we dont need semis and such to shoot deer we are living under one nation under gun it needs to stop! we are no longer cowboys we have law enforcement this is sick why does one person need an unlimited supply of guns!!! why must I live here im moving to Europe

What people watch is irrelevant and telling people what they can and can't watch, or what materials they can and can't produce is just as bad as outlawing guns.

@worldpeace2013

What's needed to hunt is irrelevant. You have the right to own weapons, regardless of their style or type. You do not have the right to kill others unless it's self-defense. It's that simple.

@worldpeace2013

Let's examine the type of car you drive, so I can determine if you "need it" or not. What type of food do you eat? Do you need to eat that kind of food to receive sustenance?

Where does your mentality end? At what point are people free to think for themselves in your world?

The police did a great job protecting those people in the theater in Colorado. Had anyone in that building had a weapon on them, we would have 1 or 2 dead, plus the shooter. I have no idea how you can argue against gun rights in light of this tragedy.

Please explain to me how gun manufacturers are responsible? What does your first paragraph even mean?

Hey, guess what. I won't be happy until everyone has a my company's control system for steel forming equipment. Good lord, just listen to yourself.

This dispicable act was performed by a person, not by a gun. Without a gun, this idiot is still a psychopath.
"Many crimes would not be attempted?" No. more would. It would only create more un-armed victims to choose from.
You think you're being a do-gooder, but you're just not thinking. You got a President that is, as we speak, hiding involvment in an illegal gun-running operation. Do you think these illegal operations will increase or decrease with gun-control? Increase of course. And if law-abiding citizens don't have guns, how do they defend themselves from those who have them illegally?
Which house does a criminal break into, one where he may be shot, or one where he knows he won't be? Gun-control only increases the number of potential targets for those who don't care about the law. The problem is not a gun, it's a disrespect for any law you want to come-up with.
What about martial-arts? Many "enlightened" people are against martial-arts because they are "too violent". Those are people who don't understand that the basis for the teaching is a "discipline". It teaches self-defense, and self-control. It's not offensive by nature, but the bully will only mess with them the one time. Handguns are the same, they are for self-defense against psychopaths like this one, not for offensive actions. Both can be abused, so maybe we teach them both as a discipline. Addressing the gun only dismisses the criminal behavior that uses it outside it's intended purpose.

Do you know anything about why the 2nd amendment is in the Constitution? Here is the reason for it:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Give me a break about the police - watch the news and see what the police in Syria & Egypt are up to.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away. The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting.

Agreed Steve - the 2d Amendment was not about hunting. It was primarily about turning away the redcoats, back before the nation had a standing army.

And 200+ years ago, surely self-defense was involved to some degree, it gave the Europeans an edge in when they came across wild animals or Native Americans. Also the guns were needed for control of slaves, which many Founding Fathers had.

Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

Just to get our terms straight: machine guns are still illegal (banned for civilian use since 1934). The "sub-" prefix in submachine relates to the size of the ammunition used in the weapon rather than the weapon's rate of fire. Machine guns are capable of HUNDREDS of rounds per minute.

Perhaps you are referring to the so-called "assault weapon ban" enacted during the Clinton years? That essentially was not a ban on technology but a ban on looks. The weapons that were banned as "assault weapons" were cosmetic copies of fully-automatic weapons used in military applications (the so-called AK-47). But the underlying technology was the very same as was used by the weapons that weren't banned.

Hope this helps.

Agreed Joyce. And we can't get sensible restrictions on machine guns until we have people and politicians willing to stand up to the omnipotent gun lobby and their bottomless pit of influence money and their loyal legions of fear-mongering lackeys.

Bush had passed a law for this after Columbine and it expired in 2004 WHY??? lets make known what presidents do despite their camera and speech abilities

@RDBet

Omnipotent? Gun manufacturers/owners are God? Do you feel powerless in every facet of your life?

William,

I was just at Walmart and saw a rifle designed to look like an M-16. I might have gotten it if it wasn't $900.

yeah this was bush at his best actually the law was only good for 10 yrs and idk how we missed extending it for indefinity! lets stop being cowboys american hicks we dont need guns like that we are one nation under gun! our school sucks, we cant compete worldwide and we dont worry about that! but we do wanna our guns to be all trigger happy! urban decay of the youth is due to guns ... u know the country with the most guns is the us for private citizens second is Somalia... Somalia a state w complete anarchy

Here's a current example:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/florida-customer-who-shot-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery-will-not-face/

Are you kidding? If someone else, or multiple people, had had a gun and started firing at this shooter, do you not thing that the massacre would have been worse? The man was covered in protective gear he bought from a St. Louis-based company! He had on a mask, a bullet-proof vest, you name it! He was firing faster than anyone not also possessing an assault rifle or machine gun could respond to. I just never get the almost reflexive but nonsensical response that "your best defense is a good offense" especially given the specifics of a situation like this. Please.

This wacko should never have been able to buy the weapons, the protective gear, any of it. No one but military and police officials should have access to this sort of weaponry or gear. There's just no reason for it. None. We see the results, yet again.

The shooter was a coward. Had there been some resistance in the room from an armed guard or citizen the shooter probably would have wet himself and run back out the door. He didn't come there looking for a fight, he's a coward in body armor who didn't have the conviction to kill himself after his well planned execution of unarmed kids. Now we have the pleasure of paying for his legal team, medical care and room and board for about 50 years.

I call B.S. on anyone who thinks that an armed citizen, guard or cop in the theater returning fire would have caused more problems. If your wife, son, husband or daughter were among the moviegoers you'd be grateful if someone in the crowd jumped up and started returning fire and possibly saving your loved one.

....since there is no use and the killer will find a method anyhow - we might as well make it easy for the killer to apprehend assault rifles etc. (head scratch.)

Also-the case for legal gun ownership is protection against criminal thugs who have illegal guns. Worth noting, this deranged guy had a clean record - a law-abiding citizen gun owner -the type of person who's 2nd amendment rights are protected seemingly helds sacred above all other rights we have as citizens -thanks to the gun lobby machine.

RD,

I'm scratching my head too. You're pretty good about throwing out all sorts names and labels, but you're pretty thin on actual ideas. I think everybody here is interested in suggestions about how to prevent future Auroras. If making it "harder" can't stop it, then why are we making folks jump through hoops for nothing?

So far all I've heard you suggest is that we somehow have to stop corrupt politicians and the gun lobby before we can stop future James Holmes. Is that your plan? How do you propose making that work?

William, you got any ideas on how to counter the power of the NRA in government and American society? I'm just venting on the Patch - and it appears you are doing the same.

As Earl Higgins below states, nobody's opinion will change - which means this will continue to be a lopsided debate (and the gun side with a financial interest will continue control the "debate").

E. Witzen, I hope you are not trying to blame the St Louis company for selling to this insane person! They did nothing wrong.

@E. Witzen

You make several unsubstantiated claims. You have no idea how quickly someone could have responded. You have no idea how it might have turned out if several responsible gun wearers had been sitting in the crowd.

Your comment is pure conjecture.

@RDBet

The "power of the NRA"?!?!

Goodness, you folks live in a world of big, bad bogey-men. It must be a frightened and stressful life you lead.

Jaycen, Holmes was a law-abider and thus a responsible gun owner. On the proposterous "what-if" a responsible gun owner was in the crowd. Well, up until that night Holmes was a responsible gun owner.

@RDBet

Clearly, you are wrong, RDBet. Holmes was not a responsible gun owner, he used his guns to murder 12 innocent people.

There are more than 65 Million gun owners in the United States, RDBet. Please explain to me how there aren't constant rampages and wild west shootouts on every single corner.

Please explain that. In your world, how is it even possible that there are more than 65,000,000 legally owned guns in our country, yet this lunatic is the exceedingly rare exception. I'll be waiting.

Seems that horse may already be out of the barn?

After buying a ticket to the movie, Holmes went into the theater and propped open an exit door several minutes into the film, a federal law enforcement official said. The suspect then returned in protective gear and with high-powered weapons and opened fire, shooting scores of people and picking off victims who tried to flee, officials said.

Excellent comment!

You are exactly right. What about all the people who bludgeon someone to death with a 2 x 4 or a claw hammer?

When that happens, do they put the name of the hardware store on the news? Do they name the carpenter who cut the lumber? Of course not, but you can see by many of the comments posted here that many peoples' brains simply can't make the logical connection when the weapon is a gun.

wow ur comment is far from logical the debate is guns and those being more prone accidents then these 2 you have listed reality check.

Exactly, unless you mean freedom to kill other human beings.

@E. Witzen

It's clear from his context that he means "freedom to own property". You've twisted it for your own anti-freedom purposes. How Progressive of you.

Unfortunately all these psychotic rampages were preventable there were many warning signs. Nobody cared until it was to late!

I hope that works for you, Rich. As a retired cop I can tell you that when seconds count the cops are only a few minutes away. That's AFTER you manage to call 911 or the security company tries to call you, talks to you/fails to talk to you, calls the PD, relays the info, dispatch contacts the street cop that somebody's alarm is going off....

BTW, have you ever considered how easy it might be to shoot your dog first or just poison it? I hope you'll be heading for your gun while your dog is sacrificing himself for you.

Of course the standard response to people with guns is to call for people with guns. I prefer the option to be able to protect myself while waiting for the cavalry.

Glenn,

I'm sure when you were an active police officer, you were only minutes away. But in high crime areas such as East St. Louis, sometimes the cops don't show-up for an hour or so after a shooting has been reported.

nice!!!! how we should live #worldpeace

cowboy its called gun reform not 2nd adment abolishment

RDBet,

I hear you, honestly I do. I'm not trying to stick up for gun rights. Actually I am mostly concerned about the rights of average citizens to do as they please without fear or control.

If you travel, you already know what has to happen to make our society gun-free--it's the same approach used by the TSA: Back-scatter microwave, metal detectors, pat-down (both cursory and invasive), papers authorizing an individual to be in a certain place at certain time. But now we have to have it at every mall, every movie theater, every church--every place where people congregate.

Norway has just "celebrated" the 1 year anniversary of that country's own horrendous bloodbath: 71 people (mostly children) murdered in cold blood. It makes an interesting study--notice how laws were circumvented by a clever criminal intent upon destruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks. And recall that Norway has some of the world's stricter gun control laws on the books.

Bottom Line: How tight do you have to screw down people's lives in order to get absolutely 100% safety? Do you really want to live in a society where these controls are in place for everyday citizens? Do you really think it will matter for the very few who are willing to die for the chance to take a bunch of people out with them?

Answers to these questions matter. I'll certainly agree that life in this frying pan is pretty hot. But the fire, in my reasoning, can be MUCH more unpleasant.

William,
We can play tit for tat with this example or that one, justifying an argument for or against gun rights. Yet the fact of the matter is that the gun lobby has disproprotionate control over our government and society. Fear and hate are powerful tools for a marketeer so much that they will eventually profit from a massacre like this.

The hackneyed mantra "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" ... may be true. What is confounding is the logic that we need to make it as easy as possible for people to kill more people with more accessible machine guns/assault rifles or whatever.

No, I am not pollyanish in thinking that an extreme form of gun control would be effective or possible with so many people armed already and the amount of money the gun lobby has invested in this. Yet, until gun people acknowledge the need for some common sense attempt to regulateof extreme weaponry that is only useful for mass killing, then I don't care to read your silly mental gyrations.

Have a good safe day.

One nutcase decided to violate the "movie-goer's" rights to enjoy the evening and your reaction is to violate the rights of millions of gun owners who did absolutely nothing wrong.

He could have done as much, or much more, with just a couple gallons of gasoline. If he had, instead, killed EVERYONE in the audience with fire blocking all the exits would you be screaming for gasoline control?

Holmes was a law-abiding citizen gun owner.

@RDBet

No, your desire to strip American citizens of their rights is sickening. Talk is yet another freedom Americans enjoy, and now you don't even want us to do that.

RDBet, are you an open Communist?

RDBet
5:05 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012

Holmes was a law-abiding citizen gun owner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right up to the point when he wasn't. So what is YOUR point?

Again, you want to blame the gun, and you keep bringing up assualt rifles. It was a person who commited this crime, and I don't think anyone is arguing with you about assault rifles.
You always want the government to come in and make all of these new laws after these situations. Apparently you don't realize the government is the one who has the conveniently bogus definition of assualt rifles in the first place. All done to keep you calling for more law. They're using you.
What's sickening is people constantly insisting they are smarter than those who built this country. It's sickening when people act like those who want to defend the Constitution, and defend themselves from PEOPLE like this, are the ones who are backward.
Things happen, people snap, it's exactly why you need to be able to defend yourself. Calling people "inadequate" who are smart enough to know this, should require you to prove that you aren't.
You always want to blame gun-maker money & lobbyists or whatever, but you don't seem to realize that those same types of lobbyists, with only their own interests at heart, are the same ones that own the current administration.
You think that those "radical right-wing nutbags" are the ones who are "owned" by lobbyists, but when those lobbyists want to take away your rights, force their beliefs on you, promise you something "free" by stealing from you, all in the name of money, big business & more government, you conveniently, and irrationally, seem to forget it.

The movie-goer rights are the ones that are being defended here. Just because someone believes in gun-rights, does not mean they support crminals, it means they would like to maintain the right to protect themselves from criminals.

Wally, Ft. Hood had plenty of people on hand to return fire....

RDBet, soldiers on military bases do not constantly carry or wear firearms. In fact, I'd say it's a rarity to find a soldier with a loaded weapon walking around. Those on guard duty are armed, but most of those on base will be unarmed most of the time.

I'm completely unsurprised that you don't know this.

My personal conclusion is that we all accept that cars and planes do crash (something like 50,000 people die on the roads every year, compared to just over 12,000 gun murders). Most of us keep driving and flying, willing to take a reasonable risk in return for a perceived greater benefit. We buy insurance, take our best precautions (seat belts and defensive driving) and keep going.

Do we really think we can do any better with preventing human passion/mental illness from tragically intersecting with other people's innocent lives using whatever deranged means come to their mind?

I don't like that we live with uncertainty and risk, but I can't deny that we do, everyday. The fact is government can't keep you safe in your car, an airplane or in the movie. As a friend of mine always says: "We're all in this alone."

Sorry. I don't like it any more than you do. But I can't figure out how, this side of heaven, that we're going to change the reality of a fallen world.

If not, then why are planes allowed to fly and automobiles allowed to move? More people die in car accidents than in shootings and there is no right to drive listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I accept the fact that there will be hundreds of car accidents every day. I do my best to protect myself from becoming involved in one. I also realize, from 30 years as a cop, that bad people sometimes do bad things. I do my best to be prepared to protect myself and my family if the need arises.

That is not to say that attempts to stop such horrible things from happening should cease. But violating the rights of the innocent is not the way to go about it. If you disagree then surely you couldn't argue against "waterboarding" convicted terrorists for information that could protect millions. Or maybe just arresting suspected terrorists if the rights of the innocent are so unimportant.

Jh, many of our highway related deaths are a function of alcohol and driver inattention. Would you be willing to submit to routine psychological testing to prove that you're not likely to be one of the problem drivers? I don't see that the proposed solution for gun owners should be any different for automobile operators, do you?

What good did it do? Okay, so they knew. It didn't stop him. There are still 71 kids slaughtered.

I'm trying to answer the question as to whether or not more gun control will make Aurora events less likely.

I'm not getting a good vibe about the prospect...

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about a psychological profile to determine operator fitness. Questions like did you hate your mother and stuff. :-)

Driver's licenses don't look at anything other than your ability to operate the vehicle safely. It says nothing about your likelihood/tendency to operate the vehicle in a dangerous or irresponsible manner.

So if you're just talking about an operators license for gun owners then I don't see how that would have helped with Jimmy "The Joker" Holmes and other's like him.

Agreed.

13,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers, slightly more than are murdered by guns. You and I both know we're not talking about fitness to operate a vehicle or a gun. We're talking about the ability to determine intent before the fact.

You mentioned psychological testing to determine likelihood that a person would be inclined to murder innocent victims. I'm asking if you'd be willing to do the same thing to weed out automobile owners that are inclined to drive drunk or text while driving. Same-same in my view. It's about mitigating senseless deaths by means of profiling before the fact.

For the record, I'm not in favor of government psychological profiling--that's way too Orwellian for me, but I'm trying to test your comfort with the concept when applied to any statistic that might need improvement.

Hi Earl, you bring up rational. What is rational? Does it dependend on the individual. Are all individuals rational? In everyone's mind, they are rational and their view is the correct view. The Patch doesn't provide enough space to properly get into the issue. Surely emotions have too much to do with people's thoughts. I've read several of the comments. many are excellent and many are filled with irrational emotion. Not sure if the Patch allows links but I'll try anyway. Here's a very rational editorial on Aurora, IMHO of course. Hope you all know how to cut and paste. http://patriotupdate.com/articles/how-can-situations-like-the-colorado-theatre-shooting-be-prevented

Try me. What reasonable compromise do you propose? Not a feel-good sop, but something with teeth in it? What reasonable regulations are you proposing?

Sorry KCF Resident and William, I'm not here to debate you or to try to change your mind -- I respect your minds are made up and rational debate is out of the question. I'm not going to define "rational debate"; again, sorry; look it up if the meaning eludes you. I kind of like the one at the top of this page http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/rational-debate/ but there are others.

This is not the forum, time or the place for a gun control debate anyway. See that thing up at the top? It's called a question ("Gun Control More or Less Likely After Colorado?") and all I really wanted to do was answer it, not debate gun control.

KCF, you do ask a question which I will answer. You ask "Are all individuals rational?". As you can see from this emotionally charged, fact free discussion, the answer is a resounding NO.

"I can find no reason for...more than 200 rounds for any weapon" Philip, you obviously know NOTHING about the world of competitive shooting. Here, I'll help you out. It is quite common for some shooting sports to require the firing of 300 to 500 rounds per day just to complete the course of fire. It may require 2000+ for a multi-day match. Some of the top competitors will fire 6000 to 10,000 rounds per month just to practice and stay at the top of their game. Some competitions in which I have been involved require the use of four seperate firearms for just one event.
Most gun enthusiasts that I know will easily shoot more than 200 rounds every time they get out to a range. Isn't that a good thing? Don't you think gun owners should be as proficient as possible with their firearm's? One of the big gripes I hear from anti-gunners is that "not-cops" don't know how to handle firearms.
BTW, how is a limit on ammunition not gun control? Ban ammo but not guns? You're splitting hairs a little too fine.

Reports are that the guy's gun with the 100 rounds ammunition jammed before emptying- as the separate drum magazines are prone to do. Without this glitch from the gun eqpt makers, then more people probably would be dead.

Unfortunately, they will probably fix this compatibility problem with the drums and the arms race will continue and the NRA and gun nuts will support the "right" to have these weapons and add-ons suitable mass killings.

And those controls would not have prevented McVeigh from getting the fertilizer today.

Hi Marc! If all men/women against the 2nd Amend were victims (or family of victims of violent crime), the right to carry would suddenly matter very much to them. Too bad people quickly pay attention to freedom when it affects them personally.

Hey Mary, knock off your rational comments. There are rational comments and then there are rational comments...your comments are rational. Wait until November for some real rational comments.

Jh, we live in a WACKO society today. We have WACKO politicians running our government, WACKO people voting for them, WACKO TV program producers producing trash...need I say what programs? WACKO people watching them. We have WACKO drivers...just go out on Manchester Rd. Morals have become WACKO. Being Politically Correct has become WACKO. I could go on and on. I'm somewhat comforted by many of the more intelligent comments posted here. Not only are they spot on but quite eloquent as well.

I'm sorry for being troublesome here, but I'm not seeing how your proposal for "the same sensible prevention oriented prohibitions for gun ownership, that makes driving as relatively safe as it is" is supposed to work.

Speed limits and operating requirements for cars don't prevent people from killing people with their cars. They help the rest of us know what safe use of the car entails. There are lots of laws that apply to guns (and I haven't heard anybody suggest here that we remove/reduce any of them). But just because there is a speed limit and an insurance requirement for drivers simply doesn't stop people from killing people with their cars.

Mr. Holmes was legally able to buy a gun, just like you are legally able to buy a car. But to take it to the next step and predict that Mr. Holmes or you are going to misuse your purchase? That's an entirely different problem.

How do you propose keeping "said wacko [from] not being able to legally purchase and own firearms." Whether or not your plan is "unreasonable" depends on what you are proposing.

Sounds like perhaps you want some sort of before-the-fact predictor, like perhaps a psychological profile or something? If so, the same thing would apply for automobile licenses as well if we're really talking about "same sensible prevention oriented prohibitions..."

Does that make sense?

Curtiss, well said!
It appears that we have become a passive and "me" oriented society. I can remember back in 1964 in NYC when people looked out windows and watched Kitty Genovese being raped and murdered and did nothing about it. A theater has a responsibility to its patrons to ensure that they are safe. They should make sure all doors are locked and only entrance from the main is available. Obviously posting a sign that says no guns permitted is useless and an after-the-fact thing. They should know who and what are entering their facility. Movie theaters operate on tight budgets so security is nil if any. Some years back I attended a full week seminar on large facility security. I couldn't believe what it took to manage places like the Meadowlands and even Busch Stadium. So think about it when nothing is done. On another note...this kid was on unemployment. Where did he find $20K to buy all the paraphenalia? It's WACKOS like Holmes that make life difficult for moral law abiding citizens. Especially when ignorant politicians implement ridiculous ineffective laws. Think about it. mayor Bloomberg in NYC makes 32 ounce drinks illegal. So you buy two 16 ounce drinks. So it didn't matter if this guy had a Beta C mag or five 20 round magazines. Beta C's are very unreliable. My guess is this guy got in via an unlocked exit door or had someone unlock it for him. Therefore whatever prevention could have been done had to be well before it this all happened and no one did anything.

Karl,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. At least you have a plan. Much appreciated.

I'm curious if you are willing to apply this same standard to solve other areas of societal ills and how far you are wiling to ride this horse. I keep picking on vehicular manslaughter, because we're talking roughly about the same number of deaths each year. Whether somebody breaks in and murders a family with a gun or mows them down in a drunken stupor has the same result--the family and their extended families are screwed up because of another person's unlawful actions. It seems to me that both scenarios would benefit from the same medicine, wouldn't you agree? Surely we can devise a psychological battery that predict potential dangerous driving behaviors that can result in death and destruction on the road.

I'm not just trying to argue here; I'm sincerely trying to see how this would work. Once we empower our Uncle Sam to *prevent* unwanted results by means of psychological profiling instead of punishing those who violate the law (necessarily after the fact), we're moving into a whole new paradigm of oversight. Mayor Bloomberg's solution for sugary drinks is another example of this line of thinking. I'm not sure where the bottom of this well might be.

WIth that said, your solution might also be something I could embrace as a way to reduce the number of abortions in this country (a societal ill that I find every bit disturbing as you do unwanted gun deaths.).

Thank you Karl for your thoughtful reply, and thank you William for more mental gymnastics to mask your set in stone political opinions and tangents. Good grief - glad I didn't bother.

Next time Karl, save your thoughtful replies for a venue where there stands a chance of thoughtful people listening to them. No need to play Alan Colmes to the Sean Hannity's that do not have lives and dominate these forums.

The Federal Government is not a solution to every (any) problem, thinking that it is, is asinine, and ignorant of the results of every other time you've insisted that they are the solution.
Why did you attack religion which has nothing to do with this? Look out, you're agenda is showing.
Were these guns legal & registered? My only problem with gun control is the same as with many other issues. Just like Prop B, and the rediculous sanctions on Penn State's current players, it's an action, based on an emotional response to a bad situation. Another case of "gotta do something" (whether it's the right thing or not) upon the demand of those who don't understand, and usually don't care to understand, what has actually happened. Mob mentality.
New laws don't keep criminals from being criminals, often times they only penalize & cost those who abide by those laws.
There is nothing wrong with a solution, but an emotional one that penalizes those who aren't guilty of anything doesn't make sense.

Devon with an interesting thought-tangent on the government not being a solution to every (any) problem. Solution is an absolute, so, surprise, you may be right -government is not a solution.

Of course, no regulation works perfectly. So is that reason to never regulate anything? Whether the government can play a limited positive role in addressing certain problems we've had in society is virtually indisputable. Ever heard of the Clean Air Act?

Should government go back to allowing meth ingredients for sale over the counter? On the weaponry, should our government allow rogue nations or individuals to acquire nukes and WMD? According to this, http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/ammonium-nitrate-regulations.shtm , homeland security proposes to regulate fertilizer. Where is the outcry about taking away our fertilizer rights? Look at the measures taken at airports in response to 9-11, by government.

When it comes to guns, it is highly unlikely there will be any sort of measured response to this, yet another horrific mass murder - and it's because guns are held sacred, and the gun lobby holds disproportionate influence over our politicians.

Since we are on the topic of thought-tangents...imagine the world today if locked steel reinforced doors were on airplanes and regulated by the government on 9/10/01.

As a matter of fact, there was a group working on that for almost 30 years before then. Of course, if I mentioned the groups name it would be easily dismissed no matter how accurate it is...so I won't. :)

We already have regulations. Ones you pushed for. Yet each time this kind of thing happens you want more, totally disregarding the regulations we already have. When someone says "OK, that's enough, now you're starting to tread on my rights & the safety of my family", that's when you start-in on the "radicals" that never want any gun control. You act like you don't have ANY regulation, and you claim these people are against ALL regulation. Both claims are misleading and wrong. You always want more, they always want less.
My suggestion is to have them look at the definitions of what each of these types of weapons are. The current definitions of an assault rifle have nothing to do with what they can do, they only have to do with how they look. I'm not against reasonable regulation, but they don't even know where to start. As I've stated, anyone who can't even properly define these weapons, has no business getting any more involved in a situation this serious.
Your continued claim of the "disporportionate control" gun-maker lobbyists have, comes off light. Disporportionate to what? It's not even one of the biggest lobbyist groups in DC, and definitely doesn't have more influence than most others, including it's opposition.
There have only been 2 attacks on American soil, both cowardly & by plane. Know why? It's because the American people themselves are armed. (Stated by both the Russians during the cold-war, and China in 1998).
Let the point-absent name-calling begin...

The Department of Education & Political Correctness. Those are your major differences.

It's funny. I've seen people on here talking about how religion is somehow to blame for this incident, or lack of gun laws, or whatever they were trying to blame religion for, but (with very few exceptions) if this person was "religious", this never happens.

I'm with you. This is a symptom of OUR actions over the past 20 or so years. People always want to drag this type of thing out to a bigger problem, gun control. Well, guns have always been part of the American society. Let's go ahead & drag it out even farther, and look at what has changed. We need to quit allowing our attention to be diverted from the real causes for this type of behavior.

The problem here is behavior and SELF-control, not gun control. Without a gun, this guy is still a psychopath. Anybody who thinks we need to ban guns, is only dismissing the problem, and trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong. Guns didn't cause this behavior, let's address what did.

Rich, I have a couple of questions based on your comment. Please expand on the automatic weapons and police at a disadvantage fact. I don't think it's odd not to be able to buy fireworks. Municipalities have reasons ranging from public safety to individual safety which includes fire prevention. The potential for irresponsible use of fireworks is greater than irresponsible use of a shotgun. So why is it so odd?

Rich,
Fireworks are for professionals who have all the fire control necessary while shooting them off. People don't follow safety instructions printed on the packages and cause major problems. Plus think about all the Vets who have been in war. Fireworks will cause a flashback and then who is to blame? Yes the cops are disadvantaged when it comes to automatic verses semi however I see the problem going the other way. An auto jams 1 in 200 rounds and semi weapons jam one in 100,000 rounds. This puts the crook at a disadvantage rather than the cops. I have always read the second amendment as the right to bear arms and arm bears.
Think about it.

This is the P.C. Crowd you are talking to. I agree with the statement.

Of course people overreact, and then there's a corresponding backlash to the overreaction that sometimes exceeds it.

The murderer's record was clean, by accounts that I've read. He legally purchased the arsenal.The NRA buys politicians to protect that whack jobs rights to acquire an arsenal suitable only for mass killing. Yeah, this guy could have killed people numerous other ways. Why protect the methods that make it easier for whack jobs to carry out their plans?

I don't like it. That won't make a difference in face of the power of the gun lobby and it's lackeys.

So , the pocket/purse handguns could have stopped Holmes? Using your logic, the other guests were fools for not wearing their gas masks and protective gear, or smuggling in assualt rifles so they could match the firepower - ya know, the sort of thing civilized people think about packing when going to see a movie.

And there are plenty of studies on gun control- as the gun lobby sees to it.

...2.5 million times a year...umm that seems just a tad high by any sense of reason.

William, do you have any replies/questions for tom wyatt's thoughtful email.

RDBet,
Wow, you certainly do have reading comprehension problems. I said that they 'maybe' they would have had a fighting chance. They certainly would have a better chance than being unarmed. Would it have made a difference? I have no idea nor do you. I'm also glad to learn that you are arbitor of what is civilized and what isn't. So, show me the studies, link to them but I'm sure that you've read the Kleck study and have dissected the findings. You're responses are so typical and quite laughable.

Jh,
Really?

RD,

You do an excellent job at throwing lots of sand around, but you're fairly short on meaningful and thoughtful input. Your strategy in this discussion is limited, apparently, to just calling people names and labeling them as gun nuts. Couldn't possibly be that there are legitimate opposite viewpoints, could it? Everything is so simple when you see things in the pure white light of dogmatics.

Maybe it's time to peel your "Coexist" bumper sticker off the old Volvo, eh?

If you don't like @TWyatt's study then what numbers do YOU use? Or are you saying there are no meaningful statistics related to the use of firearms for self-defense? If you've got something to backup your viewpoint, then let's see it.

William, it didn't take much to draw you out of your high-browed conservative intellectual schtik. Not that anybody was buying it anyway. Co-exist sticker -ha ha. Yeah, I'm probably more conservative than you are. At least what a conservative used to be. You can waste your time lookiing up partisan blogs (or data as you call it) to refute or support any cause on earth. I get it, instead of imparting your own unvarnished opinion, you prefer to copy boilerplate opinion. Which is quite frankly, disingenuous and boring, as your true colors show now.

Twyatt - do you also carry around a lightning rod when you go out on the town? You never know when you'll have to defend yourself from random acts of lightning.

I am sure you personally examined the Kleck study for reasonableness and it's 2.5 million claim. That is wonderful info that I didn't know, and for now I'll take your word that it is true.

But out of the 2.5 million acts of gun self-defense per year, how many times was a high-round assault rifle required? Or whatever that type of gun is called-You know-like the one that Holmes used. I'm sure the fine folks at the NRA will have a new study to figure this out soon.

We'll just have to part company there, jh.

You haven't lost anybody to a drunk driver have you? Vehicular manslaughter is murder. It's breaking the law and people die as result and at about the same rate as gun murders. They're no less dead and there is no less grief. So, I'm curious: if James Holmes is found to have not been in his right mind, innocent by reason of insanity, will that make what he did any less horrific to you?

From where I sit, if Karl's proposal is good for preventing one group of ugly deaths, it's good for a bunch more. Lot's of possibilities for improvement, given good competent counseling and oversight. Model citizens can be guaranteed, so long as we get their minds right.

I think you're naive if you think this sort of intervention will stay contained to gun issues once the bridge is crossed.

"Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of anyu civilized country in the world"... I would like to see source for such an outrageous claim Tom Wyatt. I know you want it to be true, but that's not the same as it actually being true.

This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate would seem to indicate that the rate in a few other "civilized" countries is many orders of magnitude lower than Switzerland, for example Japan whose rate is on the order of 1% of what Switzerland's is. Japan, by the way, has very strong gun control laws. I'm not saying you are just making stuff up, but I am asking you to back it up with some kind of reference.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

But why is death by gun rampage rate low in Switzerland and high in the USA? It must be the people owning the guns. Only let the Swiss own guns and disarm angry white men.

HA! wimp. :-)

Tom, it is lame that I even need to ask an absurd question on how many times an assault weapon ( or whatever those enthused by guns call it) is needed for self-efense. Though the squirrel zombie comment make more sense than the logic of
keeping such weapons legal and easily available to law abiders, such as Holmes.

I don't need a gun to protect my family, but maybe I'm just more of man than you.

Oh lighten up pal , it's weak humor.... just like your carrying a cop comment. As if there was anything funny about these mass murders.
Adios, macho man.

RD, I don't carry a gun because I live in fear of an attack. I carry a gun because I want to be prepared in case of one. Likewise, I don't live in fear of a traffic accident or a fire, yet I still wear my seatbelt and have a fire extinguisher. I also have insurance, taught my kids to be careful around electricity, guns, water, strangers, broken glass, strange animals, etc. Should I just blankly stare up at the clouds expecting someone else to watch out for me and my family? Only a fool would do so.
In my lifetime I have seen people that have been attacked for no reason other than they were in the wrong area at the wrong time. Groups of 12-15 kids attacked people merely because of the color of their skin after the Rodney King incident. And this 1000 miles from CA. In fact such random attacks still happen now as evidenced by stories in the news about the "knock out" game. Saying it could never happen only highlights your ignorance of the real world.
The police can not guarantee your protection. They can only guarantee to investigate your murder/rape/robbery.
You are free to defend yourself or submit as you choose. I choose to defend myself.

Glenn, owning a gun makes you 4 x's more like to die by a gun and that is the most conservative number on the issue. The most liberal number is around 20 x's...but even 4 x's is enough. But whatever makes you feel better. Seatbelts don't increase your chance of dying by seatbelt.

Glenn - bringing Rodney King and race into this. Are you trying to say something. Holmes was white, with orange hair by the way.

You can choose to defend yourself as you wish. As Karl points out, you are more likely to find trouble with a gun. Though you may have a multitude of experiences as a cop that shape your view, not every other person is devoid of experience as you presume.

I had a particular situation where if I had a gun, I may have used it -suspicious character snooping around my premises in the dark. If I had the gun, chances are either me or the law enforcement official that was out doing his job would be dead.

Karl, I have always known that some day I may get killed with my own gun. And I intend the SOB will have to beat me to death with it. And the figure you mentioned is bs. It's like saying a car owner is 10 times more likely to be killed in a car accident. Probably 90 percent of the people killed in a car accident belong to households that own a car. Maybe, but it merely confuses and sidetracks the issue, as I'm sure was intended.

RDbet, I'll take your word for it. You're not responsible enough to own a gun for self defense. But that doesn't mean I'm not or that I should give up my rights to own one. I've never said EVERYONE should own a gun. But I do believe ALL law abiding citizens should have the CHOICE to own, or not own one.

BTW, my intent was not to bring race into this discussion, merely to prove that such things have and do in fact happen. There are always those who will say "That's never happened, That'll never happen. You're making that up" If you wish to play the race card, that's on you.

Glenn, I never said I wasn't responsible enough to own a gun so there is no word to take on it. I like to hunt and shoot skeet.

By the way, according to legal standards as pushed for by the NRA machismo machine, Holmes was responsible enough to not only own a gun, but an entire arsenal suitable for waging war.

In your fear of losing your own gun, which will never happen, you justify someone like Holmes having far more than a gun.

And Glenn, you were the one ranting about post-Rodney King events as the reason people should own guns- I just noticed it. Maybe I was wrong, but it seemed like an odd and irrelavant choice of example.

Future actions by the administration may be like "Killing all the chickens because a fox got into the hen house.". An armed society is a polite society, an unarmed society are slaves.

Could some of that concern be alleviated by the rights & ability to protect yourself?

Yes. Though the people here don't seem all that reasonable - more concerned with protecting their gun obsession/ hobby than addressing a legitimate problem where a crazed person can legally accumulate a lethal arsenal.

There is no way to fully regulate this or any societal danger, I think we all know that. Too much talking in circles about this..suggestions of people arming themselves to protect themselves at movie theaters. Sorry folks, if the only way to go to a stupid movie is to carry a gun in, then going to the stupdi movie is just not worth it.

To avoid taking any measures, out of political fear of a lobbying group or because it won't be foolproof is a copout. Really sad.

What if he had built a homicide vest from common household chemicals because he was prohibited from buying a firearm.
This anti-firearm crusade in ridiculous.

Tom,

Now you're just being unfair. You're trying to use facts and logic to bolster your case, when JH wants to use...his feelings on the matter.

Stop being a big meanie.

Jh, once again you miss the point like Stevie Wonder trying to putt. My point was that criminals or those intent on doing harm will always get the weapons that they need no matter how stiff the gun laws. If stiffer gun laws were the answer Chicago, L.A., N.Y.C. or Detroit would be the safest places in this country to live.Jaycen, you're completely right and I apologize for confusing liberals with facts. As we all know, liberals never let facts get in the way.

Ummm, Tom, your accusing liberals of not sticking to the facts flies in the face of your ridiculous claim that Switzerland has the lowest gun crime rate in the civilized world. Care to back up that bit of nonsense with even a shred of evidence? If you scroll up this page a little I show where Japan, with its tight gun control laws, has a gun crime rate on the order of 1% of Switzerland's. Now, who is ignoring the facts?

Earl you don't even know what you linked to and that's pathetic! lol You linked to 'gun related deaths'

"This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate would seem to indicate that the rate in a few other "civilized" countries is many orders of magnitude lower than Switzerland, for example Japan whose rate is on the order of 1% of what Switzerland's is." Earl Higgins

There ya go Earl, not letting those pesky facts get in the way. I said " the lowest gun related crime", two totally different things. Those pesky reading comprehension problems persist. Please get some help. Reading is fundemental.
According to the BBC "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics aren't evern kept". http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

But thanks to you I did find something that I was wrong about. You don't need a special FFL to buy and posses a fully automatic weapon, you need a class III tax stamp and from what I gather they are very difficult to get. So thanks for that. I do hate to be wrong on the facts. Apparently not something that bothers liberals.

Man, that's got to sting. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

So, you're saying the only difference between these two countries gun crime rates is the nature of the law? Very tricksey to make comparisons between cultures.

Have you spent any time in Japan?

Everybody separates their garbage into 5 different categories, rinsed. Each block has a volunteer officer that checks to make sure it's done right--if not you find your garbage right back on your doorstep until you fix it.

Women are socially required to tie the little cellophane wrappers that cover toothpicks at a restaurant into a little orgami shape and leave it carefully aligned next to their plate. Women will spend 2-3 hours each morning preparing a lunch (bento) box for their kindergartners.

Yeah, you're right. It's probably just the gun law.

Tom, I'm sorry I give you more credit, I thought you would actually read the link I pointed to rather than just the title. You see, there is a column called "Homicides", which I think we can agree are gun related crimes. In that column, Switzerland comes in at 0.58 (per 100,000). You stated, "Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of anyu civilized country in the world" which obviously isn't even remotely true. Unless we simply ignore Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Australia, all of which have significantly lower homicide rates than Switzerland. And guess what Tom (you're really not going to like this fact), those countries have, in general, far stricter gun control laws than Switzerland or the United States. Sometimes the truth hurts, Tom, but I'm not going to sling mud at you and say a bunch of childish things about conservatives not knowing their facts. That wouldn't be very classy now would it?

The only statistics that matter are 12 dead 58 wounded and many more lives shattered.

To some people here this discussion is some sort of game. It should not be easy and legally protected (sacredly protected judging by the tone of responses here)
for a lunatic like this murderer in Colorado to accumulate the weaponry to create this sort of bloodshed.

Handguns and rifles are safe. So relax your oversized amygdalas gun-lovers, when we can't even get politicians to even discuss preventative measures on the type of assault weapons used by Holmes which are not self-defense type weapons.

that plays like a commercial for a feminine hygiene product.

People who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses are prevented from owning firearms. There was no such diagnosis on the Colorado shooter that has been revealed.

His actions are by definition psychopathic. The diagnosis is in his actions. Look up Hare's Psychopathy Exam. He just was never previously diagnosed. The Mental Illness tests should be part of CCW ownership or any kind of firearms purchase. There should be a random set of psychiatrists and those psychiatrists should be audited for anomalies.

William, to be clear, it's not just by owning the gun, it's an umbrella proposal that would obviously have more details. With this law in place, in would ensure more gun-owners would take care of their weapons better, if they already don't. And I can imagine that protections would be in place. For instance, if it was stolen and you reported it stolen, then assuming you weren't involved in the theft for some reason, then that would be a reasonable argument for you avoiding a mandatory sentence, or at least a lesser sentence, depending on the circumstances of the theft; i.e. stolen from your glove compartment, not so responsible. Stolen from your locked thousand pound safe, definitely not responsible.

Also, what you say about males is definitely true. I'm sure if you accounted for socioeconomic status, the numbers between the races would balance out.

Perhaps, since we know scientifically that the human brain doesn't finish development until age 26, (especially the pre-frontal cortex - responsible for rational thought) no one without military or police or similar training can purchase more than a hunting rifle. You could even push it back as far as 35 because many studies show that is when the minds of sane males typically reach full maturity and become less aggressive.

26 years to develop and another 9-10 to learn how to use it. :)

Or, maybe we change the law all together and make it so only women can own guns unless you are in military or law enforcement.

Tongue in cheek on the last comment of course.

Karl, so make the victim into the criminal? Sounds like a liberal idea to me. We can't go around persecuting the poor person who actually committed the crime, now, can we?

BTW, there are already several laws on the books calling for mandatory sentences for people committing a crime with a firearm. They are regularly ignored. Why don't you do something about that? Keep the real criminals off the streets so they can't commit any more crimes. Or would that be too mean and hurt the self respect of the poor thugs? You'd rather persecute innocent gun owners.

Glenn, this time last week, Holmes was a persecuted gun owner. Those poor poor persecuted gun owners and their multi- million dollar lobbying machine. Mean liberals are trying to make commies out of you all, and take away your AR-15s. What will they do next, go after the Glocks? ...poor poor persecuted gun owners in their mom's basements.

So all we gotta do is agree on what constitutes "harm" and to whom. Greenhouse gases. Sugared drinks. Overuse of scarce resources (the evil 1%). Hate speech. Sexual domination. Racial domination. Historical retribution. Species domination. etc. etc. etc.

Given this discussion, should be a piece of cake, don't you think? :-)

Well, ya William. Kind of. That's what the legislative process is. People elect representatives and those representatives make laws. Hopefully data-driven laws as opposed to dogma or ideology driven laws..but, in short, ya. We gotta agree on what constitutes harm. At least the House, Senate, President, and Judiciary.

So while your ast it are there any other Constitutional rights you'd like to trash? How about the 1st amendment, free speech, it just gets people mad! Voting rights, most people who vote are too stupid to know what they are voting for any way.

Marc, No. Just the one's that don't apply any more or don't make any sense...like the 2nd amendment. An unchanging Constitution would be equal to totalitarianism. As the times and circumstances change, the laws should change with it. There is no equal argument to doing what you say with the 1st Amendment, and you should know there are already strong restrictions on the 1st Amendment based on harm.

So, a well armed militia was necessary because there was no standing army. Now there is a standing army...so the 2nd amendment is no longer a necessary to the safety of our nation and therefore should be abolished.

Given that the Supreme Court has just ruled that the 2nd amendment is a personal right, just like the 1st, the only honest avenue open to abolishing it is via Article V of the US Constitution.

A pretty high hurdle, in that it takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve (after passing both houses in Congress).

I will again point out that the "harm" limitations on freedom of speech to which Karl refers are applied *after the fact*, e.g. remedies are applied after one of the restrictions is violated (libel, slander, offensive speech, etc). To make the prescriptions offered here for gun control to be same-same, we would need to take active steps to *prevent* violations of free speech from ever even taking place. In other words: "Thought control."

Chilling stuff.

Speech and Guns are different, hence the 'sticks and stones may break my bones.' It's only the unnecessarily paranoid that would be concerned about control. It is a high hill to climb, but high hills need to be climbed occasionally. This is a perfect time to start climbing.

And thought control is already in place. If you want to stop it, just turn off the T.V.

@Karl,

Paranoid? Perhaps. But I think a strong argument exists that speech can be just as deadly as guns. The old yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the simple example. But certainly there are far more egregious examples in places like the ballot box--I grew up in Arkansas and I have strong memories of "separate but equal" facilities, poll-taxes and penal systems that were voter approved and sanctioned. The Dred Scott case is a famous example here in Missouri. From our vantage point today we see these as cases of some sort of mass psychosis, but the people living then didn't and thought the concepts perfectly reasonable (even though there may have been those that thought otherwise but were shouted down). So speech is far more than "sticks and stones," my friend. Words can kill and maim.

This discussion has proposed mechanisms that would, if implemented, move from punitive restrictions after the fact to attempts to stop people BEFORE they act (your suggestion of psychological screening). This is a new bridge you propose crossing and if it works, I think you are extremely naive to think the same techniques won't be applied to other "problem areas."

50 years ago if somebody were to suggest that we would be seeing what you are suggesting now regarding the 2nd amendment, would have been undoubtedly labeled as paranoid by most people. Course, I suppose I *could* be paranoid. Too bad there isn't a test that I am compelled to take so you can know I'm okay.

The 3rd amendment is a good one. Thankfully, the forefathers had foresight to restrict soldiers from quartering in my home. Not that most of them aren't good young people, but if not for that amendment - my house would be overcrowded. Maybe some folks wealthier than me should start a multi-million dollar lobbying group to protect our Holy and Sacred 3rd amendment rights, bestowed upon us by the Infallible Forefathers.

Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.

You're fooling yourself if you believe the government is scared of its citizenry.

Besides, in America, we are our government. That's why it's called a Republican Democracy.

Marc, I know you can only speak for yourself but I really have to wonder why you and others keep bringing up facts which would seem to indicate the exact opposite of what you assert. Your post is a perfect example. You say "Look at England and Australia - strict firearms control" then you go on to claim that the firearms deaths "keep piling up" with no backing evidence or references. Well Marc, I did exactly what you said and here are the facts: USA firearm homicide rate 4.14 (deaths per 100,000); Australia 0.44; England 0.07. Looks an awful lot like the facts don't support your claims Marc. the well referenced table is available for your perusal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate . Now, tell me if I got anything wrong. I sincerely wish to be educated on the issue as I haven't yet made up my mind, thanks.

Live long and prosper. Star Trek was pretty good, but don't go for all the sequels...

Outstanding post Marc.... Thank you Sir.

Marc, not a single one of those governments are/were a Republican Democracy with our form of Constitution.

Again, if you think our government and military are afraid of it's citizenry you are in a land of denial and paranoia. Our military, as it stands, could run roughshod over you and the NRA any day.

It's not even a logical argument.

Just a couple questions Karl,

If being a Democratic Republic (which is what we have, and what I think you meant) is what keeps our government from running rough-shot over the people, then why is it that everyday you support changing it to something else.

Mac's points are more than valid, they are factual statistics. It's History. I know that doesn't account for much to those who love to dismiss history in order to validate today's agendas. But it doesn't change it, or make it go away to the rest of us. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Just something to keep in mind as you dismiss the lessons of history.

The government already does run rough-shot over the people (with your full support, mind you), but it would take more than just guns to do it in the "forceable" manner you seem to think is the only way it can be done.

And no, our government knows that the people are armed, and that they are hopelessly out-numbered by that armed population. Hence the other methods of taking control.

Our military has all kinds of capabilities, 99% of which are never even used during wars with other countries, much less in a "war" with their own people. So, you're right, but your point is irrelevent.

That's an awful lot of people dead due to your same type of naivete, are you sure you just want to overlook all of that history in favor of a religion that continually demands more government?

As a business owner for 10 years, I am not interested in anyone taking care of me. But I understand the idea that civilization requires a good government. If you have a bad government, then another government will take over. That's just the way it is.

The government takes care of you too, no matter how much you want to deny it. Next time you go out for a leisurely drive, just look at all of the government around you that contributes to your quality of life, including the road your driving on.

Marc, US military is strongly in the GOP camp with voting records, even with the Obama CiC killing of Bin Laden.

That said, it is more likely that conservative facist nationalists that are allied closely with the military to run "rughshod" over the people than liberals, socialists and communists created by God.

cueing the star trek theme song.

You are so lost. Your claims are not only wrong but irrelevent. That's why you have to call names.

Fascists take away rights. Fascists force their beliefs on others. Fascists piss on the documents & individuals that created what was there before them. Fascists control businesses. Fascists believe in the state over citizens' rights, Fascists believe they should collect & re-distribute all resources. That's what liberals, socialists, and communists do. At least learn the definitions and practices of the names you're trying to call people. Geez.

People like you think Obama deserves credit for getting Bin Laden, when (while campaigning) he didn't even believe we were justified in going after him. Obama also was the one who leaked information that jeopardized that particular, and many efforts that followed, in order to give you your opinion in the first place. You just don't have a clue. You have seething hate in your heart for certain people, and blind love & devotion for others, without even knowing who they are or what they stand for.

Most of that rhetoric you can just keep. We already know what you're told to think, we all hear it, too. Some of us prefer to consider the sources of that information, look at the facts, track results, think for ourselves without emotional hinderances, and understand who controls the media & therefore your weak, labeling mind.

Devon - your reactionary oversized amgydala is failing you again.

My comment above was sarcasm in response to Marc's labeling "liberals, commies, socialists" blah blah blah. I don't care one whit how facism is really defined, or any of the "isms" that "people like you" always tag on people that you deem to be liberals.

And do not be lecturing "people like me" on Obama crap. I am not a big Obama fan, but for far different reasons than "people like you" - you know, the fearful anxious ones with the oversized amygdalas.

So lighten up Francis.

RD,
I'm neither fearful, anxious, nor working from an emotional premise. It's actually the behavior I'm pointing-out. Repeating "oversized amygdala" is counter-productive, but a really effective reflection. It hasn't kept you from being on the reactionary side of the argument though. I have already pointed-out that this discussion takes place everytime something like this happens, due to reactionaries who go after gun-rights instead of criminals, when they don't go after alcohol even though more people are killed by people who are drunk than someone with a gun.
I'm with you that "crazy" people shouldn't be able to have assault weapons, but that it's the legal definition of those weapons (from the laws that are supposed to be providing you with your end-goal) that continues to allow it.
In this case, a man who was being treated for a few "issues" serious enough for psychiatric concern, was insulated more by doctor-patient confidentiality than gun laws, but we don't want to end those either.

3rd amendment. Bring the passionate defense of it Devon.

No problem Tool-shed,
Just because you are a soldier doesn't mean you have free-run of my house, and you need my permission to stay there.
I don't know what you think it's an example of, but it's the kind of asinine law you have to make when the government takes too many liberties (as it takes away those of the people).

If you want to have an intellegent discussion, fine. But if all you (ever) have is name-calling & an innability to even understand what the discussion is, maybe you're not really equipped for these types of issues.

Silly reactionary primal-thinking Devon. That amygdala is going ape.

Anyways, the Third Amendment is a prime example of how a constitutional amendment written over 200 years ago can be archaic in today's world. Almost as archaic as the 2nd amendment being justified to allow crazed people like Holmes to legally acquire assault weapons and shoot up a movie theater.

Well, then let me be silly again, since you seem to have your poles reversed, no one is arguing for "crazy" people having weapons. You want to test, test. But stop using this idiot to take rights & safeties away from those who are innocent.
You only do that on this issue, yet you constantly claim that that's how others work. When you want to make alcohol illegal because of the things people do when they are drunk, you may start making sense, 'til then, your conditioning is going well.

Once again, your paranoia and fear causes you to think people (and me personally) are trying "to take rights & safeties away from those who are innocent".

If you mean for the AR-15 with drum attachment to be a "right & safey", and Holmes to be an innocent back when he purchased them...then yes - I am in favor of taking away that right and safety from that innocent.

Regardless, no politicians will stand up to the NRA because of their money, and because of they way conditioned fear-mongerers react to any notion of restricting assault weapons with "THEY ARE TAKING YER GUNS AWAY!!!"

Now back to that sarcastic 3rd amendment example -the government and the private sector have had many programs the benefit our soldiers. So if we had well-financed 3rd amendment extremists of the NRA ilk, then when something like the GI bill passes we'd hear screamings of "FIRST WE PAY FOR THEIR SCHOOLING, NEXT THEY'LL BE QUARTERING IN OUR HOMES!!!!"

Fear-mongering is exactly what you are doing, only this time with reductio ad absurdum. Comparing the GI bill to the 3rd Amendment? Quite a stretch.
The NRA is not even one of the more powerful lobbying groups in DC, even though you continually insist they are. In fact, their opposition is nearly as, if not more, powerful.
As you know, I am almost never for additional legislation, it's usually emotionally-charged & reactionary like this subject tends to be. But I'm with all of you legislation-addicts, if you want to regulate something that has no current regulation. I'd gladly go for a set of laws that prohibit lobbying & lobbyists altogether, so you are preaching to the choir on that issue.
Again, you assume I am for assualt rifles somehow. I'm not. I believe you can defend yourself without a tank as well, before we absurdly extend the conversation there, as well. I don't believe our forefathers would be for assault-rifles either. Nothing that I have said has indicated that I'm for just anyone off the street being able to buy an arsenal of assault weapons. As a matter of fact, I have repeatedly stated that the reason additional laws are not the way to go, is because our idiot politicians can't even define what is, and what isn't, an assault weapon. You already have laws against them, they were just written by idiots who did nothing more than take a look at them, then decide from that. You got your law, but they didn't even bother to gauge what each firearm can & can't do.

Sorry, Devon, you are spreading bald-faced lies and you know it. The NRA's total income in 2004 was $205,402,491 and had expenses of $206,886,970. It's closest analogue on the gun regulation side is The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, and their income in that same year was slightly over $227,000, expenses $166,000 (in other words, one one-thousandth as large as the NRA).

Are you capable of understanding the magnitude of your misunderstanding Devon? Are you capable of admitting you were wrong? Wrong by a factor of ONE THOUSAND?

Ok, I was wrong about that... sort of.
Are there any newer numbers than 2004? It also looks as if the NRA lost money that year. It appears also, that the Brady Campaign made a profit. Is the Brady Campaign still the only gun control lobby? Is the NRA the only gun-rights lobby? There are tons of lobbyists, for many different issues. My statement was intended to point out that ALL lobbyists have too much control (whether under-the-table or over), and that gun-rights, was a smaller piece of that puzzle than was being represented in this thread. Also that the claims being made were pointed to seem like the NRA was the only lobby-group with any power, or possessed some sort of unfair advantage. Since this is supposed to be the people's government, and the NRA recieved a lot of money in donations, then it must be a cause that many people support, especially if they are the unstoppable force that was indicated earlier in the thread.
Again, if you want more legislation, I'd be on-board with prohibiting lobbyists altogether. They all have to much monetary influence on our government officials. However, good luck taking away an entirely-too-huge source of personal income for our politicians on both sides of the aisle. Trying to pretend it's only on the lesser-of-two-evils side of the aisle is also blatantly mis-leading.
Thank you for pointing it out.

Devon's patented smooth transition to the tangetial uber-libertarian diatribe.

Karl with a K. Is that German? I only ask because Hitler loved gun control too.

Steve, Yes, it is German, so is Frank. But I'm more of a mutt than anything. I think it's funny when people mention Hitler...but can you elaborate on Hitler's support of Gun Control?

Steve, is that Blechle as in Heiligs Blechle?

I only ask because Heiligs Blechle is a German heavy metal band. http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Heiligs_Blechle/10023

Rock on dude.

I agree Steve. Let's talk about the mental health.... the mental health of people that think its fine to allow people to legally acquire personal arsenals that are more suitable for mass killings, than for self-defense or hunting.

"By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim… we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

You argue about things being dated, or obsolete, yet you use a quote from a man who lived in a time before 95% of our current gun-regs. The same regs you likely helped get, continue to ignore, apparently don't even know, and keep acting like we don't have. You are no longer able purchase & fire a gun at whim. Gun laws were different during his time. Also, that quote makes it sound like you tend to, like we have people on street corners handing-out guns like fliers.
Be careful too, you've just been caught quoting a staunch Conservative Republican, Martin Luther King Jr.
Democrats & Liberals like to claim him, even though their beliefs & values aren't at all similar. Abortion, Religion, Welfare, Government Involvement, etc. MLK wanted to end Racism, not use it as a way to try discredit anyone who disagrees with you. He wanted people to have equal opportunities & independence. He was against dependence on government assistance. He spoke to all races, not just blacks. All things liberals don't want you to know. Which is why you likely don't know them. The contradiction between Liberal beliefs & MLK is endless.
Plus... The President even stated yesterday that the enforcement of our current laws should suffice.
Wow, quoting conservatives, and dismissing the quotes of the head liberal is probably not what you thought you'd be doing today when you woke-up this morning, huh? But hey, the day is still young, you still have a chance to make sense today, it just hasn't happened yet.

Once again, that Devon.... primal reaction. Not thought out. Blinded to many factors that can not be seen in the reactionary angered state.

I have not been following the right wing blogosphere as closely as you have. This is the first I've seen of their talking point and revisionist history of MLK as staunch conservative republican... Or is that your original concept? Be honest now.

And if I recall correctly, MLK went to Memphis to support striking AFSCME janitors. Next day was killed by bullet from assassin's gun. (some far-fetched right wing conspiracists dispute that as well.)

Was Abe Lincoln a liberal? - he was more favorable to labor vs. capital. What we know of his reconstruction plans were pretty generous to the South. He enacted the first income tax....hmmm. I digress.

Devon, your funniest two assertions: that MLK was a "staunch Conservative Republican" and that Barack H. Obama is a Liberal. Such a slim grasp of reality calls into question all that you say.

Earl,
You're worth addressing, thank you.
But those are both facts. Perceptions are not reality. Being in the media since '91, I'm not sure how you can pretend Obama is not a liberal (unless the PC term has changed), but I can understand why you might mistakenly think that the MLK was not a Republican. It's because that's what you've been made to believe. I gave you some issues on the liberal agenda, feel free to research MLK's stance on them.

Agreed that Devon's MLK as "staunch Conservative republican" assertion demonstrates such a slim grasp of reality and calls into question all that he says. But, Earl - isn't that status quo for Devon?... I am not sure, I typically avoid reading warped reactionary comments, save for occassional entertainment. (though this topic is far from entertaining).

And Devon, below T Wyatt waves off MLK's quote as "Just another liberals opinion" - so you may want to paste or link some of that right wing blogosphere points about MLK as conservative under his comment to catch him up to speed too.

You might avoid reading "warped reactionary comments" but you have no problem posting them. Your entire stance is in emotional, irrational reaction to an incident.

You can believe whatever you want, but as long as you refuse to look it up, do some research, stop name-calling trying to discredit, & actually make a point that isn't just another example of reductio ad absurdum, you'll always miss the point and have to attack me to cover that ignorance.

I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm only trying to point things out to you that I see in a newsroom everyday. There is an endless number of items you are convinced of, that you have been blatantly misled about. Ex: It's happened all week with the Penn State story. (Where one of the people getting off 'scott-free' for his role in the whole thing, is the current Republican Governor of PA. Affiliate me with a party if you like, but you'll just be wrong again. I affiliate with the truth, even if it's not popular or well-known.)

Look up King for yourself. apply the issues I gave you. Until then, you're just showing your ignorance, and applying your training in discrediting the truth. Smart people can see right through it.

You'll also notice, I give you (what you never provide) examples, support, and also a chance to prove my statements wrong. Why is it that you always leave out those things & call names, never providing proof or even a valid counter? Instead, you attack me as if that's some sort of a point.

Tom, that word, liberal. I don't think it means what you think it means.

You brought up Jefferson, and some Itallian philosopher, not I.

I don't read any of the things you link. In fairness, I barely read any other links from internet site folks, regardless of political affiliation or none. Maybe that willful ignorance makes me a bit republican in a George W Bush-ish type of way...

One thing we can both probably agree upon, this thread needs to close. You may feel obligated to the Cause to get the last word in though. So have it.

Your opinion is also my opinion. Great post young lady :-)

Elizabeth, it does you no favors to just throw your opinions around as if they were fact. To be educated is to be informed. Obama is a moderate. But please, don't take my word for it. Research it yourself. Here's a start (and it is just that, a start):

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-01/news/31112612_1_barack-obama-congress-moderate-president

Respectfully, Earl

As you are probably well aware, it is difficult to tell when one is joking on the Internet because-let's face it, I can see your face or hear the tone of your voice. I have in fact read both Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope and recommend both highly. I found his admiration for his mother particularly endearing.

For the record, I never called you a birther; I don't even like that term.

What exactly about me is easy? Honestly, I've never been told that. Thanks, Earl

Sorry for labeling you as a birther Elizabeth. I now see you have Obama down as a marxist-trained progressive with communist ties, and if I'd only read the links that might require me to be educated, I could think that way too. ...

...ok, took a quick foray into the omnipresent right wing - it's sort of confusing Elizabeth, many of the Obama's a marxist etc pages also have links to birtherism, and conspiracies about Obama taking away all our guns! Then again, maybe I don't have the liberal open-mindedness that you have Elizabeth, to discern which link to hit. Nor do I have the time.

Guys, we've gotten off topic.

Here are the stats as presented by various studies.... (U of FL - Gary Kleck for one)

2.5 - 3.1 million times per year, a gun is used in defense of a crime.

100,000 - 135,000 times per year, a gun is used to commit a crime.

That's about a 25:1 ratio. That means, in this country, 25 lives are saved for every one that's lost. Whose side are you on anyway?

Only by using facts & tracking results can we open-mindedly discuss this issue.

Emotions need not apply.

Now that you have unwisely given out your real name and the fact that you are unarmed...... Were I you, I'd run to the hardware store and buy extra locksI
A 6 year old could Google and find out your home address. :-(

Don't need extra locks because I have heavy vases by the doors too, Al.

OK.... I just hope the're not "Ming Dynasty".... :-)

Only brandish your gun if you are prepared to shoot.

And this one.

Uh oh. Knives of mass destruction: Gotta get this under control.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

And this one.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46

Hey William you know nobody died in the knife attack in China on the same day as Newtown. What do you think would have happened if that guy had a gun.

The armed citizen is the ever present deterrent to the armed assailant. Then seconds count the police are just minutes away. I have nothing but the most admiration for law enforcement, but they cannot be everywhere all the time. NO, not everyone should carry a firearm. Those who chose to be responsible for their own safety, their own lives should not be “denied” that right. If some one does not believe in the rights of the Constitution, The Bil of Rights, freedom and liberty given to us by our founding fathers I certainly will not change their minds. Liberty lost is very difficult to regain. The 2nd amendment is the onlt assurance we will keep the 1st amendment. If you doubt that, you have never learned the lessons of histroy. Here like else where the lessons of history can repeat themselves. Don't believe it? Think again.

What is that about? I stnd for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Good reading, you should check it out. They are the foundation for our Republic. Obviously a lot of people haven't done that in a long time. Maybe they skipped that class.