The ammo meant for that weapon is designed to bounce off human bone and inflict as much damage as possible.

A semi-automatic weapon is simply a gun that fires when you pull the trigger, without reloading, Jason. There is nothing special about the weapon, nor is it different than what anyone thinks of when they think of the typical gun. We have been over this before.

@Luke
Why did you have to explain that to him? I was having funny letting his imagination show him pictures of an AK-47 as I talked about my semi-auto 12 gauge shot gun.

J. B. S.,

Chances are I didn't spoil your fun, because he probably STILL doesn't know.

@Cowdung, Jason

Yeah Jason shows his extreme ignorance with sentences like that. Someone who is that extremely ignorant shouldn't bother posting a blog, especially when they don't know a thing about the topic itself.

The lesbian-glasses wearing woman doesn't even know that a 5 round hunting rifle could be called a semi-automatic. In fact, the liberal doesn't even KNOW the definition of semi-automatic. All he knows is that it sounds scary, and that's all it takes for the ignorant liberal to hate.

Bullets bounce off human bone? Jason has certainly never seen what a .223 round can do to any bone. Jason Patzfahl, just another low information, poorly educated Obama voter.

You have no clue what you are talking about Jason. Fitting for an Obama voter.

Putzfahl: Rubber bullets bounce off of human bone, dumbass. My 4 shot semi automatic 7mm Mag doesn't bounce off bone- even your thick skull.
If you like I can illustrate

It does not bounce off human bone.. That is not true. Back in Vietnam the M-16s used smooth bore barrels, no rifling in the barrel, so the bullet would not spin, and because if this it had a tendency to walk around inside the target because it was tumbling.
That's where this misinformation comes from. A round from a .223 is high velocity and small, so even a hollow point will not mushroom that much because of it's small size and it it will go right though a target such as deer with out killing it fast, so the deer bleeds out for a long period of time, unless the bullet hit a critical organ.
.223 is banned in some states because it is not effective at killing deer.

Hollow points don't bounce of bone people, they just mushroom faster. You really don't want to hunt with a solid point round unless you are doing varmit hunting, think about it, a hollow point will take a large animal like a moose, deer etc down faster because they won't make a tiny little hole that they will bleed out from and die two hours later. a .223 is a very small bullet, and even with a hollow point they don't expand much. A .223 bullet is only slightly bigger in diameter than a .22 rimfire and it's not even that great of a assault weapon, a 7.62mm is much better.

If a bullet hits a bone it breaks it, unless it's going very slow or tumbling, and neither will happen at very close range.

Jason, I am a little late to the prty here but let's take your statement about how this weapon is designed to bounce off human bones and put some reality with it. The reality it that it does not just "bounce of bone". The round is effective up to a distance of 460 meters. Once it gets to around 460 meters it starts to wobble a bit and then at some point begins to tumble. If you are hit by the bullet after it starts tumbling that is where weird things happen. Such as, the bullet hits you in the shoulder and exits your foot. This is because it "follows the bone" because of the tumbling factor. Do some research before you start talking about things of which you no nothing.

And to comment on your "if you have ever held a dead or wounded co-worker..."? I have Jason, as part of the US Army. I seriously doubt you would get that response from one of these individuals in reference to your "killing machines". I have a few guns and use them responsibly. What you should really be writing about is how this mother new her son was deeply troubled yet thought it would be a good idea for him to learn the reponsibility of shooting and caring for a weapon. But, let's not look at the root cause, let's just wander downstream somewhere and hope we can fix the problem there.

I used the correct "Bear" in my blog submission. Blame the automatic spell-checker provided by the host.

Funny that it didn't change it in the place where you stated it correctly...

Adam:

Please reread my statement. I was quoting directly from Patzfahl's article.

Now everybody knows Pantywaist Patzfahls house is unarmed. In your next blog, Jason, tell everyone when you're going on vacation. Hahahaha!!!!! Dumbass!!

Rebel - If he's on vacation, what difference would it make whether he owns guns or not? The only difference I see is that if he's robbed, at least he won't be contributing to more illegal guns on the street. I'm guessing that when you get robbed, there will be more guns in the hands of criminals.

It's all about identifying the perp Bert.

Well, I suppose you could try a 'mass shooting' with one of those cool bows like Daryl Diggs uses in The Walking Dead. But you would be slowed down considerably. And that's the point -- reduce the efficiency of the killing weapon and increase the chances of escape for potential victims.

@Randy
My guess is the next step when guns are gone is not a cross bow, but rather easily made pipe bombs or other explosives.

Maybe if you libs stopped thinking emotionally by assuming you can 'reduce the efficiency' of a killer and rather addressed the societal mental down causing the killings we could come to a solution rather than chasing our a$$es asking the government to ban anything we don't like.

Cow, I agree 100% about the culture of violence. Violence and sex "sells." So we see it in tv shows, film, and video games. It will always have appeal for a certain segment of the population and now that it is in the mainstream will never leave. That means self-editing/moderation.

I don't see that the right to bear arms should be removed; we just need to read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety, limit the influence of special interest groups in D.C., including the NRA, to sensible levels, and make thoughtful decisions for our country . That's all...

"In fact, I believe we should re-visit the second amendment to the US Constitution. I would rather see health care for all Americans as a right and have the ability to bear arms a privilege that must be earned."

Sounds to me like Jason is indeed calling for a removal of the 2nd Amendment, Bren.

Bren: I think the NRA should start pushing for the freedom to have fully automatic weapons.
The left wants to limit our rights. So the NRA should start negotiations with a push to make fully automatics legal. Not talking large magazines here- belt fed should be the starting point.

Craig, I'd say that if, without the influence of the NRA, the legislature decides that it is appropriate, despite the fact that the U.S. now has a "well regulated militia" as outlined in the 2nd Amendment, that it is entirely appropriate for citizens to own such ordinance, so be it. However, I think it unlikely that our legislative process could ever be fully free of the pestilential threat to democracy that is special interest lobbies (as long as we keep electing officials who are ready, eager, and willing to pander to them). I am also more personally comfortable with automatic weapons in the hands of our civilian-led, well trained military, doing the job of protecting our country.

Bren: I was making the point for the NRA: When things are negotiated, there is a need to have a starting point. So the NRA should shift the starting point as I commented above.
I was not serious that citizens need RPG's, etc.

We need to push for fully armed fighter jets. When the Obama zombies come for my hunting weapons, I need to be prepared.

According to what I read somewhere, 'semi-automatic' means that it is designed to bounce off human bone and do inexplicable damage to organs...

Are you saying they should be illegal?

*****************

Yes, that's what he's saying. And that you and your son should be arrested for being mentally unstable and having bare arms.

Either he's so wound up again he can't think straight or we're being treated to more of his infamous satire.

If you ignore the carnival barker you won't get sucked into throwing wiffle-balls at concrete milk jugs.

@Cow Dung -- I think it's the ammo that is designed to bounce off bone and cause the maximum organ damage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you really don't want to do that when you're hunting for food, right?

Low informed Jason is probably talking about hollow point bullets. But since he knows nothing about fire arms he can't describe anything.

You do not hunt with hollow point ammo if you want to consume the harvest. They are for people stopping, and they do a fantastic job at that. The goverment has millions of rounds of hollow point ammo and they can't seem to stop the large purchases.

My home defense consists of hollow point ammo.
My target practice and hunting ammo is full metal jacket.

When you want to stop someone fast, hollow point is the only choice. Keeps the family nice and safe.

"My son and I both have semi-automatic weapons. We use them for bird hunting.." Holy crap, JB - Are you hunting hungry pterodactyls or what? And just what size is that deer that you need 30 rounds to bring him down?

I remember two female colleagues (hunting widows) arguing about the use of hand guns during deer hunting season a few years back (disclosure: I am not a hunter). The weekend warrior's wife stated that her husband would fire his handgun to "flush out" a deer that might be hiding in brush. The other woman, whose husband was from up north and a multiple-season hunter, was furious. She pointed out the obvious dangers of random weapon fire as well as the issue of poor sportsmanship. That makes sense to me. Another colleague, who grew up in the rural area around Two Rivers, shared that buckshot had to pried out of the woodwork of their home after every deer season and that their father wouldn't let the kids go outdoors on the weekends because of that. Ouch.

@Jason
Please explain to me what a semi-automatic weapon is, as you appear ignorant.

Jason:

Just as in your other blogs, you seem to be ill informed in the subject matter that you are trying to address. Please do some basic research before you publish your next blog. Nobody expects you to be an expert on every subject, but you are expected to have some level of basic understanding of the subjects that you choose to write about.

BTW--Have you issued your apology to Sanfillippo yet?

@Randy: Let me address the ammo issue for you.
There are two types of bullets:
Full metal Jacket which is designed for combat under the Geneva Convention agreement. These are bullets that poke a hole and do not expand to do more damage. In many cases these bullets can penetrate a bullet proof vest.
The second type of bullet is a lead slug, often they have a hollow point.
They are designed to expand on impact so they do not pass through the target leaving a small hole.
Full metal jacket bullets are illegal to hunt with because we would have wild game wounded and suffering for a long time before they eventually die.

@Craig -- thanks for the clarification. Doesn't bullet fragmentation cause gut-splatter in some case?

That also means Otis was hunting with illegal ammo in The Walking Dead, when his bullet passed through the deer in the 'Bambi moment' and hit young Carl.

The bullet breaks apart when it hits bone or other tough material. The fragments then do whatever damage depending on where it was shot.

States may have different laws on hallow point ammo and hunting. There is no reason to use it if you want to eat that area of the animal. The blood and ripping of the meat will ruin a large area.

Randy: Typically the hunter doesn't hit hard bone like a skull or pelvis because (s)he has time to aim. But yes, then there can be fragmentation from an unjacketed bullet.

@Cindy
If a clip holds 10 rounds (I think the capacity of most hand guns) and we make illegal all clips larger then that. The next loon who decides he needs to kill strap 10 clips to his waste. Assuming reload time on a handgun is seconds when practiced, how does a law on clip size protect anything?

The logical conclusion you are trying to draw is that hunters only need a limited amount of shots, which in most cases is true, and hunting is the sole purpose for privately owned guns. However, you are illogical in your assumption the limiting magazine capacity will reduce death. You are attempting to take current situation, change the parameters of the crime and assume the out come would have been different. That is like me assuming had we legally limited the size of moving trucks, less people would have died in the OK City bombing. Just as with your assumption of magazine size is implausible, mine is as well; because killers will kill regardless of what the law says.

If you are instead saying that there is mortality threshold for which we need to limit killers, then why are you making the magazine size as high as 10. Would that death toll be easier to accept then 26?

If you were the parent of one of the 16 it would.

@Walker
That is an emotional response and not a logical one. Based on current laws, then you are saying the parents of the survivors have no complaint because their child was saved by the limited ability of a gun to hold ammo?.

Limiting the amount of destruction a weapon can cause will push criminals to find a new weapon.

Please stop confusing a magazine and a clip.....you'all sound like a bunch of idiots talking about guns.

Craig, there's nothing unstable about hunting. You are clearly an example of responsible and appropriate gun ownership in 21st Century America. But I do think that the undue influence of the NRA on policy in this country needs to end and we have to be sensible about gun ownership especially in urban/suburban areas. The 2nd Amendment is well protected through the existence of a citizen-recruited and led U.S. military. Non-military gun ownership should be looked at in terms of what are appropriate uses for citizen-owned weaponry in the 21st Century. At the very least the assault weapon ban which lapsed in 2004 should be reinstated. I shouldn't think that would affect good sportsmen and women at all.

Craig wrote: "...The author is trying to use tragedy to further his agenda. ..."

Exactly.

"You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste..."
--Rahm Emanuel

@Craig

Limpwrist Jason wouldn't know about how quickly you can change arounds, as he's never fired a gun.

Jason has never fired a gun for 2 reasons: 1) his wrist is too limp, and 2) he doesn't want to chip a nail.

Bren:

Did the assault weapon ban have any affect on gun violence in the US? While it may make you all 'warm and fuzzy' thinking that stuff like that makes the world safer, it really doesn't.

Bren: I believe I am more of the norm and not the exception. If they were to ban large magazines for sale in the US, we can order them from the internet. Furthermore, there are millions of them in circulation, banning them will only drive the resale values up higher.
As for banning assault weapon sales, it would hardly affect good sportsman. Mainly because many people already own them, and the sale of used assault guns would still be available.
I am a firm believer in the registration process, and even the waiting period for handguns. That being said, the only thing I would like to see change is the gun show rules.
Jason would never attend a gun show because the females in attendance have ten times the testes he could ever hope to have.

Cow, I think people understood and supported why the ban was put into place. I don't think there's anything "warm and fuzzy" about bullet wounds.

My point is that the ban really didn't prevent those bullet wounds that you speak of.

Craig, I'm disappointed by your attempted insult of Jason; personally I think it takes a lot of guts to post his opinion pieces as he does, knowing that he faces a barrage of peanut shells from the peanut gallery each time he does.

As I've written before, I don't know that the Founding Fathers intended for civilians to have parallel weaponry to the military, once a standing force was created. A complete review of the 2nd Amendment doesn't suggest it, anyway. The FFs didn't want the country caught flat-footed in the event of an invasion. And we are certainly not in a position such as Israel or South Korea, where there is real danger of attack, faced daily, by every citizen. Were we to be so (God forbid), it would be expected that U.S. citizens would be trained in the use of firearms and be on alert. Israel and South Korea have mandatory military service requirements, Israel for men and women (I understand), and in South Korea, for males. It would seem that our country would have some prior notice if Canada or Mexico started feeling feisty.

Bren:
Regarding the respect Jason doesn't deserve...Respect is earned, it is not an entitlement.
Your interpretation of the second amendment is not quite the same as mine. I believe it was also to protect against tyrannical government. This is also why I feel rights to own all types of weaponry is part of the second.

I think the greatest threat to our current form of government are special interests. The voting booth is our best defense against corrupt politicians and legislators who pander to special interests instead of protecting the best interests of this country.

Bren: I think we are on agreement on that. Unfortunately we probably cast our votes dissimilarly which plays right into the hands of the two party system.
If we ever had a real threat to either party, it would be beneficial for the American people. I do not think it would take long for the third party to become corrupt also.

@Steve

Don't bother. 'Ol lesbian glasses Jason thinks that semi-automatic = AK47. He is too dim, ignorant, and scared to understand that a simple hunting rifle is a semi-automatic.

I sure am glad I'm not a scared ignorant little girl like Jason.

Mom: You are suffering from liberal news bias.
This type of black swan event is actually happening less often.
But the media makes it seem much worse.
I have had this same conversation with my mother, who believes terrorism is so much more prevalent today compared to years ago. This is NOT true...actually it is the instant media that causes this assumption.

I applaud you Gmom for putting in your two cents on a thread full of verbal bullies. Its a critical conversation yet the handful of pro stasis gun enthusiasts who jump on the blogger prefer character assassination to discussion. I wish more women in general would get into the conversation but I expect they deem it a waste of time due to the low bar set by several perpetual responders. Bren, whether or not one agrees with her, keeps the to the high road and makes thoughtful points. The liberal bashers, for lack of a better term, make few rational points. A repetitive statement is, in essence, "well nothing is going to totally solve this problem because someone can always find something to kill someone with..therefor...we should do nothing." That is not rational...its ignorant. Stick by your non-guns Gmom!

You would applaud her Carlson. But you also would bang a drum wearing her panties in Madison.

@Jason
How many kids die from their parents prescription drugs? How many kids die while joy riding in their parents car? How many kids die in the bathtub of their parents home?

I am going to guess when you pull out the statistics from inner city crime created by liberal policy; suddenly the gun doesn't seem as deadly. More importantly, the states with the heaviest gun controls, tend to have the highest murder rates. So please explain how more controls will bring that down.

J.B., I'm going to point out that cars, prescription drugs, and bathtubs were not designed to wound or kill living creatures. Yes, these objects can be perverted into instruments of death. It's not appropriate to compare accidents or misused household items with weapons. The gun is designed to be deadly.

@Bren
Why do you get to apply a persons intent for using those objects to determine it as a good or bad object for society; however when guns are mentioned the persons intent is no longer part of the equation, but rather the gun is inherently evil? Guns were designed for self defense and hunting. They were perverted to include murder.

Aren't there vehicles that are designed to kill or drugs designed to cause harm? Why are you not incriminating the entire vehicle industry and drug industry?

More ignorance by lesbian-glasses liberal Jason. All those gun deaths - wonder where they happen at? In the ghetto?

Posting "facts" with no thoughts as to the meanings behind them make you look, well, dim. Dim, ignorant, and scared. Nice.

100% of Obama voters are as low informed as Jason.

Bren, the last time I looked, rat poison, heroin, and the choking game are designed to be deadly, save for the degree of application. All of which have been abused, just as firearms, vehicles and claw hammers. Should we outlaw fire, as it burns down houses and can kill hundreds in a movie theatre?

Gear, I know that this is a NRA-popular argument and it doesn't hold water. We're not going to compare fire, which has multiple uses/benefits, with guns that have one purposes. Concerning the rest of your proffered counterpoints, "rat" poison defines itself. The others, by dosage/game, do not have the potential to murder multiple people within seconds.

A five gallon can of gasoline and a book of matches is faster than pulling the trigger twenty times. I think we better start there.
Ban gas cans, matches, and lighters!

Bren, as a liberal kool-aide drinker, you've forgotten about Jonestown, haven't you? It did indeed "murder multiple people within seconds."

As stated in response to other cookie cutter NRA-type arguments. We regulate cars in America. We regulate the creationand control of fire. Poison-regulated. Heroin-illegal.

Yet we must lose all common sense about guns? Makes. No. Sense.

Did I miss something, Troy? Aren't guns regulated by background checks, waiting periods and licensing?

Not at guns trade shows or on Craig's list.

That depends on the state, doesn't it?

And we have national standards for the items above. We need some national standards now closing the loopholes of these secondary markets at the very least.

I am not saying gun control is the sole and only measure we need to take, here. It is long overdue to adjust our mentality on fire arms.

The NRA's policies don't even agree with a majority of it's members. NRA members are resonsible, moral, individuals who only want what is best for this country. It's leadership are political scumbags who only want what is best for Ultra-Conservatism - caring nothing about it's membership's desires.

I take no issue with having the same 'background/sanity check' type regulations for secondary or private sales. It seems reasonable to have some paper trail that identifies the proper owner of the weapon and the person that is ultimately responsible for how it is being used.

CowDung:
This is what we (the liberals & Dems) are saying. No one wants to take away all guns from everyone. No one is suggesting that. We just want some common sence solutions to try to lessen these horrific events.

Gun control isn't - and shouldn't be - the only steps we take. A re thinking and adjustment to the treatment of mentally ill and at risk individuals are there, too.

There can be no 'Magic Bullet" (no pun intended) that will solve this. Indeed, there can prob. be no way to solve the issue totally. But any steps we can take to reduce the problem should be pursued.

FFT:

Did you read Jason's article? He's calling for the second Amendment to be eliminated, and for anyone attempting to purchase a semi-automatic weapon to be arrested. Bren has been lobbying for the assault weapons ban. Dirk was trying to make the claim that gun bans like Chicago had act to decrease gun violence.

It seems that the primary response to the recent shootings is a call for gun bans.

CowDung:
I guess I didn't read that in the article. I read a call to review and adjust the 2nd Amendment as the 21st Century is much different than the 18th- not eliminate it.

Personally speaking, I would never be in favor of eliminating the 2nd Amendment. I enjoy the taste of wild venison too much (c'mon - that's a little funny... actually true also, but funny too). My point, and that of the article, again from my understanding of it, is there is no realistic need for semi automatic weapons and large capacity magazines to be so easlily obtained (or obtained for any reason outside of law enforcement).

Every NRA Member I have actually met are kind, moral, responsible people I consider credits to our society and am proud to call fellow Americans. The policies from the organization; however, make me very sad and discouraged.

I can't speak for the NRA, I am not a member. I don't even own a gun. I do believe that banning weapons because they are 'semi-automatic' really isn't going to solve any of the issues. I also fear that like the bans of guns in Chicago and Washington DC, bans might end up making things worse...

FTTroy: We regulate cars to an extent. If you keep it parked in your garage it doesn't need to be registered.
If I purchase a new weapon and follow the rules, why would I need to do anything more if it is for home protection?

I do see your point, Craig.

But the moment you use this car, it needs to be registered. The moment you use the gun for your home protection, it needs to be registered. How do you know you will ever need it? You don't. So if you think you may need it, it should be registered. Also, to purchase a vehicle, even from a private seller, you still need to go to the DMV for the title work, correct? You still require a certain amount of documentation, correct? Even the buying and selling of cars has required regulation.

FTTroy: You are right. that is why I am in favor of our current laws regarding the purchase of firearms. The background check and waiting period is a good thing. I have also mentioned in another thread that I am also in favor of enforcing that rule in the gun show sales.
Regarding most law abiding citizens ownership of guns- they are registered/titled when purchased from a reputable dealer.

Safe to say as well that the shooter's mother was well armed? An avid collector, with many guns, with gun training or skill at least... shot in the face by her child... an unstable, at least, young man who somehow got to her weapons and turned them on her.

Bren:

Is the US invincible? Once we are under control of a foreign government, it's a bit late to start arming the citizenry...

The government of Obama is a foreign government!
So I want my rights to RPGs, bazookas, and bunker busters!

Sad how my congressional representative (Ryan) wants to expose his daughter to firearms and hunting, but not facts about climate change, human origins and comprehensive sex education and would rather defund Sesame Street than Super PACs.

Jason, Super PACs and Sesame Street are both capable of attracting their own funding. The only difference being SS slurps off public funding, and can easily be defunded without missing a beat. And no, it is not sad, but funny and revealing a 10 year old girl can wax you on the shooting range when it comes to firearms.

Big Bird is richer than Mitt Romney. Sesame Workshop (successor to Children's Television Workshop), reported to the IRS a $356-million net worth as of June 30, 2011, compared to Romney's estimated worth of about $250-million.

Tell me Jason, do you think before you open your low information and poorly educated cake hole?

Actually Jason, there is no evidence on global warming. Had your climate change gods not played with the data, you might have something to go on, but now you have to start back at square one.

Actually Jason I can save you the trouble. I would be happy to blow Big Bird to pieces with my double barrel shotgun.

JB, hard not to attack him personally when he attacks us personally, as in, calling us all maniacs who need to be jailed for owning any type of firearm. I abhor and detest armchair liberal idiots like him who don't know a damned thing about the topic they so strong-fully opine about.

C:

I'd like to think that we can hold ourselves to a higher standard. You should try to limit your criticism to his writings, and not make personal attacks.

I don't think lamenting the rose-tinted past is going to resolve the problems of today. When we get into the issues of morals and values we also must look at whose morals and values should be upheld. Now, I believe it unethical that the NRA has parsed the words of the 2nd Amendment and misleading people about the Founders' Intent. Would you agree, or do you have a different set of morals and values than I do? Whose should we adopt?

@WPN1488....Did your parents teach you to be a neo-Nazi skin - head?

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-18/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Panty waist Patzfahl, and the rest of the effeminate, emasculated she-males needs to be reminded of this important quote:

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

Young Conservative, those "rough men" are the military. In this country, it's the military called for in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

It's always a good idea to make sure one understands the references one cites as a means of inspiring confidence in one's veracity and competence. Especially if one chooses to engage in insults and name-calling. ; )

AWD (Angry White Dude) is a prime example of the type of "person" who should NEVER be allowed to own a gun - semi-automatic or BB. I think we can all agree on that one.

@Lyle
Lets assume you take whatever version of gun control you feel is required. Once done, can you guarantee that we law abiding citizens that submit to the new laws will never be faced with homicide via a firearm? Can you also guarantee that it will end all massacres on the same scale as the recent shootings in CT?

It is easy to spout theories regarding how to control man; however, please prove your concept. Explain to me how tighter gun control laws in Chicago and DC have lead to increase gun death versus the looser laws here in Wisconsin.

In truth gun rights advocates are not in favor of preserving the status quo and rather understand that it is not an inanimate object responsible for the these crimes. Instead we wish fix the breakdown in our society that creates these maniacs and at the same time preserving our freedom.

@J.B. Schmidt....You can't be serious about asking for a guarantee. With such a large population and so many firearms in circulation, you have presented an untenable choice. What is striking is that shootings and deaths in the inner cities have been in decline, but the problems have moved into the suburban areas. Except for the Sikh Temple massacre, all of the perpetrators have been suburbanites from middle class or affluent areas. For those who feel it is necessary to arm themselves for self protection, protection from whom, your neighbor?

Whatever legislation comes in response to these tragedies, as onerous as they might be to your libertarian principles; you are the ones who have forced it. Based on people's security fears has led legislators to enact even more libertarian laws regarding firearms, fueling an unprecedented civilian arms race. You have earned the right to be registered, regulated and prohibited from owning and possessing certain types of firearms and ammunition. It is the NRA and their supporters that now must reap the whirlwind that they have created.

@Lyle
So we give a knee jerk reaction that as you state may not even solve the problem, in fact removing guns from law abiding and having an inability to stop the law breaking could actually escalate the problem. However, that logic does not jive with liberal emotional thought.

I understand that the National Review is a publication that most likely does not fit your high standard of reading, like say maybe moveon.org does, but it might be good to read the article Luke posted below. Mass shooting are not on the increase and as the author points out with the Aurora shooting, the gunman chose not the closest theater but the one that did not allow firearms on the property. Hence, it is liberal fear of guns and the assumption that it is an inanimate object that is the problem that is creating a dangerous situation.

The government has been unable to stop the use of illegal drugs and it can't stop the influx of illegal immigrants; yet, you want the law abiding citizens of this country to believe the government will properly enforce a ban on weapons in such a way that will prevent these tragedies from happening. You need more proof then to simply label gun owners as juvenile as your good friend Jason has labelled us mental ill, before you decide how to best move the country forward.

@J.B. Schmidt....Unlike others, I have used firearms for hunting and also carried sidearms in S.E. Asia, which thankfully I never had to use. I have the up most respect for firearms and the damage they can do. I was taught that you possessed certain types of firearms based on the hunting you were prepared to do. For fowling, we used shotguns, for small game and varmints we used .22s and for larger game, a bolt action 30.06. These were more than sufficient for our hunting needs. I was instructed in gun safety, even took classes; since the state I was living in wouldn't allow anyone under 16 to go out until they had passed a state mandated training. I am even a past member of the NRA. I choose not to own firearms now because I have no use for them. I wouldn't want to deny their use to anyone that wanted to use them for hunting, but there are certain military style weapons that should be banned, along with magazines and certain ammunition. In my opinion, gun ownership has turned into a contest to see who has the biggest penis and the biggest set of balls. If I have a 30 round magazine, the next person has to have a 100 round drum. If I have three firearms, the next person has to have six; It's chest beating, pure and simple. Of all the firearms sold, handguns are the biggest problem, they are not designed for hunting and are the weapon of choice for most perpetrators. (continued)

@J.B. Schmidt (continued)...The libertarian gun owners who cite that they must have handguns to protect themselves from the criminal element, for the most part, are living in a world of fantasy. Take AWD, he's a racial bigoted dentist (supposedly) living in White Fish Bay and he's convinced that he must be armed to protect himself and family from the invasion of black gang members that are going to come after him when society collapses. That process is not very high on the actual probability scale, yet he treats it as if its eminent. A firearm in his hands is a disaster waiting to happen. Let's take the case of WPN4811. We know that he is a White Supremacist and Neo-Nazi, do you want him to have firearms so that he can repeat something like the Sikh Temple, or walk into the Jewish Community Center and put into action his distorted beliefs? There are too many people out there that have been able to arm themselves that should never have been able to own firearms.

You reference knee jerk reactions by people who are appalled by the situation, but all gun owners are now going to suffer because of the irresponsibility of the gun addicts and libertarian nonsense. Where this is headed is for stricter background checks, possible psych evaluations, closing off after market sales, limitations on purchasable firearms, limitations on ammunition, etc. Are you and the gun addicts out there happy now? You have made your worst dreams inevitable. Good Job!

Lyle: as much as I would love to jump on this wagon and pile on with my classic, "HA HA - that's what you get!!!" attitude, we actually are going to get no where on fire arm regulation.

The NRA has a press conference sched. for this Friday. In it they are going to go on and on and on about the tragedy, prayers for the victums, thier families, the community, etc. They will bring up the many failings that lead to this - mental sickness & security - never once bringing up fire arm regulation. When pushed, they may even grudgingly admit to maybe, in a broad comprehensive discussion, just MAYBE allow someone to bring up reviewing firearm standards. Then the news cycle will turn. We will start the debt ceiling debate. CT will not be front and center & the lobbyist will strike. If any legislation at all even actually gets proposed (which I doubt as Dems will see the losing effort), some unknown Sen. will filibuster not even allowing the debate.

It's sad and frustrating gutless. I fear, though, this will be the reality.

Here are a few more stats.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

Unless, you meant "semi-automatic" rather than "automatic", number 1 is unnecessary. Fully automatic weapons are already banned.

I totally agree with WBFG - Too bad more than half of our congressmen and women have been bought and paid for by the NRA and their lobbyists, who are salivating at the expense of more mass shooting victims in America as gun retailers bring in hand over fist profits as scared Americans arm themselves to the teeth in a knee-jerk response.

It is also too bad that every person who just ran to the nearest gun store and stocked up actually endangered their family even more: The most recent data collected by Gallop and the Pew Research Center shows that gun owners have 2.7 times the homicide rate and 4.8 times the suicide rate of non gun-owners.

@Jason
Can you please provide a like to that Gallop and Pew report?

..... and 4.8 times the suicide rate of non gun-owners.

*************************

Probably because most suicidal folks are reluctant ask a gun owning neighbor if they could borrow one in order to blow their brains out.

David Hemenway, a Harvard professor of health policy and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, told The New York Times, "Children ages 5 to 14 in the United States are 13 times as likely to be killed with guns as children in other industrialized countries "

The FBI or the Greendale police dep. should find out who this guy is, take away his guns, arrest him and then hold him for 24 hours of psychiatric observation - He is precisely the kind of person who should NOT have the right to own a gun, but still does, thanks to the NRA and congressman like Paul Ryan who are owned by them.

@Jason

Are you really that dim? Rebel is obviously messing with you. Yeah its in bad taste, but man show some signs of intelligence will you?

Bad taste? Maybe...But he does paint a helluva picture including sound effects.
RwaC: Perhaps you have a future writing novels, or are you really Tom Clancy?

C is right. When I read an article this stupid, I love to respond with something even more stupid. Hahahahahaha!!!!!

More lies Jason? 50% of the "men", as you call them, hung pictures of ex-wives and ex-presidents?

See the reason nobody here respects you is because most of what you say is either a lie, or is ignorant.

Jason "Panty Waist" Patzfahl is certainly a sociopathic liar....he was a victim of a workplace shooting where his best friend died in his arms?

Seriously Patch, will you take a blog from anyone including nutjobs like this tool?

Fuuny I have been to the shooting range many times and at many different ranges in several states and I have never ever seen targets with Ex-wives, Ex-girlfriends or current or ex-presidents. Wait, once I saw one of a current president and the range owners made the person take it down and kicked him out when he raised a stink about it.
Jason once again I think you are full of lies. But that is to be expected from a liberal drone who resorts to coping other bloggers, I am amazed you had the thought to not title your "To hell with the Second Amendment".
If you actually had been in a workplace shooting... which I doubt due to your track record of lying then I can understand your point, but it is no different than seeing your friend dead next to you in a car smashed by a Drunk Driver, Hit by a bus, stabbed. Death happens it is all in how can you prevent it and we have seen that laws do not work on Drunks, Drugs, Domestic Violence, what makes you think it will work on guns? It never has before.

I'd like a link to the news report about the shooting you witnessed, if you've got one. Thanks.

Young Conservative, your invective makes it impossible to take your posts seriously. Are you here to engage or simply to take "potshots" at others, tucked safely behind the curtain of anonymity?

And yes, some of us have gone to a statehouse or union-thug rally or two, where half the "men" there hung effigies of presidents (Bush), Governors (Walker), and recently slashed and pulled down an AFP tent with women and elderly folks inside it. Who was more dangerous and disruptive? In my mind, it makes me wonder if these nutcases should be locked up as well, to borrow a theme from Mr. Patzfahl. But as far as I'm aware, no arrests have been made. What a suprise (not!)

As for the shooting range... did the target shooters at least hit inside the 8-ring?

I have been to a local indoor firing range and shot alongside local cops. They never acted like I was a suspected nut case. In fact they were quite nice and often commented and/or asked if they could fire my Super Red hawk and Desert Eagle. Their targets were an upper body, mine were the typical bulls eye type.
I imagine if anyone were shooting at a PICTURE of another human, other decent shooters would report it as a nutcase.

What's worse is that if they take our guns, all we will have to rely on are the police to protect us from Alfred (YC) when he goes off the handle. We all know it's just a matter of time.

Here's my thoughts-there will never be a ban on all weapons so it's a waste of time thinking about the what-ifs. With CC there's really no such thing as a "gun free zone" anymore, is there. Consider that. Lastly, trying to conflate other inanimate objects with guns is a popular argument for 2nd Amendment parsers but it is illogical. Spoons and forks weren't created with the specific purpose of wounding/killing living creatures. Guns were. Perhaps you could "thump" someone to death with a spoon but you wouldn't really stir your coffee with a 9mm, would you?

While we're at it, the "Guns don't kill, people do" meme is similarly specious. How does the victim end up with bullet hole(s) in their body if the gun has no role?

As I have written numerous times, let's take a look at the 2nd Amendment--the full version, not the NRA-parsed one. The U.S. now has a well-regulated militia. Civil defense is no longer the sole responsibility of untrained civilians. Therefore, what types of weapons are appropriate for largely untrained civilian users within urban settings? That's the sensible question.

What about civilian defense against a tyrannical government, Bren? Our forefathers were smart enough to empower the citizenry to revolt against an unjust government...

If we cannot ban all weapons, it will do no good to ban some. Perhaps we can look at the prevalence of banned drugs in our society to realize that banning things really isn't very effective...

@ Bren... What does this mean: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We can't look at the Bren parsing of the Second either;look at the Second without viewing the balance of the Constitution!!!

A 'string of words' found in the Second is repeated in other parts of the Bill of Rights. Can this string mean one thing in one sentence, and another thing entirely just a paragraph or two away?

Remember, pen to paper, the Bill of Rights was drafted by a very limited group;they choose to repeat their phraseology with purpose.

Ambiguity, found in the in the Second, is clarified by a simple word use comparison, with the balance of the document. 'Right of the people' appears in the First, Second and Fourth. It clearly means the individual, not the collective.

@Bren

The US does not have a well regulated militia. Do you even know what a militia is? Apparently not.

c, in reviewing your other comments here, I'm not seeing the calibre of discourse or unintentional hilarity that typically engages my attention. When you are ready to step up your game in either arena I'll be happy to engage.

@Bren-The second amendment is in place to protect us from a tyrannical government period!!! Bonus the firearms we own also provide added safety to those who choose to carry. So stop with all ur liberal, socialist BS. Tyrannical Government period.

To use your example of the teenager--note that the parents took the keys away from the teenager that was banging up the car. They didn't lobby for Congress to raise the driving age or impose other laws that restrict all teenagers from driving.

Bad assumption Cowdung....the court took the keys away, not the parents. Somebody got injured, real bad. And the OWI laws were then made stronger.

Court, parents, it really doesn't matter. The point was that the problem teenager was the one who lost driving privileges, not teens in general...

The anti-gun activists are as adament about banning all guns and disarming people as the most pro-gun folk are about having no regulations. People like Mr. Patzfahl are not useful to a real conversation about gun regulation because he has utter contempt for those who own them. I suspect he represents the norm in the gun-control movement. As a result of the stridency of this movement, it is impossible to engage them at a rational level because their ultimate goal is to remove all guns, not have a reasonable level of regulation.

It is usually unwise to negotiate with people who hold you in utter contempt and want to put you in prison for merely owning a device that they don't like.

Random - Let's talk rationally. I grew up with guns, own several long guns, was on a rifle team,in high school, got to the NRA rank of sharpshooter, hunt on occasion, have deer antler trophy hanging in my den, and still believe we need laws to try to prevent these heinous crimes. No one is going to take your deer rifle or shotgun away. You may need to get a psychological test, however, if you buy a new gun, which, evidenced by your paranoia, you may not pass.

Mr. Gutzmiller,

You are not an anti-gun activist. You are a responsible gun owner. Unlike Mr. Patzfahl, you do not seek to criminalize a behavior because you don't like it. You appear to be a person that can engage in a thoughtful discussion on firearms, anti-gun activists are not. There is room for a reasonable discussion that seeks to find a consensus. However, Mr. Patzfahl said in his column that he wants people arrested for buying firearms -- that is a sign of paranoia, not other people's perception of that view. How is that a starting point for such a discussion? Until the likes of Mr. Patzfahl no longer are seen as the voice of the gun control movement, why should they be taken seriously by folks like yourself, much less someone who has a broader view of gun rights.

Random - There is a tremendous amount of fear-mongering that the government is going to come and take guns away from everyday citizens, which is never going to happen with any reasonable give and take. The NRA has gotten us to this point in America, and is becoming the most despised group in America. They have to talk now, and it is not too difficult for them to eventually concede to ideas ike psychological testing of gun and ammo buyers, stronger penalties for straw buyers, a reinstituted, more thorough ban on new assault weapons and large capacity magazines, stronger penalties for modifying a semi automatic to fully automatic, background checks for buyers at gun shows, stronger penalties for negligently leaving guns unsecured, even more so if someone else with known access to the guns has documented mental problems or felonies or is a child, simply stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, gun clubs vouching for buyers of certain armament, with severe penalites for the club and members if that buyer misuses it, restricting hollow point ammo availability and usage to bona fide, e,g, law enforcement needs, and a big excise tax on gun and ammo sales to pay for all the enforcement. There are other, rational ideas afloat..
The gun lobby and NRA are just ike Wall Street and the big banks. They have done a pitiful job of self-regulation, then the lack of controls has blown up in their faces. And now the government steps in as the last resort.

Cowdung - Teenage drivers have a LOT more restrictions today then when you were driving epochs ago. Cars can be an unintended killing machine. Bad teenage driving caused those traffic laws to be passed, same as any group with misbehaving individuals, especially when deaths are involved.

Mr. Gutzmiller,

I have not argued against a single reasonable regulation of firearms. I have pointed out, however, that those like Mr. Patzfahl have no interest in the reasonable regulation of firearms -- they want them banned, confiscated and their owners imprisoned. Rhetoric like Mr. Patzfahl's will only cause the most ardent gun-rights supports to dig in their heels. If you are truly interested in meaningful gun regulation reform then you will spend as much time chastizing anti-gun activists as much as you do the NRA -- an organization to which I do not belong.

LOL what are you in kindergarten or something? You really imagine that scenario would happen like that? What a moron.

@Dirk
You have absolutely no idea who I am, so how can you refer to me as a predictable propagandist? If that is what I am then I guess everyone who has a bunker of guns and fears a government invasion would also fit the title

Many of those in the crowd in Tuscon had guns but they did not use them because they did not want to be confused with the actual shooter.

How do you know he's even referring to you, and not the author of the article. He didn't reply to your post.

Don't take the "Diva" part so seriously.

Yeah Diva, I was referring to Jason's predictable vitriol. As inept mayor Rahm Emanuel always says, 'never let a disaster go to waste' to push a political agenda albeit one that is a proven failure.

Y'know - I looked upt he "Never Let a Tragedy Go to Waste" comment to get it's context. Two things I find funny (not in a funny way) about my search.
One: Everyone seems to leave out "... to do big things" from the quote. Now-Mayor Emmanuel made the comment soon after the 2008 Election when we needed to to a series of big things right away to avoid the disaster the privious administration left us with. So the quote itself is taken way-way-WAY out of context.
Two: the first pages of every Google search lead me to very Conservative Media with that splashed all over the banner page. Odd this was mis quoted by another who constantly judges others for thier "Propaganda" belief.

Wonder how he thought of the Emmanuel (mis) Quote?
Conservative Propoganda???

Yup

Screw off with the attitude.

I should be calling you out for using this event to further your own nonsense. If you didn't want it questioned, don't throw in it in your usual place for "satire" and other misinformation.

Idiot.

I agree with Bob. As far as we knew, you were tossing out a little more satire. And bad satire reflects against the legitimacy of the poster, which you've offered in spades. Who's to know? Your credibility is shot, so to speak.

McBride: Right on!
Putzfagahl is using tragedy to further his agenda.

Now that I've read the whole thing I'll note there's no mention of you in there. So I guess we just have to take your word that this isn't just something you remembered and embellished to include you holding a dying person in order to make use of this tragedy to make a point while attempting to protect yourself from criticism.

How dare I do that...

I agree with the others Jason. Your blogs often contain much misinformation, ignorance and outright lies.

Because of your reputation for making stuff up in your blogs, you have given the Patch community every reason to think that you would embellish or make up stories to further your agenda.

Now now people, we all know that... (deep breath):
Jason is a satirist, an accomplished writer, youtube GENIUS, works 4 different jobs 8 days a week (lol), domestic policy expert, firearms expert with an emphasis on "semiautomatics" (lol), and has never once embellished or made things up in his blog.

On the contrary, it is those questioning Jason's personal experience with gun violence and death that are utterly lacking in human character.

How so Dirk? After reading his blogs and all the misinformation and baseless claims that they contain, I have come to question everything that Patzfahl writes. Why should his claim about having a personal connection to a victim of gun violence be any different?

The Puts' reputation is what it is, because of his past actions.

"Freedom of speech does not exist in the presence of armed citizens."

Please explain.

Random - Remember the uproar over the ObamaCare town hall meetings? While it was childish and disrespectful of the handful of people to shout down their Congressman and prevent dialog, it was within their rights. Remember the town hall meeting where some teabagger showed up wearing a gun? NO dialog, NO shouting, NO talking.

No one speaks his mind to a man with a gun. The gun silences discussion. The gun ends debate. The gun represses opinion, so that only the gunman's opinion matters. An armed citizenry does not protect free speech, anymore than a military dictator does.

If you want to keep you guns call your congressman and let her know that.

Unfortunately, these events are not much use at all. Similarly, a ban on the sale of assault weapons without a ban on the possession of these weapons will do very little. I would prefer to see a ban on the sale to civilians of many types of ammunition for these weapons, as well as the more deadly variants of handgun ammunition. In addition, the federal tax on all ammunition should be substantially increased. Presently, it costs $4.00 to purchase enough 9mm bullets to kill 20 first graders. The price for the material to kill that many first graders ought to be much, much higher.

I believe a small box of handgun ammunition should cost several hundred dollars. If we put in place appropriate systems for tracking ammunition, then gun ranges could receive a means to sell ammunition tax-free for use ONLY on premises. That way, citizens could reasonably own a handgun, with enough ammunition to reasonably protect themselves, and still afford to go practice their skills on the shooting range. When each bullet (outside gun ranges) costs $100, the number of bullets available to criminals will decrease substantially. Nothing can stop every violent criminal, but lots of things can reduce the number and severity of these events.

I'd rather see the Chief conduct firearms training for teachers and school administrators. That will at least accomplish something (harden our school buildings), where your silly buyback accomplishes nothing except feel-goodism. Let's cut the mental masterb-you-know-what and provide a real offensive solution, instead of more useless defensive losses to liberty. Think of it as castle law for schools. After all, our children are our future.

When you get that to pass, I will be standing out there with $100 bills a block away with a large sign saying. "Will buy your guns here for twice what you will get at the PD." and purchase any quality ones that would come to me.
Buyback programs are rooted in failure, most guns turned in are "crime guns" how better to get rid of evidence than dump it at a no questions asked buyback, or they are garbage guns rusted and useless. It would be a exercise in futility.

Bert: Did you consume an inordinate amount of paint chips when you were young?

Craig - So sorry. When I see 20 children shot dead, in a repeat of mass shooting events that have happened every month, I am disturbed by the senseless loss of life and seek ways to prevent it from happening. Clearly, you have no problem turning your back on these killings, and moving on with your life. It must be nice to be able to so completely ignore the suffering of others, and focus only on fulfilling your own childish desires.

To the actual substance, I am not the first to suggest that bullets ought to cost a lot more. There is no prohibition on the Federal government imposing taxes on weapons and ammunition. This is a solution that's 100% compliant with even the current Supreme Court's asinine interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Make a 20-round box of bullets cost $1,000. If you use any of those bullets in a true act of self defense, the government will replace the bullets you used. Absolutely nothing unconstitutional about that. Might even help the "fiscal cliff" issue.

After all, if raising tax on a pack of cigarettes to $1.00 results in 1 million Medicaid recipients quitting the habit, taxing bullets at $100 a pop (no pun) will surely bring down the number of bullets expended every day.

Ah the tax and spend BS. FYI tax on a pack of smokes is about $3/pack, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Inflated prices for ammunition will certainly have an adverse effect on marksmanship. Police and swat teams spending more of your- er my hard earned money, or perhaps lacking the confidence from less practice.
Oh and the CC guy who may save your ass at a gas station one day? He may not be as accurate because affordability prevents him from practice. But the drug dealers and gang bangers can afford to hone their skills killing people while shooting expensive rounds.
Yeah, great idea.

You're a poopy head. (Trying to make arguments at your level. It's been a long time since I was in kindergarten though.)

2nd amendment is for both protection of citizens and militia. Liberals are obtuse and low information voters and do not know or care.

On the same day of the killings in the CT school, there was an attack by a man in China on school children. He had to use a knife because their government heavily-regulates gun-ownership. Twenty-two young students were injured in the knife attack - NONE were killed. The difference: Knives are not the same killing machines as guns.

YC - The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of individual rights, while making an explicit mention of "well-regulated militia". There is no literal interpretation that leads to an individual right to bear arms, and even the egregious misinterpretation of the amendment by the current Supreme Court stops well short of that.

There are two historical contexts for the 2nd Amendment. The fairy tale version is that the founding fathers wanted citizens armed in order to overthrow the government. Of course, the Constitution defines treason and makes it punishable by death, so a violent coop against a government operating under the Constitution is unconstitutional. Even if this were the context, the idea of YC and his camo-clad drinking buddies defeating the US Military is beyond laughable.

The other, more correct context is that the states along the dangerous Canadian border did not think the Federal government would be able to protect them against British and French aggression, and demanded the right to maintain their own well regulated militia to protect their free states. Obviously, this is no longer remotely necessary, and clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with YC and his camo-buddies hoarding military assault rifles so they can fantasize about being vigilante superheroes, at least until some gangbanger breaks in to their homes and makes off with their AR-15s.

Last time I checked revolvers killed people just as dead as any other gun. Ban whatever you want, limit whatever magazine size you want. People will work around it. They want more firepower then they carry 4 or 5 6 shot revolvers. Magazines limited to 10 rounds (That means bullets Jason) then they just carry more of them.

As for your story regarding a workplace shooting and being involved you were there after the fact, not involved while shots were fired. I don't believe you despite your claims you have spewed lies and misinformation more times than anyone can count. If you aren't mentioned in the articles then I don't believe you.

►and all were removed from the streets.◄

HA, another pipe dream of the low informed Obama voters. Why not wish for a cure for cancer?

Steve - I do wish for a cure for cancer.
I believe it is possible.

With that mentality, should we just stop all cancer research and treatments?

No. I don't think we should, either.

I live in the real world, not your chickified liberal utopia.

We have 300 million weapons (that we know of) in the private hands of citizens. Good luck rounding them all up.

@Young Conservative
If you have nothing intelligent to say it may be best to keep your mouth shut

The irony of your statement Diva, written about a blog with no facts and no intelligence.

Garden Diva: Are you a diva in the garden?
Does that mean you love vegetables ?
I am guessing cukes and zucchini.

For the record, Adams mother was shot with a 22 four times in the face. Shooter assumed to be Adam. There's some buzz on the internet about two or three shooters. One that ran in the woods. Why would a person not involved run from the police. And one of the little kids said that when they were being escorted to the firestation he saw a man on the ground outside with cuffs on. This person is being called the third but could possibly have been the man who was running away in the woods.

The law already restricts gun ownership for felons Putxfag. Redundancy in the law is as asinine as you are.

You know, I have a problem with felons not being allowed to own guns even after their sentence is served. Why should a convicted felon for non violent crimes like checks, repeat offenders, non-support to name a few be denied the right to own a gun? It's illogical. How many dangerous felons do we have? Just a small percent of the sum total and they most often will not see freedom again. Your elected officials are probably more dangerous to you and yours.

...and there's little Johnny, fighting every effort to prevent more dead little children. I'd rather be accused of trying to do something, then to be complicit in their deaths.

And here is balless Bert loving the safety of his servitude like a good little slave boy .. Kiss the hand that feeds serf boy

Indiana - 30 minutes from Chicago - feeding the felons and making money! Mississippi's loose gun laws make it the #1 crime gun export state in the country.

We have no gun control until we have NATIONAL gun control.

Yes, and Jesse Jackson Jr and Father and Jr's wife and David Myers, Obama's faith based ministry. All pushing to take gun rights away from US. Me thinks govt is running scared possibly of the guns pointing in their direction as soon as middle class America wakes up to reality.

I always appreciate a good universalism. In the reality-based world, if someone wants to break the law, they're going to do it, including gun laws. Upholding the law is about honor and integrity.

Now I'm a moderate independent. I don't preach gun control, but I do think it's time to re-read the 2nd Amendment, the entire 2nd Amendment, understand its actual intent, and move forward appropriately from there without undue interference from the NRA. That special interest group has perverted the intent of the 2nd Amendment and bear responsibility for the misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and even some of the murders caused by their actions. I'll also send out a shout-out to ALEC as well, the interest group that brought us Stand Your Ground and the death of young Trayvon Martin.

vocal local 1, no one is trying to take people's rights away except for special interest groups who benefit from favored legislative treatment. I and others are asking for a review and proper interpretation of what rights are actually provided to modern citizens through the 2nd Amendment, which was written to ensure that the U.S. had a well regulated militia governed by citizens, which it now does. You are part of the government, are you running scared? Remember "We the People?" You are one of the "People," never forget that.

Indiana - 30 minutes from Chicago - feeding the felons and making money! Mississippi's loose gun laws make it the #1 crime gun export state in the country.

We have no gun control until we have NATIONAL gun control.

Bren - you are not even CLOSE to being a moderate.

c, I'm all about the middle ground and a rational conversation about the 2nd Amendment without the distraction of special interest money and propaganda. I don't see a time when guns are banned, but I would like to see them out of the hands of criminals and people who are physically, developmentally, emotionally, and/or mentally unfit to be trusted with one.

@Bren
I agree that there can be and should be control as to who gets a gun. But again, a criminal is one who is already breaking the law. If you tell a law breaker that they shouldn't break the law and get a gun, think the law has any real affect on that?

It's crazy isn't it! I can't believe those crazy conservatives allow you to steal guns from your mother and blow away a bunch of children. Sick they are. We need more laws making theft and murder illegal.

Jason:

If you are buying guns from a 'criminal', what makes you think that laws, regulations, etc. are going to make a difference? THey are already a criminal--they obviously aren't concerned with legalities...

This is what I don't get...
Let us for a moment take some of the mentality on this blog to other issues of the day:
Voter Fraud: There is no way to stop all voter fraud. It's not possible. Someone will find a way to cheat. So we need to eliminate all regulation on voting so we can defend against it. So no more voter ID law
Abortion: There is no way to stop all abortion. Someone will find a way to abort thier pregnancy. So we need to eliminate all regulation on abortion. So no more personhood amendments
Drugs: There is no way to stop all from smoking pot. Someone will find a way to get high. So let's eliminate all regulation on drug. So pot is legal nationally.

Jason, I'd categorize two of our nation's largest issues as #1 Undue influence of special interest groups in government and #2 Lazy Citizens.

I don't think some folks actually think through the ideology they are asked to support. Limited government, for instance. Why would anyone ask to limit their own voice in government? And if government is limited, will it have the resources to create and check voter IDs, monitor people's moral behavior, etc.? There's a disconnect between these issues and their potential outcomes and beneficiaries. Only an individual who is paying attention will feel the cognitive dissonance.

So why Jason, does every issue you care for have to be a "right"? You have a right to vote, that is unquestioned. There is no right to same day registration. There is no right to be able to do it free of reasonable administrative process.

Now, being a reasonable gun owner (although mentally unstable given your description above concerning the weapons I own), I support reasonable administrative process for gun buying as well, to include background checks, registration, and waiting periods (yes, even for private sales).

Now I understand that part of the sacred cow of the left is to demonize all those who disagree with them, but perhaps instead of riling up the fringe, you would be better off looking for some middle ground with those open to reasonable legislation.

Terry:
Speaking on Jason's behalf in review of quite a lot of posts on this blog, speaking to a gun owner as yourself is an occasion few and far between.

As someone who is very progressive in his thinking, I think I would be on board with those restrictions and losen up on other of my strong opinions (such as the need for common citizens to own military grade weapondry). I think if we can all be rational enough for some empathy, we can find more common ground than we all think exist.

@terry

Crybabies like Jason whine about "rights" because they are taught to do so. Even though a majority of the times, the "rights" they whine about aren't rights at all.

Ignorant people like Jason cannot differentiate between rights, priviledges, etc. Much like Jason cannot differentiate between his testes and peas.

LOL Idiot Jason just argued against himself, and lost!

If a criminal is selling guns, that is against the law in the first place. So why would he worry about breaking laws that he already has broken???

Why can't these idiots understand this?

R head.... a set bear trap is an inanimate object as well but its a damn dangerous one. A loaded weapon IS a potentially dangerous object. 500 kids a year shoot themselves or others...500 deaths of children a year. And, unlike a rock or or banana, they see a gun and have mental images from cartoons and police shows and video games, what you are supposed to do with a gun. They just dont have the mental capacity to understand the consequences are huge. If you whip out a gun on an attacker and dont hit him ...the attacker can over power you, take your inanimate object and blow you away with it.... Hand grenades are not apples, combat knives are not bananas, and weapons, although inanimate, are potentially much more dangerous than most other objects as they are DESIGNED to be weapons... This is such a weak and irrational case that many of these gun proponents keep making.

AR-15s around necks... checking ID

That actually sounds like a TeaConservative thing to me.

Steve, actually, you seem to be the emotional type. You get in a tizzy, try to talk down to people and then insist they admit your opinions are true.

Why not educate yourself on firearms and ammo before you spout off an opinion that goes against an amendment of the USA? We hear all the time from Obama voters how the other side isn't educated and just can't grasp our higher level thinking.

But here you have proven you have zero education of firearms, ammo and laws concerning them.

Steve
I don't need to be a Guns N Ammo guy to know an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine can kill 20 kids. I don't need to know all the terminology and ins and outs to know this is a military grade weapon that really has no need to be in the hands of John Q Public.

I don't need to be an executive at the NRA to understand the 2nd Amendment and its need for review. The NRA and Conservative Right does not have a lock on 2nd Amendment interpretations.

From the reports I read, he put at least 4 rounds in each victim. Which means he did lots of reloading. And he didn't use all the ammo he brought into the fight with him.

You and Jason both need to read up on firearms, you're just digging your hole deeper here.

The one weapon you cite used is not military grade, it's far from it.

You are right, Steve, the AR-15 is used by law enforcement not the military.
"Today the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity (for more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives see M16 rifle)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

Though the military has used its 'forefather' the M-16 so you "got me."

Oh, and you totally "got me" with the whole reload thing, too. For all the reloading he did and all the rounds that were fired, a 30 round magazine really wasn't an issue putting,what was it again, four rounds in each child?

Yes. I am the one who sounds silly, here

You're still lost.

The civilian AR-15 is still semi-automatic. The military versions have three burst and full auto. So it is far from:
► I don't need to know all the terminology and ins and outs to know this is a military grade weapon that really has no need to be in the hands of John Q Public.◄

You do need to know the terminology, this is why you are failing here.

The civilian AR-15 looks military, looks mean. But it is still like any semi-automatic rifle on the market. You have to pull the trigger each time to fire a round.

So now anyone with a gun is white trash?
Other liberal bloggers, you gonna call out Jason for his racism here?

I'd rather be white trash than an ignorant limp wrist woman like Jason.

Jason...black and white thinking is the predominate characteristic of most of your respondents. You are EITHER a liberal or a conservative, a gun hater or whatever it is they call themselves, you can only want to totally ban all guns, or you love them and sleep with a copy of the 2nd Ammendment over your bed. Its a major deficiency in trying to discuss any potential improvement in our world. The basic take is, your ideas wont TOTALLY PREVENT all gun violence hence your ideas are worthless. If the shooter didnt kill 26 but only 10... its still a mass killing so what is the difference.... What you are up against here, beyond speaking to gun fundamentalists, is serious problems in considering issues, conversing, understanding solutions are always partial and are multi-faceted, etc.

No Brian, it isn't a matter of not supporting the calls for various gun bans because they won't totally solve the problem. We don't support them because they won't do anything to solve the problem. They tried banning assault weapons--it didn't help. CHicago and DC banned guns--not only did it not help, it actually caused gun violence to get worse.

We need to be talking about solutions that are real, not just more of these 'feel good' gun bans. The only sensible idea I've seen on this thread is the suggestion that we apply the same type of checks and registration requirements to private gun sales as we do for gun dealer gun sales.

Another low informed uneducated member shows up. Glad you enjoy that 1st amendment Brian, but hell with the second right?

Educate yourself on firearms before spouting your fingers on how semi automatic weapons do not operate as Jason's head believes.

Admit we have 300 million firearms that we know of and no amount of laws keep crazy people from doing crazy thing. Admit that you can ban all firearms only to insure only the ones that want to do harm will have a monopoly on them.

You look like fools, over reacting to your emotion. Using these families pain to advance your low informed views.

Who said Nazis are gone?

@AWD...Where are you getting this information from?

Pretty sure Lanza is a Italian name not Jewish.

@Snorkel
While AWD may or may not be full of it, Jewish people can have "nonjewish" sounding names. They aren't all named goldberg, levine, or Ruble.

Speaking of bigots, I understand the Westboro Baptist Church thinks the Sandy Hook victims' funerals would be a wonderful place for them to exercise their First Amendment rights and message of hatred for anyone who isn't exactly like them.

It's not really relevant - because crazy people come in all types. However - let's end the bickering.

"In 1492 the king Ferdinand The Catholic proclaimed the Edict of expulsion.
At those times Palermo, Messina and several other cities had a considerable Jewish population. At their height, Jewish Sicilians probably constituted around one tenth of the island's population. After the edict of expulsion the Jews had to choose between to leave the island or to convert. The Jews left or converted."

Converted to Catholic, Lanza = Sicilian Jewish Surname.

East Coast, in Finance = primarily Jewish controlled.

http://www.italian-family-history.com/jewish/Sicilia.html

Just the facts - it doesn't change anything.

WTF? What is your point AWD? Speak directly....

Thus why a simple ban on sales, as in the Assault Weapon ban, won't suffice. Ban possession and/or ban the sale of ammunition for these weapons as well. I'm sure a bunch of redneck gunhuggers will "protest" and cling to their precious precious, but those felony raps are going to be expensive to defend and pretty bad for long term career prospects.

You enjoy typing such crazy talk thanks to the first amendment. Now run along, Walker is passing something you hate.

Incapable of rational points, Steve resorts to the juvenile responses that probably served him well as a high school nobody. Steve is OK with seeing 20 children shot dead. He can turn his back on others' suffering. Steve is the NRA. "Give me mine, and to hell with the rest of you".

It's time for us to leave Steve behind, to let the grown-ups take control of gun policy in this country. It's time for us to acknowledge that inaction only means more dead children. It's time for us to open our eyes, look at the other developed countries, and ask ourselves why so few of THEIR citizens die from gun violence, and so many of our do. Steve won't do that. He's afraid that he might not be allowed to keep his shiny toys. The rest of us think the lives of children are far more important than Steve and his shiny toys.

Good use of the 1st amendment once again.

It's time the low information Obama voters admit crazy people will do crazy things. And that what you propose was done by dictators that then committed massive genocide.
More government is not the solution here. Sometimes there is no solution for crazy people doing crazy things. We have gun control, we have background checks, we have waiting periods, we have regulations on fully automatic weapons, we have regulations on explosives, we have federal tracking of explosives. We also have the 2nd amendment.

Now run along, another child needs to be murdered by the hands of an abortion doctor.

40% of gun sales in the US require NO background check. A certified mentally ill person with a felony record a mile long can walk in to a gun show and drive home with trunk full o' guns and ammo. More, the databases against which a gun buyer's background is checked are full of more holes than the mush between Steve's ears. To claim that we have ANY control of guns in this country is absolute nonsense.

You mention federal tracking of explosives... why not guns? Lyndon Johnson called for that after the assassinations of RFK and MLK. Nothing. Before we conclude that "gun control won't work", we ought to give it a try. Register EVERY gun. License EVERY gun owner. Require background checks on EVERY gun sale. Private gun sales can take place at the local Sheriff's office, where a Sheriff's Deputy can verify the legitimacy of the buyer. Hold EVERY gun owner civilly responsible for what happens with the guns he owns.

Crazy people will do crazy things. I'd trade the 22 Chinese children INJURED by a knife-wielding nutjob there for the 20 American children SLAUGHTERED in a rain of bullets here. (But that's just me. I have trouble ignoring the pain of others.)

Steve, properly interpreting the 2nd Amendment should not be considered a threat to liberty or happiness (and certainly not life!). I'm personally offended that the NRA has gotten away with parsing this amendment and contributing to avoidable tragedies over the past few decades. I think you'll agree that there are folks out there who have or want guns who probably wouldn't be responsible. How do we make sure the rights of all citizens are protected, instead of just a few?

Bert: Tell us about the mating habits of the Tsi Tsi fly.
Better yet, why don't you talk about the fast and furious issue?
If I have $25K invested in guns and ammo, you can be damned sure I have a decent gun locker so I can hang onto them. The theft of a one weapon home is far more common than thefts from a home with a substantial amount of firepower.
State law requires guns be under lock and key if minors live in the home.
So us married guys with kids are not the problem, it is the single old men like you and Ernie that are an issue.

► include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes.◄

This is where you link fails and why you really need to read it before you post.

Gun violence is gun violence. More guns = more deaths. Let the NRA tell you whatever they want you to believe.

Bert=idiot, more Berts=more idiots

Bert, I really appreciate your input. "Before we conclude that "gun control won't work", we ought to give it a try. Register EVERY gun. License EVERY gun owner. Require background checks on EVERY gun sale. Private gun sales can take place at the local Sheriff's office, where a Sheriff's Deputy can verify the legitimacy of the buyer. Hold EVERY gun owner civilly responsible for what happens with the guns he owns." Ditto..... If you want to own a killing machine you better be willing to take responsiblity for it. I would like to see some sort of change made where only a registered owner could fire the weapon as well.... I am sure someone could solve this if they havent.

Bert+Ernie=asspackers

Since the last Al Qaeda attack in this country, over 100,000 Americans have been killed by gunfire. 87 die every day. Mostly, we don't see them, or hear about them, or give two flying craps about them. But, they're still dead. America stands alone among developed nations in its cold-hearted acceptance of nonstop death. The gun death rate in the US is 20X higher than the other 22 wealthy nations in the world (4 deaths per 100,000 people versus 0.2), according a 2010 UCLA study. UN and WHO studies find similar rates. THIS is why gun control is critical.

Bet you believed Obama when he said Al Qaeda was decimated?
LOL

Jason is irrational and rational people are trying to argue with an irrational person.

It is time to end voting rights for the mentally ill - and those on drugs that treat those illness. Being irrational means you can't make a good decision anyways. The Irrational need to be protected from themselves - and others need to be protected from them.

He's not an idiot - and calling the mentally unstable names doesn't help them.

DSM IV: http://allpsych.com/disorders/dsm.html

SS and cents.... I dont consider myself to be a liberal as I have no idea what that term means. Its meaningless...as is conservative. It says nothing. As to the minority, I expect you believe Obama is liberal, whatever you mean by that, and if so, he was just elected by a majority. He has called for change...is not accepting the stasis you and the similar minded on this thread imagine and trust will be the outcome. So the fact is, there are quite a few people who want and are pushing for change. As to the words, I believe most of the insults thrown on threads would not occur in public at a meeting... the cowards like to talk tough because they are anonymous...cant be looked up, run into...found. Blogs are perfect for that with the handle feature.

Ray Ray, I have used the term "obsolete" in reference to the 2nd and 3rd Amendments and believe I was wrong in doing so. It would be more accurate to state that these amendments prevent regression to a time that we didn't having a civilian-led/recruited military (2nd Amend.) and were forced to billet foreign soldiers within our homes (3rd Amend.)

I don't believe that our government is tyrannical as we ourselves, "are" the government. We do ourselves no service when we elect officials who put benefactors first, themselves second, and constituents/nation last.

I am interested to learn your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, Ray Ray.

Right now 'we' are the government. That might not always be the case...

Bren, the ignorance of the modern American voter is profound. Example: the two-party system and the brand-name loyalty attached to and associated with each party. You clearly purchase the Democrat brand, which sells socialism and communism in a package that looks like a blanket to keep you warm. Are you claiming that the Democratic-brand policticians put the people first? If so, you are deluded. This government has been corrupted beyond reclamation by every administration since the traitorous Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Kennedy being the exception. But THIS administration, along with its accomplices in the public school industry and the State-controlled media (that only regurgitates to you what was regurgitated to it by its parent media conglomerate) are the most treasonous, traitorous assembly of anti-constitutional enemies of the state to have ever invaded the hearts and minds of stupid Americans who do not know their history, their situation, or the economic, social and political slavery that is upon us and is to come. If you take away the 2nd Amendment, only criminals and "Authorities" have guns. And like the Wizard of Oz, their authority is a convincing illusion. One of the first things the Nazis did in taking control was their siezure of firearms from anyone they deemed an enemy of their cause, beginning in 1933. Are you one of those dumb Americans who thinks "Like, dude, 1933 was like, ANCIENT!" and that this is not now happening here? It is.

Ray Ray - it is that kind of mentality that has made common sense discussions and compromise impossible.

There is no way to be a Socialist and Communist. They are complete opposing forces. Hitler's largest opponent in his rise to power was the communists.

Please turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. They do a disservice to our country.

Free Throw Todd, the democratic-brand sells both communism (the State will protect you because it owns you) and socialism (the State will play Robin Hood to enrich you) to it's customer base, the constituency of the down-trodden, who they must remind are down-trodden and in need of their product, like any good marketing campaign does. Despite Hitler's hatred of the Communists, today's demorcrat brand effectively merges the two markets of socialism and communism. There may be two colors available to its customers, (think Pepsi and Diet Pepsi) but they are both loyal to the brand. In reality, most democrats would vote for Jeffrey Dahmer if he were eating their gay relative at the podium with a lobster bib on at the Democratic Party national convention. The brand-name loyalty is impressive, as shown by the 51% of Americans who voted in favor of the Statist agenda, a spliced rehash of features of both communism and socialism. I'm not sure how Rush Limbaugh showed up here, and I'm sure most leftists who cite disfavor for Rush do not actually listen to him (and I don't either, but not that I wouldn't) but merely parrot the brand-name rant; if you heard your chosen Statist media outlet rant about Rush, you too must join in if you are a brand loyalist, despite any personal ignorance you may have to things that may have actually been said by the man. But this is not about Rush. This is about the protections under the Constitution, desired by some to be layed down through ignorance.

Ray Ray: that is a great cookie cutter explaination from conservative media. Fox News and Hannity (or Rush) couldn't have said it better.

It's utter garbage. But a good recap.

FTT, all you've said is rhetoric. There wasn't any substance. THAT is the way the democrat agrues. Do NOT get me wrong- I am no Republican; I find the 2-party branding, A/B choice to be a nothing more that being flanked on both sides by the NWO. You've typed words, but you haven't said anything.

Ray Ray: All I read is re hashed Ultra-Conservative Rhetoric that is complete bunk

Fine. The President, his administration and the Democrats. They/we are all capitalists. We are all Americans. We are not Communtists, or Socialists, or Fascists, or radical anything.

We are calm, rational individuals who want what is best for this country. If we don't agree with the ultra-conservative agenda, I guess that means a little compromise, doesn't it.
All the rhetoric doesn't lead to working together and has left this country stagnant.

I understand the trauma of being mugged. Your conclusion, however, that people who either stand for non-violence or simply want better laws regarding ownership are cowering somewhere or are victims is quite wrong. You feel threatened already if you have to have several firearms to feel like you will live out your full number of years. You are already living in fear. Packing a bunch of weapons is a reaction to fear my friend and, in that sense, you are already a victim of a culture that loves violence.

Someone gets it!
Well Said Ray Ray.

Rather sexist, isn't it Brian? The NRA has many female members as well...

Now I wonder why we were educating about how what ammo does what to a bone. Oh right, because Jason typed a bunch of uneducated lies.

Your bias is showing Brian.

Hold on a second Brian. While I agree that this thread has gotten out of hand (on both sides), you do not need to stand up for Jason. He signed up for all of that.

As you well know, when as a blogger you preface your point with absurd and inflammatory points such as "The day any person attempts to purchase or register a semi-automatic weapon they should be arrested for being mentally-unstable and have all other guns taken from them" you have thrown down the gauntlet. You have declared to all that you are fringe, and you want to debate with the fringe.

He is merely reaping what he has sown.

He's not a blogger, he's a ranter. Every one of his rants follows this same pattern. He deals in emotion and doesn't even care enough about the nuts and bolts of any particular topic to familiarize himself with them fully before posting.

His counterpoint can be found in Noelle Lorraine or Lorraine Noelle or whatever "my name is more of an adjective than a noun"'s name is. They're both entertaining, low on facts, high on emotions and barely believable when it comes to relating personal experiences that supposedly solidify their respective points of view. They draw eyeballs but their posts contain about as much legitimate substance as a sugar cookie.

@Brian

I am with you regarding the guy talking about what bullets do to bone, and I was one of the ones to chastise such posts.

I do, however, standby my posting that Jason is a limpwrist crybaby who just wants to draw attention to himself. He does this because he is lacking in all other areas that make people feel validation.

I see you're proactively laying the fault at the feet of others if this effort of yours doesn't succeed. Maybe there's a good reason a police chief doesn't want to involve himself and his department in a citizen initiated buy-back program. I'd certainly defer to his judgement over yours. Based on what I've seen of your knowledge on the subject, you could be doling out cash for paintball guns and super soakers.

"you could be doling out cash for paintball guns and super soakers."

...but only if they are 'semi-automatic'.

You seem mentally challenged or at the very least a victim of mental illness, Jason. Should we be worried about you too?

@Dipwick Jason
Maybe your police chief knows this is a pretty pointless exercise, not like there are tons of gangbangers in greendale who'd return their guns right?

Why don't you quit whining and rely on the experience and expertise of your police chief, rather than run around trying to rabble rouse just to get attention?

You've too much time on your hands, get a job already.

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest years occurred since the expiration.

Walker:

The gun ban that expired in 2004 was a ban of assault weapons, correct? In how many of the increased shootings were assault rifles used?

I'm not sure how the expiration of the ban one type of weapon can be responsible for an increase of shootings involving a different type of weapon...

Please link your findings Walker.

You mean like Keith did? Is that how this works? The pro-gun anti-Obama posts go unquestioned but one post stating the contrary & suddenly their word is not good enough? I see how you are.
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/

Walker:

What about my question about how these killings relate to the assault weapon ban? Unless the previously banned weapons were involved in the increases number of shootings, one cannot state that the expiration of the ban is what caused the increased number of shootings.

While the data shows an apparent correlation between the assault weapon ban expiration and an increase in the number of shootings, it fails to show how the two are linked to prove causation.

It uses the junk mother jones data. Low informed voters are drawn to pretty colors and graphs.

►They also claimed this:

Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

Yet ◄

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.

Like a murder of crows picking at something. Bolder in numbers but alone they only sit back & cry with nothing of value to offer.

Walker:

I offered you a question which you have failed to answer--twice.

Until you can provide evidence that the increased number of shootings involved previously banned assault weapons, you cannot make the claim that the end of the ban caused the increase in the number of shootings.

A quote from the conservative Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns, who sentenced Jared Lee Loughner, "The ban wasn't all that stringent — if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else — but at least it was something.

And it says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier."

Again, those shootings didn't involve weapons that were included in the ban. You cannot claim that the expiration of the ban had anything to do with the shootings. It is reasonable to believe that the ban would not have prevented any of the shootings.

Brian,

The root cause of this violence is not a weapon. If you really want to do something to keep these types of incidents from happening then you need to look at the root cause instead of cherry picking something downstream. Now, you will say "If the gun wasn't available then..." and I will agree with you on that point. However, if the gun wasn't available he would have done something else. The root cause of this problem was his mental instability and his mother's complete lack of competence when it came to that.

Brian - you are right. Guns don't kill people.

People with guns kill people.

Brian why can you not understand that everyone has their own ideals and no one has their right to force anyone to change theirs? So just stop trying to force or insulting those who disagree with you. I personally disagree with many of your opinions and could care less about your sexual persuasion, religion, hell even if you are a lefty, and abortion kills more people than guns do. Cars kill more people than guns do.
I nor any gun owner will ever force you to own or hold a gun, don't try to take our guns away.

One more time... for all the token NRA/Fox News dogma I continue to here.

We regulate cars in this country. I promise-promise, we do.
Abortion does not kill people. Fetuses are not people. Science - not mythology - backs this up.

I do believe this is at least the third post this falsehood has been brought up. And the third time I have needed to respond.

For being 'Free Thought' Troy, you sure do sound like you are puking up something you saw on TV. You even cite Fox news. I'm not sure how abortion showed up here, scientist, but once one 23-chromosome gamete bonds with the other 23-chromosome gamete, it forms a new 46-chromosome zygote, a new and unique genetic human combination never before existing and never to be replicated outside of cloning. That's a new human being. We should call you "Gregor Mendel's Idiot Progeny".

I didn't bring up abortion. I was responding to the mythylogical - NRA - Fox News claim that abortion is murder. Which it is not. What ever psuedo science you choose to believe in, abortion is not murder.

Even if it is - which it isn't. Even if it is, abortion is actually regulated in this country to a much higher degree than assult weapons. So to bring it back to the purpose of this blog, both cars and abortion are regulated. So it is time assult weapon regulation increases as well.

No -

By definition and reality. Aborted fetuses are not people
This is the real fact. Really - it is.

I said human being, which they are. People/person is a legal term, just ask my black ancestors.

@freethought

Man you sure are dumb. Aborted fetus is already dead. In the context of your argument, I could say that dead bodies are not people. Same thing.

Culture and heritage have nothing to do with science. Fetus are not people. Aborted or not, fetus are not people.

Real science makes one sound a lot less stupid that mythology bases science. Another fact c just needs to accept.

@Freethought

Not that I am for or against abortion, but would an 8 month old child, yet unborn, in the mother's womb qualift as a human? Where do you draw the line?

c

I would follow the standard set by the government.

Here is my question:
In a still born or miscarriage - who killed the fetus? Who is responsible?

New - stop putting words in my mouth. That just ain't right. I never said you or your heritage were less than anything.

I said fetuses are not people. White, yellow, brown, black. They are not people.

You and all other African Americans have always been full out people.

Read what I said - not what you want to hear.

Besides "my kind" (who ever that is) were abolitionists.

It was the Southern slave owners who considered Blacks less than people. Please know history before you make blanket accusations that are not called for.

You sir are a racist, and I will no longer debate.

New - keep living in your Bubble.

Honestly...

LOL @ freethought troy

Look how fast he backpedals and get's all defensive. Nothing better than seeing a liberal called a racist. They are so eager to show how caring and compassionate they are, that their backbone just turns to dust.

I don't know your definition of back pedaling. I never did. I made clarifying statements in the face of a false accusation.

Of course, let's not accuse c of having a grasp of the English language.

c, I have reported Troy to the management of the Patch, I will be damned if I put up with this KKK B***S***, I hope they block his isp.

New:
It is your right to report me to Patch. This I do not disagree with. Again. I will kindly ask you to read what I posted. I never once - ONCE, said anything disparaging against anyone's culture or race. I merely pointed to the fact that abortion is not murder. Life does not begin at conseption.

Because I disagree with mythology that states life begins at conception - which it does not - does not make me racist.

The accusation is unfounded and more than a little offensive.

Anyone who has read my posts know the last thing I am is Racist.

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html

So?

THE TOP THREE CAUSES OF DEATH BY AGE GROUP

0-1 years:

Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
All conditions associated with prematurity and low birth weight

1-4 years:

Accidents
Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
Cancer

5-14 years:

Accidents
Cancer
Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth

Right? You can legislate till your blue in the face (get it? Blue as in democrat), but there is always a way around it. Legislation actually has the opposite of its intended effect a lot of times.

No one ever said that this would be solved with one piece of legislation.

But we need to keep trying. We did it with smoking, we did it with seat belts, we did it with drunk driving. It can be done with guns.

There will be more Sandy Hooks and the gun opposition will only grow.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-and-gun-control-poll-gun-owners-colorado-theater-shooting-batman-2012-7

No one here is banging on NRA Members. This article confirms NRA Members support common sense regulation. And you really can't blame the poll. If so, good luck trying to convince Frank Luntz of being a lefty. The issue is the leadership who just can't seem to hear, or refuse to hear, what their membership is saying.

So much for c holding an argument.

Thank you.

@Troy

Come on man, what is the title of limpwrist boy's blog? Jesus christ its right there. Case closed.

I like pie.

I didn't ever expect Brian to give us a literal read, on inaccuracies, in the metaphorical "American as Apple Pie" statement.

...ok, actually AWD used a simile.

As H. Rapp Brown, the black militant back in the 60s put it, "Violence is as American as apple pie."

If the NRA is as American as apple pie, that explains why there is more gun violence in this country than any where else. Other countries have the violent movies and video games, but we have the gun violence -- and the NRA.

What an absolute BITCH!!! You are actually going to defend guns by comparing how many people deserve to be killed!? They are people, they could be a member of any of our families who have had mental issues such as our wonderful veterans.
The second amendment will never be lost. (read the Scalia decision on a previous gun case) Our guns will not be taken away. However we can control how much money the gun manufactures, video and TV continue to make by creating this insane fear in good citizens of our country. You are all being fooled by these huge companies that are playing with your brains!