Another Connecticut Tragedy

No-guns

Like most suburban parents, I spent the weekend shuttling kids to sports and of course “Newtown” was on every parent’s lips.  As it should be.  But as we prepare for another round of heated political debate over gun control and gun rights (and potentially extra-constitutional action by President Obama), another Connecticut tragedy ought to be on people’s lips that could provide some needed context to the horrific events in Newtown.  I am speaking of Cheshire, CT, where in 2007 – in a town every bit as leafy, idyllic, and “safe” as Newtown – two drug-addled ex-cons invaded the Petit home and raped and murdered a mother and her two daugthers, ages 11 and 17 and beat a father, Dr. William Petit within an inch of his life.  The Petit’s did not own a firearm in their home and it is not certain that if they did, the outcome would have been different, but there are numerous cases where a firearm in the home terminated a home invasion before potentially awful crimes could be committed. In Cheshire that day, in one home, the result was a body count 11% of the total from Newtown.  Add in the nature of the crimes, the rapes and arson deaths of the Petit women and girl, and you have what most would consider an equally grievous tragedy.  Everybody in Connecticut knows of Cheshire.  Many in Connecticut, indeed in the nation, were so deeply shocked by the Petit murders that they could suddenly contemplate what they hadn’t before, owning a firearm to protect their homes and families.  Dr. Petit may or may not have wished he owned a firearm, but many Americans determined  that if they had to be in the Petit’s shoes, given a choice, they’d want a gun.

This weekend The NY Post went with a front page story highlighting the mother, Nancy Lanza’s, interest in firearms, which included the training of her son.  Given her son’s mental illness, this appears highly irresponsible, but outsiders will never know the timing and progression of Adam Lanza’s decent into madness.  However, in the wake of the Cheshire murders, Connecticutters by the thousands responded in a wholly rational way by purchasing firearms for home protection, learning how to use them properly and training responsible young people do to the same.  The media is out to portray Nancy Lanza as a “gun nut”, a paranoid doomsday prepper type whacko, and she may well have been.  Maybe she did traffic in loony stuff like the zombie apocalypse, invading armies ala Red Dawn, and creeping authoritarianism here in the US.  Or maybe she was just worried about hyperinflation, insolvent governments, political instability and ominous signs of an all-encompassing surveillance state (seriously, what a whacko!).

Or maybe she was one of the tens of thousands of Connecticut residents that responded rationally to Cheshire.  As we go forth from the Newtown tragedy let’s also be talking about Cheshire. Let’s understand and weigh what we do in regards to guns very carefully.  Let’s understand that certain actions, while seemingly designed to prevent more Newtowns might give us more Cheshires by restricting citizens’ ability to be ready for and prevent violent home invasions.  Where does potentially disarming the next Adam Lanza also disarm the family that doesn’t want to be the next Petit family?  All of this, of course, among a host of other questions that ought to be part of the impending national “conversation” on the complex subject of the role guns play in society.  Humans are hard wired to give more weight and ascribe more importance to more recent events, so let’s do our selves a favor and counter this tendency by weighing our revulsion over Newtown with our revulsion over Cheshire, which ought to be pulled out of the collective memory hole.

Related posts

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Dbase, we’ve had the “conversation” already.
    What do you think we should do?

    • DonnyB

      Exactly, we’ve had the conversation continually for…well, forever. We had it after Columbine, after Jonesboro, after Virginia Tech, after Aurora, etc. And what seems to have come out of those conversations is this rough conclusion, more or less: “We fundamentally value our constitutional RKBA; we understand that there
      are risks that access to guns will lead to bad outcomes, unspeakable
      tragedies even, but we are willing to accept those risks based on a
      variety of offsetting benefits.”

      That is how I interpret the facts of greater gun ownership and less restrictive regulation that has occurred over the last few decades. And I am OK with that. In a crude and cold calculus, I am willing to live with the very very small risk of a Newtown happening to me in order to have the chance to address the risk, also very very small but nonetheless greater, of a Cheshire happening to me.

      The answers aren’t easy but see Rob’s post about perhaps needing more gun freedom instead of less. I don’t think we’re giving that approach near the legitimacy it ought to get in these “conversations.”

      • slackwarerobert

        The only risk is being the only one without a gun. Now it is looking like the cokesbury mall shooter only got two people because someone ignored the no gun sign also and stopped him.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    The conservatives like to argue that removing guns won’t remove murder, because people will just pick up a knife. If that’s the case, why not defend your home and your loved ones with a knife, or all the same weapons conservatives claim will be used to murder?

    Additionally, had the home had a security alarm system that tipped off the police the results could have been very different.

    You didn’t mention any of these ideas, why?

    I believe it’s because it’s not the left that has a political agenda, but the right. The right is the only group who want to stifle our 1st amendment rights and stop the gun debate from happening, because to stop gun debate is their form of gun debate….the end game is to preserve what they feel is their right to own guns. While the rest of Americans just want to stop or reduce the number of shooting spree’s. Their argument aren’t so much political as they want to do some good in the world and stop the senseless violence and tragedies that quite frankly our nation should not be facing.

    • DonnyB

      The police were tipped off, but they couldn’t prevent the murders. Yes, alarms and all other precautions are advisable. And I do have a knife, but I am a 42 year old, 5’10” 170 lbs man with a bum shoulder. If I encounter one or two 25 year old, 210 lbs. 6 footers in my house, who may be armed, I’m gonna want the gun rather than the knife.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        In Hawaii a shorter fellow stabbed and killed a taller intruder in his home.

        If conservatives argue that removing guns wont stop murder because they will just use a knife, then they should also argue to defend yourself with one.

        • RCND

          Generally knives make a bigger mess. It is bad enough you have to defend yourself in your home or other place you have a right to be, but adding huge carpet cleaning bills to the mix is adding insult to injury

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Frozen bodies, wood chippers.

          • slackwarerobert

            I have considered renting my furnace, 4000 degrees will make ashes of bodies as well. Just don’t know who to approach for the service, and what a good rate for it would be? Being able to cold roll steel barrels has turned out to be very expensive on the front end. But not needing to buy guns is very comforting.

          • SusanBeehler

            Oh yeah, God forbid getting a dirty carpet, but killing someone is okay.

          • RCND

            I was pointing out the utter absurdity of Hs comment. And yes, killing someone in defense of yourself or others is OK.

          • SusanBeehler

            I think killing anyone should be the very last resort to defend yourself, I never think it is OK. It is this “OK” attitude which gives little value to a human life and a gun once it is fired, you can’t take the bullet, so once you fire it, you are willing to end a life. I think it is not “OK”.

          • slackwarerobert

            It is the last defense, the door is first and was breached already. My children each have an assigned gun and ammo for fire drills so we are not endangered if forced out of the house as well. Which mags have armor piercing and what are the safe fire zones for them. Anyone yelling police trying to break in will be shot THROUGH the door. Otherwise they know the blood trail better start inside. There is no legal reason for cops to break into my home.

          • awfulorv

            Land sakes alive! After Waco do you still think they care a fig for legality? A virtual challenge, such as you’ve written, is sufficient for them to visit you. And they’ll bring tanks, Mortars, flame throwers, drones, even a blown up picture of Helen Thomas with them. They’ll stop at nothing, on being issued what amounts to an ultimatum from you. They’d be at your door this moment but for the deteriorating educational standards our nation has experienced of late. I’d say you have a week to clear out before they decipher your defiant missive. After that there’s no hope, especially since you’ve clearly explained that defenseless children will be involved. I wish you the best. My advice to you is to move your family somewhere near our border with Mexico, our troops seem to abhor that region, and never go there. If you’re intercepted by bandits tell them you’re delivering assault rifles to the Cartel and, on the advice of our AG, are averse to answering questions, at this time.

        • Ben

          Please link us to the story of self defense.

        • Bat One

          The whole “knife” argument is silly – on both sides. First, to assume that a home invader is unarmed is stupidly dangerous. Gun control laws have never stopped criminals from using guns. Just look and Chicago or Washington, DC. Second, a gun is so much easier and safer to use for self defense since it does not require close contact or specialized and arduous training.

          If you want to argue sensibly for controlling or removing guns in the US, you are going to have to deal with the Second Amendment, like it or not.

          • Neiman

            1st: If I am not mistaken, on the Right side of the argument, a knife is used symbolically to imply a wide variety of alternative weapons being available to cause death, not just an actual knife.

            2nd: If and that is a giant if, all we had were knives, I suspect everyone owning one for self defense would get one that works well and get the necessary training in how to kill using a knife – hint, it ain’t very hard.

            3rd: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
            infringed.”

            The states and even the federal government know that despite there being an absolute prohibition on passing any laws restricting such rights, they can keep passing laws anyway, force them through the court system, which is very costly to us, rewrite them when judged unconstitutional, go through the process again and again and while on the books still being enforced. It is an end run scheme around the Bill of Rights, but it works.

            Lautenberg and Feinstein are promising to pass such laws, Obama is threatening by Executive Order and federal regulatory powers to restrict ownership, even if only by onerous, prohibitive taxes, which infringes on those rights. When the State at any level decides to ignore the Constitution, wherein is the penalty? If a fine locally – the taxpayers foot the bill, no one loses their job or pays a personal fine. If states or the federal government, there are no real penalties and they can do it over and over again – forever.

            Answer: The Left can win by ignoring the Constitution, but we all know they would never do that, right?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I believe the whole argument proposed by gun rights activists is based on the notion that AFTER you amend the 2nd, it wouldn’t stop murder because people would use knives. That’s their argument.

            If were supposed to buy that as a response then I suggest they defend themselves with a knife.

          • Bat One

            There is no reason for anyone to defend themselves with a knife, trained or untrained, since the “right to keep and bear arms” is a “fundamental and individual right.”

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I propose Home Invasion Control. If the government wants to regulate how many bullets should be in our guns, then they should also regulate the number of invaders that can invade your house at one time. There’s no sporting purpose in those “high capacity” home invasions, with more than one person entering your home.

          • Bat One

            I don’t know of a single individual who owns firearms, with or without a carry permit, who has stupidly registered ALL of his guns.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Even when Di-Fi was mayor of San Francisco and passed the handgun ban that was later declared un-Constitutional, she herself had a CCW. When her hypocrisy became known, she turned in “her” gun, though it is my understanding that it was not the one she listed on her permit.

          • SusanBeehler

            Are you saying it is stupid to follow the law?

        • tony_o2

          I’ve seen an unarmed short guy take on 2 big guys with baseball bats. Just because he can do it, doesn’t mean that those that can’t should be shit out of luck to effectively defend themselves.

          Are you going to tell a petite mother that is bleeding out on the floor after a knife-fight “but that other guy did it, and he was smaller than you. Such is death…”??

        • slackwarerobert

          But in Connecticut you can’t have a knife on the muzzle of your rifle or it is illegal. Once again it is the government obstructing you from using a knife as well as a gun. You don’t kill by choice, you stop because of necessity and government obstruction of other options that should be availible,

      • SusanBeehler

        Why do you have to kill the intruder? You can make other choices, run, hide, call the cops.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Sometimes, you can’t make other choices.

          The point isn’t that we want to kill the intruder. The point is that we have that option is the choice is between us and them.

          • 308T

            No, I’m pretty sure I would want to kill someone who broke into my house with the wife & kids inside.

          • SusanBeehler

            Than you are exactly why their should be gun control, because you could kill an innocent. Impulse control is not your strength. When I lived in an apartment, a person “broke” into my house through the balcony, he thought he was breaking into his own apartment, he misplaced his key, it would have been terrible to pull the trigger and killed a neighbor because it was dark, he had been drinking and he messed up on which door was his.

          • 308T

            I got news for you, If I didn’t have a gun & someone broke into my house they’d either get knifed or a baseball bat to the head. If someone breaks into my house they’re going to die, if they don’t break in they’re going to be alive. I’m not taking any chances with the lives of my family to some piece of sh!t that broke in.

          • slackwarerobert

            Why would you feel bad that he forced you to shoot? It would stop his drinking problem. Did he drive home?

          • SusanBeehler

            I would not have shot him, even if I had a gun. He walked in and once he was in, it was obvious he didn’t know what he was doing. I Maybe he wasn’t drunk, maybe he was high, or overly tired. He was home, just in the wrong apartment.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            If someone breaks into my house at night and I yell, “Stop or I’ll shoot”, and/or rack the slide on my 12 gauge, at that point any rational person either stops or turns and goes the other way. Anyone who advances on you at that point should be considered either hostile or irrational or both. Given the time, one also arms ones self with a flashlight to make a better threat assessment. (And better direct your fire if necessary.)

            But, self defense should be visualized in layers. A firearm should be considered the last layer. First layer for a homeowner is the approach to the house: fence, ext. lighting, dog. Landscaping should be trimmed in order to avoid leaving hiding spots on the approach.

            Second layer might be a steel door or at least a dead bolt. Window locks and alarms can deter entry into the house.

            Third layer could be a simple as a fully charged cell phone, in case the ext. line is cut, so that you can call 9-1-1 as you retreat to the safest room in your home.

            If the police arrive before your safe room is breached, fine! You let the professionals handle it. But, the layers are there to make you aware of the threat and slow the intruder down long enough to arm your self and/or get your family to the safe room.

            This is not paranoia. The likelihood is, you will never have to take all of the above steps. Whenever possible, the wise prepare for what could happen, rather than what is likely to happen.

            I have fire extinguishers in my kitchen and garage, smoke alarms in the house, but I have never had a house fire. I carry flares, a spare tire and snow chains in my car, though I have never used any of them. I have an “earthquake preparedness” kit in my home, though I have never been in a major quake.

            If you choose not to own a firearm for self defense, that is your right. However, to the extent that your neighbors might have a firearm, provides a deterrent to any evil doer who fears there might be an armed home owner in your house.

            To the extent that thieves and rapists know that the populace is disarmed, the less deterrence there is.

          • SusanBeehler

            if someone is suicidal and wanting to take others with them, they could care less if someone has a gun, they actually would probably like someone with a gun greeting them.
            All the steps you list as precautions a homeowner could take before use of a weapon is where we could start with schools a couple more “layers”

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            One of the problems with the “layers” in public places is that they’re public. I can restrict the number of people who enter my home. Public places are open to all by definition.

            Some of the layers in home protection are to prevent suspicious characters from hanging around your home. Other than loitering ordinances, which would not have deterred the CT shooter, what would you suggest as “layers” of defense in public places?

          • slackwarerobert

            My neighbor came over to my house to ask me to clear hers when she saw the back door broken. I had the house secured and the cops showed 45 minutes later. She new who to trust for immediate safety. When the cop showed up, I slung 12 guage over shoulder wished them well, and call me when she was finished so I could put up a door. Armed society is a polite society. 2:30 am in middle of no where cop abandoned a sweet old lady to wait on autoclub, she had no problems when I pulled up wearing my sidearm, she thanked me and asked I stay with her because some thugs were scaring her. I changed her tire, we chatted while she gave me a jump, and went our merry ways. She might even have baught her own gun after that I hope. You don’t need to shoot, most nuts fear dieing to much to hang around. The nuts that don’t you don’t want to give a second chance to anyways.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.

          • SusanBeehler

            The armed society on this blog are name callers and women and children dehumanizers. The “nuts” who are shooting up schools are suicidal.

          • borborygmi

            racking of the 12 ga. has a very distinctive sound. I would think that would deter any but the looniest or drug addled.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Yep. If that doesn’t cause you to wet your Underoos and sprint for the door (or whichever way you came in) then you ain’t right. At that point one applies bleach to the gene pool…

          • SusanBeehler

            Unless it is a deaf granddad with alzheimer’s

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Yeah. That happens all the time. Could be a deaf grandad with Alzheimer’s, on Halloween, dressed like a pirate, who just kidnapped the baby next door and is about to spike her into the concrete floor, because he thinks she’s a football…that happens all the time, too.

          • awfulorv

            Or perhaps you, inadvertently, turned on the light, he got a good look at you and decided he needed one more drink before proceeding.

          • SusanBeehler

            Boy you have imagination!

          • SusanBeehler

            If you don’t have a gun, you have to make other choices, otherwise you will be choosing to be a target. If you only know a gun as the only choice than it is the choice you choose. I have been in a life and death situation, escaped by the action of another and she didn’t use a gun to end the ordeal when the cops arrived. If any of us in that situation would have had a gun, four people could have been killed along with a police officer or two. No one was killed, injured yes, but it was not a fatal decision. If you want to kill and own a gun then you will more than likely fulfill this type of thinking. If you believe life is sacred and at no time believe a life should be taken in a split second decision than you will be less apt to take someone’s life. You can make another choice.

          • 308T

            You’re an ignorant fool. I’m in my 40s & have owned guns since I was 9 years old. I guess you’re irrational trane of thought about owning guns & wanting to kill just went out the window.

          • SusanBeehler

            You never killed anything not even a deer?

          • $8194357

            The “real” assault weapon is the liberal propaganda media
            and its ideological agenda driven lies..

            An “asault weapon” has selective fire by definition
            and are capable of both full and semi
            and are already banned to the ‘general public’ since the 30’s

            The general populace are allowed semi auto carbines that “look like” assault weapons…When was it decided to be guilty because you look like something else?

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o&feature=player_embedded

          • SusanBeehler

            What would Jesus do?

          • slackwarerobert

            Render unto criminal that which is lead. Render unto God thanks, for giving me that RIGHT! If jesus doesn’t want him, he can bring him back if the devil doesn’t object. If he is half as liberal as you think he is, he won’t want me taken away so soon, I WILL carry even in heaven. I have a nice wildey just for my casket to take with me.

          • SusanBeehler

            Weirder

          • slackwarerobert

            Why would God take away my right to bare arms just because I died? Besides just think how many virgins you can protect whit an assault weapon. Have no idea where a dead akmed goes when you kill him trying to rape a virgin though. Remember even jesus used a bench to stop criminals that was capable of seating more than one at a time..

          • SusanBeehler

            A bench, really?

          • $8194357

            Use the Holy Spirit to zap the perp…
            He already turned the other cheek and was crucified.
            When he comes back this time…He’s going to burn some stuff.

          • SusanBeehler

            So Jesus is just some picture you like to pretend is your “avatar”. He is going to burn some stuff not shoot up the place?

          • $8194357

            No Susan..
            Jesus is the Great I Am.
            The Alpha
            The Omega
            The Beginning
            and the End
            Amen..
            My personal Lord and Savior.
            The Author and Finisher
            of my faith….
            His Second Coming
            will be in Full Power and Glory….
            The Son of God…
            The way the Jews were looking for Him the first time.
            The Lion of the Tribe of Judah
            to avenge His Nation Israel….
            Full Gospel Christian Faith here..
            Not “religion”..

          • 308T

            Yes I’ve killed many deer but you’re insinuating I’m going to kill a person because I own firearms. Just because you liberals can’t control yourselves with guns doesn’t mean I can’t

          • slackwarerobert

            Shame, they are very good grilled. Shooting since I was 5, at 7 I could take down a thug at 250 yards easy with no danger to anyone else. It is called gun control.

          • SusanBeehler

            Weird

          • SusanBeehler

            Like the gun man in Minnesota who held onto the bodies for a day or so. There is a such a thing as excessive force.

        • $8194357

          When murder or rape is only seconds away?
          The authoriies are only minutes…

          • SusanBeehler

            How do you know they are going to rape or murder you? I sure would not want to kill someone over a TV.
            A locked gun in another room is minutes away too. Guns are false security, just because you have one does not mean you won’t be raped or murdered. Look at this Connecticut mom, alot of good the guns did protecting her from her son the killer. She was seconds away from being murdered and she owned three guns, didn’t stop her from being murdered.

          • $8194357

            A gun locked away in one room while the bullets are locked away
            in another leaves one with a club to begin with…Stupid, IMO..
            If a person is in your house “uninvited”…Its on his head if he gets shot
            or killed…
            We used to understand the “castle doctrine”
            before ‘liberals’ clouded the collective sky grey..
            If the perp is in my home I will assume bad intent and take aproppriet action as my dad, and grand dad taught me years ago.
            All guns for three generations were loaded and handy and “we all” knew that and why…

          • slackwarerobert

            Well the ski mask and in my home usually gives them away for me. The gun in conneticut worked fine. Just ask the families of the children, she didn’t USE them was the problem. You need to either wear it 24/7 or have it withing arms reach always. Beware those new mattresses, you can’t grab gun easily, it forms around you. I pointed this out to the salesman. Very bad design.

        • Bat One

          Susan, Once an intruder breaks in the ONLY rational assumption is that he is armed and has the most dangerous intention. Whatever rights he had were left outside the premises. You may object all you’d like, but both the law and common sense are on the side of the homeowner with a gun. Obviously the best solution is to not break in.

          • SusanBeehler

            And only follow laws you choose? Because you wouldn’t be so stupid as to register all your guns?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Did folks in the Underground Railroad register their homes as “Bed & Breakfasts” because of all the guests they entertained in the basement? Wonder if they just followed the laws they chose?

            You might also want to acquaint yourself with the concept of “Civil disobedience”.

          • SusanBeehler

            I do know Proof, why don’t you prove it? I guess all gun owners who belong to the NRA want to pay for an armed guard in every school. I sure do not want to pay for your right to keep your “fun” guns with my property tax, than I could show you “civil disobedience”

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “I guess all gun owners who belong to the NRA want to pay for an armed guard in every school.”

            Then you’d be guessing wrong. I have stated publicly that I believe LaPierre is wrong in this, no matter who pays for it. I may do a short essay on why it is wrong later this evening. I’ll link you to it if I do.

        • slackwarerobert

          There is nothing stopping him from not breaking in. But #1 reason, so I don’t get sued and loose my home if he gets hurt on the broken door. Dead intruders don’t file civil suites. The courts force me to kill intruders. I would be fine with just shooting out his kneecaps and elbows.

          • SusanBeehler

            There are many doors which could not easily be shot out as this killer did, you have to remember my perspective is not to kill but to stop. Killing is my last resort and I do not think I am the only one in the US who thinks killing is a last resort, You will not be at the schools to shoot out knee caps. If the door is made of something which does not break easily than you do not have to worry about a broken door.

        • yy4u2

          It’s the only choice he/she hopes you don’t make.

    • alanstorm

      “You didn’t mention any of these ideas, why?”

      Because they’re idiotic ideas, that’s why. If someone attacks me with any weapon, I will use a gun to defend myself. If a 6’6″ man attacks a 5′ nothing woman with a knife, what do you do you think would be more effective at stopping the attack: a knife, or a pistol?

      “While the rest of Americans just want to stop or reduce the number of
      shooting spree’s (sic). Their argument (sic) aren’t so much political as they want
      to do some good in the world and stop the senseless violence and
      tragedies that quite frankly our nation should not be facing.”

      They want to do some good in the world? Then stop proposing regulations that make it harder for the average citizen to get a weapon. These don’t work – as the daily news from Chicago shows.

    • HG

      You libs are not getting our guns, H.

      • borborygmi

        Don’t want them nor can you have mine.

        • $8194357

          When Barrys brownshirts show up for em what ya going to do gurgle..
          Hand em over like a good democrat commrade?

          • slackwarerobert

            Shoot them till they are red coats, then you can shoot them all you want.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        I don’t want to take your guns. I just want to make owning them painful and extremely difficult, as well as change the types that are available. Sorry.

        • HG

          Don’t apologize. We won’t allow it.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            How do you feel knowing his mother was on of those recent buyers causing the uptick in gun purchases? Or, how do you feel about her being one of your sheep who buy the story of the impending economic collapse, that Glen Beck keeps telling us about on Fox News?

            I mean, it’s not like those responsible gun owners would ever allow anything to go wrong, right? Why should we make laws more difficult for families whose children are mentally unstable? What’s the worst that could happen?

            Sorry, you are in for some new laws and regulations.

          • HG

            I feel fine. I don’t blame guns or gun laws on the act of a mentally ill individual who never received the treatment he obviously needed. Making gun ownership more difficult won’t change anything for those of us who already own one or more. Your sides reaction to this tragedy is laughable and will change nothing. NO ASSAULT WEAPON WAS USED in this massacre. You libs are dumber than dirt on social issues. You refuse to acknowledge the real problem in this shooting and want to simply blame guns. Guns that weren’t even used in the shooting.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            An AR-15 was used to murder babies and unload multiple rounds into their bodies. No person who has a member of their family with physiological problems should have an assault weapon. I’m not even sure any American should have one…but if they should, it should be a very, very painful process to obtain one.

            I believe gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.

            Most Americans understand that in red states it will take time for police to get to their location. Gun protection is probably a comfort to them. But that doesn’t mean they need an AR-15.

            Things are going to change, and no the tough talk in the world, or the saber rattling, is going to stop some regulation, or change from happening. Not this time.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/school-shooter-adam-lanza_n_2312818.html

          • Onslaught1066

            Then how will your mother shoot your ass when you violate the restraining order?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Just keep guns in your house and someone else will shoot you. You are my ass.

          • Onslaught1066

            Non Sequitur.

          • slackwarerobert

            At least I can return fire. hiding under the bed doesn’t help at all when they are shooting you. 99% of the guns have an anti theft device, you pull on it and a little lead projectile makes them change their mind and leave. “assault” weapons just change multiple peoples minds faster.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Say goodbye to your assault weapons and magazine clips.

          • Tim

            “Say goodbye to your assault weapons and magazine clips.”

            Yours as well.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Not that he’d care….

          • two_amber_lamps

            Hey dipshit…. you shooting a Garand? Even then they’re called enbocs. The rest of us use magazines.

            Illiterate gunhate-mongering douche.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            What about an SKS? What exactly do you think a 556 stripper clip is used for? That’s right, it will feed ammunition into a magazine….of an AR15.

          • two_amber_lamps

            “What about an SKS?” It uses a detachable magazine.

            Derp!

            According to you an assault weapons ban would include the “stripper clips” used to load AR magazines? Those same stripper clips can be used to load ten round magazines, five rounder mags if you’re so inclined…

            http://www.midwayusa.com/product/796384/maglula-lula-magazine-loader-and-unloader-ar-15-223-remington-556mm-nato

            Will these type magazine loaders be illegal under the assault weapons ban since “stripper clips” must surely be?? Cause’ you know, you really need a magazine reloader when you’re intent on mowing down shoppers at the local mall…

            Have you ever touched/loaded an AR mag, or did you read about it onz da interwebz?

            Erp, derp!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            SKS can be loaded from the top by using stripper clips. Derp!

            Also, are you going on record saying it’s faster to load a magazine by hand vs stripper clips?

            You gun-illeterate moron.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Ahoy there Capt Stupid! Going down with the good ship HMS Moron once again I see… far be it from me to stand in the way of you impaling yourself on the punji stick of your own idiocy… have at er’!

            Stripper clips load magazines yes…. Idiots like yourself might consider carrying stripper clips into the fray, but thankfully morons like you end up on the butt end of natural selection. The rest of us carry extra magazines.

            Erp!

            But this is all beside the point…. stripper clips were never, nor shall in almost all likelyhood be banned…

            HERP!

            Capt. Stupid said: “Also, are you going on record saying it’s faster to load a magazine by hand vs stripper clips?”

            Valiant attempt to build a straw man argument. You going on the record saying you can sling a stripper clip as fast as I can swap a magazine??!? LOL!

            Derp!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “You gun-illeterate (sic) moron.” Always comedy gold when an idiot calls someone else a “moron” and can’t spell the words correctly.

          • two_amber_lamps
          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It just proves you didn’t know about the SKS, or stripper clips.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Stripper clips, for an AK, an SKS, OR and AR for that matter HAVE NOT, ARE NOT, and in any likelihood SHALL be made illegal…

            HERP, Derp!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “I believe gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right.”

            Your delusions in no way impact reality. Have you never read the Bill of Rights? Not the Bill of Suggestions. Not the Bill of Hannidiot’s Beliefs, the Bill of Rights. I, along with our Founding Fathers (not the “Found” Fathers as one mind numbingly stupid person put it), believe that it is a right, and that that right is not bestowed upon us by government, but is an unalienable right, bestowed upon us by our Creator.

            This is not the “penumbra” of a shadow, of something suggested by the Constitution, as was found for the “right” to an abortion, this is black letter law. What you “believe”, Hannimbecile, much like you yourself, is irrelevant.

            Don’t you ever get tired of being not only wrong, but mind numbingly stupidly wrong?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Maybe you ought to look up the word “should”.

            You may now continue with your irrelevance.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Maybe you should look up every word above I wrote. Your usage of “should” does not change the reality or the verity of anything I said.

            But, much like the grammar of headlines that you cannot figure out even after it is explained repeatedly to you, I didn’t expect you to understand what I wrote, the first time you read it. After all, it was written in English! (And it’s what? Five years and counting you haven’t figured out that “camp” is not “short for” the word “campaign”?)

            Now figure out how many other things you can parrot, to sound as much like me as possible, Hannidiot. Change a word or two to give yourself deniability. (But we all know what you’re doing, and why you’re doing it, Mynah Bird Boy. )

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Ugh….no wonder why nobody debates you.

            Of course the word should changes the argument from what IS written in the constitution, from what SHOULD be.

            But we already know you have a problem with the word IS and ARE, among others.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You ever figure out if that headline subject was singular or plural yesterday? I may have credited you too quickly on your ability to count as high as “two”.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Are apples and oranges used to show two things are similar, or different? Why are they different if they are both fruits, PROOFoundly_stupid?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            The fact that you have to ask the question merely illustrates you to be too immature for adult conversation, Hannimmature.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You won’t answer that simple question because it destroys your lame argument. Now what was that you were saying about a scalded dog?

            BTW, that is a totally asinine and stupid expression of yours.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Hanninfant, if I have to explain to you the differences between apples and oranges, I may have been presumptuous in thinking you had passed the first grade.

            You only find it asinine, since you have run like a scalded dog from so many discussions where you were being handed your arse.

          • slackwarerobert

            There is no difference for me, I eat them both skin and all. Guess arizona border patrol is the big difference, oranges were banned.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Poor Hannidiot is merely trying to refight a battle he already lost. He figures if he pretends he hasn’t already been thoroughly defeated that he can pretend that he still has a chance to prevail. Of course, Hanni regularly loses arguments with shower mold as well. Just laugh at him, mock him, if you will, but don’t bother paying much attention to anything he bleats.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Making up your own version of history doesn’t answer the question that you refuse to answer:

            Are Apples and Oranges used as an example to explain that two things are different, yes or no?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I haven’t refused to answer it. Perhaps if, instead of flooding my inbox with scores of stupid questions, you limited them to one a day, and then, before your ADD kicks in, look in your mailbox for the answer, then you wouldn’t look so foolish and so stupid on so many threads, Tiny Fruitcake.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Oh, you did agree that Apple and Orange juice are two different things, as are Apples and Oranges. Which proves I was right.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Nothing has proven you to be “right”, your narcissistic claims of victory notwithstanding. If you want to marinate in your ignorance, continue to bleat what you like. I tried to educate you, but your ignorance is proving again to be impenetrable, Hanni Boo Boo.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You said it was a parallel construction, you were wrong.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            It was actually a compound subject. (which is parallel in a way) I had said I hadn’t begun my second cup of coffee yet. However, my small error does not erase yours. So, sorry, Tiny Sociopath. No cigar.

            And unlike you, Tiny Narcissist, I admit my errors, while you bitterly cling to your for years. Just sayin’!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Again, let’s put your logic to the test. If we changed the words, does it survive the test of speaking of all juice. No, it narrows it down to two different types of juice, or a combination of the two.

            “Is Apple and Orange juice Making Americans More Violent?”

            You would have to assume that Apple and Orange juice is a mixture in order for it to be singular. If the author were literally reference both orange juice and apple juice, but wrote it stupidly, the correct word choice would have been ‘Are”. But video games and Hollywood movies aren’t a singular thing, they are two different things.

          • LenYol

            Rob’s pet troll, little hanni, using juice as a subject in his quest for attention. Too funny. This is going to be another “camp” marathon.
            Braahahahahaha!!!!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “let’s put your logic to the test” Ah, if only you were able!

            “video games and Hollywood movies… are two different things” Never said they weren’t Tiny Moron! The subject of the headline wasn’t “video games and Hollywood movies” it was the vicarious, simulated violence they produce. No one is surprised that someone who hasn’t learned in five years that “camp” is not short for “campaign”, cannot grasp that distinction. Speaking of short, can you still walk under a closed door without ducking your head, Hannimbecile?

            I’m sorry that you never received a proper education in English. Or logic. Or hygiene. Keep making your juice analogy. Maybe someday, even you’ll believe it, but it won’t change the fact that Rob’s headline was grammatically correct, leaving you and Nutterbob as Grammar Nazi Wannabees.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I asked you to tell us if apples and oranges are used to show two things are different, or similar. Which is it, coward?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            First of all, let me express my sorrow to your mother who has had to live with your stupidity all your life, Hannimbecile.

            This line of questioning in which you’d like me to engage, follows from comments where you and your butt buddy rbb incorrectly accused Rob of incorrect grammar in one of his headlines. It was not.

            However, Rob wasn’t talking about “apples and oranges”, which for the sake of discussion typically denotes two different things, but Rob was talking about simulated violence, which is (not “are”) experienced vicariously.

            The fact that you cannot let it go and admit that, once again, you were wrong, shows your immaturity (and illiteracy) and the lack of any real depth of thought on your part. Perhaps any thought at all on your part.

            BTW, the fact that you believe that not responding to your low wattage, limited and stilted intellect is somehow “cowardice” on my part, demonstrates delusions of adequacy on your part.

            Please, stop clogging my inbox, unless you care to admit that you were wrong once again. (Still?)

            You may return now to your irrelevancy.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Can you please show me where in title “Is Video Game and Hollywood Violence Making Us More Violent?” he used the word “simulated violence”?

            Oh, that’s right, he didn’t.

            Face it, kid, you have to change the facts in order to believe you were right.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Please find someone whom you consider to be an expert in English (other than butt buddy rbb) and ask them if the grammar of that headline was correct. Multiple people, from both sides of the political aisle, have informed you that you were incorrect. The fact that I am using words that were not in the headline to try to explain the mistake to an illiterate, moronic, mind numbingly stupid bonehead with impenetrable ignorance is not “changing the facts”, it is an attempt to school you with other examples.

            Congratulations! Your ignorance remains fully intact! And keep calling me “kid”, Tiny Baby Hanni Boo Boo Child. It only proves that every time you called me an “old man” that either you are clinically insane for believing two different things at the same time, impenetrably ignorant or so riddled with ADD that you cannot remember anything of value with any regularity for any length of time…kid. Heh.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I have, and they said the correct usage would have been ‘Are’.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Too funny! Did they read the headline for themselves or did you “explain it” to them?

            Of course, the possibility exists that anyone you know is just as illiterate as you are, Tiny Twerp.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            They read the headline, you idiot. It’s not hard to re-write the idiotic, poorly written sentence.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            The fact that your acquaintances are all as illiterate as you, is duly noted, Tiny Fruitcake.

          • guest

            “BTW, that is a totally asinine and stupid expression of yours.”

            Actually, Rob’s little pet troll, it’s your asinine expression. You’re such a pathetic little nothing. You can’t even remember what you’ve said and the trail of bullsh*t you leave. No one likes you. Everyone just laughs at you. Braahahahahaha!!!
            You’re nothing but a product of mongoloids.

            Hannitized, Proofs
            obsession Proof • 16 days
            ago
            Running like a scalded dog, Poofy?

            Hannitized, Proofs
            obsession Proof • 16 days ago
            Also, you know the words you would claim as your own were in reference to you running like a scalded dog, because you lied and implied.

            Hannitized, Proofs
            obsession Proof • 9 months ago
            Now once again, here you are running like a “scalded dog” from the
            challenge and instead you can only pretend to know what was in Whistler’s mind,
            proving once again that you do mind read fail better than anyone.

            Hannitized, Proofs
            obsession Proof • 9 months ago

            You ran like a scalded dog, didn’tcha.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            It merely illustrates his hypocrisy and his jealousy. Hannidiot tries to parrot me as often as he can. The fact that I busted him for it and he can no longer use it as frequently as he desires produced the “sour grapes” response that it is “asinine”.

            You are correct. He didn’t think it was asinine when he was parroting me. He wants to be me so much he can taste it. (In his homoerotic dreams, he wants to do me so much he can taste it. )

            His obsession with me is legendary.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            He proved that you run like a scalded dog more than a few times, eh Poof? Yeah, that expression is still stupid.

          • guest

            It proves,that you used it at least 9 months ago.

            Hannitized, Proofs
            obsession Proof • 9 months ago

            You ran like a scalded dog, didn’tcha.

          • Ken

            It must be morning in Hawaii, and hanni.the.turd, right on schedule, is here right on schedule to begin his daily attention fix. Tell us willie, what’s it feel like to be Rob’s little pet troll?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Here you are, right on time, trying to smell my asshole to see what I had for dinner. So, did you guess?

          • Ken

            For anyone to smell your asshole, you’d have to take your hat off, chlamydia boy.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s clear if you could get ahold of my dirty underwear you would use it for a pillow case.

          • Ken

            What you’ve made perfectly clear is that you prefer to wear dirty underwear. Does your mongoloid mommy know you stole her undies?
            For anyone to smell your asshole, you’d have to take your hat off, chlamydia boy.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            If you weren’t obsessed with me, you wouldn’t build your online identity around me. Do you get your jollies from looking at my screen name with every comment you post?

            It’s funny how “stupid” and “asinine” you find expressions of mine that you yourself have parroted in an attempt make yourself sound less stupid and asinine.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            It’s called mocking you and revealing what a hypocrite you are. Only an idiot and obsessed douche could confuse mocking you with copying you. Of course that’s why he did it, because he’s almost as stupid as you are. He’s smart because he hides behind multiple sock puppets and he knows I would prove him to be a lying hypocrite justa as I prove most of you are, aside from bitter losers.

            Enjoy the next four years of being a whiny sore loser, Poof.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Han Job: The fact that you would use ” hypocrite” and “multiple sock puppets” in the same comment, speaking of anyone other than yourself, is just freaking hilarious, Tiny Sociopath.

            Your projection is duly noted.

          • HG

            It’s not uncommon for liberals like yourself to be at odds with our constitution and our constitutional rights. In fact, it’s expected.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            I believe the country is ready to correctly interpret the 2nd. Unless you are going to belong to a well armed militia, it’s highly unlikely that you are going to be able to defend yourself from a government that has RPGs, Tanks, Air-craft and a well trained army. Your pea shooters aren’t going to do anything, except endanger the rest of us.

            You can quit your blathering, nobody believes it anymore.

          • HG

            Listen to H talk of gov’t using the armed forces to force innocent Americans to comply with control freaks. You gotta love liberals who all of the sudden find a use for the military.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s a misinterpretation of what I said.

            The 2nd implies that you need a well armed militia to defend against a tyrannical government. But unless you are part of a militia that can contend with the same weapons the government has, your pea shooters aren’t going to do anything, AR-15 or not.

            Good Americans everywhere don’t need a military to make regulations, they use the rights the founding fathers gave us.

          • HG

            There is no right given by any founder to violate the constitution and the constitutional rights in it. The only way you’ll do that is to try force.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Of course you aren’t familiar with the constitution, GH, it’s no surprise to anyone, but the founders gave us the ability to amend the constitution, for they knew one day parts of it would need to be amended.

          • HG

            It won’t happen. But please give it your best ‘shot’, H. Nothing says what you really are like trying to amend the 2nd amendment. I want every American to know exactly where you liberals really stand.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Oh, you think it’s a big secret that some people want gun OWNERSHIP to be a privilege, not a right?

          • HG

            No. It’s just you libs rarely have the fortitude to say so unless you think there is enough emotion stirred up to excuse it. Quit talking amending the 2nd amendment and do something about it, H. Please.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Things are being done now, amending the 2nd will come eventually.

          • guest

            Are you willingly going to turn in your semi automatic weapons, little pet troll?

          • HG

            Why wait?

          • slackwarerobert

            But you don’t amend it by simple majority, or executive order. Be my guest and write an amendment, but I will not vote for it because we have a court that can’t read, and there is no way I will let them misuse a new amendment no mater how good it is. I don’t care if it is to allow citizens to shoot their reps on sight, those nuts on the courts cannot be trusted. They will declare they don’t represent us so we can’t shoot them.

          • slackwarerobert

            So you support us having any gun? Your other posts made you sound like you want bans. I agree an AR is worthless against a tank, that is why we need BIGGER and better guns that can take out a tank. Army doesn’t write laws, but they are supporting the tyrants that are. The president, and the courts do not write laws either. and the HHS secretary doesn’t write tax law. congress writes laws, and that is why we need the weapons now more than ever. Congress is the only one NOT writing laws.

          • slackwarerobert

            I like how they will protect us, but if they shoot they will kill innocent people because they can’t shoot straight.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “I believe the country is ready to correctly interpret the 2nd”…says the guy who couldn’t determine if the subject in a blog headline was singular or plural. Too funny, Hannilliterate!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Apples and Oranges are fruits, but they are used as an example to highlight the difference between things. Just as are Video Game and Hollywood violence, different things that have something in common.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            So, now that three different people, on both sides of the political aisle, have told you you were wrong (and by implication, stupid for defending it), are you willing now to admit your error? Or are you going to drag this out another five years like your error about “camp” being short for “campaign”?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Is Apple and Orange juice making conservatives more violent?

            Tell me where it asks if Tomato juice makes us more violent.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your irrelevance and propensity to try to refight battles you’ve already lost are both duly noted, Tiny Hannirrelevant.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thanks for admitting that you believe Orange Juice and Apple Juice to be the same thing, with no difference between them.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            *Sigh* How many times am I going to have to answer this, Tiny Imbecile, before you stop clogging my inbox with your stupidity?

            We’ll just put “admitting” down as yet another of the long, long list of English words you have no clue as to the meaning.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            If you don’t believe Apple Juice and Orange Juice are the same thing, then it proves how stupid you are to claim and believe Video Game and Hollywood Violence are the same thing.

            Game over!

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            *Sigh* I have answered this repeatedly, so that even the most stupid person on the planet should have been able to understand it. (Thus, we recognize your confusion, Hannidiot.)

            “Game Over!”

            It was over the first day I pointed out your error, Hannilliterate. You were just too stupid to know it, Hanniclown, but, you are fun to watch!

          • slackwarerobert

            You can’t belong to a malitia. Do you not watch the news? They throw you in jail if you belong and train. Rohm Emanuel will tell you, don’t stand next to the tyrant, and you are safe. You don’t attack the army, even the indians now know that. Just 700 in washington are the problem. So a ban on capacities of 1400 should work I guess. That is two per tyrant and his henchmen. Why do you think we don’t want to be only allowed pea shooters? They don’t do what I need weapons for.

          • slackwarerobert

            Fortunately I already planned for that, and can now make my own guns. By summer I will be able to make my primers and powder. I hope you have been doing the same, before they outlaw edumacation. I am going out on a limb here, but I think you will find that MORE than 20 children were killed when hitler banned guns. 5.999999981 million jews would have prefered no ban and 20 children killed.

          • SusanBeehler

            Yeah, they will just shoot you if you don’t agree with them and then call it defending something.

          • HG

            I pity the fools that would present an immediate threat to the life of any conservative. I think there is a dynamic to the relationship between conservatives and liberals that would likely prevent such a scenario from ever playing out. That is liberals are afraid of conservatives. Their weapon of choice is envy and political power. They know full well that “their is a point beyond which we will not go”. They know that conservatives believe their are some things worth committing to our lives, fortunes and sacred honor. Conservatives are already uprooting their families and relocating from liberal states. All legal means of resisting these control freaks are on the table. But should all these fail and should free people be backed into a corner, many will risk death to resist dictatorial gov’t control over their life. Not because we are anti-gov’t, but because we’re Americans.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Tough talk and saber rattling wont stop the better judgement of logical thinking Americans everywhere. Get ready for change, GH.

          • HG

            We’re Americans. We’re ready for anything.

      • SusanBeehler

        I am not a lib, I just don’t like children being murdered. It is easier to get a gun then to get mental healthcare. Problem solved permanently with a gun.

        • $8194357

          Anti Constitution/personal accountability sure doesn’t
          sound very conservitive either,IMO..

        • HG

          Well, we need to address the mentally ill in society and their access to firearms. A gun safe in the home of a mentally ill child is a good idea and should be law. I have a safe, but no mentally ill children. It just makes good sense.

          • slackwarerobert

            And is a mental case going to wait there with his knife when you ask him to while you open the safe? The problem wasn’t she had guns in the home. The problem is she didn’t USE those guns when attacked.

        • slackwarerobert

          Your problem is the courts then. I will support banning judges. No shrink has ever said you can’t be treated. The courts said the nuts can tell the shrink not to treat them. A shrink is much cheaper than a gun.

    • Bat One

      .the end game is to preserve what they feel is their right to own guns.

      But of course it IS the conservatives’ right – and every other American as well – to own firearms. The Constitution is very explicit that this is so, and the Supreme Court in Heller declared the “right to keep and bear arms” to be “a fundamental and individual right.” Not surprisingly, liberals seem determined to ignore both the Constitution and the Court’s Heller and McDonald rulings. But wishful thinking and a “progressive” president with a determined contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution embolden the Left to ignore both.

      As for your “knife” argument, that’s just silly – and gratuitous. Many, if not most states have some sort of “Castle” law on the books which allow the use of deadly force firearms when one’s home is invaded and the owner feels his life and/or that of his family may be in danger. Its difficult, and dangerous, to imagine that someone willing to violate the law by breaking in isn’t just as willing to break a law against possession of a handgun.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        I believe a strict adherence to the 2nd is based out of a need to defend against a tyrannical government, through means of a militia. At the time of the creation of that amendment, having “arms” was a plausible defense. Today, not so much, unless they allow militias to have RPGs, tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and jets. I’m for having an armed militia, just in case. I just believe that we should amend the constitution to change gun ownership as a privilege, not a right.

        My knife argument is specious, intentionally so.

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          “My knife argument is specious” and consistent with everything else you’ve ever bleated here.

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          “I believe a strict adherence to the 2nd is based out of a need to defend against a tyrannical government, through means of a militia”

          That belief could come from abysmal ignorance of history, or just abysmal ignorance.

          There was a court decision many years back, forgive me if I cannot recall the exact details, but a man had been convicted of a crime and the question was brought up whether or not this individual had the constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to bear a firearm for his own protection and hunting.

          As I recall, the argument was that to deny his right to a firearm would deprive him of a means of self defense and to provide food for his table.

          And as I recall, no one argued his status in a militia. You could look up the details, since you have mad Google skills, or you could simply marinate in your ignorance.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s why I used the words “strict adherence”, which explains why you missed it. I didn’t use simple words that you also get wrong.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            We’ll just add “strict” and “adherence” to the long, long list of English words you cannot quite comprehend, Hannilliterate.

    • slackwarerobert

      Because a horn going woo, wooo will not stop a bullet being shot at me. A bullet in the shooters head WILL stop bullets from being shot at me. Why should I risk my family on the bad guy being a better fighter with a knife. I know he can’t be better with a gun. Debate all you want, but you need to change the constitution to ban our rights. You stop shooting sprees by killing shooters before they get to spree. Get the courts to lock up violent people and the problem would also be solved.

  • zipity

    Unless/until we stop pretending that we can “fix” the malignantly insane
    among us, and begin to remove them from the population to protect THEM
    and OURSELVES nothing will change. Anything else (e.g. “gun control”) is
    blatant unadulterated bullshit.

  • SigFan

    The perpetrator of the Cheshire tragedy was convicted and sentenced to death. The liberal governor of CT just abolished capital punishment in the state, despite the majority of the public supporting it. So a cold-blooded killer gets to sit in prison for the rest of his life being housed, clothed and fed at the taxpayer’s expense. And the Petit family gets … ? Only in the twisted universe of a liberal can that be called justice.

    Owning and knowing how to use firearms does not guarantee your safety or that you’ll survive an encounter with a violent whack-job. It does however increase the odds that you will and absolutely gives you a fighting chance to. Why do the left want to take that away? The answer is the same as their motivation for everything else they do – power and control over the public.

    • $8194357

      2 tru sig..

    • 11B40

      Greetings:

      I’m still serving my deportation to the San Francisco Bay area. A month or two ago, I read an article about California’s “death” penalty. Apparently, since it was “re-instated”, the Golden State has managed to execute 17 “individuals” while 54 of those on Death Row have died of natural causes. And that would be natural causes at a rate of 30-50K per annum, if you get my drift.

    • slackwarerobert

      See, there is a reason for having an assault weapon. The gov will have armed guards that you will need to shoot to get to him. He may have the power to let my families killers off the hook, but he wouldn’t live out the month after doing it.

  • LastBestHope

    As a student of history, I was interested to read some observations by Ben Stein:

    “Finally, a comment that will enrage the beautiful people. The whole world is rightly overwrought and crazed with grief over the murder of twenty totally innocent and blameless souls last Friday in Newtown. It was and is a catastrophe for the ages.

    But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promises to kill every Jew in Israel and then in the whole world, including babies… and he had his defenders, even at the Democratic National Convention. And it was daily life in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1939 to 1941 to kill thousands of Jewish children every day. But powerful, intelligent men and women in this country defended Hitler, spoke up for him and for keeping America from even sending arms to Britain when England stood alone. What are we to make of that? No one even mentions, no one even knows about the horrendous Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915, when well over a million of the most talented people on the planet were wantonly murdered — and the world has still not officially called it genocide — and Hitler explicitly said it was a model for him. Who today even talks of the purposeful mass starvation of millions of beautiful Ukrainian children by Stalin? The U.S. did not say one word about it as a government. The U.S. still will not confront Turkey seriously about the Armenian children.

    Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge killed roughly one third of all of its people, including children, from 1974 to about 1977 — and it was U.S. policy to avoid doing anything to stop them — because they were opposed to the North Vietnamese Communists and Communist Vietnam, which had just taken over South Vietnam — our ally. What can we say to that? We cheered the deposing of the President —Richard Nixon — who would have stopped the Khmer Rouge from taking power. There is plenty of Cambodian blood on our hands. There is plenty of blood of all kinds on our hands, especially of the most innocent and blameless among us… real babies, truly innocent.

    God help us. Man is made of such crooked stuff that it is impossible to set him straight, said a famous philosopher. God help us.”

    Read it all @ http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/17/god-help-us

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    I grew up in the Bronx of the last ’50s and ’60s but was fortunate to be in a family that had a summer bungalow about 60 miles north in Putnam County. Thus, I had the benefits of both an urban culture and a country culture.



    Spending summers upstate, my friends were country boys, used to going into the woods, camping overnight, and having our days to ourselves with no threat of adult supervision. 

Before long, I wanted to acquire the local accoutrements, guns and knives being my highest priorities.

    My city-girl mother wasn’t having any of it; my father, born in Ireland and a WWII graduate, quickly became my only chance for a successful acquisition. Initially, I separated him from his “war-knife” and subsequently began working on him for a 22 caliber rifle.

 When my mother found out that my father was having me join a gun club in preparation for my new tool, he and my mother had an intensive dinner time discussion about the appropriateness of a relative youngster having his own firearm.

    My mother insisted that this was no way to raise a child. My father’s conclusionary statement was “I’m not raising a child; I’m raising a man.”

    • $8194357

      Yup..
      As well as not a nanny stater…

  • SusanBeehler

    Here is my suggestion, let’s follow the constitution literally. If we refuse to discuss banning certain types of guns because of the constitution then let’s go back in time of our forefathers and only allow the guns of their time period. There is no way this guy could have killed so many children in the time period he did without the assault weapon he used. So all those who want to follow the constitution to the intent of our forefathers, than lets get out the black powder and the muskets and see how many killers would choose that as their weapon to wipe out a classroom. Times have changed and the laws need to change accordingly to address the violent society we live in.

    • DonnyB

      Let’s also then restrict “speech” to what it was at the time, the written word (no glossy color either) and actual speech, vocalized out of people’s mouths. That would mean TV (cable and network) is gone. Internet gone. Telephone conversations, gone.

      • SusanBeehler

        Speech does not kill 20 children in a few minutes, bad or crazy or impulsive people with guns do.

        • $8194357

          Your half right.
          Bad/crazy people do…
          How can you put the ‘operaters intent’
          on the inanimate tool he chooses to use
          in his/her persuit of mayhem?

        • 308T

          If the Principal,teachers or office staff had a shotgun,rifle or pistol the shooters plans would’ve been foiled in less than a few minutes after he broke the door glass & entered the school. I think people should have background checks before exercising free speech so they don’t use offensive words that result in physical confrontations or worse…

          • $8194357

            12 gage hi cap 00 buck puts the perp down fast and hard, huh.

          • SusanBeehler

            A physical confrontation is a choice, or are you a beater who believes the spouse made you do it? Really, 308T you rather have a gun battle play out in a classroom rather than making it more difficult for an assault rifle to be owned or better mental healthcare access? How many woman do you think would still want the job of teacher if they had carry a gun in a classroom or office? I can’t think of any job where I would have wanted or needed a gun to get my job done.

          • slackwarerobert

            My guess in the bad black schools, 110%. Then the bad neighborhood schools, 90%. Then the idiot lib zones 5%. Heck if aloud to carry I WOULD take up teaching.

            You don’t carry a gun to do your job, you have it so you can continue breathing and do your job. Police carry guns to kill people without being held responsible, we should disarm them and see if crime drops.

        • DonnyB

          Wrong. You don’t think that Der Sturmer, which spread the ideology and party planks of the Nazi Party in Germany, didn’t directly correspond to killing people? Of course speech kills. Speech is ideas and only an idea can actually slaughter on a mass scale. People might kill for money, food, or commit a crime of passion, but history proves that to really manufacture death on an industrial scale the first requirement is an idea.

          • SusanBeehler

            Then based on your thinking, it is the “idea” that guns should not be controlled is what is killing people. We control guns the killing could stop because it is the opposite of your thinking. The idea that gun control will not work is your idea not mine based on your looking at only history to base your idea. Ideas do not kill, it is the execution of the idea, the action that can kill. Of course speech cannot kill, it is action that will kill not the speech, not the idea. Your thinking is “wrong” if you think you can kill with your speech, you must have some really bad breath or spit poison.

          • Fatalerror94

            First of all, we are not spreading the “idea” that guns should not be controlled (which I read to mean as to be made unavailable to the general public), we are merely pointing out that it is already the supreme law of the land; we call it “The 2nd Amendment”.

            You say that uncontrolled guns are killing people. Our response to that is to say that unavailable guns leads to even more deaths.

            It might not happen all at once, like these horrific public shootings, but over a period of time as people and families that otherwise would have taken steps to defend themselves against those that would do them harm were instead left defesless.

          • $8194357

            Yup

          • $8194357

            The Founders gave us #2 because they understood tyrany of state.
            Without #2 there will be no #1 freedom to speak and assemble..
            History proves this well…

          • slackwarerobert

            In case you missed it #1 was voided this summer 5/4, time for #2 to get it back.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “The idea that gun control will not work” has been proven through history. Look at the cities and states with the strictest gun control: Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. How does crime and murder compare with the rest of the country. Worse yet, how do they compare with someplace like Montana or Idaho with a very high percentage of guns/ population?

            Gun control was enforced strictly at Fort Hood. The men and women there were strictly regulated as to when they could or could not carry a firearm. They held to those regulations to the letter of the law. How many fewer people would have been killed there had even so much as a single person there (other than the shooter) been armed?

          • SusanBeehler

            England I believe has some gun control. Montana and Idaho just like North Dakota is there is alot of rural than urban. In a Urban area the uses of a rifle is not like they are out hunting game. Gun control does not have to be the same everywhere in the US, it could look different for areas of high density population. Different circumstances, different populations, different controls.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            We already have that. Draconian gun control in Chicago, NYC, Washington D.C. (and England), lesser in rural areas. What would you propose we change? Although I have heard the argument that rural folk should give up some of their freedoms to help out the cities in control guns, even though there’s not the problem in rural areas.

            Something about that whole ’cause and effect’ thing gets turned on its head.

          • Bat One

            The two “urban areas” with the highest rates of gun-related murder and assault, Chicago and Washington, DC, also have the most stringent gun control ordinances on their books of any US cities. Connecticut’s web of gun control legislation was rated the 4th best in the US by the Brady bunch. Your “different circumstances, different populations, different controls” scenario has been working very well. The answer isn’t more of the same.

          • SusanBeehler

            It is not more of the same. Getting bushmasters and rifles and ammo off of our streets, yes, BANNED has not been tried or if it has give me those stats. It just shows the gun control which they have tried to date has not work, kind of like researching for an effective “vacine”. You don’t give up, you do more. “Gun Control” is not just one thing it is not the same answer.

          • Bat One

            FYI: Bushmaster is a brand name, the same as Clorox, Snickers, IBM, Vanity Fair, and Porsche. In 5.56mm (.223 caliber) it is a small game hunting and target shooting rifle. And there is a reason, beyond a marketing idiom, why the gun in question looks the way it does – that is, like a military assault weapon. Like Tang, heat-resistant ceramics, digital avionics and GPS navigation, and thousands of other technologies developed for military use, the AR style rifle format is actually an improvement in ergonomics and accuracy for the shooter. The AR format is available in a variety of calibers, depending on what game is being hunted, from a variety of manufacturers, domestic and foreign.

            Now granted, gun haters like you find the format visually intimidating and perhaps even despicable, but the same is probably true of a Colt 1911 or a Ruger .22 six shooter. Besides, there’s’ still that pesky 2nd Amendment to contend with and the Heller and McDonald rulings.

            BTW, the number of gun murders in Chicago this year is likely to reach 500, and most of the victims are children, adolescents, or young adults. Yet I don’t see where you have posted any comments regarding that epidemic of violence and slaughter. Why is that? Have you avoided the slaughter on the streets of Chicago for racial reasons (nearly all the victims are Black – as are most, if not all the shooters)? Or is it because the epidemic of gun shot murders in the city with the nation’s most stringent gun control ordinances proves that gun control doesn’t work, because those who use guns to kill aren’t exactly law-abiding citizens to begin with?

            Just curious.

          • SusanBeehler

            I never said I hated guns. I hate that guns are being stolen from the “law-abiding” citizens and used to kill people. If I do not talk about all the things which have happened with guns or in other places does not negate the fact these “visually desired” guns by gun owners are getting into the hands of killers. If your two year got ahold of your gun and killed themselves you can bet I would think you the gun owner should be responsible. As gun owners you have the responsibility to make sure these guns are not getting into the hands of those no different than a “2 year old” because their mental capacity is diminished. Saying we need more guns when the gun owners are not being responsible with the ones we have than I think something needs to be done differently. The particular gun control you suggest has not worked, than time to do something differently. If gun owners desire these types of guns and so do the mass murders than maybe the answer is holding the gun owner responsible for having the gun, just like we do for product manufacturers with defective products and than lets hold the gun manufacturer owner liable too. I think if we start having the lawsuits coming out against owners and manufacturers if they are unwilling to ban their use than the financial liability might change the desire for owning them. Something has to be done, how it is done is the real question

          • $8194357

            Ideological blindness/deception followed religously to the non believers demise..Communism or islam…Both the same global ideological global agndas of statist tyrany by force and death..
            Communist new left democrat Alinsky’s “by any means”
            and Islams “taqiyya”.

          • slackwarerobert

            Great book. How do you kill 11 million, You LIE! Does anyone remember the great SALT treaties to ban assault weapons? I don’t. If our government has no problem with a socialist state like russia having assault weapons, then why do they fear us having them?

          • $8194357

            Because we will shoot back at them when they get enough power
            to force the fascist agenda by extreme predjidice.
            Same reasons the Democrats first introduced the first gun bans
            back in the day they disallowed the negros from gun ownership.
            A few of the KKK shirts got some bloody red holes in em..

          • slackwarerobert

            That idiot O’Reiley thinks we don’t need an AR because it is worthless against our military. No one overthrows a tyrannical military, they overthrow the tyrant who controls the military. You would think he could understand after watching the LA riots, and the riots in greece now, what is about to happen here, there is a very big need for high fire rates and long fire bursts coming to a bloody street near you. I could never understand why blacks are so dumb they couldn’t figure out that guy in the big white sheet with the torch should be shot. And jews are just as dumb now. “This time it will be ok to be unarmed, I bet my ashes on it.”

          • $8194357

            What is truly sad is it is the same spin they
            used on Fast and Furious.
            Only 17% of the weapons left at drug cartel
            shootouts were even “TRACABLE”..

            All American weapons are tracable…..
            Of that 17%- 90% were tracable to America..

            The vast majority of them were the
            “REAL ASSAULT RIFLE”
            only the military and police can have access to.

            Select fire semi or full autos left behind by drug agencys or given to Mexican authoritys to fight them with…
            Assault rfles are by definition select fire and without a class 3 license the general public cannot own them..
            Lies based on half truths and more lies serve the leftist facist agendas and they just keep telling the same B/S over and over.

            My 10/22 Ruger semi auto is a perfect excample..
            It is semi auto only so legal to own..
            Sold with a ten shot magazine..
            Put a military stock and pistol grip and high cap mag
            on it and a high cap mag and you have the same a$$ gun
            that “looks like” an assault rifle..
            .
            Their..The lefts definition of a “sniper rifle”
            is one that can readily take optics and shoot out to 300 yards…
            Every high caliber bolt action pump action or semi auto can
            then be called a “sniper rifle”..
            Put the tactical stock on the same a$$ gun or a heavy barrel
            and you have a weapon that “looks like” a sniper rifle…

            Stupid leftist sheople just suck it up all emotional and tell us
            we are haters and want children to die and other such
            nonsense to fuel the wolf in sheeps clothing agenda to disarm
            and submit to stat,e the law abieding while they themselves run military weapons to freedoms enimies around the globe….

            Stupid Lenins useful idiot fool tools to Americas destruction.

        • $8194357

          Speech and ideological blindness/deception
          does kill to the tune of 100’s of millions in the last 150 years.

          • SusanBeehler

            150 years is not as fast as the instant a bullet is released. Your beliefs will not let you think of another idea because you are stuck with the past as your future. The past does not have to be our future, if we open our minds to other choices, other ideas.

          • Onslaught1066

            Suzy Q, it’s hard to tell, are you the fat cow in the Santa hat, or the the bison?

            You might want to investigate some form of fork-control.

          • SusanBeehler

            Can I shoot you to defend myself? Your free speech is killing me.

          • Onslaught1066

            If you’re man enough. Ask your wife on your back for her glock.

          • SusanBeehler

            “Paxil-ly Mr Retard, you tiny rodent, tiny fruitcake, tiny brained liberal, gutless,hanitard, Buttfuckle,” We have lovely parting gifts please do share your real name and address we would be happy to deliver them to you. Thanks for playing.

          • Onslaught1066

            Who am I, you ask?

            I’ll tell you who I am.

            I AM THE VERY MODEL OF A MODERN LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

            LIBERAL
            I am the very model of a modern liberal democrat
            A hurtful, hate-filled, vile, vicious, low down, no good, dirty rat
            I’m venal and pernicious and obnoxious and deplorable
            And yet despite it all my mother still finds me adorable.
            I spend my time producing copious amounts of excrement
            Then fling it, like a monkey, ’round all over Al Gores internet
            I loudly shout to one and all my intellect superior
            Then demonstrate with equal verve my acumen inferior.

            ALL
            Then demonstrate with equal verve my acumen inferior.
            Then demonstrate with equal verve my acumen inferior.
            Then demonstrate with equal verve my acumen inferi-eiror.

            LIBERAL
            My grasp of fact is not the best; in truth it is quite tenuous
            My view of history, ‘bout the same, is fractured, filtered, nebulous.
            A hurtful hate-filled vile vicious low down no good dirty rat
            I am the very model of a modern liberal democrat.

            ALL
            A hurtful hate-filled vile vicious low down no good dirty rat
            He is the very model of a modern liberal democrat.

            LIBERAL
            I’ve studied Saul Alinsky and I’m practiced as a radical.
            I cling to every tenant of the socialist, fanatical.
            I make my rounds of all the liberal hotspots on the internet.
            Then parrot what I read just like some kind of mind numb malcontent.
            The topics that I comment on are peppered well with BDS.
            I get the talking points I mouth from CNN and PBS.
            The New York Times is like a bible that I pray to everyday.
            I never question anything, no matter how dumb, that they say.

            ALL
            I never question anything, no matter how dumb, that they say
            I never question anything, no matter how dumb, that they say
            I never question anything, no matter how dumb, that they say, they say.

            LIBERAL
            I bloviate and obfuscate and knowingly prevaricate
            I castigate, vituperate, at slinging mud, I’m really great.
            A hurtful hate-filled vile vicious low down no good dirty rat
            I am the very model of a modern liberal democrat.

            ALL
            A hurtful hate-filled vile vicious low down no good dirty rat
            He is the very model of a modern liberal democrat.

            LIBERAL
            In fact when I can denigrate an African American (R)
            With slurs the like of which were never dreamt of by the Ku Klux Klan.
            When I can fight for death row cads just like they were my son or brother
            Or the right of murder that belongs to an expectant mother.
            When I can call my enemy, but not my homo friend, a fag
            And tolerate behavior that would likely make a maggot gag.
            Then all my wastrel pals would turn their beaming faces up at me
            And say a better liberal democrat they never hope to see.

            For my militant proclivities, both overt and clandestine-y,
            Have only been brought down since the middle of our last century.
            But still, a hate-filled vile vicious low-down no good dirty rat,
            I am the very model of a modern liberal democrat.

          • SusanBeehler

            Name and address?

          • Onslaught1066

            Wouldn’t you like to know ;-)

            No, but seriously, I am not nearly as brain dead stupid as you to plaster myself all over the webs for just any bovine mammal to wreak her mental instability upon.

            You have a nice day now, ya hear.

          • SusanBeehler

            Those who intrude hid behind a mask.

          • Onslaught1066

            Those who are stupid get called out for being a fat cow riding a fat cow.

          • SusanBeehler

            If I am fat cow, what are you? Please come out of hiding so I can call you names based on any physical defects you may have.

          • Onslaught1066

            You can call me anything you like, you cow, the difference being I am an enigma while you leave nothing to the imagination.

            BTW, how much did you have to reimburse for the physical as well as psychological damage done to that poor bison?

          • ellinas1

            “It’s a good idea to stick your dick in the ass of a 12 year old boy.” – Onslaught1066, July 20th, 2012

          • SusanBeehler

            Ellinas 1 are you telling or calling Onslaught1066 a child molester or does your post have some other meaning . Very disgusting, I guess Rob lets anything be said on this blog, the above comment is not free speech it is a crime.

          • $8194357

            You should get together with the mighty Mike Quinn…

          • $8194357

            Barry Soreto
            1600 Pensyilvania Ave
            Washington, DC
            Better known as:
            The worlds president

          • $8194357

            That was pretty good, huh..

          • $8194357

            Free will dictates you can do what ever you want and
            if you fear not a higher power than state? You can act just like the jihadist and leftists and shoot as many as you so desire..
            But come judgement day…Better have thought ya were in dire straits
            to justify it before the Man..

          • $8194357

            A brave new leftist social engineered world for Susan.
            The last 150 years will show you where it ‘always’ leads
            when state plays god..

        • slackwarerobert

          Oh, guess you never watch the news from the middle east. They blow up that many children just for going to school to learn to read and speak. Janet reno killed twice that many children for praying at church. It was speech that the atom can be split that led to the japs getting nuked. No bad or crazy people being the only one armed is what gets people killed. A dead nut with a gun does not bother anyone.

      • $8194357

        Did thou darest suggesteth that the Kings English be
        modernized to liberal lexicons, Master Baseball?
        Thats what the ideological driven left has been doing to
        decieve and paint the grey areas over to their ill logical
        false morality….Word smithing deceptions to control the debate
        ever so leftward, sir….
        Dost the Law of God really condem sinners?

    • $8194357

      Holy crreeping ideological liberal logic, Batman…
      Yes Robin…And they believe it like a religion…

    • Waski_the_Squirrel

      Of course violent crime has been dropping steadily. Times have changed…for the better. Things are getting better and better, if we would just acknowledge it. Unfortunately, the media sell more by bleating about the falling sky and we continue to believe it rather than look at actual numbers.

      This horrific act of evil stands out to us because it is an exception, not the rule. In fact the worst school mass murder occurred in 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan with 38 elementary children murdered, 2 teachers, and 4 adults. The only gun involved was the rifle he used to set off one explosive. The murder took place via explosives and timed detonators.

      Another school shooting that comes to mind was at the hands of GOVERNMENT soldiers at Kent State University.

      In 1986 at the Dupont Plaza in Puerto Rico, 97 people lost their lives, and the responsible weapon was gasoline.

      Guns can be a tool for murder but they are not the only one. Evil people will commit evil acts and will find the tools to do so. Our focus should be on identifying those evil people.

    • $8194357

      All dictators and statist mass murderers over the last 150 years agree with your position on this Susan… to the tune of several 100 million of the states own citizens put to death by the leftist statist control ideologies…

      http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/guncontrol.htm

      Gun Control

      We Need Government Control Not Gun Control

      “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
      -Adolph Hitler 1938

      The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 — one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany — new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

      Gun Control’s Nazi Connection

      We should NEVER forget that Lenin, the Communist Revolutionist, was an agent of the GERMAN government. What is not commonly known is that Stalin murdered nearly 6 million Jews during the World War II period, as did Hitler.

      Mind Control Techniques,
      U.S. Military Officers–Shackled by U.N. Forces

      One has only to learn what really happened to the Christians in Rwanda between April and July of 1994 to imagine what may lie in store for Christians here in America at some time in the not-too-distant future. After the Christian Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early 1990s, Hutu-led military forces began to systematically massacre the defenseless Christians.
      The massacre began in April 1994 and continued until July 1994. Using machetes rather than bullets, the Hutu forces were able to create a state of abject fear and terror within the helpless Christian population as they systematically butchered hundreds of thousands of them.

      The Population Control Agenda
      ect..ect..ect..Through out history…

      • SusanBeehler

        We are the government, we better start controlling ourselves. All the things you recite will not be affected if we better regulate assault rifles. Just because history has evil does not mean we should not try and make it more difficult to kill a classroom full of children. If this nut would not have access to his mother’s collection he would have been delayed or stopped. With this kind of assault, time has to be bought, whether it be making it harder to get off 6 shots in a couple minutes, seconds whatever. The average gun owner, any owner does not need an assault rifle to defend themselves or for anything. Name one instance an average person needs an assault weapon. The gun industry could regulate the use and sale of this weapon, if they won’t then “we the people” should.

        • Fatalerror94

          We are NOT “the Government”, we are “the People”.

          As one pundit, Bill Whittle, once pointed out; there are three major players dealt with in the Constitution;

          The Federal Government (referred to as the United States),
          The Individual States.
          and The People (Individual Citizens).

          This is an essential distinction, and clarifies why the founders opted for a Constitutional Republic (where we elect candidates to serve as our representatives at various levels in the Government) rather than a pure Democracy.

          For practical purposes, the Federal Government can only be headed by a tiny fraction of a percent of the total population of the Nation. That is a lot of power to put in the hands of the very few, and with power comes temptation.

          The People would be wise to know that the interests of those who administer the Government may not always align with their interests.

          As the famous saying goes: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

          • $8194357

            10X
            Beware the debtors pen they warned us..
            Internationalist bankers and elitists own the current system
            “lock” “stock” and “barrel”….

        • $8194357

          And the rule of law be damned huh?
          Direct democracy is just tyrany of the majority
          over the minority..
          Thats why the founders gve us the Constitution
          and its Amendments…Equal rule of law or tyrany of the majority
          steered from the elitist olagarchy who gets to decide not only
          what weapons we can own but what we eat, where we will go to recieve health care along with end of life decisions..
          What a brave new world you support when you agree with eroding
          Contsitutional Law and personal accountability for the collective
          lies of the leftists…
          Your mind is made up on it tho so….
          Carry on with the rest of Lenins useful idiots to global fascism…

        • $8194357

          (We are the government)
          Hate to break it to you Susan..
          Not anymore and haven’t been since the Founders original
          Document was usurpt by soviet central planning..
          The olagarchy of the eliete control the agendas in DC
          and steer it by committee and useful idiot water boys and girls
          on the made for TV stage for mass consumption..
          American equal rule of law Constitutional Republicanism took a mortal wound in 1913 and the beginning of the end was set into motion..
          We are now and have been owned by the Federal Corperate Government running up global debt in our name..
          I don’t even know who our new daddys are for sure..
          Just that they run things from behind the scenes of the UN
          for the global collective good of course..

        • slackwarerobert

          The hot dog vender peacefully assembled in michigan to thank the state legislature for allowing him to not be extorted. The man who told the kids not to play basketball in the street, attacked by mob (guess who’s people), the man attacked by two dozen motorcycle gang members beaten and stabbed. Anyone who has more than a few attackers needs an assualt weapon. Then you get to anyone who wants to live in a free republic when the dictator has and uses REAL assault weapons and WMD’s against his own people.
          The constitution is to protect me from the government, not ed shultz.

    • 308T

      He didn’t use an assault weapon, it was two semi-automatic pistols with 10 round magazines. You need a class 3 permit to own a true full-automatic assault weapon. If you can show me where the 2nd Amend say “the right to keep & bear muskets & only muskets, shall not be infringed” I’ll give you one of my AR-15s…good luck with that.

      • SusanBeehler

        According to news reports it was a bushmaster with the clips taped together. It was the arrival of the police during a reload which stopped the killing. All the victims were murdered by more than one shot to the head with this assault riffle according to the medical examiner. What was the constitution referring to? the “arms” we have today could not have even been dreamt of in the writing of the constitution.

        • $8194357

          The bushmaster is a semi auto carbine (named assault rifle)
          for leftist political agendas and deception for folks like you who will get scared and buy the lies.
          Ever hear of leftist social engineering?
          It takes free people and makes slaves out of them
          one issue and lie at a time..

          • SusanBeehler

            a killing machine

          • $8194357

            Don’t buy one then, if you fear them that much..
            A high powered car is a killing machine in the wrong hands as well.
            Don’t buy one…But don’t tell other folks they can’t either…

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            All my guns must be defective. They haven’t killed anyone.

          • $8194357

            I did get a couple zombie targets messed up tho..
            I am third generation gun owner.
            None of us went defective and killed anyone with them…
            The fool goes defective…Not the tool..
            Did come close to vehicular manslaughter drunk behind the wheel
            tho along time ago..
            No injuries just bruised pride and egos, thank God.
            Again..Not the tools fault but the fools…..

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I’ve punched a lot of paper. My favorite is aluminum soda cans. Line ‘em up, knock ‘em down, shoot ‘em again. Rinse and repeat. Fill them up with holes until there’s not much left to shoot, then, scoop ‘em up and recycle them. No muss, no fuss.

          • $8194357

            I put a few pounds of venison in the freezer
            over the years as well.
            If I “had to”..I could put a person down…
            Don’t want to; but sometimes the perps leave ya no
            choice but the defense of deadly force.

          • slackwarerobert

            I like two liter bottles, you fill and use it like a gun toten jenga game, shooting below water line, yet high enough to hold water still. Girl friend never would go for strip bottle shot sadly. I always wonder what your shot group looks like if you fire your gun and weapon at the same time.
            I found the best way to demonstrate the speed of bullets is to skip them over a lake. Just like stones, only very large distance between ripples. Sadly my eyes are to bad to see far enough for a fifth skip now…..

          • slackwarerobert

            Maybe you should buy a black one. “Holder’s” guns kill thousands. I won’t even let them have my gun that have assaulted people over my dead body. Be thankful you don’t want one with a history, once they have killed people, the price goes WAY UP.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I have a Glock which is black, and therefore evil and scary looking. So far, I’ve been able to use The Force to keep it pointed in safe and non threatening directions. If I ever mounted a laser sight on it, I’m sure it would go over to The Dark Side immediately.

          • Bat One

            “Black”??? “Dark Side”??? What are you, some kinda racist?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I prefer my weapons in SS, for the rust resistance, but that has another unfortunate historical connotation as well!

          • ellinas1

            “I told you that through intermarriage which GOD HATES, there was pollution of the gene pool,….”
            Neiman on 11/27/2012 posted on the Thanksgiving Holiday Open Thread.

            This is one of his Democrat Plantation darkies, one of his fellow liberal, America hating pals.
            Neiman on5/31/2012 in reply to Neiman.

          • 308T

            It’s also a fantastic self-defense machine,freedom protecting machine,game hunting machine & peace making machine. But impulsive weak hearts like you always see the negatives first & foremost.

          • $8194357

            As well as providing sport and fun to millions…

          • slackwarerobert

            The only negative is for tyrants on penn ave. A 7 year old alter boy with a short barrel AR under his robes has no fear of a pervert wearing a collar.

          • slackwarerobert

            not a very good one if it takes hundreds of rounds to kill 27 people was it. That alone should shut up the high capacity nuts. If it takes that many to do the job, then we need BIGGER ones that work not smaller capacities.

          • HG

            All rifles are killing machines. That is what every gun is designed to do.

          • $8194357

            Two fold by design, IMO..
            To kill and protect….

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I have used mine in the past as long distance drills…

        • 308T

          Every report I read until yesterday said it was pistols, now I’m reading it was the Bushmaster. Kinda curious as to how that story changed all of a sudden, pretty tough to confuse two pistols with a rifle.

          • SusanBeehler

            Just goes to show how easy you would kill someone,impulse to believe the first thing you see or heard about something, rather than choose to find out what happened before you believed nothing could be done with the guns used in the incident. Reporters only report the information they have at the moment, this is why when a story unfolds you may not be receiving the most accurate information, it is also why you will have eyewitness accounts stories differing, it is what someone did see or believe they witnessed, not necessarily what happened. “Investigators believe most of the bullets came from a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. It was one of four guns Lanza took from the home he shared with his mother after he shot and killed her.”
            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559416/assault-rifle-used-during-sandy-hook-massacre/

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Exactly, people anxious to use their guns find an excuse to use them.

          • slackwarerobert

            Who needs an excuse? Common sense tells you to train for large groups of rioters, or idiot dea goons trying to kill you because they can’t read. Using a 38 revolver against body armored thugs with REAL assault weapons always ends with the little old lady dead. What is there to fear from someone with a m-60 machine gun weighing him down? It isn’t like he can hide it in his pocket and whip it out and surprise you. If he takes it off his back and loads the ammo, you drop him before he can release the bolt to chamber a round.

          • slackwarerobert

            “Investigators”s” would know that there was no automatic used, so there could not be an assault weapon. Now you might make an argument for semi-assault weapon. But the only assault weapons used on american soil have been by the government against little old ladies with 38 pistols. Usually in a botched drug raid.

          • $8194357

            A semi auto carbine is still not a select fire assault rifle tho.
            Just because they look like the military select fire they
            are demonized, huh..

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          The long gun he stole from his mother was legal under the CT assault rifle ban. What 308 was referring to, is that a semi automatic rifle is not an “assault” weapon, unless it can fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger.

          The anti-gun lobby and gun grabbers use the phony term “assault rifle” to refer to weapons that are not. The more people are confused, the more the uniformed will support bans they think are about fully automatic weapons.

          BTW, the NYT reports that there are over 3 million civilian AR-15 type weapons in the US. While any death is deplorable, what percentage of those 3 million guns have been used in mass murders or crime of any kind? And that’s just one type of gun.

          Eliminating “gun free” zones would do more to eliminate mass shootings than any kind of gun control ever tried. Gun control was strictly enforced at Fort Hood. How’d that work out for us?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Sorry, he used the AR-15 to slaughter the children. Your information is wrong.

        • 308T

          I found that out last night , check the response I posted below.

        • HG

          He used a bushmaster that didn’t meet the definition of an Assault rifle. No assault weapon was used. It was a semi-automatic (one bullet per trigger pull) just like many, many other rifles that are not only legal, but not assault weapons.

        • $8194357

          If you do the research on “assault rifles” you will find they are banned to the general public and have been since the 30’s…
          An assault rifle by definintion is capable of selective fire,
          both full and semi auto.
          A “semi auto carbine” that “looks like” a military assault rifle
          is not an assault rifle but only guilty of looking like one…

          If ya want to get the class 3 license and ‘pay the annual fees’ for it..
          the “government will then sell you the right”
          to own the real assault rifle..
          Just little propaganda facts and omissons the
          left like to ideologicaly spin to the masses….
          But boy the statist left has got themselves some traction now to push to a populace of sheople who don’t know sh!t from sh!nola, huh..

    • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

      “only allow the guns of their time period”

      Fine. If you want to limit your freedom to the technology available at the time of the Constitution, go right ahead. Be sure to include transportation, medicine and information technology. Start by giving up your car, central heat and air, your cell phone, the Internet and any medicine invented after the 18th century.

      Have a nice life!

      • SusanBeehler

        You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. “ARMS” were specifically mentioned in the constitution, not transportation, not means to keep warm, My point is times have changed along with our population and the time has come where as a nation we should be able to talk about how we feel about “arms” and what that means even if we do not live in the same fantasy world as you.

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          Sorry, Susan, the fantasy world is yours. The First Amendment which protected free speech, protected it on a hand cranked press. The freedom does not lessen with the advent of high speed presses, radio, TV and the Internet. There is no construct in the Constitution which allows for a lessening of our liberties with the progression of technology. If you properly interpreted the Constitution, you would know that the “arms” they spoke of were not some archaic hunting pieces, but the state of the art weapons of war. The same weapons they used to fight and win a war.

          I tried to use the other examples of technology, not because they were in the Constitution, but to try to illustrate exactly how foolish your argument was. There is nothing in the Constitution that sets our liberty in amber, forever preserved in 18th century technology. And that includes arms…

          • $8194357

            Yup
            What you said….

          • slackwarerobert

            I guess you never attend the FCC meetings. The government is constantly trying to suppress everything now includes hand cranked presses. Now the really interesting constitutional dilemma for them is these new 3d printers that you can print guns with. Now the first two constitutional protections will be merging into one big freedom.

      • $8194357

        10X

    • slackwarerobert

      I would have no problem with having the same weapons as the oppressive army.The founding fathers never said, “you can’t have that gun, only the british military needs guns like that”. No, they said shoot the crooks with whatever you have, and get the job done. Guess you never seen what a 50lb sack of black powder pored over little children will do, the “assault” weapon was much more humane than burning alive like that. 1 liter of acid would also do a number on a classroom full of little kids. Just as a room full of little kids with rifles and shotguns would make a mess of the lunatic.

    • Neiman

      First your reply is just plain stupid, they knew weapons were always improving.

      Next, if you believe it needs changing then amend it by constitutional means. Otherwise, all attempts at regulation are unconstitutional.

      Ban any hand held weapons and you invite tyranny, dictator Obama.

      • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

        So our Constitution is a living document, subject to the standards of the day and not what the original intent was, is that your argument, Old Pal?

        • Neiman

          Stop lying and I’ll correct your false statements, otherwise drop dead.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            One can always expect Christ like statement from you, huh Old Pal?

          • Neiman

            First, by your own admission your not being a Christian, what would you know about what Jesus would say, child of Satan?

            Actually, it was exactly what Jesus would and did say to people just like you, slightly different language of course. If you understood what I said from a biblical standpoint it is the only way to heaven.

            Oh, you just cannot stop lying, but that’s okay virtually everyone at SAB knows you are a pathological liar anyway. Practically no one believes a word your post here.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Maybe in the New California Neiman bible, your made up Jesus did.

            I can just see the passage now, the book of Neimanicus 13:13 “O come unto me all ye sinners and drop dead because I hate you and Neiman will too so suck it and drop dead, verily thus.”

          • ellinas1

            This is one of his Democrat Plantation darkies, one of his fellow liberal, America hating pals.
            Neiman on 5/31/2012

          • ellinas1

            “I told you that through intermarriage which GOD HATES, there was pollution of the gene pool,….” Neiman on 11/27/2012 posted on the Thanksgiving Holiday Open Thread.

          • Neiman

            I feel so bad for you – you have no conscience when you lie and you lie constantly. When you select a sentence or comment and post it out of context, it is to knowingly lie. A man could write, “I hate all black people” and you post that line. When he actually said, “some despicable people say they hate all black people, I reject such racism.” That is what you are doing every time you post this comment, it is out of context and you are, like your pal Gay Bob – LYING.

          • ellinas1

            Not only are you not, according to the evidence and biblical standards a
            Christian, you are a child, a petty, spoiled child, the offspring of a
            vile people.

          • Neiman

            Nice picture of you attached to your comments. Looks just like you and you are the spitting image of your father.

            Fair enough, now prove your charges against me by the Bible and by my words, as I have supported all my accusations against you by the Bible. Unlike you, I am willing to be reproved and repent. Or, you are just another liberal child that feels no need to ever speak the truth?

            You lied against me, you know you lied and now you are angry because once again your lies have been exposed and you are pitching a childish fit, more the pity. You would never allow me to excise a sentence and omit the context and amplifications if it was your god Obama, the same rule should apply to me, offer full context or expect to be labelled a liar.

          • ellinas1

            You are a nutty fruitcake.

          • Neiman

            Thank you for that sound biblical basis for your charges.

            Thank you too for not providing an intelligent response, I would have been disappointed if you rose above your juvenile level.

          • ellinas1

            Not only are you not, according to the evidence and biblical standards a Christian, you are a child, a petty, spoiled child, the offspring of a
            vile people.

          • Neiman

            Afraid of the answer hey Gay Bob?

            Romans 6:8 “Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.”

            Romans 6:4 “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.”

            2 Corinthians 4:10 “We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.”

            2 Corinthians 13:4 “For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with him to serve you.”

            2 Timothy 2:11 “Here is a trustworthy saying: If we died with him, we will also live with him;”

            You make me laugh, you fell into this just as I expected you would. A minister I knew was confronted by a guy that said he was tired of life and wanted to die, the minister said “good you should die, I hope you do.” Then he went on to explain that the only way to life, eternal life is to, by faith, accept the death of our old nature and be born again of the new Spirit nature in Christ Jesus. You will not gain heaven unless you admit you are a sinner worthy of death, repent and die to the old natural spirit in Christ Jesus and be born again of His Spirit.

            Your ego and your being convinced you are good and deserve heaven by your own merits will condemn you. So, yes, I want you to die to your old self in Christ and be born again of His Holy Spirit into eternal life.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Where, in what you’ve cut and pasted, Old Pal, did your made up Jesus tell someone to drop dead?

          • Neiman

            I am NOT your pal, so you are just proving again and again you are a damned liar. You, being a lying liberal omitted this comment:

            Actually, it was exactly what Jesus would and did say to people just like you, slightly different language of course. If you understood what I said from a biblical standpoint it is the only way to heaven.

            Then I gave you the reason for the odd language, to yank your chain and cause you to react just as I expected. Then I proved why you need to die from the Bible point of view, which you ignored because you are dead to Christ and have not eternal life.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            So your made up Jesus never told people to drop dead like you’ve told me.

            Got it.

          • Neiman

            No you do not get it at all liar, you never do, because you are in the service of hell.

            Look at the verses I offered and there are many more, they say YOU will not get to heaven unless by faith you die first to all the base elements of this world, repent and find Jesus as your savior and Lord. So, yes in other words, He did say you should as regards your fallen spiritual nature drop dead and be born again to new life in Him.

            Of course, your father in hell that indwells you, like Judas, Satan have entered into you, you must twist things and make them into something evil, because you are thoroughly evil and will spend eternity in hell if you do not repent and die to your old nature while still here in this life.

            REPENT the man with the sign in the city proclaims, the one you walk over and spit upon. Then take up His cross and die daily to this world.

            That is it, I have made it clear, your further replies will only be more of your lies and speak of your evil nature.

      • SusanBeehler

        Not anymore stupid than the suggestion of arming teachers or more guns or not doing anything differently. I never suggested the constitution needs amending, but there is nothing in the constitution that does not stop us from making laws to protect or try to protect our children in creative ways. We can make it harder for a crazy person to take out so many in a short period of time. How we do it is what the discussion should be about with not the only options of more guns or no guns? Instead everyone on this blog freaking out about losing a constitutional right , they should could come with an option a majority could live without having to build an army of teacher/soldiers.

        • Bat One

          Allowing trained and armed teachers and/or administrators in schools is hardly a “stupid” idea. Unless I am mistaken, there has not been an airline hijacking in the US since armed air marshals and a select few trained and armed pilots were permitted on domestic flights. Of course not every flight has armed security aboard. Just as not every classroom should have someone who is armed. But an “army of teacher/soldiers” is both a gratuitous overstatement and unnecessary as even the deranged are clever enough to avoid potential impediments to their plans.

          • SusanBeehler

            No more “stupid” the black powder musket being the only gun allowed. In case you do not get it, putting guns in the classroom as the ONLY options is just as “stupid” as allowing only black powder muskets, get it? ONLY options are not the wisest options. The ONLY option I have seen proposed by bloggers here is arming teachers.

          • slackwarerobert

            I opt for just not disarming people. I wouldn’t want those hot heads I see on the news in michigan and wisconsin carrying. Resposible people already carry, just don’t force them to disarm. But let those 7 year old’s have riot shotguns with those new self contained tazer rounds, pump a dozen in a scum bag and you can probably stop his heart, on top of the broken ribs at that close a range.

          • SusanBeehler

            Suicidial people are not avoiding death they are seeking it, nothing clever about their thinking, they would not avoid it if they felt it would be a great way to die, having a shoot out in a classroom might be their suicidal dream. Your statement is like the determent of death would be preventive, they want to die, they are kamakaze. You or I might not want to enter into a gun battle at a school, but they do not care if they die, they are SCREAMING “see me, die, die with me!”

          • slackwarerobert

            And I see no problem with giving them their wish post haste before they injure others. Don’t know if training idiots will help, but just don’t disarm those that want to carry should suffice. That way the anti gun nut principle can’t out the carrier so they can get another body count if gun grabbing stalls. “Dead nut bleeds on school lobby floor”, doesn’t further bloomberg’s cause.

        • Neiman

          When did I suggest arming teachers?

          What I am saying is that it is unconstitutional to regulate guns, defined as those being carried by a person. To regulate them is to by force of law infringe on their ownership and use and that is forbidden in the Bill of Rights. So, if you are hell bent on regulating gun ownership, the only constitutional way is to amend the 2nd Amendment. But you dare not, as you know the people will never vote to support such an amendment.

          You are simply willing to sacrifice some of your rights for safety and when you desire safety over liberty, you deserve neither and that is what you will get – tyranny and that is what Obama and the Democrats are trying to do – take way your liberty to defend yourself, in the false name of safety.

          Did you know that God said when people like you are crying for safety that the end would come upon all flesh? “While people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.’ Your type of person will embrace the Anti-Christ to be safe and have economic prosperity – you are sacrificing everything to feel safe.

          • SusanBeehler

            Oh I am sorry I thought you were like the other gun advocates on this blog. Nothing which is forbidden in the bill of rights can be touched. So how did certain types of guns be catorgorized into Law enforcement only, how did we allow women to NOT have the right to vote for many years, how did we allow slaves, How did we allow the disabled to be forgotton? Gee were these rights “forbidden”. I am willing to have no more bushmasters and other rifles like it and the ammo like it to be given up,banned. Because they are not being safely guarded by the bushmaster owners and they are being used by suicidal killers to kill children. I am not sacrificing “everything”, I am willing to get rid of some of these guns which serve no useful purpose other than to kill many people. I do not need a bushmaster to feel safe and I have a higher power to protect me from the anti-christ. Have you ever been in labor? If you have then you would know with or without a gun it is going to happen. I will not be embracing any anti-christ.

          • Neiman

            You are a liberal, you throw too much unconnected crap against the wall.

            Slavery, women’s right to vote, etc were not in the Bill of Rights. That piece of the Constitution forbids Congress directly or indirectly from passing any laws whatsoever infringing on the rights therein enumerated. Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, the right for private citizens to keep and bear arms are enumerated rights and cannot be regulated in any way without to some degree restricting those rights and that is unconstitutional. The only ways to change that fact are (1) Amend the Bill of Rights to allow regulation. (2) As the liberals choose to do, ignore the Bill of Rights and regulate them, saying to hell with the Constitution.

            It is not a matter of whether certain guns are needed or what YOU are willing to give up, it is a matter of the Constitution. Just think that no government wants weapons in the hands of citizens that could be used to rise up and rebel against the government. So, sure register them all so we know where they are when the government, as Mayor Cuomo of NY is threatening to do – chooses to confiscate them. Get rid of high powered guns entirely to make sure the citizens have no real power of self defense against the state. Tyranny hates an armed citizen.

            My point about the Anti-Christ is that you are living in fear and want your safety at any cost, even being willing to overthrow the Constitution to obtain that sense of safety. If you will over throw the Constitution today to feel safe, what will you sacrifice tomorrow in a more dangerous world and to whom?

          • SusanBeehler

            Confused? 2nd amendment of constitution right to bear arms, about 60 some years lapsed before the constitution was amended when the 13 amendment was written to rid us of slavery. They are both part of the constitution. Your writing as if the Constitution could never be amended with a word like “forbidden”. My point being is we can make changes and laws within the Constitution, and we can also change the Constitution. A ban of one type of gun that never existed in the time period the second amendment was written I do not believe infringes on our right of the second amendment;my opinion; which I do have a right to. Whether it stands up to the constitution test is something the courts could decide. Amending or making laws is not overthrowing the Constitution. For goodness sake many of the writers of the Constitution thought blacks were not human, times do change and so can our Constitution. I don’t live in fear, if I did I certainly would not share my opinion with the gun toters on this blog. They act like their guns is a body appendage being amputated. It is a “gun” not their “manhood”!

          • Neiman

            You proved my point, not being a slave was not included in the Bill of Rights or the body of the Constitrution by direct words, but the Constitution was rightly amended to end slavery. It was amended!

            The Constitution can be changed by amendment, not by regulations or by laws, only by amendment. The Bill of Rights starts by saying “Congress shall make no law abridging” these rights, it was an absolute prohibition against the Congress in touching these rights by law and regulations have the force of law. You may change the Bill of Rights Susan, to make it read the way you want and restrict some weapons, but it must be amended, not altered by any Law, which is forbidden.

            The courts are not the final arbiter, we have three separate but EQUAL branches and the Courts have no police or army to enforce their decisions. They decide and the Congress and the Executive have an equal responsibility to accept or reject such decisions, otherwise the Judiciary is a superior branch and we live in a kryptocracy.

            By the way, since my police days shortly after my Marine service, I have never owned a gun of any kind, so can hardly be described as a gun nut.

          • SusanBeehler

            So your point was to prove the point. You want things to stay as they are? Too bad, so sad for this last incident, is this your point?

          • Neiman

            I want the Law to be respected and the Constitution only to be amended to reflect the will of the people, not perverted by regulations and forbidden laws that abridge our freedoms by partisan legislators, acting on political ideology and not the Law.

          • slackwarerobert

            women = Not MEN! slaves = Not PEOPLE, does your kitchen table have rights? Strange you would argue that it is ok to ignore the constitution now, and give examples of how it was ignored before. They have one other USEFUL purpose, lets see you get to the white house with a bolt action strapped to your back, No to get to the tyrant living there you will have to shoot dozens at least of the capital police who don’t care you are exercising your rights. When “holders” people are rioting around you, then you will wonder why you felt no need for self protection. My police have an armored humvee, so yes their is a need for me to have armor piercing and high capacities, that the police won’t tell me what the reason is I could care less, that they need it is proof enough for me that I need it also. I live in the same city, and am not aware of any pact with the thugs they will only attack police, and that police will only use assault weapons on them.

  • SusanBeehler

    There is nothing rational about an assault rifle, it is a killing machine.

    • $8194357

      Ya I know what ya mean..
      Some folks got these big HP/suped up, jacked up pickup trucks as well..
      They get behind the wheel drunk/stoned and run all over folks in their little
      ‘green machines’, huh…
      Semi trailors loaded with 10’s of thousands #’s of cargo and drivers sleep deprived share the road with them…Can’t we all just have our moped peddle cars to level that playing field…
      Those gas/diesiel guzzling,
      killing machines should not be allowed on the road.
      ‘with decent folks’, huh..

      Its not the “tool” but the “fool” using it IMO..

      • SusanBeehler

        Make it more difficult, if not impossible to use the tool and it will demotivate some and maybe the one

        • $8194357

          Even tho millions of us killed no one the sins of the few must be collectivly punished? If that isn’t libtard indoctrination I don’t know what is..
          So when Michell wants to take Rosie O’Donnels fork away you will support it as well…According to the ‘health consious left” obesity is Americas number one killer…

          • slackwarerobert

            You have the EVIDENCE, they do work. Those korean shop owners were not standing on the roof of their shops carrying glock pistols, they had assault rifles, and had their stores after the riots in LA ended. Rioting is going nationwide with obamas policies before he leaves office. He can’t help himself. Once china pulls the plug, his people will be killing everything that looks like food. I hope you are ready, I will be even with a ban.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            The LA riots are a perfect example of semi automatic rifles for self defense. If you are in an area that has begun to riot, and the police strategically withdraw, because they are outnumbered, that may be the only thing between you and lawlessness.

    • $8194357

      Word Games and the Democrats desire to steer the ship of state facist left..

      “assault rifle” is a name leftist propagandist use to scare the sheople..
      Works well huh..did you know under the Democrats definition of ‘sniper rifles’ is any gun cabable to use ‘optics’ and/or to shoot out to 300 yards would qualify?
      The evil hand gun, sniper rifle and “semi auto carbine” (assault rifle) are the “scape goats” used to control the states property (us)
      so they can’t resist anti Constitutional property confiscation
      or forced labor for the state..

      Do some research on the worlds history on gun control and the folks behind it…
      Eye opening to say the least..But for the “sake of the children”
      the left has usurpt Constitutional liberties and freedoms for decades…

    • slackwarerobert

      And what tyrant has ever left when the people asked politely? In case you haven’t noticed the tyrants have assault weapons. Are using drones to assassinate americans. Molesting women and children at airports. What pray tell should I carry to stop someone in a meteor proof limo that is above the law? Central park jogger, could have used an assault weapon when those animals jumped her. When holders “people” are attacking en mass, you need to be able to defend yourself. That means LARGE capacities, and high rates of fire.

    • slackwarerobert

      Then why does the DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION have them? Why do the POLICE have them, why does obama have them. If they are just for killing then none of these government entities need them.

  • Bat One

    It is good that we remember the Cheshire horror, as well as Newtown. Not least because some of the same sanctimonious liberals who would, unconstitutionally, ban private ownership of firearms, will spend the next ten years clogging the justice system with one appeal after another on behalf of the two Cheshire murderers. Ten years which would have been the minimum sentence for the savage beating of Dr. Petit… never mind tying his wife and daughters to the bed, raping them, and then dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire.

    Perhaps, instead of banning the public’s most practical and lawful means of self defense, we should bring back public flogging and crucifixion.

    • slackwarerobert

      I don’t mind not allowing private ownership, as long as I carry it, I don’t care who owns it. Thought about doing it for those suckers in commifonia when they thought about banning owning them. Make a fortune renting them there own gun. I own it they pay a rental fee each year and keep it on them. legal problem solved and I make money with no downside.

    • slackwarerobert

      Bringing back “tar & feathering” for our glorious leaders would help a lot I would think also.

  • Stuart

    My wife told me she was informed that the gunman shot out the window to get in. Bullet proof glass would have easily solved that problem . You can’t bullet proof all glass windows but windows to the front sides and back door seem very reasonable.

    Still waiting to hear if funding was quietly withdrawn for Security Protection for schools.

    And why the school didn’t have hall monitors to report these types of incidence quicker.

    Hind sight is 20/20…but as enlighten as these educators think they are, you would have thought someone would have come up with this idea since another incident was carried out in Conecticut in an earlier date. Remember educators are aways preaching BRAINSTORMING. Seems they lacked clear minds in their brainstorming abilities. And some of these Principals,superintendents ,and teachers have Masters Degrees if not Doctors Degrees. I wonder if the police we involvedi in this so called brainstorming?

    • slackwarerobert

      Bullet proof glass is a myth. Bullet resistant But then you use AP rounds. Remember nut job knew the layout so would have been prepared. Liberal brainstorming probably went very well. They decided to pave the teachers parking spaces instead. Just like new orleans, plant pretty flowers, don’t worry the dike won’t hold, look isn’t it pretty. Just like congress and white house in DC. They put up pop up barricade to stop vehicle, but can’t concieve of having second vehicle with the la, la, la, boom juice on top to go over when bottom one is stopped. Hint you not to bright muslims, flat bed tow truck with SUV on back.

  • Stuart

    The MSM along with many Christians and left wingers I know of have it locked in their heads that a semi.-automatic rifle is exactly the same as an assault rifle. It’s a lie!
    The clip issue is the same misconception. But we go over and over again perpetuating these lies, like Conrad, Dorgan and Pomeroy did when they lied about the Lock Box on Social Security. Until people stood up to these lies and confronted them.

    Now bye,bye bye liars!

    • slackwarerobert

      The simple way to explain the difference, an assault weapon will fire more than one bullet at a time, so you can walk the rounds onto the target. A semi automatic rifle will only fire once per trigger pull, so if you go jerking the trigger to fire fast you can’t hit what you are aiming at as the rifle is jumping all over the place. So banning assault weapons ENDANGER innocent people standing around your target.

Top