Is it time for a change in America’s gun-control laws?

In an editorial posted within hours of Friday’s shootings, the Hartford Courant concluded: “… this much is certain, attested to by the Newtown school shooting: It is far too easy in America for a sick mind to find a gun and use it.” President Obama suggested over the weekend that he intends to address gun laws. Today’s Question: Is it time for a change in America’s gun-control laws?

  • Bob

    Yes. Ban assault rifles and large clips. These have no valid use in our society.

  • Rachel

    Yes. Why is easier to obtain a gun than receive mental health care?

  • Kurt

    I’ve never understood the need to possess firearms which have their only application in warfare or the lax laws governing gun show sales. That said, I doubt these things would make a difference. There was nothing unusual about the weapon used in Newtown. Apparently it was stolen from the mother. And then there is always “Fast and Furious”. One can always find a weapon I suppose.

    P.S. I found the Presidents speech last night offensive. There was the man who in the past has ridiculed people of faith, quoting scripture and talking of the afterlife. I did not think it the time or place to interject politics either.

  • Emery

    People with guns kill people more impulsively, in rapid succession and in huge numbers when access to guns is easier and in particular with access to assault rifles with high capacity magazines.

    This is also a mental health care issue as Rachel notes in her comment. We have a society that is rapidly becoming more desensitized to violence. Whether it be through video gaming or the film industry. There are a number of issues that dovetail into this debate and it is a debate worth having.

  • Duane

    It maybe, but remember in the Hartford Current article it stated that Connecticut has this countries fourth or fifth strongest gun laws. The operative word in this question is SICK MIND. To concentrate only on stronger gun control laws may be to overlook a more serious matter. In China as well as one other country, they used knives and in many of the Mid East counties they use bombs. I think it is wrong to feel this is may be result of a single issue such as gun control laws. We need to also look at Video games, single parent issues, communication with the educational resources and the mental health programs in each state before we move to a conclusion.

  • Steve the Cynic

    It’s time for lots of changes that aren’t going to happen because of our dysfunctional politics: rational gun control, universal health care, greenhouse gas reduction, etc. Majorities are in favor of such things, but knee-jerk ideologues will go to great lengths to sabotage any attempts at reform.

  • Kevin

    No. Gun control treats the symptom of violence without addressing the cause. It’s time to have a discussion about violence in our society and time for universal access to health care, including mental health services.

  • Sue de Nim

    Yes, absolutely. I thought the president’s speech last night was spot on. We have to do better. (Those who perceived his religious references as disingenuous haven’t been paying attention. He hasn’t been ridiculing people of faith. What he’s done is express impatience with legalistic religious views that prioritize rule-keeping or doctrinal correctness over human compassion. He sounds like the same kind of Christian I am. Jesus was impatient with that kind of bad religion, too.)

  • Jean

    Yes it is long, long overdue. But efforts to improve gun control MUST be coupled with vast improvements in mental health care, to identify and intervene with those people needing help and presenting a danger to society.

  • Kurt Nelson

    Joining the First Amendment, the Second is not absolute, as evinced by the Heller decision, where Justice Scalia enumerated exceptions to protection.

    Ending the gun show loophole for purchase will keep many firearms out of the hands of felons, and others deemed unqualified to possess. Unless of course those in favor of not limiting this loophole don’t care who has a gun.

    Enacting an assault weapon ban, keeping automatics and large clips out of citizens hands will not interfere with anybodies rights. Arms mean what it meant in 1790, muzzle loaders and pistols. Unless of course you like to pick and choose which Amendment you like to define by originalism,

    The NRA is lead by cowards, and supported by cowards. Where is their position statement after the killing of little children. I will be curious to see how they justify assault rifles after the death of 6 year olds – The NRA must be very proud of their stance – they are clearly an organization filled with cowardly men ( and I use men loosely, given they must have all lost their testicles and now hide behind their guns to be called a man).

  • linda

    It is time for rational gun control. It was time a long time ago. It is also time for changing help for the mentally ill and families trying to deal with them. We only have to look right here in our own state. We have children killing children. We have always had hunting rifles in our home. They are always under lock and key and ammunion under lock and key somewhere else. So I have no quarrel with those types of guns. But these aren’t the types of guns doing such damage are they? The time is now.

  • Gary F

    So, we ban large magazines for handguns and AR15 type rifles. What do we do with the hundreds of thousand AR15 type rifles out there? Go into our homes and take them? How about all the imported ones that will be sold on the black market? Think they will go away because we have a ban on them?

    The bad people will still have them. And the we have just created more sheep and fewer sheep dogs.

    There will always be wolves.

    Gun control laws are for the killers who don’t kill themselves.

  • Gary F

    I guess the “fiscal cliff” and right to work law in Michigan aren’t that important anymore.

  • Joe Doakes

    No mass shooter acquired his weapon at a gun show. Closing that loophole won’t stop them.

    The Supreme Court in Miller (1939) held the Second Amendment protects arms “suitable for military use” specifically including machine guns, not muzzle-loaders.

    The NRA and the ACLU both protect the rights of their constituencies. The difference is NRA people are law abiding while ACLU’s clients are mentally ill and dangerous. Excoriate the right group, please.

    It is not easier to obtain a gun than health care, which you’d know if you’d tried either one. Try it and see.

    Assault rifles and large clips serve the same purpose in society as People magazine: none. That’s the thing about Constitutional rights, they don’t HAVE to serve a purpose, they just are.

    If you don’t like the Constitution, amend it, don’t just ignore the law. That’s what criminals do.


  • James

    It is time to get guns out of the hands of young men.

    Older men do some nasty things with guns on occasion too, but most of the gun related murders in this country are commited by young men with too many hormones and too few brains.

    The can’t drive until they are 16 and are dangerous until they are at least 25. They can’t drink until they are 21. It varies state by state but they can typically own rifles at 18 and handguns at 21.

    It’s time to make unsupervised possession of guns for men under 25 illegal. Get caught with one (unsupervised), you go to jail. Get caught selling one to a kid, you go to jail. Get caught not taking the necessary precautions to keep them out of the hands of kids and you get a big fine.

    This would be a relatively easy law to pass and and a relatively easy law to enforce and would have immense, postive consequences.

  • Jim G

    Yes, I’ve hunted deer for 48 years and never once did I need a 30 round clip because that platoon of deer just kept on coming. The purpose of the AR 15 and similar assault weapons is to slaughter people and to it quickly, inflicting the maximum damage in the shortest time possible. These weapons are obscene and correspondingly those wielding them create obscenities which they then smear in our faces.

    Those with mental disorders must be screened out of gun ownership. These two issues have been ignored. It’s time to do something, and keep doing something until we get it right and these violent massing shooting are extinct.

    Our leaders must make this right, or step down and allow others to do the heavy lifting..

  • Gary F

    So, now that you’ve outlawed large magazines and ARk15 rifles, what do you do about all the ones that are already there? How about the black market ones that will still be imported?

    Think a bad person cares whether they are illegal or not?

    Jim, should we go after the existing ones?

    Lanza didn’t buy any guns.He committed about 10 gun crimes not counting murder. She was stupid by not having them better locked up and a lot of people died.

    You can’t legislate stupidity.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Contrary to a previous comment, it is indeed easier to obtain a gun than health care, if the health care you need is child psychiatry. Nationwide, there’s a shortage of child psychiatrists and other mental health resources for disturbed kids, because our dysfunctional health care system rewards providers who specialize in things people with deep pockets or gold plated insurance plans suffer from. Want to get a knee replacement for your 90 year old mother with dementia? Need heart surgery to correct the problem your lifelong habit of poor diet and exercise caused? Want the most aggressive and expensive treatment for your cancer to prolong your death for another year or so? Botox? Lasik? Face lift? Orthodontia? A remedy for your erectile dysfunction? No problem! But woe to you if you are or have a child with a mental illness. Even for those with insurance that covers it, troubled kids who need mental health services may have to wait many months for a first appointment, in addition to living with the social stigma of such a diagnosis. If you believe the solution to the problem of gun violence is better mental health interventions for young people, you need to quit opposing single payer health care, or else admit that you’re a hypocrite.

  • Jim G

    @Gary F

    Before submachine guns were outlawed in 1934 by the National Firearms Act, many Thompson submachine guns and Browning Automatic Rifles were in private hands and used by gangsters too. When they were outlawed many were voluntarily turned in, while some were taken apart by their owners, but some were kept in working condition by their outlaw owners. My former neighbor once told me that a friend of his friend had bought a bar and found a disassembled Thompson in a box in the basement. It was a curiosity and rare to even come across after these many years. It takes courage, but we can change the culture of violence, but not without trying. We could change the laws of this nation, but only if the citizens demand it as we did in 1934.

  • David P.

    The truth is there are more guns in the population than can ever be accounted for. However, we must at least cover the basics – close the gun show loophole and ban military grade weapons. Treating mental illness as a health care issue is critical. The profile is pretty clear – angry, scared and mentally unbalanced young men with access to guns. In addressing the foundation of this crisis, we must confront the cultures of glorified violence, fear and aggresion that have come to define America.

  • Michael

    Change them? Gun safety and regulations?

    Yes, yes, yes!

    It’s insane that a gift and an ally such as Cannabis is a felony,

    while the tools of cowards are prized.

    The people and the planet are served by making compassionate choices and wise decisions.

    Those that would serve a God worthy of worship or a live a Principle worth following would put their Love into action; help, and if help isn’t possible, at least don’t hurt.

  • david

    Yes, along with healthcare, labor, the power corporations and lobbyists have, and the proliferation of hate disguised as legitimate media. My parents generation created a society of greed and selfishness, and nothing more.

  • kurt nelson

    Someone mentioned the Miller case. Miller did mostly pertain to military weapons, but the 2nd was not incorporated to the states until Heller, and then McDonald, and even those decisions have exceptions carved out of them limiting firearms. The Second is not absolute, and is open to limits, but maybe the NRA still feels that the murder of little children trumps those limits, all in the guise of cowardice and fear.

    Much of the argument made by those who think it’s justified to defend killing little children over the rights of owning an assault weapon is untenable, and tracks with other social issues, where “why try” is the feeble argument.

    Why not try? A background check at a gun show does not limit your ability to purchase a firearm, it merely delays it so the government can determine whether you are legally permitted to make such a purchase. In the end, you still get the gun after the check. Maybe if you needed a gun so badly, you could plan ahead so you will have it even after waiting. Pretty simple, but again, dead children are better than a ban on assault rifles.

  • Darla

    Yes, the horse has left the barn, but does this mean we do nothing?

    The pro-gun lobby has held this country and our elected officials hostage for far too long. It is time to stand up to these bullies. If not now, when? These poor little ones CAN NOT have died for nothing.

    Access to mental healthcare must be as available as guns if we are to move forward as a society.

  • GregX

    Yes – because we can do so without infringing on the basic constitutional right of ownership.

    failure to make changes because of the excessive excessive legacy of weapons and bullets currently out there is not valid. if that were the case … then cadmium coated toys that kill children would be entirely legal, as would dangerous car seats for kids.

    failure to make changes because they won’t have a 1:1 corrective action on a specific crime event is equally invalid. Laws that orient the societal culture and environment help reduce the erratic events. We outlaw drunk driving and punish it – not to catch every single drunk driver every single night – but to create a culture that says – you really shouldn’t do this – which helps deter a more people from the undesirable behavior.

    As for the NRA perspective that there can be no infringement on the right to own weapons – I whole heartedly disagree – we (the people) have an grater right and obligation to shape and form the proper expression of rights and the environment in which they may be expressed.

  • Jefferson

    I’m not sure what type of gun control would even be possible in this country. If we make all semi-automatic weapons illegal then all we’ve done is make average citizens criminals for owning a hand gun. To make assault style weapons illegal doesn’t really make sense…those guns are already only allowed to be semi-automatic (like all hand guns) and are much more cumbersome than a pistol. The only significant change that could happen would be to make the extend size clip size illegal for all guns in general. Sure, you could make clips larger than 10 or 12 bullets illegal but it would probably just cause people to go out buy as many larger clips as possible before being made illegal. Also, these are just clips (pieces of metal with a spring) so anyone with a bit of skill working with metal could create an extended clip out of a few regular clips. Since the clips could still be obtained on a black market individuals determined to find them the extended clip ban wouldn’t do a whole lot to prevent them from being used in crimes. Other than making pretty much every gun illegal there isn’t a whole lot we can do to prevent this type of violence from occurring.

    One issue that is almost never discussed when these cases occur is that these mass shooting always occur where guns are banned…it’s like an invitation for criminals to know that everyone is disarmed inside a building/location. The media should at least point that out when it comes to these crimes.

    The key issue we should focus on after a crime like this is mental health. Almost every time these situations occur there were previous multiple major incidents with the criminal who carried out these horrible acts. We need to start to separate violent individuals who have mental health issues from the normal population and keep them away from guns in general. Too many times these situations occur and people are too afraid to commit these violent individuals…it’s time to start evaluating people while they are in school and if they fit the profile of mental instability and violence criteria we need to keep them under close watch. Make sure they can never have access to firearms and if there is a history or chance of violence in the future then commit that person to a mental illness facility until a mental illness professional feels they are safe to return to society.

  • Dave

    It is insane to allow assault rifles & clips. By the same token, nuts and guns will not go away because of any laws. Banning guns at schools or anywhere else is an open invitation to these nuts. Each school should get rid of 2 or 3 English as a second language teachers and use the funds to train and arm 2 or 3 current employees. The armed employees would remain unknown to the students.

    Dead heroes like the principal at Sandy Hook don’t save any lives.

  • Ann

    My thoughts are the following:The shooter in Connecticut didn’t buy the guns that he used. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. It was reported that the mother of the shooter showed off her new rifle to someone–I think he said he was a landscape person. I’m not sure if changes in gun laws make a difference. It was interesting that NBC pulled the Blake Shelton Christmas repeat on Friday–evidently because characters like Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph were killed with a rifle in a comedy routine. Does this say something about media violence and people’s attitudes about violence?

  • Tom

    YES, it is time for the NRA, gun advocates, and gun show marketers to lead the national debate in a coherent, rational way and not hide behind the constitution, pointing fingers and blaming every one who does not agree with them.

  • Ron

    It is past time … well past time.

  • Regnar James


    The tools this animal used to kill innocent people are not the issue.

    He would have used gasoline, IED, poison, vehicle, knife…. You name the tool.

    What we need to keep us alive has been instinctive for many thousands of years. (Dulled recently by our false sense of security).

    We need is to be situational aware and ready and willing to put down rabid dogs. The main goal of law enforcement is to take notes and prepare a case … not preemptive acts.

    If a perpetuator is immediately confronted with an armed guard the coward would most likely turn tail and run.

    Or be killed… his choice.

    Gun control may sound logical at first, however in the long run it has proven to be the tool of true mad men like Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong il…

    Please do not buy into the mass media and political gun control crowd.

    Pray for peace and prepare for battle.


  • stephanie

    I’m wondering if there are 5 things that played a factor in Fridays tragedy.

    1) Are children today desensitized to violence because of video games?

    2) Is single family home upbringing without a man for the boys to learn from and bond with a void that creates anger and then, sometimes violence?

    3) Do we need to hold the adults that aren’t locking up their weapons to a higher level of punishment when the children are able to access them in this type of angry behavior?

    4) Has the upbringing this generation of children given them the sense of victimhood – all problems the child is experiencing is someone elses fault, never their own?

    5) Have we stopped teaching respect and compassion to our children? How about hope? That it is possible to overcome sad feelings and desperation?

    It is sad that a woman was killed by her own weapons. That the son felt he needed to destroy other peoples lives indiscriminately. That it seems to be OK to shoot first as a method of venting.

    Why is it that a person, any person, feels they have the right to decide when someone elses life should end? That is not our purpose on this earth. Or it shouldn’t be.

    I think the adults that own guns need to be held to a high level of punishment if their unlocked, loaded weapons are used to harm others. Regardless of how they are unlawfully used.

    I have more questions than answers. I just wonder what it will take for our society to start respecting each other and embracing differences instead of being afraid of them.

  • Gary F

    Should we still allow straw gun sales approved the Obama regime to Mexican drug cartels?

  • david

    Garyf you add nothing to the conversation. All you ever do is spout politically charged falsies and half truths. This “fast and furious” post about straw sales is a good example. NO we should not allow straw gun purchasers, but that’s a loop hole bought and paid for my the NRA. But you won’t say anything bad about your beloved NRA, you only twist it into a childish anti-Obama rant. Try being part of the solution and not a mouth piece for the problem for a change, will you? Your extremism partisanship IS THE PROBLEM with this country. There is NO difference with what you do and the Islamist extremist in-sighting violence and hatred in their followers. GROW UP! and get a life, or do us a favor and shut up.

  • John Finn

    Any reporter looking into whether the manufacturers of high capacity firearms magazines/clips are going into overtime in anticipation of a future restrictions?

  • allie

    Yes. Please.

  • Jefferson

    Many people making comments seem to want to ban assault weapons, yet offer no logical reasoning behind that point. How are assault style (semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are currently illegal) weapons more dangerous than a handgun? Isn’t an assault rifle more cumbersome and difficult to use than a handgun in these mass shootings (close distance and usually indoors)?

    That was great to hear John Lott on NPR today, it’s too bad he was only included in the conversation after an event like this one. He’s been talking about the statistics for years upon years and mainstream or liberal media only put him on after these tragedies. It would be nice to have these conversations on gun laws and discuss the statistics of gun control/ownership when we aren’t just coming out of an extremely emotional moment in time.

  • Gary F


    What have I said that was false?

    I didn’t know that this was a “pro-gun control” message board. Diversity of opinions is good, right?

    With the United States being about 350 million people and millions of guns are in the hands of both law abiding and criminal hands, that any further “Gun Control” won’t prevent future tragic events like we just had.

    He already broke 10 or so gun laws. The mom was stupid not to keep these locked up knowing her son.

    But, when this stuff happens, the left wants to reduce our 2nd Amendments rights.

  • Lawrence

    Americans have known since the 1980s that its gun laws have been too lax. That’s why gun activists, for example, keep urging MORE Americans to purchase guns for their own protection.

    Honestly, homicide statistics for over 40 years have linked illegal and legal gun sales to young, anti-social, men ages 13-30. In the past, young Black Males were the only ones getting negative press coverage. Within the last 20 years, more young white males are FINALLY being covered by the press, and that coverage has led to our discussion of gun laws.

    The problems are: guns, like tobacco, sex, and alcohol, is part of the BIG 4 vices that make billions of dollars and is more than just socially accepted by American culture. Second, Americans still have not linked anti-social behavior to the big 4 causes of that behavior: pervasive poverty, mental illness, bigotry, and independence. Americans aren’t supposed to get help, and yet, the men committing these violence frankly need help and a lot of it. How does one reconcile that irony within a troubled mind?

  • Stewart

    I live in Scotland and we are about to ban airguns and and pistols. If I were searched in the street and they found a knife or any other sharp instrument that could cause harm I would be behind bars by now.

    Why on earth would any civilised country allow people to get their hands on assault rifles.

    There is no malitia anymore, you dont need to go hunting for food it’s in any available supermarket and as for protecting yourself in your home, can’t you by a good alarm system and keep a baseball bat handy.

    It sounds like men in particular in america believe they are all action men and egotistical,

    but us brits know that this is not the case. Take a trip over here to our local bars if you want a damned good hiding without the use of your toys.

  • suzie

    Guns have been around us since any of us can remember, but now it is almost a pre-suicide necessity to kill as many innocent people as one can. It’s a way for the sick to get their names in the media – a cult type of mentality.

    Almost every news broadcast I heard or saw had something like Letterman’s top 10 list of who has killed the most. Stop making these killers into cult heroes and don’t show their picture or use their names. Make them into the cowards they really are.

    You can pass as many laws as you want, but some one will think they are “special” and don’t have to obey laws. Just look around at drivers, shop lifters and stalkers – they all think they are justified in breaking those laws.

    To those who hide behind the second admendment right to bear arms – remember for any right that we enjoy, we have many responsibilites. Laws are passed to try and protect us from those who believe they only have rights and not responsibilities.

  • Steve the Cynic

    There is no legitimate reason for law abiding citizens to have high capacity ammo clips. The only purpose they serve is to allow a single shooter to kill multiple people. Taking down a shooter who’s in the process of committing mass murder does not require a high capacity clip. It should only take a few shots at most.

    And if having lots of armed citizens is the way to prevent such incidents, why didn’t it stop Jared Loughner? In a place like Tucson, you can be certain that at least two or three bystanders would be packing, but that didn’t stop him. And when he opened fire, armed citizens who drew their concealed weapons were unable to use them effectively, because the situation was too confused. Instead, he was tackled while trying to reload. If he’d had a smaller magazine than 33 rounds, he would have had to stop to reload sooner.

  • JasonB

    I would like to suggest examining the gun enthusiast’s attitude about guns.

    We have a sub-culture with an inordinately large firearm fascination. Magazine racks with four or five firearm publications are typical. Browsing reveals they go beyond just practical information and clearly are meant to cater to some visceral appeal.

    I own a shotgun and enjoy bird hunting, but I see my shotgun as a tool, and take no pride or joy merely in possessing it. It’s clear that some people love guns beyond any implied practical reason. It could be cultural, our frontier history, an ingrained symbol of individual power, the media, or combo thereof. It raises the question for those who claim to have guns just for protection or sport.

    Look at it this way: I own a coffee machine. Having coffee is important to me. I would be concerned if someone tried to ban coffee machines or limit their ownership. But I don’t love my coffee machine, I do not subscribe to any coffee machine magazines, and I don’t find it particularly entertaining to watch a movie showing people with coffee machines making copious amounts of coffee.

    I’m not saying a coffee machine is comparable to a firearm, particularly if your life becomes threatened. If you have a gun for protection or sport, fine. But if one is constantly reading about guns, taking one out, polishing it, getting a charge out of just holding and aiming it, etc., then that person should understand what I’m talking about.

    Anti gun control advocates cite constitutional rights. But sometimes that sounds like a cover for an alternate, more basic zeal.

  • Pat

    No way, “An armed society is a POLITE society”

    Sounds like a bumper sticker…however it is very true.

    You can’t regulate whack jobs… I’m not saying live your life in fear.

    Life your life with skills and means to ensure your own self reliance.

    Yes, that includes self-defense, and the defense of those that can’t defend them self. ( This would include children)

  • Bill Ireland

    My heart goes out totally to all the people of Newtown, both those whose lives were

    so tragically ended and those who are suffering.

    We need a change in who can legally purchase or possess a firearm. We have

    laws requiring notification of authorities of a person who acts sexually inappropriate. The same should be done with those acting in a potentially unsafe, out of the ordinary, manner. Let two psychiatrists examine them and see what they decide. The ACLU privacy concerns need to be over ridden for the safety of society. Violent video games also create a separation from reality for some people.

    The attitudes toward violence they create are as bad as the availability of firearms.

    Semi-automatic firearms have been around for close to 100 years. Any thought of removing them is unrealistic.

    Banning the sale of detachable magazines with over 10 rounds capacity should be seriously considered. Having been a firearms owner for 68 years plus a hunter and marksmanship competitor for over 60 years, such a limitation would not have hindered any of those activities.

    We also need to make owners responsible for securing the firearms they own.

    Absolute, total security is not feasible. Realistic security measures will prevent most people from being able to obtain access to them and would prevent most

    mass shootings.

  • Jefferson

    Stewart – [I live in Scotland and we are about to ban airguns and and pistols. If I were searched in the street and they found a knife or any other sharp instrument that could cause harm I would be behind bars by now. Why on earth would any civilised country allow people to get their hands on assault rifles. There is no malitia anymore, you dont need to go hunting for food it’s in any available supermarket and as for protecting yourself in your home, can’t you by a good alarm system and keep a baseball bat handy. It sounds like men in particular in america believe they are all action men and egotistical, but us brits know that this is not the case. Take a trip over here to our local bars if you want a damned good hiding without the use of your toys.] ***

    That’s quite funny coming from a Scot; we have this thing called the 2nd Amendment here in the US. We put it into the US Constitution because we didn’t want the English crown pushing us around and telling us to pay taxes without allowing a voice in the legislature. That must have been great for Scots to be paying homage to the English crown for about a thousand years, even paying for the royal family to live in comfort up to today. No thanks, I’m glad we broke away and I’m glad we have much greater freedom here than in the UK. I take the responsibility to hunt for my own food very seriously, most of the time I don’t even see the animal I’m hunting for…it’s about patience more than anything. It’s also about spending time with family and friends having an experience you cannot have in other activity besides hunting; it’s about continuing a tradition and culture that someone who has never hunted could not even begin to understand. If you made the trip to Minnesota I would be more than willing to show you how to safely use a firearm; my guess is that you might even enjoy an hour or so of shooting clay pigeons. After the guns are put away we can even have a taste of some home brewed beer.

  • linda

    The government will fix everything_ we are all just sheep that don’t know better, so thank our lucky stars we have bigger government to stop mass shootings_ They did pretty good at Fast And Furious, only drug cartels got guns, our government stopped the island Norway shooter, right?

    A plain clothes security or local plains clothes police liason outside, in the parking lot at each school would be the only way to prevent the shootings. A rifle or a handgun_ little difference with experienced reloads.

    Lets do like Chicago..ban all guns..Their crime rate was what? Was it the lowest or highest in the country anyway?

  • GregX

    GaryF – “Should we still allow straw gun sales approved the Obama regime to Mexican drug cartels?”

    If you mean, should we repeat badly run investigative operations – ah … nope – do it better next time.. The reason it was allowed to occur was to document and track the ease with which Mexican cartels arm themselves at gun shows in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico through un-documented sales. If there was a federal requirement to track every single gun sale, gun transfer and gun loss – regardless of where, when, to whom or why … the authorities would have a far better way of back tracking on the history of gun movement – and silly “stings” like Fast and Furious” would not be needed.

  • david

    Garyf, that whole statement ” Should we still allow straw gun sales approved the Obama regime to Mexican drug cartels?” Is wrong. Obama did not approve anything. The laws that allowed the straw purchasers have been on the books for years before Obama was elected. Had the ATF confiscated those guns, a mob or nra lawyers would have descended on the ATF. But you blame Obama for something your ilk demanded. Gun nuts afraid of fictional boogiemen voted the morons into office who allowed that laws creation. You need to stop pointing fingers at a party and look into your own self being. This type of bull shit happens in this country because we allow it. We spend trillions on anti-terrorist measure when the odds of being killed by a terrorist us like 1:20 million. Yet your ilk us sooo against making sure every person in this country has access to reasonable health care. Mental health would be included in that. I wonder what the odds are of being killed by someone experiencing a mental break. A lot higher then 1:20 million it would seem, and those odds are shrinking every month.

  • GregX

    Linda Lets do like Chicago..ban all guns..Their crime rate was what? Was it the lowest or highest in the country anyway?

    Chicago is not an island…. thus solutions need to be nationwide.

    Thank you for pointing it out. Now we’ll need to put together a national gun and ammunition transfer law – to eliminate all un-documented sales.

    In addition – we’ll need registration of all guns (ALL GUNS) – with a federal database – should be mandatory … the database will include basic details – as well as a required test firing to record bullet striations. Failure to register = misdemeanor and loss of guns AND and is grounds to void Homeowner insurance policy coverage.

    Lastly – tagging in all gunpowder from now on.

    All of these actions are designed to facilitate a much lower work load on police staff when trying to establish provenance for guns used in crimes.

  • GregX

    Jefferson That’s quite funny coming from a Scot; we have this thing called the 2nd Amendment here in the US. We put it into the US Constitution because we didn’t want the English crown pushing us around and telling us to pay taxes without allowing a voice in the legislature.

    the 2nd amendment is no way the only right in the constitution. Yet the NRA membership seem to think it so. Each and every part of the constitution is equal and evolves in balance.

    I can find no indication of a general benefit to the American public from the NRA Agenda, its members or it lobbying arm.

  • david

    ” A lot lower then 1:20 million it would seem, and those odds are shrinking every month.” I meant. And it is. You have a 20 times more likely chance of being killed by one of your fellow citizens then by a terrorist. We have spent over a trillion dollars on anti-terrorism measures since 9/11 i see no reason not to at least match it to stop domestic insanity like this.

  • Jefferson

    GregX – [the 2nd amendment is no way the only right in the constitution. Yet the NRA membership seem to think it so. Each and every part of the constitution is equal and evolves in balance.

    I can find no indication of a general benefit to the American public from the NRA Agenda, its members or it lobbying arm. ] ***

    I’m not sure why you keep referencing the NRA, it’s the supreme court that says the 2nd Amendment means I have an individual right to own a gun for hunting and/or my own protection. My right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon another person’s rights. Any particular person owning a gun does not inherently infringe on another person’s rights until that gun owner attempts or succeeds in committing a crime. By all means, take away guns from those individuals who commit felonies…oh wait we already do that!

  • Regnar James

    GregX,,,, and how would anything you propose stop the insane from hurting anyone?


  • Jim

    Yes. “Rights” are not absolute, but are balanced against other rights. Extremist zealots should never control the policy of our nation.

  • Ben

    If it were up to me, You can have as many muzzle loaded flint locks that you want.

    The rest were unknown to the founding fathers and thus it could be gov controlled like driving, flying, radio transmitters etc, and like flying and driving you would have to pass a regular medical and marksmanship check in order to get/keep it.

    Also have major media/social changes to stress how cool it is to have ‘non-violent’ solutions to problems, sort of like we have done with drunk driving, smoking or chewing tobacco in public and seat belts.

  • Janet Willis

    Of course it’s time! When we are the ONLY country in the Western World with these sorts of problems. It’s time to stand up to the NRA and their supporters who perpetrate these “myths” about the reality behind gun control! If they want to hide behind the Constitution then only flintlock pistols and muscats should be allowed. That’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind….so let’s follow the law to the letter.

    No high powered guns should be allowed! For those who feel that “more guns” will protect….sorry, you were dead before you even had a chance to go find your gun or even pull it out of your drawer! For God’s sake, GROW UP and stop being the victims of propaganda! That’s right….propaganda! The next time you see one of our military servicemen blown to pieces in Afghanistan, stop your arrogance and realize that if “they” cannot save themselves with all of their weaponry, why, in heaven’s name do you think you have the slightest chance of defending yourself?

  • Pam Schoen

    Yes, and we also need better access to mental health services for those who need it before they commit a crime. My question now is HOW? And more specifically, what can I do to help these things come to pass. I will no longer sit idly by and shake my head in disbelief or cry tears of mourning for innocent lives lost as I did all weekend. The time for talk is over. If we don’t do something now, then when?

  • TM

    To enact further restrictions on guns is merely a quick fix to make us feel good. Totally missing the root issue that I feel leads to these shootings. Something like a ban on Assault Weapons will not offer any real protection. Although I favor looking at ways to keep firearms out of those with history of violent mental illness. In this case it would not have helped since the arms belonged to the killers parent.

    If you want to prevent these sort of incidents. We as a society to need to build up services and support for the mentally ill. I am afraid, since this is costly, people will not push for it, and we will continue to have these horrific acts.

    We need to take a hard look the constant glamorization of violent behavior as a whole. I feel a great many people are brain-washed by the barrage of music, movies and video games where it’s cool to be a thug / killer. All too often, I run into youth and great many adults too, who are all too eager to be the most dangerous person on the block. How about just being a kind hearted, good guy for a change?

  • david

    I like the comments about being able to keep all the muzzle loader flintlocks you like. That’s so true. The writers of the second amendment could never have for seen the mess we have today. I wonder if they could have known the complexity off our current health care system over the bandages, hacksaws and leeches they had if the 2nd amendment would be guarantying access to affordable healthcare then something which only purpose is to destroy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for those unlucky enough to be on the wrong side if it.

  • Jack Goldman

    Guns are not the problem. Guns are the symptom of a nation gone mad for control of all kinds. How can citizens protect them self best? With guns.

    We should ban guns on television before we ban guns that can protect citizens against a military gone mad or an intrusive domineering nanny state government.

    Over half of the 30,000 gun deaths are suicides. Most guns kill the intended victims. All 40,000 car deaths per year, mostly caused by sober driving, are senseless deaths. Who is advocating getting the sober drivers and cars off the road? Special interest groups like liberal globalists want a world that is 100% safe in a nanny state. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Life is a risk. Freedom involves risk. Get over it. Guns are real and help protect us. If anything the teachers should pack a weapon and fire back. That makes sense. Guns make sense. Not having guns does not make sense. People without guns are called “victims”.

    Obama loves guns and has ordered the deaths of thousands of people who were somebodies children. For this he gets a “peace prize”?

    The question assumes there should be gun “control” as liberals seek a nanny state with no risks. There should be gun control and murder control on television where humans are shown guns and violence are always the answer.

    Live by the sword in Iraq and Afghanistan then die by the sword. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

    By the way, anyone who kills children by any means is mentally ill. It’s a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Liberals keep exaggerating their cause to disarm all those who defend freedom. Who is mourning the millions of dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Panama, and the world over killed by our beloved Jesus Christ loving troops?

    Millions born each day. Millions die each day. The wise are unmoved. Death is natural, normal, and should be expected. Get over it. It’s not a gun issue, it’s a death issue, and Americans fear death. Get over it. We are all going to die.

  • Steve Marquardt

    Yes. Except for hunting weapons, round them up and melt them down. It is also time to repeal the Second Amendment. Failing that, and in light of the fact that effective reform efforts will indeed fail, we need to erect a National Gun Victims Memorial, honoring those who died so that we can remain free from tyranny, which is the alleged fundamental reason to maintain a high level of gun ownership, if I correctly understand the pro-gun logic. With some 10,000 innocent victims of US gun violence in each recent year, significant space will be required for the expansion of the NGVM. By 2113 there would be as many names as the 58,195 inscribed upon the entire Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC. Given the devotion to guns in the US, we should anticipate gunfire within America to go on for many decades to come. The least we can do is honor the victims.

  • Chris Gordon

    Yes we need gun laws & better mental health care. The short term solution? A law immediately banning semi-automatic weapons & mega-clips. Must have license to own gun. Must pass mental exam.

    BUT even that won’t stop the killings. Because, let’s face it, America believes in killing. A country that officially sanctions horrific violence (invade Iraq, drones kill kids, death penalty) is surprised when a 20-yr old joins in? I hate to say it, but killing is our way. We began America w/ genocide, then built it w/ slaves. The shootings will continue – it’s who we are.

    The long term solution to reducing gun deaths is to change our society from one of perpetual war and fear to one of peace and tolerance.

  • georges

    So, you looked around….long ago…..

    And saw that children in school were clinging to their God and their guns and you decided you knew better than the parents what these children should learn so you stepped out of the boring restraints of teaching the Tragedy of Julius Caesar and Beowulf and how to find the volume of a cone, and you set forth on the new territory of shaping the young minds in your own image.

    And life was good……

    So, you looked around again…….

    And saw that teachers in public schools were almost all white folks and this offended your senses so you instituted laws and a system called Afirmative Action that completely reversed the situation and in doing so turned school teachers from one of the most intelligent groups in the country into a sub par gaggle of unables who don’t know if St. Louis or Atlanta is farther east on a map of the United States.

    And you felt good about what you had done.

    So you looked around again.

    And you saw that some children did not excel at sports or art or reading or math, so you instituted a system where no child was ever told they weren’t as good as others and that everyone was just exactly the same and if they didn’t do as well as others it was Societies fault and they should always pat themselves on the back and feel just as damn good as anyone else, and should have Great Self-Esteem.

    And you saw them all patting their own backs, and you knew you had done a good thing.

    And you looked around again, and saw that those meddling parents were teaching their children on the sly, behind your back, with things like punishing them so they learn that they can’t just do whatever they want to do, so you instituted a system, complete with laws, that made it impossible for parents to punish/teach their children at home, and made sure that every child learned only the lesson you wanted them to learn, that they COULD do anything they wanted to do at any time and no one could tell them any different.

    And you looked down and smiled at the goodness you had achieved. You had to look down, as your feet no longer touched the ground, and you began to notice a circular bright light appearing above your head everytime you looked in the mirror.

    And you filled the young minds with ideas that destroyed their religion, getting rid of that old dinosaur, allowing for the contemplation of other Grand Thoughts, and you never realized, as the wise man once said, that if you take God away from the people the fear isn’t that they will believe in Nothing, but that they will believe in Any Thing and Every Thing, no matter how ridiculous or illogical, that comes their way.

    But, nevertheless, you looked at what you had made, and you found it good.

    Then you looked around again, and saw polution, and so you instituted a system whereby human beings are evil and owls and toads and ferrets and wolves are Gods.

    And you felt good.

    And you looked around again, and realized that minority children were being cheated because the best teachers were in the rich schools in the suburbs, so you instituted a system, called Bussing to Achieve Racial Equality, which, after a half century, has not done anything to create racial equality but has proved to be a perfect pipeline for hard core illegal drugs to invade parts of the population it never had a grip on before bussing.

    And you looked down from your high perch and patted yourself on the back for a job well done.

    And you saw that when teenagers went out on prom night and got stinking drunk and flew off the road or into another car and a bunch of them got killed their friends and classmates were sad, and cried, and felt bad. And you knew their inept parents could not help them, as you had destroyed the parent-child relationship years before, so you instituted a system whereby the State sent out teams of trained Counselors whenever these drunken events occured, and they came to the schools and soothed the feelings of the classmates and made it all better.

    And you looked down and you were happy. These things, and dozens more like them, you had done. And you were thrilled with what you had wrought. You had made a better world. You had fixed every bad thing. Everyone was now happy, even those boys you had to give Ritalin to so that they wouldn’t ruin the fun.

    So, when Columbine came, and Aurora, and Newtown, and all the others, you knew for certain that those parents, clinging to their guns and their God, were at fault. Didn’t you?

    From your perch high above, you pontificated that it was a Culture of Guns that is the problem.

    But the problem isn’t a Culture of Guns. The reason little children get killed in their classrooms is the Culture of Liberal Ideas that we have become. The changing of our society from Reason Based to Feelings Based.

    Think about it. Know it. It is the real reason. Think about it, and you will know I am right.

    If you want to stop the killings, unravel the maze of liberal ignorance that has taken over these United States. There is no other choice.

  • Really?

    Yes. Ban assault rifles and large clips. These have no valid use in our society.

    Posted by Bob | December 17, 2012 5:52 AM

    But Bob, how would one defend ones self from the criminals who would obtain such weapons with or without stricter gun regulations? My legal 6 round revolver against the criminal’s large-capacity 30 round magazine in an AR-15? Yeah, right.

    This atrocity was the result of evil, pure, unconscionable evil. Evil does exist. Passing a law against evil won’t stop evil, because it’s evil and evil don’t care about no laws or morality (or grammar).

    Incidents like these remind me that we are not too far removed from the savagery and violence from whence we all evolved over the course of human history. American society clearly has some more evolving to do in this regard, which is why I’m glad I live in a country where I’m free to protect myself and my family as I see fit. It’s easy to get super-emotional on this topic in the wake of such an inhuman event, but try to stay calm, carry, and be prepared…that’s the best advice anyone can give.

    NOTE: Did anyone catch the story about the guy in the Portland mall that was legally carrying a Glock 9mm and had the shooter in his sights and chose not to shoot? The shooter’s gun jammed, and the shooter saw that someone was armed and aiming at him, and the next round fired was the one he off’ed himself with. For real! Google it. How did I not hear about that until today? Conceal and Carry stopped that shooting even without the legal carrier having to fire. The Media is letting us all down, friends.

  • jockamo

    For those who want to go back to the early days of the United States and say you can own all the flintlocks you want, then you must accept the whole thing.

    And, at that time, the Government had NO guns at all, no flintlocks, etc., as there was no legal standing peacetime army.

    Therefore, it may be acceptable for the People to have flintlocks, as long as the Government has no weapons of any kind. (just think how fast the FedGov would start a war then. They would have one or more going at all times. Har)

  • Jefferson

    Once again I asked a direct question about why an assault weapon ban would do any good, not a single person could respond but we continued to get more people saying assault “style” weapons should be illegal yet they have the same semi-automatic functionality as a handgun. If you believe that assault “style” weapons should be illegal you should be able to develop some sort of reasoning behind that idea. Go ahead, enlighten me.

  • Wally

    Sorry, didn’t get in yesterday. A lot of good comments, a lot of heartfelt comments, a lot missing the point.

    Only Regnar J. and Jockamo got close to the truth, vis a vis the 2nd Amendment.

    The right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting; it is not about personal protection. Those truths were so self-evident the founders wouldn’t even mention them. Of course you could shoot a animal for food, or a predator threatening your lifestock, or an intruder.

    The 2nd Amendment is about protecting ourselves FROM THE GOVERNMENT!! Did anybody notice the HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES on the rifles of the swarm of SWAT teams at the school? One shooter, maybe two, why do they need 30 or 50 bullets?

    What about that UNARMED couple in Cleveland on November 29, in which at least 125 shots were fired at them by cops and they were hit over 40 times?

    Who drove the Native Americans off their land onto reservations? The government, or government-sanctioned thugs with guns.

    When the government surrenders its high capacity clips and assault rifles, I’ll surrender mine.

    Additionally, good question TM. “We need to take a hard look the constant glamorization of violent behavior as a whole.”

    Perhaps the real question should be: Is the problem too many guns or too little God?

  • Sue de Nim

    But why should I have to own a gun, practice using it, and carry it with me in order to protect myself from gun violence? Think about it. The gun lobby says I should buy a weapon and ammunition to protect myself from others with weapons and ammunition. It’s a racket. Without some kind of limits, it’s an arms race that ordinary people (i.e., those who do not have a gun obsession) are not going to win. I have more important things to do with my life than to rehearse taking other people’s lives, and more important things to do with my money than reward the merchants of death who profit from making and selling those insanely deadly weapons.

  • Jim G

    @ Jefferson

    I’ll give you my reasons why I believe assault rifles should be illegal. Education is the beginning of wisdom, so let’s begin.

    I have shot revolvers: .22 Ruger single- action, .357 magnum police issue, and Dirty Harry’s .44 magnum. I have also shot an automatic pistol, the former US Military .45 Colt. The short barrels of these weapons make them good close range weapons, but require constant and sustained practice to maintain proficiency. If you don’t practice these skills, you will lose them. The standard round capacity of revolvers is 5 or 6, and then they require time to reload. The semiautomatic pistols have a larger round capacity depending on type (8-17 rounds) for standard clips. After market clips have a much higher capacity. The high firing rate and large capacity clips make these handguns the weapon of 2nd choice. You won’t find many mass shooters packing a single-action revolver.

    The weapon of first choice for mass shooters is the assault rifle. Why do they choose a rifle? Rifles fire a more powerful round than handguns. Rifles are easier to point at the target. Rifles make it easier to hit your target. If your target is running, it is easier to follow the target and if miss with the first rounds you can see the impacts of the rounds, correct your fire, and walk your fire to the target. The assault rifle is designed to function properly even while firing hundreds of rounds. It rarely jams, and if it does, can be cleared quickly and resume firing. The AR 15 shoots a .223 round. This round is much faster than any of the handguns and hits the victim with more kinetic energy than smaller handgun rounds. The bullet is designed to tumble when it enters a victim. When this missile enters living flesh it creates massive tissue damage. A victim can have an entry wound in the shoulder and the bullet may travel through the body cavity and exit the abdomen. What these weapons do to the human body is obscene. These bullets just keep on coming, until the high capacity clip is exhausted. Reloading a new clip takes only a few seconds and then the dance of death starts all over again.

    These are the reasons I believe warrant the banning of assault weapons to the citizens. I hope I have enlightened you with facts of which you were not yet aware. I hope you will reconsider your position, because these weapons are killing us, American citizens and our children. It’s time to make the right to own one of these assault rifles of less importance than the right to life of our own children.

  • Steve the Cynic

    But Wally, police departments didn’t start using assualt rifles with high capacity clips until the bad guys started getting them.

  • Jefferson

    Jim G – [Rifles are easier to point at the target. Rifles make it easier to hit your target…The assault rifle is designed to function properly even while firing hundreds of rounds. It rarely jams, and if it does, can be cleared quickly and resume firing.] *** I appreciate your direct response and you did come up with quite a few valid reasons for being against assault style weapon…although a normal hunting rifle would have the same exact issues. I have to say most of what you say is correct for open fields and areas where you are not in close quarters. If you’re indoors and there are many walls, hallways and corners most of the “advantages” you bring up are major disadvantages. Sure a rifle is less likely to jam than a pistol but it’s much more cumbersome to move with and reload (I know since I’ve used an AR-15 at a shooting range before, it’s quite heavy and cumbersome even with the shoulder strap). When in close quarters to take the time to bring a sight up to your eyes and bring the weapon to your shoulder it takes up a lot of time (vs using a pistol). Are you suggesting we make all semi-automatic rifles illegal for the reasons you mentioned? What about handguns which are also semi-automatic? Most of the reasoning you used would apply to any semi-automatic weapon. I just hope you maintain intellectual honesty and demand all semi-automatic weapons should be made illegal since they all fall into the reasoning you used to determine that assault style weapons should be illegal.

  • Jim G


    Ask any police officer if they would want to face an assault rifle with their service pistols. The answer would most probably be no.

    I have not personally used an AR 15; however I have used an AK 47. This assault rifle for accuracy and firepower far surpasses any handgun.

    As for outlawing semiautomatic pistols: if you demand intellectual honesty, I will say I’d give up my right to own one. My family of origin has a combat Marine for a father. I have learned that once you are the son of a combat Marine, you will always be the son of a combat Marine. As a result, our family has had handguns in its possession since I was a child. I am no stranger to them. But after shooting these relatives’ handguns, I’m repulsed by the ease of concealment and potential for misuse and mishap.

    Has your family ever faced the tragedy of facing a death by a firearm? Mine has. Without easy access to guns my brother-in-law might still be alive. He’s been dead for 21 years and never had a chance to see his beautiful daughter grow into the lovely woman she is today. These guns make killing too easy. Let’s ban them, and live to see the future.

  • Really?

    I can’t say I’ve read every word of every comment here, so forgive me if I’m repeating what someone else said.

    If the argument of the pro-gun-control people here is that we should have had an “assault weapons” ban in place in order to stop the shooter in CT, well, the fact of the matter is that CT DID have an “assault weapons” ban in place last Friday, and on the day the shooter’s mother purchased the guns. The CT govt. modeled their legislation after the Federal “assault weapons” ban lapsed in 2004. What good did that piece of legislation do?

    I, for one, would like to see reforms take place in the wake of this tragedy…but more in the form of arming school personnel or stationing police and/or ex-military or retired police at schools…similar to the way we decided to arm airline pilots and embed undercover air marshals on certain flights. The govt’s first job is to protect the citizenry, and considering the fact that an “assault weapons” ban already in place didn’t stop the incident in CT, it’s time to fight fire with fire instead of pussyfooting around the issue and trying to be so politically correct.

    Liberals/leftists seem to be about as unrealistic on the gun control issue as conservatives/Republicans seem to be on immigration. 300 million guns in this country and you think you can pass a law to stop these kinds of incidents? An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and conservatives think they can round them all up?! Both arguments are absurd and only serve to pander to their base constituencies.

    Let’s get real, let’s get armed, and let’s take out the bad guys before they have a chance to slaughter 20+ innocent children again. And YOU KNOW it’s only a matter of time before something similar happens, and YOU KNOW these as*holes are now trying to outdo each other in terms of carnage and media hype. What on earth will the next on be like? God help us if we can’t get real on this issue.

  • Jefferson

    Jim G – [My family of origin has a combat Marine for a father…Has your family ever faced the tragedy of facing a death by a firearm? Mine has. Without easy access to guns my brother-in-law might still be alive. He’s been dead for 21 years and never had a chance to see his beautiful daughter grow into the lovely woman she is today. These guns make killing too easy. Let’s ban them, and live to see the future.] *** Yes, my grandfather died due to a gunshot wound and my brother was in the marines (not quite sure what that has to do with anything). The real issue is mental health and we need to keep that in mind. I have no problem if you want to give up your guns…I just don’t see how new gun control laws are even going to work. I know multiple people who own AR-15s and I highly doubt they would willingly give up their weapon if an assault weapon ban were to happen…if anything they’d probably want to get some money for it and would either keep the gun hidden or sell it to someone who is willing to take the risk to keep it around. An extended clip is another easy thing to hide or sell…if anything manufacturers will just increase output until the items are actually made illegal. As far as making all semi-automatic weapons illegal to own or posses, that would be nearly impossible…how on earth would you convince everyone to give up their hand guns or even their hunting rifles? I don’t even own a semi-automatic weapon, I just have a pump action shotgun for hunting (and I suppose it would work for self defense) so any sort of new law would not affect me but I also realize that we must be realistic when it comes to these laws and how they would actually be enforced.

  • bruce

    I am a gun owner, and have a permit to carry, this is really a mental health issue, as well as in other cases a chemical dependency issue. I think that a mental assessment should be mandatory along with the background check for purchasing firearms and ammo. Also, teachers and those who care for children and vulnerable people, for example nursing home staff should also have a mental health and chemical dependency assessment.

  • Steve the Cynic

    If, as pro-gun zealots claim, the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent domestic tyranny, it’s obsolete. It was a good idea in 1789, but your AR15s would be no match for a skyful of Predators. With current military technology, tyranny can be prevented only if the military officer and NCO corps are indoctrinated to oppose it. Unless things have changed since I served in the military, we have that.