Pack, I think logistically if any type of weapons were to be banned then any weapons that are currently legally owned would have to be grandfathered in under any legislation that was passed. I think we need tougher background check. I think we need a clear registry of who owns these high powered rifles, so that we have a way to track these guns back to their owners, and potentially even who sold them those guns.
However, you are assuming that I think we need to restrict the sale of guns. Which I haven't advocated, which again causes me to questions your critical reading skills. The assault weapons ban of the 90s wasn't as effective as democrats had hoped, so maybe that isn't the answer.
We have to make it more difficult for people to get guns. Not easier, which is what the NRA has systematically done by buying politicians for the last 20 years, and jamming in bunk legislation which strips the ATF of any enforcement capabilities that it might have to enforce the gun laws, already on the books.
We didn't prohibit cars and alcohol to prevent drunk driving fatalities, we developed common sense legislation that helped to reduce the number of accidents, gave law enforcement something to enforce to prevent those accidents and we subsequently saw a reduction of 2/3rds of the drunk driving accidents from the late 70s today.
Pack, oh I'm sorry. Apparently you missed the part in my post where I noted that I support gun ownership, and the 2nd amendment. Or maybe just the part where I said, "I don't want to take away your guns." You seem to not know how to read without taking commentary out of context.
I understand personal liberty just fine. I also know that my rights to life and liberty actually come from my God, and no one has the right to take that away. They are not protected by a gun, they are protected by the 10 commandments. One of which is "thou shalt not kill."
Again, I'm not asking to disarm everyone that has a gun. I am asking for the NRA and the gun retailers who fund the NRA to allow common sense legislation to be enforced to reduce the number of deaths that occur from gun violence. Just like we made laws to reduce the number of drunk driving fatalities. It's regulation, not restriction.
Pest, you are ridiculous. I am damn aware of the difference. I am also aware of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. But you know what they all have in common? When in the wrong hands they are used to take lives. They aren't for sport or "looking bad." I respect gun ownership, but no one can seem to explain to me why you need to get off 30 rounds in less than a minute. Which a semi-automatic, that you can purchase at your neighborhood Wal-Mart, can do. I am so tired of arguing semantics, because of your paranoia and cries of liberty and fear of manufactured tyranny.
You know what liberties I have? I have the right to go to a movie theatre with out the fear of being killed, I have the right to go to the store and purchase items, even a hand gun, without being gunned down. I have the right know that my young nephews will go to school and return home in one piece.
I don't know when your right to own a gun some how trumped everyone else's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but I'm over it. I don't want to take your guns (a disclaimer I seem to have to write any time this topic comes up), but if we don't enforce common sense regulation to protect the lives of our citizens against gun violence then we have failed our forefathers.
There are a lot of comments to answer the author's question. No. Because no one proposing taking all the guns. That is not even in the same room as the table. Stop fear mongering.
The point is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own what ever weaponry you want. You can't own a tank. You can't own any other military grade weaponry. I like how Jon Stewart put it, if you want to keep touting the importance of strict interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, and protecting your right to guns "...then fine, you can have all the muskets you want."
Citizens armed with military-style weapons isn't a free society, it is just an armed mob that doesn't have to comply with the laws of war.
Disclaimer (that seems necessary on all of these posts): I do not want to take your guns. I want to make it harder for unstable people to get them. Also, I'm okay with an armed RSO being present in each school.
Now, the militia argument is bunk. 25% of the 2011 federal budget was spent on defense for a total of $664.84 billion. But if you think a Bushmaster will help over throw the government then that's cool.
Skyline, your lines are tired. I don't hate guns. I don't care if you have guns. I come from a family of hunters and respect their right to have guns. I've been raised to respect and handle guns properly.
What I care about is protecting the lives of the innocent. What I care about is not turning educators in to soldiers.
But your argument that the "law abiding citizens" will have their guns "collected" is a ridiculous one. Following the Supreme Court's ruling and interpretation of the 2nd amendment in 2010, the goverment cannot realistically sweep the nation and collect everyone's guns. Fienstiens' legislation doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. And I would say fortunately so. The answer isn't getting rid of all of the guns, but we have to make it harder for people (especially those who are mentally unstable) to get high powered, semi-assault weapons (and yes, I'm familiar with the difference between automatic and semi automatic). I don't know of any situation where a civilian would need to get off 30 rounds in 15 seconds. I just don't, but if you think you need it, then you better prove damn well that you need it, have been thoroughly trained with it and it better be recorded that you own it.
We need to protect our schools, with trained RSOs. We need to make sure that these high powered weapons are harder to get a hold of. We need to make sure that those weapons don't get in the hands of the mentally unstable. We need to make sure that we provide those mentally unstable the proper help that they and their families need.
There isn't a one answer, but please stop justifying your resistance to alternative gun legislation as THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS. Because that is just not the case.
I don't have a problem with RSOs. I think it's something that could be utilized in more schools. The argument to train our teachers, as if they are soldiers is illogical, in my opinion. To the original point of this column, the answer is not more guns, nor is it take all the guns in the way. Like all good truths, the solution is found in the middle.
My issue with the first commenter's commentary is that it assumes that somehow the sole solution is more guns.
Armed with what!? In the face of a crazed gun man with a semi automatic weapon loaded and ready to use, what kind of weapon could any teacher have possibly had to stop him?
Say she was. Let's say for the sake of your illogical argument, let's just say the school system provided Victoria Soto with the training of a firearm that was to be kept in a locked drawer, unless a gun man was bearing down on her class room. How long would it take for her to get to that drawer, unlock it, load it and some how have the clarity among her panicked students to take out the shooter. Or let's take is a step further and say it was strapped to her hip for quick access, still in the midst of the chaos they are supposed to be come soldiers in battle and take a fatal shot to the gunman? Should we have our teachers strap on an AK around them like a back-pack like we live in a war-zone?
Where does it stop? At what point does the gun stop being the solution?
Serious question for the anti-gun restriction folks: What is the purpose of a gun?
Have they not been designed for the purpose of taking a life? If not then I'd like to know why they are so powerful and you feel so secure with them.
mcg2010 4 months ago
The Second Amendment Has Been Twisted Out of Shape
Pack, I think logistically if any type of weapons were to be banned then any weapons that are currently legally owned would have to be grandfathered in under any legislation that was passed. I think we need tougher background check. I think we need a clear registry of who owns these high powered rifles, so that we have a way to track these guns back to their owners, and potentially even who sold them those guns. However, you are assuming that I think we need to restrict the sale of guns. Which I haven't advocated, which again causes me to questions your critical reading skills. The assault weapons ban of the 90s wasn't as effective as democrats had hoped, so maybe that isn't the answer. We have to make it more difficult for people to get guns. Not easier, which is what the NRA has systematically done by buying politicians for the last 20 years, and jamming in bunk legislation which strips the ATF of any enforcement capabilities that it might have to enforce the gun laws, already on the books.
We didn't prohibit cars and alcohol to prevent drunk driving fatalities, we developed common sense legislation that helped to reduce the number of accidents, gave law enforcement something to enforce to prevent those accidents and we subsequently saw a reduction of 2/3rds of the drunk driving accidents from the late 70s today.
mcg2010 4 months ago
The Second Amendment Has Been Twisted Out of Shape
Pack, oh I'm sorry. Apparently you missed the part in my post where I noted that I support gun ownership, and the 2nd amendment. Or maybe just the part where I said, "I don't want to take away your guns." You seem to not know how to read without taking commentary out of context.
I understand personal liberty just fine. I also know that my rights to life and liberty actually come from my God, and no one has the right to take that away. They are not protected by a gun, they are protected by the 10 commandments. One of which is "thou shalt not kill."
Again, I'm not asking to disarm everyone that has a gun. I am asking for the NRA and the gun retailers who fund the NRA to allow common sense legislation to be enforced to reduce the number of deaths that occur from gun violence. Just like we made laws to reduce the number of drunk driving fatalities. It's regulation, not restriction.
mcg2010 4 months ago
The Second Amendment Has Been Twisted Out of Shape
Pest, you are ridiculous. I am damn aware of the difference. I am also aware of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. But you know what they all have in common? When in the wrong hands they are used to take lives. They aren't for sport or "looking bad." I respect gun ownership, but no one can seem to explain to me why you need to get off 30 rounds in less than a minute. Which a semi-automatic, that you can purchase at your neighborhood Wal-Mart, can do. I am so tired of arguing semantics, because of your paranoia and cries of liberty and fear of manufactured tyranny.
You know what liberties I have? I have the right to go to a movie theatre with out the fear of being killed, I have the right to go to the store and purchase items, even a hand gun, without being gunned down. I have the right know that my young nephews will go to school and return home in one piece.
I don't know when your right to own a gun some how trumped everyone else's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but I'm over it. I don't want to take your guns (a disclaimer I seem to have to write any time this topic comes up), but if we don't enforce common sense regulation to protect the lives of our citizens against gun violence then we have failed our forefathers.
mcg2010 4 months ago
Could This Nightmare Happen?
There are a lot of comments to answer the author's question. No. Because no one proposing taking all the guns. That is not even in the same room as the table. Stop fear mongering.
mcg2010 4 months ago
The Second Amendment Has Been Twisted Out of Shape
The point is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own what ever weaponry you want. You can't own a tank. You can't own any other military grade weaponry. I like how Jon Stewart put it, if you want to keep touting the importance of strict interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, and protecting your right to guns "...then fine, you can have all the muskets you want."
Citizens armed with military-style weapons isn't a free society, it is just an armed mob that doesn't have to comply with the laws of war.
mcg2010 4 months, 3 weeks ago
Amendment's Intent
Disclaimer (that seems necessary on all of these posts): I do not want to take your guns. I want to make it harder for unstable people to get them. Also, I'm okay with an armed RSO being present in each school.
Now, the militia argument is bunk. 25% of the 2011 federal budget was spent on defense for a total of $664.84 billion. But if you think a Bushmaster will help over throw the government then that's cool.
mcg2010 5 months ago
Those Kids Are Waiting For Us Adults to Respond
Skyline, your lines are tired. I don't hate guns. I don't care if you have guns. I come from a family of hunters and respect their right to have guns. I've been raised to respect and handle guns properly. What I care about is protecting the lives of the innocent. What I care about is not turning educators in to soldiers.
But your argument that the "law abiding citizens" will have their guns "collected" is a ridiculous one. Following the Supreme Court's ruling and interpretation of the 2nd amendment in 2010, the goverment cannot realistically sweep the nation and collect everyone's guns. Fienstiens' legislation doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing. And I would say fortunately so. The answer isn't getting rid of all of the guns, but we have to make it harder for people (especially those who are mentally unstable) to get high powered, semi-assault weapons (and yes, I'm familiar with the difference between automatic and semi automatic). I don't know of any situation where a civilian would need to get off 30 rounds in 15 seconds. I just don't, but if you think you need it, then you better prove damn well that you need it, have been thoroughly trained with it and it better be recorded that you own it.
We need to protect our schools, with trained RSOs. We need to make sure that these high powered weapons are harder to get a hold of. We need to make sure that those weapons don't get in the hands of the mentally unstable. We need to make sure that we provide those mentally unstable the proper help that they and their families need.
There isn't a one answer, but please stop justifying your resistance to alternative gun legislation as THEY'RE GONNA TAKE ALL OUR GUNS. Because that is just not the case.
mcg2010 5 months ago
Those Kids Are Waiting For Us Adults to Respond
I don't have a problem with RSOs. I think it's something that could be utilized in more schools. The argument to train our teachers, as if they are soldiers is illogical, in my opinion. To the original point of this column, the answer is not more guns, nor is it take all the guns in the way. Like all good truths, the solution is found in the middle.
My issue with the first commenter's commentary is that it assumes that somehow the sole solution is more guns.
mcg2010 5 months ago
Those Kids Are Waiting For Us Adults to Respond
Armed with what!? In the face of a crazed gun man with a semi automatic weapon loaded and ready to use, what kind of weapon could any teacher have possibly had to stop him?
Say she was. Let's say for the sake of your illogical argument, let's just say the school system provided Victoria Soto with the training of a firearm that was to be kept in a locked drawer, unless a gun man was bearing down on her class room. How long would it take for her to get to that drawer, unlock it, load it and some how have the clarity among her panicked students to take out the shooter. Or let's take is a step further and say it was strapped to her hip for quick access, still in the midst of the chaos they are supposed to be come soldiers in battle and take a fatal shot to the gunman? Should we have our teachers strap on an AK around them like a back-pack like we live in a war-zone?
Where does it stop? At what point does the gun stop being the solution?
mcg2010 5 months ago
Churches Remember Shooting Victims; Police, School Officials Increase Vigilance
Serious question for the anti-gun restriction folks: What is the purpose of a gun? Have they not been designed for the purpose of taking a life? If not then I'd like to know why they are so powerful and you feel so secure with them.