownership is a slippery slope that leads to a total ban on all firearm ownership? I am interested in your perspective on the argument that banned items still make it to the black market, therefore should not be illegal at all?
    From a responsible gun owner

  • Anonymous

    I’m not against ALL limitations on firearm ownership, I actually wrote suggesting hair follicle tests, or urine tests since all the crazy mass shooters also seem to be drug addicts.

    Jared was a “conscious dreamer” (pothead, and abused other drugs) but I have serious doubts that would be popular in California since Politicians there could not then qualify for purchase :)

    I don’t think banning a “type” of object is a solution though.

  • Bkbroyla

    At the risk of being pedantic, the correct term for the box that holds the ammunition in this gun (Glock 9mm) is MAGAZINE– there is no clip for a semi-auto pistol.

  • John

    Missed that suggestion. I agree with looking at stopping the “wrong” people from owning in the first place. Similar to the way Israel protects BenGurion from terrorist attack, they don’t look for the bomb they look for the terrorist. One security pro put it a great way, “they (terrorists) are not afraid to die, they are afraid to get caught”
    If you cannot pass a drug test you should not get FIOD card. Sounds reasonable.

    PSmith: please do not conflate those who want gun control per se and those who want a gun ban outright. There is something in the middle, your single mindedness destroys any chance at a intelligent conversation.
    btw: thanks 1rpb1, I don’t think we are on the same page politically, (just a guess at rpb) but I appreciate your considered response.

  • Anonymous

    I know, that’s why I’m putting “clip” in quotes, else they’ll want to ban magazines too … shhhh it’s our secret (grin)

  • splank

    There are several problems with this ban-the-user approach. First, people like Loughner would slip through those cracks because although people who knew him felt that he was disturbed, he was never diagnosed by a mental health professional that we know of, had never been dragged before a court, and therefore would never have been on a list of banned individuals. Only courts can determine who is unfit to own a gun, and that decision would be based on testimony of expert professionals, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc. Many mental health professionals won’t testify against their clients, citing confidentiality, and some would even go to jail for contempt over the issue. Others would simply be unwilling to say what their clients may or might do in certain circumstances, because it calls for too much conjecture. So what you’re proposing has a lot of red tape to it, would burden our system with cases that would be almost impossible to adjudicate, and wouldn’t result in a whole lot more people being prevented from buying guns. Rolling back what kind of guns and accessories are available to the average consumer is a much more direct way to limit these kinds of massacres. Calling for a ban on certain types of weapons doesn’t mean you’re anti-gun, just pro-human.

  • Model Citizen

    That’s been said numerous times. If you read the comments, you would know that.

  • Anonymous

    lol actually rpb is my initials, not my party. I’m laughing because I never thought … lol

  • evi1joe

    Um. Some police might be. Others aren’t. A lot of police are big NRA guys/conservatives and extremely pro-gun (from big magazines to silencers, etc).

  • Anonymous

    As the 9-year-old’s father said “It happens in a free society, but it beats the alternative”

  • splank

    In most states, you can’t force a person into mental health treatment against their will unless you can prove they pose a threat to themselves or society. People like Jared Lee Loughner may make people nervous or uncomfortable, but still don’t trigger the necessary threshold for involuntary committment because they’re able to evade the authorities who might otherwise lock them up. I’m all for good mental health care, but the reality is there is still a stigma in our society for those who seek treatment, making it highly unlikely that all unstable individuals will seek help on their own. Mental healthcare is great for those who voluntarily utilize services, but it is not a solution to the problem of mass murder.

  • evi1joe

    It’s true. I mean, felons and 16 year olds can buy and drive cars just like they can legally buy handguns, oh, wait…no they can’t. They’re regulated.

  • John

    now that is funny. sorry if I painted with “that” brush.

  • Dvicar

    You can thank Ronald Reagan’s changes to mental health for that. Maybe it’s time to think of the mentally ill again, instead of always saving money at the public’s expense.

  • Daniel

    These comments are a pretty good example of why politics in this country don’t work. People see everything as black and white. There is no room for compromise or concession. One side thinks any type of legislation is a nail in the coffin of our constitutional rights and the other have a hard time finding things that don’t need to be legislated in some way. And the funniest (or most depressing, depending on your perspective) is that these same sides flip when it comes to other social issues. Regardless of your views of gun control, your chances of being the victim of violent crime are relatively small. Your chances of being the victim of a whackjob like Loughner are next to nil. So why are we arguing about an issue that most of us will never, ever encounter? Statistically speaking one of the most dangerous activities Americans partake in is driving. There are far larger problems we face as a nation. I’m not in anyway trying to demean or belittle what happened in Tucson, but honestly, let’s stop sweating the small stuff.

  • evi1joe

    Um….no…as I stated in my post, I’m all for tougher gun laws (that’s the regulation and reason part). Unfortunately, freedom means we have the right to be free to make mistakes or be really stupid; after all, we elected Bush to office twice. And, stupidly, Loughner was able to legally buy a gun.

  • Anonymous

    “our chances of being the victim of violent crime are relatively small.”
    depends where you have to live, and how many “gun free zones” (defenseless victim zones) you visit..

    Your chances of having a fire in your home are extremely small too …. do you have a smoke detector?

  • Model Citizen

    “Your chances of being the victim of a whackjob like Loughner are next to nil.”

    Yes, sort of like your chances of being the victim of a middle-eastern terrorist.

  • Dvicar

    If you have had seven, you are either in law enforcement, a liar, or really really need to move to a part of America with law enforcement.

  • Daniel

    You’re missing my point. Prepare as you must. That’s your right and I could care less. But when we waste the political energy of this country arguing about how everyone should do something that is really so individual instead of focusing on big picture issues such as our economy or foreign policy. I think our energy is a little misdirected.

  • Model Citizen

    No, I actually agree with everything you said.

  • Daniel

    Sorry I hit reply on the wrong post above. To Model Citizen. This is true. And look at what a calamity our hasty response has been to that.

  • Anonymous

    Actually during the first robbery, a cop was outside the door, but said he was just writing parking tickets, so I ran to Sears and reported it to the ones in the coffee shop.

    When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

    In fact I did move , out to the country, I feel safer with bobcats, rattlesnakes and wild boar tan in the city with wackjobs and police that the Supreme Court (Warren v. D.C.) says have no duty to protect individuals, and so individuals are responsible for their own safety

  • Anonymous

    agreed

  • evi1joe

    Nope. Read more carefully “moron”–I am fine with tougher gun laws (that is the regulation and reason part!). Unfortunately, our freedom means we’re free to be stupid…whether it’s voting Bush into office (twice!) or allowing this lunatic to buy a gun.

  • splank

    That’s just a paranoid delusion carefully programmed and perpetuated by the nefarious NRA. Most gun owners – even NRA’s own members – don’t even oppose *all* regulations on guns. There are some common sense liimits and regulations that can be put on gun sales to help keep people safe while preserving 2nd Amendment rights. To say that any regulation of gun sales will lead to an outright ban on all guns is simply ridiculous. This country will never be gun-free.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/who-does-the-nra-represen_b_402318.html

  • Anonymous

    Enjoyed the chat, I may be back later, I need to do a few errands.

  • splank

    And how do you propose to “fix” that problem? Do we want a totalitarian state that can drag you into a room for questioning just because you “seem” abnormal? Do we want the cops to be able to pick people up off the street for “strange behavior” and force them to sit through a mental health examination? What kind of society would that be, when the state can force you to reveal your innermost thoughts to a state-employed doctor of psychology or psychiatry? That’s the kind of world that sci-fi books and movies are made from. No, I think it’s much more rational to ban certain types of weapons and accessories so that nobody can get access to them legally, and to close the “gun show loophole” – something with which most gun owners agree.

  • splank

    “The do-gooders and gun banners idea of comon sense gun laws are the complete ban on all guns.”

    Who’s been filling your head with such nonsense?

  • Bkbroyla

    I’m sure I would, but I have other things to do today besides reading 697 comments. Since the ones I have read are full of people repeating the ‘clip’ error, perhaps it bears repeating.

  • Anonymous

    well your question came as I was about to get up, but

    Currently it’s a criminal offense if you suspect child abuse, to fail to report it, Looneytoons like Jared’s parents, teachers, friends parents should have sought help for him

    close the “gun show loophole” – something with which most gun owners agree.

    what loophole? The one like private owners of used refridgerators can sell to other private individuals?

    From what I’ve seen 1) most gun owners disagree with eliminating freedoms.

    Brady Campaign Dictionary:
    Loophole [loop-hohl] or (ˈluːpˌhəʊl)
    –noun
    1) freedom

    Usage: Householders are set to defy a law banning “old fashioned” light
    bulbs by exploiting a loophole in new legislation. Legislators want to
    eliminate that “loophole”

    Loopholes can be dangerous to a totalitarian government.

    NOT every wacko uses this or that gun or magazine or knife.
    Every single one of these crazies trying to kill others wears shoes

    They help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and
    sometimes are used in escapes. Ban shoes.
    (The TSA and airports will be safer too)

    “more rational to ban certain types of weapons and accessories so that nobody can get access to them legally”

    Once again we are talking Ciudad Juarez, where only criminals have guns and murder 3,000 people in one city alone. and that’s what you think is rational.

  • splank

    Hrm… I don’t thinik Reagan had much to do with the involuntary commitment laws.

    In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual’s civil rights in O’Connor v. Donaldson. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the U.S.

    O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/422/563/

  • evi1joe

    Not sure a college, a sheriff, or parents can stop a person from legally buying a gun–nor can they proclaim someone insane, a non-citizen, or a felon (which would stop him from being able to buy a gun). Love how you blame college, liberals and parents–anyone but the shooter and his gun with its magazine capacity. (Only the uninformed call it a “clip” btw.)

  • splank

    So you do want a government where anybody can purchase any type of gun they wish, but anyone who’s acting “stragely” would be called in for questioning? Failure to report presumedly distubed behavior would be a crime? How would the police and our court system even deal with the overwhelming number of calls they would get? Can you imagine the sheer size of the government it would take to process and adjudicate all those cases? How is that not a totalitarian government when it would turn neighbor against neighbor and parent against child – all of whom MUST report to the government when they see any behavior they think might be suspicious?

  • Joenp3

    I guess that reasoning works, except when YOU are the victim, or YOUR 9 yr/old OR grandparents get killed. Since the odds are with most of us,,,screw it…Yeah that’s the ticket…

  • Apribble

    Im always concerned as to why common sense is so difficult to grasp for most people, i realize that greed and narcissism can get in the way of rational thought, but really? I just don’t understand why a 33 bullet clip that fires all bullets in a matter of seconds could ever be legal for any fool to get ahold of and use, i just don’t get it.

  • Joenp3

    …and furthermore who gives a rat’s @$$…everybody knows what is meant and it’s mostly interchangeable in conversation, unless that’s the only point one has to make…

  • Joenp3

    First, consider the “head” that’s being filled…

  • Anonymous

    a 33 bullet clip that fires all bullets in a matter of seconds could ever be legal for any fool to get ahold of and use,

    Well, It’s pretty useless without a gun.

    I agree fools shouldn’t get guns, but those 33 round “clips” are great to use on target ranges by responsible grown-ups.

    I guess a 33 round “clip” could hurt someone if thrown just right, but a baseball bat can do more damage…. perhaps we need an I.Q. test so fools don’t get those.

  • Anonymous

    my cousin and his wife got murdered by a crackhead inside their home in California. Since they just moved to Cali, there was a “waiting period” for self-defense

  • Anonymous

    anybody can purchase any type of gun they wish,

    No, you haven’t read all my posts, I suggest each submit to a hair follicle test first

  • Gundy

    Your right thinking brain is misfiring.

  • common_sense

    Ah, yes… the old “it’s not the gun, it’s the person.” You are certainly correct, but aside from some masturbatory “target practice” usage, what purpose does a clip that holds 33 bullets have? A grown up should certainly realize that there is none. The only people that benefit from such a clip are crazed loons that want to kill and maim as many people as possible in a short period of time. This has nothing to do with protection or even the right to bear arms. It’s about common sense.

  • Daniel

    Yes. The odds are with us. And certainly tragic occurrences are horrible. All I’m saying and what I feel you are failing to grasp is that random acts of disgusting violence happen and Loughner is being appropriately dealt with by the authorities. Gun control, like many social issues today, are smoke screens for more important and far more difficult problems on our national plate. He was an insane individual committing an insane crime. I think we can all agree on that. What exactly is your implication?

  • Anonymous

    Shouldn’t be that tough to figure out that the purpose is to hold 33 bullets. Even a child could see that.
    That’s what it was designed to do, and it does it well.
    A car run through the croud driven by him could cause as much or more damage

  • Joenp3

    Oh yeah, your scripted remark put me right in my place…You contradict yourself rather quickly.
    You are OK, so screw-it right…it never happens, to most of us, so nothing to worry about, until you change your entire stance…so it all goes YOUR way…typical..and you are one lowlife MF!
    Just so you know that same crackhead, busted into my grandfather’s farm, in Indiana and he off’d him with his shotgun. No waiting period and he only needed one shell…not bullet…

  • Anonymous

    what an intelligently constructed logical well worded response.
    Yes, shotguns typically make bigger holes than handguns do.

    I’m not sure what to make of the unintelligible ranting though, how would you have me respond?

  • Joenp3

    So tell me more about “more important and far more difficult issues” what they are and how you propose they are handled?

  • Leterbuck_2001

    And magazines house cartridges, which contain bullets (powder and primers too).

    A clip and bullets are wrong terms for the libs to use….

  • Joenp3

    I’m simply calling you the obvious CYA liar…that you are…and as far as “hoplophobe”, keep guessing. Notice no sarcasm, just straight shootin’…professor…
    Want to explain the difference between a “clip” and a “magazine” now, or tell me how I could hurt someone by throwing either?
    I suppose it might have been a different “crackhead”, but they are everywhere when you guys need a scripted response.

  • Anonymous

    You sayin’ my cousins only died in their imagination?
    dooood,

  • Bert

    Forks don’t make people fat.

  • Daniel

    I’ll try not to start a tangent here, but I’d have to say the biggest few that float to mind are the failure of the American educational system to compete on an international level, high levels of un/underemployment, the huge budget deficit, the squeezing of the middle class, an entire generation of Americans that really do not understand how credit works, etc. I’d be willing to bet that you start to tackle those problems and issues of violence will start to take care of themselves. Though to tell you the truth, I have no idea how to begin to remedy those issues. I’m pretty sure guns and gun control have little to do with making progress in those problem areas that effect virtually every American in a major way.

  • Joenp3

    “dooooooooood!” It’s the internet and you protest far too much. Wanna play poker, redneck. Cold? When it comes to one-dimensional clowns, like you, we’re still on The Kona Coast.
    Give me some time and I’ll find the cites on “crackheads” killed in farmhouses in Indiana, by shotguns. I’m sure the gun lobby has some scripted and ready to go…
    Actually, I think my grandfather threw a “clip” to take the “crackhead” out.
    Let’s see, fear of guns didn’t work, for you, death penalty insult either… so the obvious progression…in your script…
    Keep swinging your dick…”dooooooooood”! Of course, everyone knows your preoccupation, with guns, means you don’t have one..at least.of any consequence…
    I don’t even need Windex to clean off the portal into your transparent skull.
    You are a liar!
    Now say “crackhead, clip and magazine” a few more times!
    AND yes, I am STILL saying you are lying…

  • Anonymous

    I have no idea what a gun lobby does, but are you admitting you lied now?
    No wonder people get fed up with people like you.

    I now understand why people say not to try to educate a pig who has no interest in truth, it’s a waste of time, and annoys the pig.

    I’d say it’s been a pleasure, but I’m not a liar such as you admit to being.

  • Model Citizen

    People are free to eat whatever they want. People aren’t free to kill.

  • Joenp3

    No…I’m admitting that I’m finished “communicating” with an, obvious, liar…(notice, no question mark)
    …not even a good liar…
    Interesting…how quickly you throw out “The Gun Lobby” denial…they pay bi-weekly?

  • Anonymous

    1. Video is misleading- stock clip (the one police carry in video) wound not have been 10 rounds as I believe was implied. Optional clips, but closer to 15 rounds as lowest capacity option on current glock 19 if I’m not mistaken. Shame on Jon Meachan for being a gun owner and a journalist and letting that slip by him.

    2. Changing clips (spares already loaded) only takes 1-2 seconds if you are proficient. Most people are not headed toward a shooter actively shooting, so this normally provides ample time to change clips. Could have used more than 1 gun as well. Lastly for #2, having someone shooting at people with only 1 round or 60 is still a problem. How many would have been hurt in this case if only 10 rounds were fired and he was stopped at the first clip change? What if he just got a car and drove it through the crowd standing in a parking lot at high speed? Still deadly problem not solved by “assault ban”

    3. A quick google search lists 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. I am NOT saying they are the cause of this incident, only that 11 million PEOPLE made it into this country illegally and that Glock 19′s are much smaller, more easily hidden, more easily smuggled inanimate objects that could also make it to this country illegally. Another example of this point. In Jan- Nov. 2009, the Justice Dept. reports that they seized 1626 metric tons of illegal drugs in transit. That’s just was caught-not what was actually moved!!! If you converted tons of drugs seized to the number of Glock 19s:
    (1626 metric tons x 2205lbs/metric ton x 16 oz/lbs) divided by the weight in ounces of a Glock19 (20.99oz) = 2,732,981 Glock 19s in 2009. The potential to move firearms is there, the system of doing it is already in place. If there is a market (money) this country is incapable of keeping it out as proved by the two examples above and how much time and money is spent trying to stop it.

    Jon Meacham correctly states in this piece that this shooter could have gotten the weapon illegally. How many of us could score an illegal substance in short order? Ask a college or high school student. Jon Meacham admits he is unconvinced by the argument that firearms would find their way to the black market, but gives no reason to support that position other than. “The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.” Nope, not convinced, next.
    How many gun owners use firearms in self defense each day? Do they count? Would they prefer to be outgunned? Let’s also ask some residents of Northern Mexico.

    4. Hunting (organic meat) is a element for gun ownership, but the Second Amendment was not about hunting. I am embarrassed and ashamed that so many Americans are unable to review history and develop an understanding of why the Second Amendment was debated and adopted. I am embarrassed and ashamed that so many Americans use “no purpose for hunting” as an argument for gun control. The term “assault weapon” also fits in here. There are lots of weapons that share the same mechanism of action in how the gun operates, but only some are considered assault weapons demonstrating ignorance of the topic by “experts” or those who claim to be In The Know because they own/or inherited a gun. They are defined by looks I guess- “Makeup please, I need to look good for the camera.” I own 2 cars, but I’m not a mechanic, a race car driver, or even very knowledgable of the field. Should I be in charge of what you drive? Cars kill lots of people every year and are used in smuggling drugs, used in kidnappings and used in robberies as just a few examples of criminal activity that involve cars. But, is it the cars or the people that are to blame? Banning cars would surely hinder the movement of drugs and criminals within this country. Remember, “The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good.” “The bringing-about of order is the first and fundamental task of government. We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time.” Let us each take one for the team. This would also have positive environmental impacts if looking at greenhouse gases.

    5. Jon Meacham notes that bans enacted in 1994 ceased in 2004. He does not mention any info on how well it worked in that decade in support of his position.

    People are the problem. This incident could not have been prevented if the shooter only had a 10 round clip instead of a 33 round clip. Multiple guns are 1 example of how the limitation in clip capacity could have been overcome. Compromising the reasons behind the Second Amendment won’t solve the problem Jon Meacham wishes to solve. I wish we could prevent these types of tragic events, but predicting who, when, how, or if these people will ever do these things is difficult. Sounds like the shooter had been troubled for a long time. When and how would making sure he was not a threat to anyone have occurred without compromising other freedoms I doubt we would agree to compromise?

  • Milo

    Not so. Ther are justifiable homicides. And here in Pennsylvania, you are allowed to kill and intruder inside your house.

  • Milo

    Here is some data from http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp on guns being used for self-defense.

    * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

    * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere.” Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”[19]

    * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

    * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

    • 34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”

    • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun”

    • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”[22]

  • Anonymous

    Yet some people still do, should we ban everything connected with the act. Did they escape on foot in running shoes? Ban them, not perfect but it is a start. We do not want prefect to get in the way of good.

  • Anonymous

    How many millions of gun owners did not kill anyone today?

  • Jim Richard

    Why does anyone, except possibly a police officer or a soldier need a gun that shoot more than a half dozen bullets without reloding?

  • 1rpb1

    no idea, I’m retired, but I’m glad we’re done.

    I had a nice conversation with an intelligent gent earlier.

    But trying to talk to a person who rambles and rants nonsensically in some fantasy paranoid world where they think everyone living on Texas Farmland is a lobbyist sounds like Jared the left-wing radical is like, reminds me of what someone told me once “never try to educate a pig, it’s a waste of time and annoys the pig” and I can tell you are agitated and off in another drug world or something so I”ll stop too and pray you take your meds and hope someone reports you or you get the help you need to make it back to reality.

  • 1rpb1

    I’ll quit also, I’d hate to feel like it was talking to me that pushed you over the edge and read about you doing something like your fellow party member Jared did.

  • 1rpb1

    people who get robbed by 3 eobbers who don’t want to run room to room getting shot, like the jewelry store owner in Houston that shhot 3 robbers protecting his and his wife’s life.

  • 1rpb1
  • Anonymous

    You say “in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment”, but I say what is actually
    says. Anyone can claim anything “in the spirit” and as long long as it is
    “in the spirit” it left up to conjecture. But the written words say what it
    says. And those words are not left to conjecture.
    You want some sort of civilian militia to supplement local law enforcement
    and state national guards. I see this as dangerous and unnessary. I don’t
    expect to change your mind,
    and you have not convinced me that it is a good idea, so I see no need to
    continue this any further. Have a good day and may peace be with you.

  • Wweigle

    Gun control is not going to happen at this time on a federal level for one simple reason. The people of this country have shown they do not believe in it or want it. Most federal elected representatives, other than those from the ultra liberal urban areas know it puts them in political peril with their constituents. They always refer to the NRA as if it was not made up of citizens, but it is, and it has huge political power for this simple reason it, represents most citizens of this country’s position on gun control.

  • http://www.facebook.com/thomasngo Thomas Le Ngo

    Splank, I think you’re running my proposal a little too far with 1rpb1′s suggestion. It’s not about reporting others. That’s potentially dangerous. It’s about making sure those with a record of recent mental or criminal behavior be put on a gun ban list. It probably wouldn’t have stopped Jared, but it would have stopped Cho.

    Make sure those who attend gun shows aren’t on the ban list. Make sure that any sale of firearms requires the seller to check that the buyer isn’t on the list. Yes, people will still get through, but it helps to create accountability. High-capacity magazines and folding stocks don’t provide significant advantages to those who want to kill. Any normal gun provides that significant advantage. Another commenter shared this video, which (if you ignore the wingnut rhetoric) actually proves a good point about the ineffectiveness of round-capacity limits to magazines and clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oURZ3LxYhIY

  • 1rpb1

    Would have been handy here though, might have been easier than running around after being shot several times to grab different guns http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7350690.html

  • GMan

    What an excellent post. TO add just one point – it would be much easier and quicker to reload a standard size clip. These nincompoop laws about the size of a clip do nothing. Maybe we should relax the HIPAA laws to allow the government to better monitor those with mental illness.

  • plepgeat

    I’ve agreed with much of what you’ve written above, 1rbp1, but I call BS on your implication that the Brady Bill had anything to do with the murders of your cousin and his wife. There’s no waiting period for bringing legal firearms with you to California when you move here.

  • Plegleat

    Thanks for saving me from risking pedantry.

    It annoys me no end when people who want to be taken seriously on a subject cannot be bothered to learn enough about the subject to discuss it in the proper terms.

  • Fredfromsj

    Why is it gun control a conservative / liberal issue? The bullets in the gun will not discriminate a conservative, from a liberal, from an independent, from a Tea Partier, etc. I don’t think any law will prevent people from obtaining the ‘super sized’ clips. The only way this issue can be resolved is through our legal system. Those who were hurt by this incident should sue the gun store, WalMart, gun manufacture, etc. Sue the NRA for defending this type of weapon to be available for general public. Will there be any chance of winning such law suit? Probably not. However, it will at least it will make these people be aware of potential greater liability in the future should similar scenario get escalated – say 60 people instead of 6 dead.

  • Milo

    My man and I own a house in a rural part of Pennsylvania. In both the Doylestown and Solebury Township areas–20 and 25 minutes away from us respectively–there have been break-ins by group(s) of armed theives. They don’t know if it is the same group or not but, the crimes were committed while the residents were IN THE HOME. Luckily, nobody has been hurt yet. But these victims could certainly use a gun that shoots more than a half dozen bullets without reloding.

    So could I.

  • Bob

    The second amendment does not protect firearm ownership because of SPORTING PURPOSES.

    The second amendment is about protecting the ownership of firearms APPROPRIATE FOR USE IN A MILITIA.

    This means military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use.

    While protected by it, the second amendment is not about Jon Meacham’s .22 and .410 shotgun.

  • Mary Rosenthal

    Excellent essay on common sense and responsibility of gun-owners. Best I’ve heard.
    Mary Rosenthal

  • Junkstack

    Good idea!! We should sue Ford, Chevrolet, and other car makers for individuals that kill others in DUI crashes!!! Great logic!

  • Mrevoman2005

    It’s MAGAZINES not Clips! Wow, this article showcases the moronic thoughs of our “elected” officials in today’s world.

    GUN CONTROL only works on those who FOLLOW laws. Almost all “gun” crimes are done by those who DO NOT follow laws.

    So, lets make laws to limit those good citizens who follow laws, stopping them from having the ability to defend themselves.

    And 30 round “MAGAZINES” being used to only “kill as many people as possible”? Come on. Most modern 9mm handguns hold 15-20 rounds as standard. And reloading takes next to no time. A 30 round magazine is just another item to jump on to generate FEAR.

  • Anonymous

    You’re under attack?

  • Someothername

    One recent example in the news:
    Houston, Texas
    Ramon Castillo and Eva, his wife of 30 years, Jewelry Store owners face-off with three armed men who were going to tie them up and shoot them in the head. Four bullets pierced Castillo’s body six times because he had to run around getting 3 different “low capacity” guns to fight back.
    Castillo’s condition was upgraded to fair Wednesday, and he is expected to recover fully. The family has set up a website to help with medical bills

    Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-503544_162-20027986-4.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=&tag=contentBody;commentWrapper#ixzz1BItLce9e

  • Mrgrouchy

    Sounds like you couldn’t hear me clearly… your ears must have gotten clogged when you shoved your head in the sand…

  • Mrgrouchy

    Some fool was using my tag.. that wasn’t me….

  • nammy

    There has to be gun control at some level, rifles, shotguns pistols, no problem. Automatic weapons restrictive licensing and mandatory education, Bazookas, RPG’s, Quad 50 mounted on your hummer, outlawed.

  • Shawn

    Low capacity hand gun = good, able to protect himself and his wife.
    High capacity hand gun = bad, gave the criminal an advantage over the store owner.
    (this is probably not the case but you choose to glaze over pertinent facts in your post)
    2nd amendment arguement #27678: If banned, criminals will get their hands on these weapons illegally and then they will be the only ones with high capacity.
    2nd amandment arguement #56784: Don’t sanction the manufacturing of high capacity magazines, 99% of handguns are sold to licensed and responsible Americans.

    So which is? All of these guns are in the hands of responsible, licensed Americans that have only the desire to penetrate a target with 31 rounds before stopping.
    OR
    The bad guys are going to find a way to get these magazines and we need to be able to match fire power.

    You can only choose one.
    Answer now please_________________

  • mybrokeep

    I’m embarrassed and ashamed that most American people don’t know their history other than the 2nd amendment.

  • guest

    While I feel there can be improvements on gun control, by no means should guns be outright banned nor should we ban large magazines outright either. I don’t know what these improvements will be nor am I in any position to say with any degree of certainty what they should be. A more rigorous background check required of each person buying a firearm that would include his or her mental health background may be a step in the right direction, though (mental health background included is what I meant by rigorous; just couldn’t come up with a better adjective). There has to be some middle ground where guns are harder to get for the mentally and criminally unstable, while still remaining open to the rest of those who wish to use and own them in a responsible manner. How this could be achieved, I cannot say with any real degree of certainty. Another way, I think, for change to develop, for this and all other matters facing our country, is for us all to cordially and rationally think about and discuss our personal thoughts and feelings on the issue without resorting to fear rhetoric or hate speech. When we cordially and rationally discuss the issue and when we can all see that we all have a valid point of view on the issue, will we as a united people start to overcome the issue.

  • Joenp3

    …and I don’t find multi-tasking very hard, except there seems to be a group who says no to everything, in the way.

  • Xandtrek

    Thank you for that considered comment, Mr. Meacham. I agree with you completely and sincerely hope we can ban all weapons and ammunition whose only purpose is to kill mass numbers of human beings.

  • joenp3

    WOW! You’ve got every stereotype and scripted insult down…and you can’t stop puking them out. I’m so hurt by your ramblings. Keep telling us all about “YOU” 1rpb1 Keyboards are great places for lying, cowards to hide. Now you can have the last word…again…then again…then again…then again…

  • Anonymous

    What part of 33 round magazine is compatible with responsible gun use? I’m all on edge, just waiting for you to tell me. I can’t see a reason for anyone that isn’t working in Law Enforcement, or the military, or maybe park rangers (in an area with bears) to need a clip this big. And who needs automatic weapons? SWAT and the military. Noboy else.

  • Guest

    stinging concrete perception,

    If I can summarize your second paragraph-ette…

    Crimes are committed by people who “DO NOT follow laws”

    This salient lightning bolt from the blue has awakened me.

    You are obviously wasting your talents posting comments online.

    Mrevoman2005 for President.

  • guest

    What part of 33 round magazine is not compatible with responsible gun use? I’m all on edge, just waiting for you to tell me. How about competition shooters who would use a larger magazine such as this. Are they not responsible gun users? Do they not use their firearms responsibly? For that matter what is, In your opinion,responsible gun use? Is it a person who likes to go shooting on the weekends at their local firing range? Or is the hunter? Or is just military and police who deserve to use guns? I never said a 33 round magazine was responsible gun use. I don’t think the magazine has anything to do with responsible gun use. To me responsible gun use is using firearms properly such as: never point the gun at anyone you don’t intend on shooting, don’t shoot at anyone unless you’re in grave danger, know your target, always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction, always keep the gun unloaded until you’re ready to use it. That is responsible gun use to me.

  • Anonymous

    15 or 20 isn’t enough for you?

  • Guest

    There’s no need to be cynical just because you don’t agree with me. I personally don’t think the size of the magazine has anything to do with responsible gun use. I think responsible gun use is how my father, a retired police officer, showed and instructed me how to use a gun properly and safely for myself and others. This being do not point the gun at anything you don’t plan to shoot, keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire, know the safety and how to use it, and don’t shoot at anyone unless you’re in serious danger. I don’t see the need for owning a magazine of this size but there may be legitimate reasons like the one someone posted about the competition shooter.

  • Anonymous

    No, it puts them in danger from the NRA. Most people, when polled, and they’ve been polled A LOT, believe in gun control. This lobby’s been running roughshod over the will of the people for YEARS.

  • guest

    Pardon my first reply. I did not fully think out my reply and let my emotions in. I am sorry; please do not take it personally.

  • Zedthewizard

    yes, automatic weapon are in general illegal to the general public . . . i guess you can’t say fire in a movie theatre, nor is the second amendment handed down from above.

  • Zedthewizard

    wrong . . . you are confusing communists with totalitarian regimes likely including oligarchies. you over generalize . . . government control of what? you can’t lump everything together unless you want to be a hypocrite . . . that what absolutism in argumentw with your “spectrum” results in.

    grow up . .

  • Zedthewizard

    you use absolutist rhetoric again . . . “government should run your life” . . . maybe yours cause we all make typos, but you can’t even spell “koolaid” correctly. you shouldn’t be able to buy guns if you can’t write properly and use absolutist rhetoric that will ultimately lead to hypocrisy. now, you are talking about dropping the bomb . . .now, you know what the founding fathers would think . . . you appear to have a god complex???

  • Zedthewizard

    know you are getting some things right, but do you really think you can control the government with some glocks and the stronger stuff you get do to your obvious “fetish” that can only be considered “addictive behavior”. you are silly to think you and your glock will start taking out the drones they want to put over our heads, and the other weaponry and soldiers available to the “government” by the way, you are part of the government right? why do you loathe yourself so severely? is your wording of limiting the powers of the government a cry for help. fyi-i owned upwards of ten guns and reloaded my own shotshells.

  • Zedthewizard

    your confusing republicans and neo-cons. what’s with the name calling. this is a philosophical fallacy to attack the person and not the argument. i guess you voted for eubonics with your writing style. i’m against including it in our educational curriculum — YOU ARE A RINO IN NAME ONLY MARY ALDEN!!!

  • Zedthewizard

    and you can pull all of these guns out at once. are they all the same caliber with ten round clips or nine and one in the chamber? are you talking apples and oranges and bullshit?

  • Zedthewizard

    so, how many criminals are frisked with 28 guns in his or her possesion. one would think with your logic they could have pulled out each gun one after the other with no real pause. i guess, you’d all be dead before you even frisked the person . . . odd what you teach at the police . . .

  • Zedthewizard

    jeesh, jfk . . . who gives a rat’s a$$. thomas paine, a good old atheist, but not really . . . he went over to help the french with there revolution. but, he wasn’t too keen with “off with their heads”. pulling quotes from the past instead of creating reason is unreasonable in offering any insight to the current situation. maybe, jfk was pandering to a group before he pandered with another girl. so, he was a liar and broke his vows . . . yeah, i believe him. maybe, he stated this after they gave him a dose of amphetmine for his back ailments he received during WWII.

  • Djvidugiris

    I am in complete agreement with Mr. Meechem’s commentary on guns. It is time for
    Congress to take their power back from the insane and irrational hyberbolic rhetorical usage of the 2nd Amendment and pass some common sense, long overdue gun control. Allowing 33 round clips and weaponry that has the sole purpose of hunting and killing humans is not the right to bare arms that the founding fathers were talking about. Certain weapons and gun accesories need to be banned now. Enough is enough.

  • karlthomas

    As I keep my factory 16 round magazine loaded with ‘self defense’ ammunition, a 32 round magazine would likely never see use outside a few shooting trips at the farm each year.
    These magazines are not necessary in any sense of the word; they serve zero purpose for self defense, would be futile in holding off a tyrannical government, and are altogether cumbersome to wield with the proficiency capable of the ergonomics afforded via the factory 16 round capacity magazine.

    That said, I just bought TWO aftermarket magazines for my 9mm XD….
    Capacity: 32 rounds each
    I intend to use one for largely non-sporting purposes.
    The other is just in case the first one breaks.

    Necessity is hardly a precursor for purchasing anything.
    I am quite capable of using and storing these unnecessary items without restricting a single fellow American citizen’s right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

    If America truly was interested in gauging merit on the ability to perform a necessary task, I assert that a large number of public officials would find their salaries severely diminished.

  • Marcus Poulin

    Mecham is TOTALLY wrong the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with Hunting.

  • Marcus Poulin

    Meacham is TOTALLY wrong the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with Hunting.

  • Marcus Poulin

    Djvidugiris you don’t even know what you are talking about.

  • Marcus Poulin

    Djvidugiris The 2nd Amendment has Nothing to do with hunting,

    We can listen to your argumentum ad ignorantiams ALL day but it doesn’t change the fact that you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Miller in 1939 had nothing to do with Hunting nor Heller in 2008

  • someothername

    like Mexico did where only 3,000 imaginary people die because criiminals don’t care what law you pass.

  • someothername

    One recent example in the news, easily Googleable:
    Houston, Texas
    Ramon Castillo and Eva, his wife of 30 years, Jewelry Store owners face-off with three armed men who were going to tie them up and shoot them in the head.

    Four bullets pierced Castillo’s body six times because he had to run around getting 3 different “low capacity” guns to fight back.

    Castillo’s condition was upgraded to fair Wednesday, and he is expected to recover fully. The family has set up a website to help with medical bills

    The Bill of needs, I mean the bill of rights, doesn’t require anyone justifying a “need” or “reason” to own something, else politicians need to list the “options” ion their cars and see if we approve.

    Though “regular” capacity magazines in a “normal” capacity Glock could have benefited Mr. Castillo.

  • someothername

    There’s also the reasoning that the second amendment was written because of the third amendment , rather:

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    and to ensure this, the people’s right to own and bear arms was to protect against the soldiers/Militia forcing the Owners of property to house and feed soldiers without compensation… hence the Second Amendment

  • Marcus Poulin

    brantl it is NOT up for you to decide.

  • John

    Actually the exercise such as that is to increase awareness where guns may be hidden, I think right after an officer was shot in the back of the head by a 2-shot .22 from a criminal in the back seat of a patrol car.

    Cho, had 1 gun in each hand,

    It’s very possible to hold 2 guns, and pull one out while dropping one and never be unarmed since you’re holding another gun.

    Teaching police how to increase chances of not being executed as one officer was, by not performing a proper frisk, isn’t an odd of a thing to teach, you’d be amazed where people hide stuff.

  • David

    JOn Meacham, You sir are so WRONG! i do not agree with your opinion and it is absolutely wrong! A 6 round pistol clip would have resulted in the same out come. If you were worth your salt as a news reporter you sir, would be reporting why an officer of the law who was made in to a hero did not o his job in the first place. Sadly all these innocent citizens must suffer because of it. Why didn’t you point out that had one citizen at the scene had a gun they could have stopped this tragedy. Finially no amount of laws will stop a mad man!
    1!

    Your position and opinion is not what should be reported

  • Anonymous

    Bwa! Bwahahahahahahahaha! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha!

  • tpcinaz

    check the statistics on gun related homicides in the US vs the UK where sane gun laws are in effect.

  • Cwsmith

    I thought IPTV had smarter people than this. He is confused about the difference between hunting privileges and gun rights. He thinks an unknow number of assailants in unknown circumstances can be delt with in 10 shots .come on IPTV do some homework.

  • Marcus Poulin

    Yeah tpcinaz so sane.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

    The Murder rate GOES Up after they ban handguns.

    new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
    The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

    The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

  • nescafe

    a six round clip would have done the same damage a 33 round clip would have? is that what you’re going with? really? who balances your check book?

  • Paul

    David,you sir are wrong! There was someone else at the scene with a loaded weapon. Joe Zumudio told his story on Fox news. He almost killed one more innocent person at the shooting because when he came into the fray he mistakenly identified the shooter as a man who was holding a gun. That man was one of the hero’s at the scene who had wrestled away the gun from Loughner. Luckily Mr. Zumudio did not pull his gun out and shoot the wrong man, as well as make himself a target by standing at the scene with his gun drawn. Fact: the shooter was stopped by people without firearms on the scene. Fact:If Loughner had had to reload a smaller magazine less people would have been shot at the scene.

  • Tony O

    Yeah, yeah…nice props. Might ought to know the difference between a clip and a magaine before you go on tv to talk about guns.
    The liberal template where the ‘gun’ owner talks about his papaws rusty old shotgun or single shot 22 has been used before. ABC news, years ago, found a family of black powder shooters who wanted a ban on modern semi-auto guns.
    What next? You gonna eat fried green tomatos,play the fiddle or the guitar like Huckabee, thinking your ‘cool’.
    You don’t have any credibility with real gun owning Americans, especially when mentioning people like McCarthy, Lautenberg and Bloomturd as being the people to go to for knowledge of ‘sensible’ gun laws.
    You people have lost the gun debate long ago. Gun bans weren’t even a mention when you people controlled the entire Federal Government. Get over it. Aint gonna happen.

  • joenp3

    I haven’t read everything today, so if this has been discussed earlier…sorry…
    I heard something today that made sense to me…a dem/lib/gun owner…as far as you will ever know…
    Is there a difference between offensive and defensive weapons…especially their feeder systems…clips, magazines…WHATEVER?
    If you buy a weapon for legal, concealed-carry, or available in the house…what would you buy?
    If you plan on killing someone/s…even someday…same question?.
    I realize that if you think the government is coming to get you…or you it…there is nothing to debate…

  • Mr. York

    You tell them Marcus! Now, also tell them where you read this. It’s from the NRA website. In fact, many posters are citing directly from the talking points from the NRA. I am just a little curious as to how many posters have actually sat down and read the background on what the framers were thinking when they authored the Constitution. Just because the NRA posts one story about what happened in Great Britain doesn’t mean it’s the final word. Do a little critical thinking and determine based on other sources if what the NRA is saying is accurate, fair and balanced.

  • Mr.York

    Precisely. You might be interested in the folllowing: http://www.guncite.com/journals/shalideo.html. It’s about the Ideological Origins of the
    Second Amendment. Pretty thought provoking.

  • Downzer8249

    From the comments I’ve read here it seems those against the “high capacity” magazines think no one other than police and miltary needs them, no responsible gun owner should want one and common sense says they should be banned.

    I have many magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, some 30. None of them have ever jumped out of the safe and harmed anyone. When I touch them I don’t get an uncontrollable urge to harm people. I use them for target pratice, competiton and personal protection. Do I need 18 rounds in a pistol that I carry, do I need 30 rounds in a gun I keep at home for protection? I sure hope not, I hope I never need a single round. But the fact is having too much ammo is never going to cause a problem for me, having too little may.

    Limiting the amount of ammo my mags hold doesn’t make me a responsible gun owner, my actions do. The 33 round magazine didn’t make Jared Loughner a murderer, his actions did.

    If you want a common sense gun law how about 20 years in prison for using a gun to commit a crime.How about punish those that abuse and misuse firearms rather than place ineffective restriction on those that are law abiding citizens.

    We had the AWB and 10 round mag limit for 10 years, it expired more than 6 years ago. If it was so effective why isn’t anyone standing up with statistics to prove the 10 round limit reduced crime, why isn’t anyone saying since the ban expired crime has went up? Some states still have the 10 round limit, is their crime rate down? Why after 29 years of a total ban on handguns in Chicago do they still have a gun violence problem? The truth is we can’t pass legislation that stops those that are determined to commit crime from doing so. We have thousands and thousands of gun laws on the books now, how many more do we need. The fact is those in favor of more gun control ultimatley will not be happy until they have taken guns away from everyone in this country, they feel no citizen should have one regardless of what our constitution says.

  • Guest 5

    I am so fed up of flawed logic.
    1) Criminals will still get guns. Yes of course, but make it much more difficult with sensible laws and that any sale and use of an “automatic pistol” or ” assault weapon” c’mon its an ” assualt weapon not self defence weapon = illegal. Any currently registerd weapons can be confiscated/destroyed.
    2) Ok constitutional right.. got it! Any weapon hand gun rifle or shotgun with more capability than those available on passing the second amendment are banned/illegal whoever has them then when found confiscated!
    3) Stop the it’s NOT the car that kills but the driver. First off the car is not designed to kill a gun is.The law prosecutes the drunk driver not the car. But If you shoot a gun with a bullet loaded by yourself, then both are subject to the law. If the gun is illegal/unlicensed oops (criminal, insane or not) and if you had no license Ooops (even 99.9999 % of drunk drivers have a license to drive, not to kill.) and if you injure /kill you cannot deny intent only self defence…. oops how do you know he/she ran out of ammunition ( was insane mentally disturbed , politically motivated) and was to going to shoot you next??All those thoughts are dealing with symtoms not the cause which is the GUN!! does not mean you should not address the symptoms aswell but gor gods sake accept the reality of the cause the GUN It kills mor people per capita than any other country in the world in America. its almost irrelevant whether thats becuase the major contributors are criminals or Insane or demented.
    Access to todays weaponry is based on a constitutional right that had no concept of how weapons would develop. I say do what tea partiers etc do best Literally interpret the constitution init original context and environment.
    Regards,
    Guest 5

  • Downzero8249

    It is already illegal for felons to own or even touch a gun, would you make it double illegal? Criminals steal guns, what law stops that?

    Automatic pistols and assault wepaons are already heavily restricted, a class III license is required.

    What is a self defence weapon?

  • Downzero8249

    The fact is you have no idea if a lower capacity magazine was used less people would have been shot. The sherriff said the magazine spring failed. A smaller capacity , more reliable magazine might have been reloaded faster.

    Pushing someone against the wall is not almost shooting them. The armed Zumudio did the right thing.

  • Downzero8249

    The Virgiana Tech shoooter killled 30 people without using a 33 round magazine.

  • Ruthie17

    Dope!

  • Another Guest

    What does this terrible incident have to do with the size of the clip? What’s the difference if the shooter carried 4 normal size clips. It only takes a few seconds to put in a new one. Also, I’d like to know how they got that handgun there at the studio, legally? In NYC?? I really wonder if the formidable legal obstacles were observed, ignored, or waived by some authority.

  • Paul

    Your assumption of a smaller magazine being able to reload faster is a specious argument at best. Lets’s say your premise is correct. Loughner still would have had to reload sooner without dispensing as many bullets, and the people on the scene who were able to take him down and disarm him (again with out using a gun) would have had a chance to do it sooner. Mr Zumudio Said “I came out of Walgreens, I had my hand on the butt of my gun, I had taken the safety off and I was ready to shoot the man with the gun in his hand.” Fortunately he didn’t because at that point the person holding the gun was one of the hero’s on the scene who helped disarm Loughner.

  • Alger1

    My head hurts after trying to read two paragraphs of your dribble. How about climbing back into your hole and hiding from everything in the world that could possibly hurt you since you seem to be afraid of the world. Bad people do bad things. That’s just the way it is. You can’t change it…or stop it…but making dumb laws. What you can do is stop being a sheep and become a sheepdog. Carrying your own gun does not make you a killer…or someone that wants to kill…if makes you a defender and possibly a life saver. Guns save lives too. I’ve lived through an experience where I didn’t have to shoot but may have been killed if I hadn’t presented a firearm. So you go from “Bad people will do bad things” to “Bad people will be stopped from doing bad things to you” if you have a means to defend yourself. Finally…the gun/car analogy works just fine. Guns are designed to fire a projectile where it’s aimed. That does not mean guns are only made for killing. Guns can also be used for defending as well. Hmm….maybe that’s why police carry firearms as well. Speaking of the police… good luck calling the police and waiting. When seconds count they’ll be minutes away.

  • http://treesandwich.tumblr.com Matthew Hansen

    I’m not sure if you read the news, but the gunman was tackled WHILE reloading clips. Therefore, smaller clips do indeed save lives.

  • Guest

    So basically what you are saying is make guns easier to conceal?

  • Facts Are Useful

    I don’t typically like hypotheticals, but if someone else was there with a gun they could have ended it before the guy managed to empty one clip. Your logic doesn’t stand, this was a tragic incident, but not its not like all incidents like this are solved by tackling the guy when he reloads.

    Has anyone here posted about the major errors in John Meacham’s article? The 1994 “assault weapons” ban did not ban clips over 10 rounds… it banned the new manufacturer of clips over 10 rounds in the US. You could still buy old clips, I bought a 20 round clip during that time that was made in Israel – completely legal. Furthermore (unlike most people), I actually read the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban for a report. That policy was nothing more than a big pile of FAIL. It banned things like pistol grips, folding stocks, muzzle breaks, almost nothing to do with actual function. It essentially defined ‘assault weapons’ as any gun that ‘looks scary’. Someone also mentioned guns cause more deaths per capita than any other country in the world, that’s blatant misinformation. The 2006 census bureau report (most recent that I can find), shows a rate of 4.3/100,000 homicide related deaths. Transportation related deaths are around 15.1/100,000. Accidental total is 40.6/100,000; the flu kills 18.8/100,000; drug and alcohol are 12.8 and 7.4 respectively; accidental poisoning is at 9/100,000! Your more likely to accidentally poison yourself and die than you are to get shot. And how many of those gun related homicides do you think are related to gang fights and drug cartels? Think about this – the estimate for guns in America is approaching 1/person, hard to nail down a number but definitely over 200 million guns for 300 million people. That many guns and gun related deaths (excepting suicides – I don’t feel suicides are pertinent) are on the low side of deaths in the U.S. just higher than some diseases and drowning.

    There was a public firing range I used in the past, completely unregulated range. About a couple of years ago a group of guys went shooting there and one of them was killed by a misfire. Needless to say the guy handling the weapon wasn’t being safe. But that was the first death at that range in ~15 years (not sure of exact number less than 20, more than 10 years). They closed the range because of it. That range was awful – most would admit that – but one death in ~15 years is nothing compared to most outdoor sports – like river rafting, some rivers claim several lives per year.

    What I don’t get is why people are so fixated by guns rather than addressing the people who would use them poorly. Fix the prison systems, fix the judicial system, get repeat criminals off the street, crack down on drug smuggling, crack down on gangs. Heck why is no one banning (or in some way suppressing the members of) gangs who are known to engage in violent activity? Most gun control laws don’t work because they restrict the majority (legal – safe gun owners) for the crimes of the minority (criminal use of guns). I bet a lot of problems would be solved if you just went after the criminals. The perpetrator in this case may not be a criminal, but your never going to get rid of all the crazy people out there, but you can go after the ones you already know about.

    Census Data Reference:
    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0118.pdf

  • JustSomeGuy

    Not to be…gruesome but if wanted to kill someone and get away with it I would use a .22 long rifle. It’s more than enough if your a decent shot and the .22 LR is an accurate round out to 100 yards or so.

    Home defense –
    Pump action shotgun, gauge doesn’t matter much. Just the sound of the action is enough to make most criminals jump out the nearest window. And it’s highly unlikely the shot will go through drywall and hurt someone else unless your shooting at the wall from point blank.

    Concealed Carry –
    Small .38 or 9mm handgun, using Extreme Shocks R2LP ammunition or similar ammunition designed for low penetration and low ricochet, again to reduce the possibility of a by-stander being injured if I was force to use the gun in self defense.

  • JustSomeGuy

    Wait… the link Marcus Posted was from the BBC, not the NRA. When was the last time you actually read a law (not news or opinions of it, the law itself?). I read the 1994 AWB, and when Arizona’s highly controversial Immigration law came out… I read that too. Most of the news/opinions had never read it, same with the politicians who commented on it. When I want facts… I go to the ATF’s website and the Census Bureau Website, or I read 5-7 articles from varied sources. I’m a gun owner, but the NRA is often the last place I go to get my news.

  • JustSomeGuy

    Larger magazines are more likely to malfunction and jam, I think that was the point he was going for. Everything else is pure speculation. If the guy only had ten round clips, he may have been more cautious. Having a ton of rounds could give someone a false sense of confidence and lead to mistakes. In the end, no matter what size magazine the guy used, if he had positioned himself correctly he would have ample time to reload regardless of the size of the clip.

  • JustSomeGuy

    Lol.. that’s right. Lets quote Bloomberg… the mayor who outlawed a particular business’s high quality firearm paint in New York City because it could be used to make a gun look like a toy… true story, and somewhat recent. Wasting tax dollars to outlaw something that has yet to ever be used for that purpose. The business had only ever sold anything in New York once! Great common sense gun law there. Out law high quality firearm paint. As if anyone who actually wanted to do something like that wouldn’t just buy a can of spray paint from the local hardware store. The claim that it makes real guns look like toys ignores the flip side that many toy guns look like real ones.

  • http://twitter.com/cfanch chris fancher

    This will never happen, unfortunately, but I’d love to have community armories where anyone who can legally buy a hand gun would be required to keep their gun under lock and key. If they want to check it out to go hunting then they have to declare what they are checking it out for and where they are taking it. In 2011 we do NOT need to have any guns in anyone’s home. Children die, neighbors die, other family members die but RARELY does a bad guy coming into the house die. Get them out of houses NOW!

  • Kasreyn

    “What is a self defence weapon?”

    A good point. I have yet to see a gun that can deflect bullets aimed at its wielder. A gun is a “preemptive attack” weapon. Much like our war in Iraq – a gun’s user is supposed to determine that the other gun-wielder plans to shoot them, and instead shoot them first. Only, again like our war in Iraq, sometimes preemptive action can be the result of an erroneous interpretation of the data.

    I don’t see the word “defense” anywhere in the Second Amendment. I do see a bit in there about ensuring the regulation and maintenance of the militia, which in Founder-Speak meant basically their time period’s version of the National Guard.

    So, simple. You want to shoot a gun? Join the Guard and they’ll teach you. I’m confident this is what the Founders intended.

  • Bungler47

    They are MAGAZINES, not “clips.” The difference is more than superficial, and the continued misuse of this term calls into question the knowledge of those who use it, irrespective of their viewpoint.

  • Kasreyn

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our prisons are already overcrowded and 20 years is not a fair trade for someone else’s life. Far better to prevent the murder from ever happening. If you need a 30+ round magazine to defend yourself, then you are being attacked by so many people you are either being gunned for by the Mafia or a large crime syndicate – in which case you should be able to get police protection – or you are in the middle of a war zone, in which case you should join the Armed Forces. There is no situation in which a home invasion necessitates spraying 30+ bullets to resolve.

    Mr. Meacham put it most apty. These weapons exist for no purpose other than mass murder. No one is saying Loughner wouldn’t have been just as crazy and dangerous with a different weapon. All we are saying is, maybe his victims would have stood a better chance of survival if we hadn’t blithely allowed him to legally purchase a weapon good for no other purpose than quickly killing far more people than are likely to ever be attacking someone at once. Calling such a weapon a “personal protection” weapon is laughable. If you think you need 30 rounds to stop a burglar, *I* think you need your gun taken away because you’re clearly such a terrible shot you’re probably going to wind up shooting yourself or your kids. :P If you can’t hit the burglar in the first 10 shots, somehow I don’t think the next 20 are likely to be much better…

  • Kasreyn

    At last! A SENSIBLE GUN OWNER weighs in. I’m not a fan of guns of any kind but obviously their impact on bystanders *must* be minimized if we are to consider ourselves moral and just.

    Thank you. That was a relief to read. :)

  • Kasreyn

    LOL. Nice try on your attempt at turning the just-after-the-nick-of-time Mr. Zumidio into the “hero” of your story, Downzero. I think you and other conservatives are just frustrated that A.), the shooter was taken down by unarmed persons thus invalidating your ridiculous cowboy fantasy notions of shootouts and justice from a gun barrel, and B.) Mr. Zumidio *almost wrecked your “self defense weapon” argument for you*. In reality, I’d say Zumidio has more in common with the user JustSomeGuy above than with you: he clearly believed in RESTRAINT. :P

  • Kasreyn

    In various rooms, over a much longer amount of time. Many of his victims were trapped and had nowhere to run to. Some of them didn’t realize what was happening until the crime was partly accomplished.

    Loughner’s victims were outdoors and could have scattered in all directions as fast as their legs could carry them. All of them were able to detect what was happening from the moment he shot a bullet through Rep. Giffords’ brain, so they all had an equal amount of time to run, duck, or do whatever they could (which is not much against an automatic weapon).

    Big difference, obviously.

  • Kasreyn

    Yeah, nice try:

    “Police said the other two suspects started shooting at Ramon Castillo, who returned fire as he made his way to a shotgun he kept in the store.

    Once he got the shotgun, police said Mr. Castillo killed the two remaining suspects.”

    Mr Castillo knew: the pistol was an interim weapon. He went for the shotgun, which is the weapon that actually excels at this sort of “defense” gunfighting (especially indoors).

    Interestingly, no note was made in any of the news reports I read as to whether, after Mr. Castillo shot the first intruder, whether the other two made any attempt to surrender or flee. I don’t understand why the journalists writing the stories didn’t consider that a salient detail worth investigating.

  • KsEvolve

    This is good idea, and it should be applied to anything that could kill us. I just returned from a trip to the store. My vehicle was nearly hit head on by a person (I will not say male or female or age since that really does not matter) that was apparently texting while driving at around 50mph toward me. I had to go to the ditch to keep from being hit and maybe killed! My question is simple. Which should be kept in the “community armories” to protect me and others? Should it be the cell phones or the drivers using them? By the way, I live in Kansas where it is illegal to drive and text at the same time. I wonder why that driver that nearly hit me and still has me shaking did not follow the law?

    Also, I am not a member of the NRA, but I do own guns and even a cell phone. I do not shoot innocent people with my guns, and I do not text or even use my cell phone when my care is in motion. Will the fact that I use common sense save me from nut jobs? I wonder?

  • Royconner57

    I really enjojed John Meachams’ In Prespective on this subject. There is noy any sane reason for oversized clips except for mass killing.

  • laura

    facts are useful! “but if someone else was there with a gun they could have ended it before the guy managed to empty one clip.” true. he could have heard the shots and rushed to the scene with gun in hand and aimed it at…. the guy holding the gun, right? that actually did happen. the guy’s name is zamudio and he almost shot the person who disarmed the shooter – because he was the one holding the gun. zamudio himself said he was very lucky to have not made the wrong decision at that very moment – something he very easily could have done. so, maybe your logic doesn’t stand either???

    and i think it’s very easy to point out the dangers in allowing almost anyone to carry around a gun (of any kind) loaded with 33 bullets ready to fire off rapidly. can you give me any reason a person would NEED 33 bullets for self defense? i’m all for the right to own and even to carry. but to pretend it’s unnecessary to draw any lines is irresponsible and dangerous.

    “why is no one banning (or in some way suppressing the members of) gangs who are known to engage in violent activity?” do you really believe that known gang activity is in no way suppressed by law enforcement? yeah, i think facts are very, very useful. and i think you could use more of them.

  • KsEvolve

    Reading many of these posts confirms what I have know for a long time. Neither side is willing to actually look at the big picture and use common sense. I guess that is politics as we know it today!

  • Bungler47

    You are confident that’s what the Founders intended. Have you ever read any of their documents leading up to the Constitution? I didn’t think so, because if you had you would know that a “militia” in the parlance of the 18th century meant every able-bodied adult male person in the country. You would also know about the widespread concern about having a standing army in peacetime, which is a pretty fair definition of our various city and county police departments.

    There was not even such a thing as a “police force” in the USA prior to 1855.

    Incidentally the Supreme Court does not agree with you either. See District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago, both decided within the past two years.

  • Bungler47

    The size of the magazine is immaterial to this story. In fact, as the accompanying photo reveals, that 33-round mag made the Glock pretty unwieldy and hard to conceal. And I do not recall any description of this shooter’s having “sprayed” bullets, whatever that might mean.

    Someone in his position who wanted to hurt a lot of people in a short period of time could more easily have rented a 20-foot U-Haul truck and plowed into the crowd with it.

  • Guest 12

    I saw Mr. Zamudio’s interview. He stated that when he arrived on scene, he saw the person holding the glock and that the slide was locked back so he never drew his gun, but shoved him against a wall. He then held him there until he figured out what was going on. His gun was never drawn and he never put anyone in danger. Imagine that… a gun owner acting responsibly.
    As for your other example. I personally own one of those evil magazines for the sole reason that I can. Banning them makes as much sense as banning a vehicle that can travel faster than 80mph. Imagine the government banning Mustangs, Corvettes, and the occasional minivan that passes you on the interstate doing 85 with 6 kids bouncing around in the back.

  • Paysonroundup

    Try reading “The Federalist Papers” if you actually wish to know what our Founding Fathers intended when they crafted the 2nd Amendment.

    Why suffer ignorance when the facts are easily within your grasp?

  • meanmuggin

    i think that this is the goverments fault to begin with i dont feel sorry for them bastards anyways they should of thought about how to sell firearms more carefully.an the gun store that sold that freakshow a glock with an extended clip should be shut down an that dealer should be stripped of there permits.

    the goiverment should keep more of an eye on there fucking gun dealers to make sure they dont sell them to people who aint metally all there.

    thanks to them not keeping an eye on the menatlly ill an not providing metally ill people with the help they need people got shot an people died that did not deserve to die. an because of that occuring they are banning something that is for good home defesnse against multiple would be intruders.

    so banning extedned clips an trying to reban assult rifles aint the way to go its not the goverment is doing it all wrong.

    they needa relegalize it an just crack down on corrupt gun dealers that sell weapons to the wrong people.they need to force there gun dealers to be more aware of the people they sell there weapons to.

    they made the mistake of this happening so they shoudnt be taking things away from good people just because they refused to keep an eye on mentally ill people who got ahold of weapons that were not suppose to have them in the first place

    remeber now ITS ALL THERE FAULT

  • Quest

    “We accept limits on our rights for the sake of a larger social compact all the time…..Yes, liberty is precious. But so is life.”

    “Give me liberty, or give me death.” – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    Sure, reduce the number of rounds law abiding citizens can have in their magazines…. Then let’s move on to semi-automatic weapons and just go ahead and ban them too. You can use a bolt, lever, or pump action weapon for any “sporting purpose” instead of an evil semi-automatic weapon….. After that, we can go ahead and ban pump action shotguns. No one needs a weapon that fires multiple projectiles like that….. While we’re at it, let’s go ahead and ban bolt and lever action weapons. They’re far too dangerous for mere peons to have, especially since they’re generally super accurate and can kill people at ranges up to 90,000 meters. Citizens can’t be trusted with something that can reach out that far, it’s just not practical when most hunting occurs at a much shorter distance. Muzzle loading rifles are all people need for hunting… But not the ones with rifled barrels, those are far too accurate.

    What part of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is so hard to understand? Politicians seem to enjoy slowly eroding the rights of their serfs, and likewise most of us serfs seem to be so willing to just hand over our rights. Where in the second amendment does it say that it is only meant to protect arms for “sporting purposes”. The purpose of the second amendment is to provide citizens with the ability to overthrow the government should it become oppressive. Why would anyone want to give up their last line of defense against tyranny?

    Gun control has been effective in plenty of other countries, particularly when their governments feel the need to commit genocide. It’s much easier to thin the herd when the herd is defenseless.

    For those of you wondering, no, a tin foil hat is not a part of my wardrobe. I just happen to love liberty, freedom, and my rights, and i won’t let anyone attempt to take them away from me without a fight. Make no mistake, this IS an attempt to take away your rights, it’s just little by little. It’s kind of like cooking a live crab. They don’t put up much of a fight if you slowly turn the heat up instead of dunking them straight into boiling water.

  • Alroberts5

    Every day ordinary, law abiding citizens use firearms as a means to protect themsellves and their homes from predators, both two legged and four legged. Why happens to them? If someone kicks in my door in the middle of the night, am I supposed to tell them “wait, let me go get my gun from around the armory”? If I am backwoods hiking, do I tell the same to a charging bear or wolf? What if someone pulls a knife on me while walking at night?

  • Alroberts5

    If gun control works so well, why do some of the cities with the strictest gun laws (LA, NY, DC, Chicago) have some of the highest violent crime rates in the country?

    Can anyone here name a country that enacted strict gun control where crime rates actually went down after it enacted?

  • Alroberts5

    “Pump action shotgun, gauge doesn’t matter much. Just the sound of the action is enough to make most criminals jump out the nearest window. And it’s highly unlikely the shot will go through drywall and hurt someone else unless your shooting at the wall from point blank”

    Wrong on both counts.

    Criminals running from the sound of a shotgun slide racking is a myth. That sound also gives away your location in the criminal is armed.

    A shotgun will penetrate drywall easily.

  • Mike Provost

    I enjoy watching Need to Know but Jon Meacham went too far in stressing his personal opinion instead of sticking to the facts. I lost respect for him when he wanted to limit the number of rounds in a gun magazine. He certainly doesn’t understand “self defense.” You could be facing more than one person who breaks into your home or who seeks to hurt you or your family. I have 30 round magazines and don’t want the government telling me I can’t have them because they know what’s best for me. I’m a retired military officer, a former Deputy Sheriff, and a long time Texas concealed weapon license holder. Gun Control does not work. Just look at Mexico and several of our states. It only takes guns away from citizens and doesn’t do anthing for the criminals. The congresswoman was shot by a mentally ill person. That’s where to focus needs to be. I heard one news story which pointed out that a concealed weapon license holder heard the shots and ran toward them to try and stop the attack. He didn’t get there in time but if he had been there then the shooter would have been stopped and lives saved. In another story it was mentioned that an lady in the crowd stepped forward and grabbed a magazine from the shooter as he was trying to reload and two men jumped him and held him for the police. Most news media never mentioned the concealed weapon license holder or the woman and the two men. Most of the stories I saw just said the congresswoman’s aide was a hero for trying to stop her bleeding. How one sided can the news get! I never saw the President or anyone else congratulate those who actually stopped the shooter from killing even more people.

    Mike from Texas

  • Djsells93561

    More people die in the United States, each day from Automobile accidents , than they do from guns

  • CamHiggins

    Well that’s a relief…

  • Martin

    what a country, you need a gun in every room to protect yourselves? assault rifles? a gun in your car if it wasn’t so tragic it would be funny and you call this freedom.

  • Anonymous

    This guy is a disgrace to gun owners. Why the hell would the founding fathers make a constitutional amendment to protect sport? Well, they obviously didn’t. These so call “common sense gun laws” make sense today. But what if the US economy collapses? Or what if there is a nuclear war? Anarchy or Tyranny? It’s not a question of if, but when. And when something terrible happens, I want my assault weapon. Those who are not armed(with the best weapons available) are helpless, like sheep. If their shepherd leaves, or decides to slaughter them, they are totally helpless. This is why the Second Amendment was made. The authors of the Bill of Rights had just fought a war against the tyrannical British… with their military style weapons. We must not, as a nation, forget this. We must not allow ourself to be turned into “sheep”…

  • common sense

    What’s the purpose of owning a pistol that can fire 33 rounds? Well tell me various politicians who sling so much anti-gun information; what’s the purpose of you owning a 6 digit luxury sport vehicle? Why do people need these high performance sports cars that far exceed the speed limit? Why do people own 4 bedroom houses, with 7 bathrooms and 2 living rooms when only a couple will live there? Overall the assualt weapons ban isn’t necessary, a lot of people says it keeps dangerous weapons off the streets, but it doesn’t criminals don’t even buy assualt rifles. Which reads better, a long barrel assualt rifle in excess of 1,000 dollars that requires constant cleaning, and maintaining, a gun where ammunition is also ridiculously expensive; or a dirt cheap easily concealable pistol that can be disposed of like it never existed? The assualt weapons ban benefited nobody, because criminals were and are still able to get these weapons, why propose a ban that only effects law-abiding citizens, you guys that support it are idiots and so are the politicians who do the same; you can all burn in hell!

  • The Historian

    More Baloney. the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It is about the right to protect oneself. The Assault Weapons ban had no statistical effect on crime while in effect. The 33 round clip actually gave leverage to a civilian who disarmed Loughner during the shooting. Stop blaming the gun and the clip. Blame the maniac who committed the crime. Any one who thinks another ban is needed is a traitor to the Constitution.

  • The Historian

    Wrong answer. Police can’t be there 24/7 for you and ARE NOT obligated to protect you. See a number of Supreme Court. And you are Lying through your teeth claiming that crooks rarely die at the hands of citizens protecting themselves from various forms of thug. Most self defense shootings tend to either run the thug out, end u with the thug in custody or dead. 

  • tax101

      I find this entire argument to be an offensive joke. Politician’s waste time and tax payers dollars on restricting civilian firearms while spending billions to build weapons kept from the public. This “Clip” (“Clip” being a slang for the part of a firearm that caries the rounds properly named “Magazine”) is irrelevant when it comes to what happened Tucson or in any other firearm shooting. While the magazine allows for more ammunition, it hinders accuracy and weapon function. Furthermore someone could carry two standard sized magazine’s just the same and have the same capacity for so called “rapidly ending as many human lives in as short a space of time as possible!”. While I do agree that anyone with a violent criminal record should not be able to purchase a firearm, any ban including the one on fully-automatic firearms is unjustifiably unconstitutional. Ultimately the 2nd Amendment is not to protect our right to sport with firearms, but instead to protect our right to defend ourselves against our government.
      

  • AMail10281

    There are some things to consider here
    1) Mental health is a HUGE problem in this country. We have 25 Million People on anti depressents. With more who abuse perscription drugs. Ritalin is commonally used on kids. And this is not counting people who are damaged from Meth or use weed to control anxiety or other illiciete drug use. Here in Nevada the prison system is the largest mental health provider. Wikipedia some of this stuff, it’s an interesting read.

    And now were acting surprised that someone went off the deep end and shot people? To me being blissfully unaware of this problem or it’s consiquences is the height of arrogance.

    2) The second amendment guarentees you to own a gun. Also having a gun is actually part of our culture as americans. Do these people really think that we won the West with please and thank you’s. And that having such a westward expansion would not have an impact on our culture? We are not France, Mexico,China, etc. Were the United States. And like it or not guns have been a part of our culture since the American revolution.

    3) Finally my personal opinion, Gun violence is the end result of a long process of mental health problems, drug abuse,racism,lack of good jobs,abuse,alenation, etc. Because despite what the talking heads want you to believe. People don’t wake up one day and decide their going to shoot someone. It’s a long process.

    But then again it’s easier banning a 30 round magazine and saying that you “Fixed it” than actually addressing the real problems.  

  • Anonymous

     Common sense is, you give in…we applaud your common sense….wait awhile…then we come for more…under the banner of ‘common sense….’

    We’ve seen where that’s been done. Not here. Not ever. You want war? Let it begin – anytime you want.

  • Dallas Hall

    The 2nd Amendment was a requirement by the Colonists to accept
    the Constitution as the major deterrent to the tyrannical leanings of
    any future administration. Before the Revolution they were highly
    restricted by the Crown to counter Dragoons and other police-state type
    Enforcers of the Crown. Following the Boston Massacre troops went
    door-to-door breaking-in and rummaging homes to catalog holdings,
    register weapons and list names and addresses. Subsequent to the signing
    of the Declaration of Independence, the same troops were ordered
    door-to-door to confiscate said weapons and interrogate colonists as to
    their allegiances. Children were sent out back-doors by their mothers to
    warn neighbors of the harassment of their fathers at the hands of the
    Crown troopers. Those neighbors rallied and that is how the fighting
    began.

    The 2nd Amendment, or the “right of the people to keep
    and bare arms”, was instituted as a recourse of the people against a
    tyrannical government and their agents. Hunting and defense against
    criminals are great by-products of the the 2nd Amendment. In other words
    the 2nd Amendment is meant to give the people the power to counter the
    current “Dragoons”, namely FBI, DEA, NSA, CIA, ATF, TSA, Homeland
    Security, Secret Service, Border Patrol, Police, Sheriffs, Marshals,
    Soldiers, Marines and the like.

    Registrations, provisions for
    “mental ills” and prohibition of certain or any
    weapons/magazines/ammunitions are further inhibitions to the public’s
    ability to counter the same weapons utilized, as they are, by the
    Federal “Dragoons”. They are, therefore, restrictions to our 2nd
    Amendment Rights. Those rights, in the same language used by God to
    Moses on the Mount: “SHALL NOT be restricted”.

    The best
    deterrent and quickest antidote to a crazed gunman is an armed public.
    Those teachers in Connecticut should have been armed, even as we all
    should be, an fully capable of dispatching that psycho in behalf of both
    themselves and the children. Likewise in Tucson.

    I implore you to reconsider your position on the 2nd Amendment.

    Dallas Hall